"Patriots easily feature the best long distance plan"

[FlyingElvis75]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsess...0d5d803b912d&template=with-video&confirm=true

The most impressive aspect of the Patriots' long drives all season is the fact that they have had 14 possessions start inside the 20 and they have scored a touchdown 78.5 percent of the time. Keep in mind that the league is averaging about 13 percent in this category. The top teams in the NFL inside the red zone don't score touchdowns at this rate.

I wasn't aware of that. That's pretty interesting...

[Edit] So the Pats have scored 11 TDs in 14 drives starting from within their own 20. Kirwan later goes on to say that the Colts, Steelers, and Chiefs combined have scored 7 TDs on drives starting within their own 20 (out of 54 attempts). Wow.

 

[solman]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsess...0d5d803b912d&template=with-video&confirm=true



I wasn't aware of that. That's pretty interesting...

[Edit] So the Pats have scored 11 TDs in 14 drives starting from within their own 20. Kirwan later goes on to say that the Colts, Steelers, and Chiefs combined have scored 7 TDs on drives starting within their own 20 (out of 54 attempts). Wow.

Its a very impressive statistic, but its bogus in the sense that it results primarily from the small sample size.

For example, the Patriots have a much lower success rate when starting ON their 20. But if you ask Belichick whether he has a better chance of scoring from his own 10 or 20, you can be sure he'll take the ball on the 20.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

Its a very impressive statistic, but its bogus in the sense that it results primarily from the small sample size.

For example, the Patriots have a much lower success rate when starting ON their 20. But if you ask Belichick whether he has a better chance of scoring from his own 10 or 20, you can be sure he'll take the ball on the 20.

Is that true? What's their success rate when starting on their 20 (you mean exactly on their 20, i.e. usually touchback)? That would be pretty interesting as well, if true...

[Edit] Btw, do you know what sample size would make the comparison valid, from a purely statistical standpoint? I do...

 

[patsox23]

This has been posted multiple times, but I'm glad you did it again - because I was the jackass who posted it the third time and this takes me out of the hot seat.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

This has been posted multiple times, but I'm glad you did it again - because I was the jackass who posted it the third time and this takes me out of the hot seat.

And what's wrong with delivering good news......Fortunately none of us will lose out forum priveleges for plagarism......

 

[patsox23]

And what's wrong with delivering good news......Fortunately none of us will lose out forum priveleges for plagarism......

Um...nothing. I was merely pointing out, and joking about it, that this article has been posted on patsfans.com 4 times now.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

Is that true? What's their success rate when starting on their 20 (you mean exactly on their 20, i.e. usually touchback)? That would be pretty interesting as well, if true...

[Edit] Btw, do you know what sample size would make the comparison valid, from a purely statistical standpoint? I do...

Hmm, no response, I guess...gotta love it when folks post things like "sample size is too small" when they don't know what they're talking about

 

[solman]

Is that true? What's their success rate when starting on their 20 (you mean exactly on their 20, i.e. usually touchback)? That would be pretty interesting as well, if true...

The last time I posted these statistics (before the Washington game) I believe the Patriots were 2 out of 10 from their 20.

In the Cleveland game alone the Patriots were zero for 4 from their 20 (0 for five from on or inside their 20).

[Edit] Btw, do you know what sample size would make the comparison valid, from a purely statistical standpoint? I do...

That would depend on which hypothesis I'm testing, the strength of the data, and our a priori assumptions about correlations between successive tries.

t-squared or whatever test you think is appropriate is based on a wide variety of assumptions which are likely not to hold in this case.

 

[solman]

Hmm, no response, I guess...gotta love it when folks post things like "sample size is too small" when they don't know what they're talking about

Don't be a smart ass kid, you'll only embarrass yourself.

You said that the Pats are converting 78.5% of their attempts from inside their 20.

I said that this is a bogus statistic that "results primarily from the small sample size".

Go ahead, regale us with your statistical wisdom, and show me where I went wrong.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

"T-squared" is not a statistical test...

My original post compared the Pats' 11-for-14 with the 7-for-54 of the other listed teams combined. There are only one or two (nonparametric) related tests that are commonly used to determine significance (which, btw, reveal that the difference is indeed significant).

 

[FlyingElvis75]

Don't be a smart ass kid, you'll only embarrass yourself.

You said that the Pats are converting 78.5% of their attempts from inside their 20.

I said that this is a bogus statistic that "results primarily from the small sample size".

Go ahead, regale us with your statistical wisdom, and show me where I went wrong.

Actually, you're the one embarrassing yourself by calling numbers "bogus" and feigning to have knowledge of a subject you clearly don't.

 

[solman]

"T-squared" is not a statistical test...

My original post compared the Pats' 11-for-14 with the 7-for-54 of the other listed teams combined. There are only one or two (nonparametric) related tests that are commonly used to determine significance (which, btw, reveal that the difference is indeed significant).

