Numbers game: what stats matter?

I thought it was interesting that they said that sacks didn't have a very high correlation to winning.

"rafael wrote:

I thought it was interesting that they said that sacks didn't have a very high correlation to winning.

I think that's what they mean by "big or explosive plays". I know they go on to mention the offensive side of the ball but surely that carries over onto defense as well.

"anlgp wrote:

I think that's what they mean by "big or explosive plays". I know they go on to mention the offensive side of the ball but surely that carries over onto defense as well.

Statistically speaking you can only look at a game from one point of view. You cannot give credit for offence and also give credit to the defense... It seems like this acticle was written from the offence's point of view which credits the offence for everything, and neglecting the defense.

I am sure if you looked at the game from the defenses point of view sacks would appear to have a bigger effect on the game.

Also, lets face in Football is a numbers game. When the defence gets a sack, it greatly increases the chance of the other team having to punt on 4th down. Does that necessarily lead to points? No, it depends on what the offense does.

"anlgp wrote:

I think that's what they mean by "big or explosive plays". I know they go on to mention the offensive side of the ball but surely that carries over onto defense as well.

Nope. It was blurb on the right side of the page.

» Sacks:
This one is a bit of a surprise. San Francisco's Mike Nolan, a defensive coach by trade, thinks the statistic of sacks is "very overrated." Nolan cites the 2000 Ravens, whose 35 sacks ranked them only 22nd in the league.

"If you're just beating the hell out of quarterbacks, it's a great stat to have," Nolan said. "But I know they have not transferred into wins for as much attention as they get."

And winning, after all, is the most important statistic of all.

"UCF FINatic wrote:

Statistically speaking you can only look at a game from one point of view. You cannot give credit for offence and also give credit to the defense... It seems like this acticle was written from the offence's point of view which credits the offence for everything, and neglecting the defense.

I am sure if you looked at the game from the defenses point of view sacks would appear to have a bigger effect on the game.

Also, lets face in Football is a numbers game. When the defence gets a sack, it greatly increases the chance of the other team having to punt on 4th down. Does that necessarily lead to points? No, it depends on what the offense does.

When Dungy was talking about YPA he mentioned the following:

Indianapolis gave up more than 185 yards rushing in four of its first seven games in 2006. But the Colts won all four. One reason? Their average gain per pass was more than a yard better than the opponents in those four games, nearly two yards better than their opponents over the course of the season.

So at least in reference to that stat it's not one sided.

"rafael wrote:

When Dungy was talking about YPA he mentioned the following:

Indianapolis gave up more than 185 yards rushing in four of its first seven games in 2006. But the Colts won all four. One reason? Their average gain per pass was more than a yard better than the opponents in those four games, nearly two yards better than their opponents over the course of the season.

So at least in reference to that stat it's not one sided.

You are still comparing Offense to Offensse. That is what I mean by one sided... It only accounts for one side of the ball.

Basically in statistics you have to attribute something to something else. In the article they are attributing all the statistics to the Offense.

For Example, lets say an offensive team runs the ball for 4 yards. You can say the Offense gained 4 yards (attributing the play to the offense) or you can say the Defense allowed 4 yards (attributing the play to the defense). What you can not do is attribute the stat to both sides of the ball. You have to give either the Offense or the Defense all the credit for the one play, unless you spilt it which creates very, very complicated statistics. So all I am am saying is that the article attriubuted all the stats to the Offense while totally neglecting the defense.

A similar arguement is discussed in the book Moneyball about if a hit is pure chance, luck or the hitter or fielders fault. If the field lines up where the ball is hit you can credit him, or say the hitter made a bad hit because he hit it directly to him. Or you can say the hit and where the fielder is completely predicated on chance. I hope I explained this well enough; its pretty confusing until you totally grasp the concept. If you need more clarification I can try my best to help you see what I mean.

Also for people that like statistics, I read something a while ago that address the common misconception that "if you run the ball your going to win." Or "whoever runs the ball more wins." Etc.

What scientists found was that Running might not be the cause of winning, but winning might be the cause of running. For instance, when you have the lead on a team you are far more likely to run the ball to kill the clock. Also when you are getting destroyed by another team you are more likely to pass the ball in an attempt to comeback.

In hindsight this could seem common knowledge, but I just thought I would share it with all of you.

"UCF FINatic wrote:

You are still comparing Offense to Offensse. That is what I mean by one sided... It only accounts for one side of the ball.

Basically in statistics you have to attribute something to something else. In the article they are attributing all the statistics to the Offense.

For Example, lets say an offensive team runs the ball for 4 yards. You can say the Offense gained 4 yards (attributing the play to the offense) or you can say the Defense allowed 4 yards (attributing the play to the defense). What you can not do is attribute the stat to both sides of the ball. You have to give either the Offense or the Defense all the credit for the one play, unless you spilt it which creates very, very complicated statistics. So all I am am saying is that the article attriubuted all the stats to the Offense while totally neglecting the defense.

A similar arguement is discussed in the book Moneyball about if a hit is pure chance, luck or the hitter or fielders fault. If the field lines up where the ball is hit you can credit him, or say the hitter made a bad hit because he hit it directly to him. Or you can say the hit and where the fielder is completely predicated on chance. I hope I explained this well enough; its pretty confusing until you totally grasp the concept. If you need more clarification I can try my best to help you see what I mean.

I understand your point of view but I look at YPA as how much we gain (offense) and how much we allow (defense). So if I want to increase my YPA differential I will consider whether improving my passing attack or my pass defense will yield greater dividends. I don't really consider the opponents offense much since I have little influence on their personnel.

"rafael wrote:

I understand your point of view but I look at YPA as how much we gain (offense) and how much we allow (defense). So if I want to increase my YPA differential I will consider whether improving my passing attack or my pass defense will yield greater dividends. I don't really consider the opponents offense much since I have little influence on their personnel.

Good point. So you think we are going CB in round 1 too?:up:

"UCF FINatic wrote:

Good point. So you think we are going CB in round 1 too?:up:

No, I don't. I think the rules make it so that CBs don't have as much of an affect in stopping the other team's passing attack as pressure players do. CBs have just been devalued as an impact position. I also really like Nicks who I think can be a special player who will greatly affect the offensive side of of the YPA equation.

"rafael wrote:

No, I don't. I think the rules make it so that CBs don't have as much of an affect in stopping the other team's passing attack as pressure players do. CBs have just been devalued as an impact position. I also really like Nicks who I think can be a special player who will greatly affect the offensive side of of the YPA equation.

Its funny about the YPA because I read some sports betting book a while ago and it was about some guy that would beat the Vegas odds consistantly. Apparently, the Super Computers Vegas and other sharp-betters use GREATLY weight the Yards After Catch or Yards Per Reception stats. So if its that important to some of the best computers in predicting final score outcomes it should be just as important to our Front Office as well.

I love Nicks too, but have a feeling we are going to chance it and hope he is there at #44 or later. If I had to bet money now I say we are going either CB or LB in round one. I saw that because of the number of players we have brought in at those positions to work out privately and we even brought some players back twice.

Wins and loses!!! Followed by points scored per game and points allowed. The rest are really individual statistics and you know the old saying....There's no I in team.

"2socks wrote:

Wins and loses!!! Followed by points scored per game and points allowed. The rest are really individual statistics and you know the old saying....There's no I in team.

There is a 'm' and an 'e' though.

"anlgp wrote:

There is a 'm' and an 'e' though.

True

Hey where is Briere. I am a huge Sabres fan, just curious!! Looks like we are going to on the out looking in this year

"UCF FINatic wrote:

Its funny about the YPA because I read some sports betting book a while ago and it was about some guy that would beat the Vegas odds consistantly. Apparently, the Super Computers Vegas and other sharp-betters use GREATLY weight the Yards After Catch or Yards Per Reception stats. So if its that important to some of the best computers in predicting final score outcomes it should be just as important to our Front Office as well.

I love Nicks too, but have a feeling we are going to chance it and hope he is there at #44 or later. If I had to bet money now I say we are going either CB or LB in round one. I saw that because of the number of players we have brought in at those positions to work out privately and we even brought some players back twice.

I've heard we've had interviews, some multiple with Nicks, Harvin, Bey and Britt as well. So I don't see why it would be reasonable to assume that we're not considering a WR in the 1st.

"2socks wrote:

Wins and loses!!! Followed by points scored per game and points allowed. The rest are really individual statistics and you know the old saying....There's no I in team.

If you read the article then it's clear that most coaches aren't that simplistic. They realize that doing certain things well is more likely to lead to wins and losses than doing other things.

"rafael wrote:

If you read the article then it's clear that most coaches aren't that simplistic. They realize that doing certain things well is more likely to lead to wins and losses than doing other things.

there are absolutely certain things that a team must do that is more likely to lead to a win and one that immediately comes to mind is running the football/taking large amounts of clock away. Theory being other team doesn't have the ball or the time to score.....well....you get my point. Causing disruption in the timing of pass plays, understanding almost every play has some sort of timing sequence to it.....nice to be able to line up a guy like Joey porter and say "Go get em". Of course it's easy for me to sit here and type these things to you.....accomplishing them............well sometimes is a little more difficult!!!!

"anlgp wrote:

There is a 'm' and an 'e' though.

I didn't know he was hurt. You got a good one there. We have not been the same since loosing him and Drury!!!!!

"2socks wrote:

there are absolutely certain things that a team must do that is more likely to lead to a win and one that immediately comes to mind is running the football/taking large amounts of clock away. Theory being other team doesn't have the ball or the time to score.....well....you get my point. Causing disruption in the timing of pass plays, understanding almost every play has some sort of timing sequence to it.....nice to be able to line up a guy like Joey porter and say "Go get em". Of course it's easy for me to sit here and type these things to you.....accomplishing them............well sometimes is a little more difficult!!!!

Go read the 8th post in this thread. Running the ball to control the clock and win the game is a common misconception among stat junkies.

"rafael wrote:

I've heard we've had interviews, some multiple with Nicks, Harvin, Bey and Britt as well. So I don't see why it would be reasonable to assume that we're not considering a WR in the 1st.

We are considering a WR don't get me wrong; I am just saying I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that we won't go WR in round 1. I say that because I think we are going to do what we did with Henne last year; everyone knows we want a WR, but we will wait for pick #44 to see if Britt or Nicks will be there. I would also say that barring any crazy events Britt or Nicks will be there at #44; you have Crabtree, Maclin, Harvin, Heyward-Bey (Who I am not high on) all before Britt and Nicks. So for us not to be able to get at least on of those WR's 6 of 43 picks would have to be WR's (about 14%).

Here is something interesting as well. Here is a list of players that have visited us. It was done about 5 days ago so somethings could have changed... Thanks Boomer!!!

QB: USC’s Mark Sanchez; Pat White of West Virginia; Richie Williams of the Hamilton Tiger Cats in the CFL.

TB: Louisville TB/FB/H-back Brock Bolen; Northwestern’s Tyrell Sutton.

FB: Tony Fiametta of Syracuse.

TE: Monmouth’s John Nalbone; Rice’s James Casey; Darius Hill of Ball State; South Carolina’s Jared Cook.

WR: Cal Poly’s Ramses Barden; Mohamed Massaquoi of Georgia; Juaquin Iglesias of Oklahoma; Florida’s Percy Harvin; South Florida’s Taurus Johnson; North Carolina’s Hakeem Nicks; LSU senior Demetrius Byrd

OT: Ole Miss senior Michael Oher; Jamon Meredith of South Carolina; Arizona’s Eben Britton; Cornelius Lewis of Tennessee St; Ball State’s OT Andre Ramsey; Yale’s Darius Dale.

OG: Auburn’s Tyronne Green; Oregon State guard Andy Levitre (x2); LSU’s Herman Johnson; Missouri Western’s Roger Allen.

OC: Alex Mack of Cal; Arkansas senior Jonathan Luigs; Juan Garcia of Washington; Max Unger of Oregon.

DE: Texas senior Brian Orakpo; Tyson Jackson of LSU.

DT: Ole Miss DT Peria Jerry; Boston College’s Ron Brace; Michigan’s Terrance Taylor; Miami DT Antonio Dixon; Vaughn Martin from the University of Western Ontario

OLB: Cincinnati’s Connor Barwin; Clay Matthews of USC (x2); California’s Zach Follett; UCONN’s Cody Brown; Eastern Illinois DE/OLB Pierre Walters; Larry English of Northern Illinois (x2); Utah’s Paul Kruger (x2); Union College’s Willie Williams; DE/OLB Michael Johnson of Georgia Tech and Western Illinois’s Jason Williams.

ILB: LSU’s Darry Beckwith; Sacramento State linebacker Cyrus Mulitalo; Ohio State’s James Laurinaitis; ILB Franz Joseph of FAU and TCU’s Jason Phillips.

CB: Oregon State’s Keenan Lewis; UCONN’s Darius Butler (x2); Nicholls State’s Ladarius Webb; Utah’s Sean Smith; Troy’s Sherrod Martin, DeAngelo Smith of Cincinnati and Oregon’s Jairus Byrd.

S: Ole Miss LB/FS Ashlee Palmer; Wake Forest strong safety Chip Vaughn; Rashad Johnson of Alabama; Louis Delmas of Western Michigan; Clemson’s Michael Hamlin; Missuori’s William Moore; and TCU SS Stephen Hodge.

Based on the talent and number of people we brought in we are definately looking LB or CB in round 1, in my book.

"UCF FINatic wrote:

Go read the 8th post in this thread. Running the ball to control the clock and win the game is a common misconception among stat junkies.

I am first of all not a stat junkie. Second I stated, that there were certain things that a team does that contributes to winning and one of them is running the ball. Accurately stated, is your statement that running the football is a result of winning. Teams do run the football because they want to eat up clock. Teams also run the ball to set up passing plays. Until you are winning, those runs are necessary to contributing to a win....so it goes both ways and is a matter of opinion ...which i respect yours. Hopefully you can respect mine and see the other side of that coin

"2socks wrote:

there are absolutely certain things that a team must do that is more likely to lead to a win and one that immediately comes to mind is running the football/taking large amounts of clock away. Theory being other team doesn't have the ball or the time to score.....well....you get my point. Causing disruption in the timing of pass plays, understanding almost every play has some sort of timing sequence to it.....nice to be able to line up a guy like Joey porter and say "Go get em". Of course it's easy for me to sit here and type these things to you.....accomplishing them............well sometimes is a little more difficult!!!!

Did you actually read the article? Dungy specifically talked about how his team was getting out rushed the first four weeks by huge amounts but was winning b/c his YPA was almost two yards better than their opponents.

"UCF FINatic wrote:

We are considering a WR don't get me wrong; I am just saying I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that we won't go WR in round 1. I say that because I think we are going to do what we did with Henne last year; everyone knows we want a WR, but we will wait for pick #44 to see if Britt or Nicks will be there. I would also say that barring any crazy events Britt or Nicks will be there at #44; you have Crabtree, Maclin, Harvin, Heyward-Bey (Who I am not high on) all before Britt and Nicks. So for us not to be able to get at least on of those WR's 6 of 43 picks would have to be WR's (about 14%).

Here is something interesting as well. Here is a list of players that have visited us. It was done about 5 days ago so somethings could have changed... Thanks Boomer!!!

Based on the talent and number of people we brought in we are definately looking LB or CB in round 1, in my book.

How does that list make any definite? It showed visits with 2 1st rd WR (and we also apparently spoke with Bey so that's 3), 4 visits with 1st rd OLBs, and 2 visits with 1st rd CBs. Concluding that it will be a LB or CB is based on your own perception, not that list.