That's the smart ass way. Attack my semantics. Then, claim that when you challenged me you were actually trying to support the notion that the Patriots are statistically better at scoring touchdowns than the Colts, Chiefs and Steelers (as if anyone who knows football doubted this for a moment).

You posted the 78.5% statistic. I said its bogus. Back it up or shut up.


BTW, the Football Outsiders website has come back up. Based on their statistics and Kirwan's the Patriots success rate is:

Inside own 20: 11 for 14 (78.5%)
Everywhere else: 27 for 65 (41.5%)

Go ahead and tell me how many samples it takes for that to be statistically significant. Here in the real world, even an entire season would not provide enough samples to makes this statistic anything other than an anomaly. The a priori assumptions that come with reality make it so.

 

[Funktopus]

This is one of the reasons I love being a fan of Boston sports. Can you imagine this flame war occuring on the Fins message board. lol...

 

[FarScapeR]

Nerds!!!!!!

 

[Rainy-Day Patriot]

Hint: This is a cherry-picked sample, not a random sample.

Let me know when you've invented the test for nonrandom samples, and then we'll talk.

Small sample size is a concern. Bad sampling is a bigger one.

 

[solman]

Hint: This is a cherry-picked sample, not a random sample.

Let me know when you've invented the test for nonrandom samples, and then we'll talk.

Small sample size is a concern. Bad sampling is a bigger one.

That was the point I was trying to make by pointing to the Pats dramatically lower success rate when starting ON their 20. He ignored the touchbacks for a reason.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

It's not a question of semantics, it's a question of pretending to know what the hell you're talking about when you don't.

You take two distributions:

Patriots: 11 TDs, 3 Non-TDs
Others: 7 TDs, 47 Non-TDs

...and ask "What's the probability that the difference is due to random chance?" A chi-square or Fisher's exact test tells you: < 0.0001%. Anything less than 5% is considered significant in the vast majority of fields; it's one of the most basic statistical tests of all. The only caveat is with cell sizes less than 5 - the overall sample size is irrelevant. Since one of them is 3, there's a danger of producing a false negative, which is moot since the result is positive (a difference has been found). In any case, the Fisher's exact eliminates that problem, and it also tells us the difference is significant.

The Patriots' performance in the situations from which their sample was drawn is significantly different from the other teams' performance in the situations from which their sample was drawn because there is only an infinitesimal chance that these numbers could occur if the factors underlying the performances were the same but the differences were due to random chance. There is nothing "bogus" about that, and there is nothing wrong with the sample size.

The fact that you seem to have muddled t-tests (which test almost completely different types of data) with either of the two above reinforces the impression you're trying to throw around terminology you don't understand. If you had come in asking for honest clarifications instead of faking knowledge and resorting to ad hominems when you got called on it, maybe this thread would have turned out differently.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

Hint: This is a cherry-picked sample, not a random sample.

Let me know when you've invented the test for nonrandom samples, and then we'll talk.

Small sample size is a concern. Bad sampling is a bigger one.

No, a cherry-picked sample is "let's look at all the drives they scored on, and see how it stacks up with all the drives everyone else did or didn't score on." Kirwan's numbers include every drive that started from within the 20; therefore the comparison only applies to drives that start from within the 20, not (necessarily) anything beyond that.

 

[solman]

It's not a question of semantics, it's a question of pretending to know what the hell you're talking about when you don't.

You have several serious problems aside from having your head up your ass.

First, you are trying to prove that the Patriots ability to score touchdowns from inside their 20 is better than the average of the Colts, Steelers and Chiefs. Nearly everybody in this forum knows that, and with the exception of you they didn't need to perform a chi square test to do it.

The bogus statistic is the claim that New England scoring 78.5% of the time from within their own 20 is anything other than an anomaly caused by small sample size. You can not possibly demonstrate otherwise because it IS an anomaly caused by small sample size. But feel free to try.

Second, by performing a chi square test you are making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions. Let me use your own Methodology to demonstrate how ridiculous you are being:

Patriots inside their own 20: 11TDs, 3 Non-TDs
Patriots elsewhere: 27TDs, 38 Non-TDs

According to chi-squared (as utilized by you), this proves (likelihood of error a smidge more than 1%, well within the 5% that you expressed comfort with) that the Patriots are more likely to score touchdowns on drives starting from INSIDE their own 20, than on drives where they have good field position.

Which of the following would explain this result:

1. The Patriots are more likely to score a TD on drives starting within their own 20 than when they have better field position
2. The use of chi square in this instance (with your methodology) produces an erroneous result.

I think we can safely choose option number 2, but if you believe otherwise feel free to send BB and email and tell him to stop trying to return kickoff returns and punts beyond the 19.

Third, you assumed from my mangled terminology that:

1. I don't know what I am talking about
2. I can't perform a simple chi squared test

Oops.

I won't bother pointing out that by combining the Colts, Steelers and Chiefs into one line you made a fundamental error in your implementation of the chi square test since

1. nobody ever doubted that the Patriots are the best team inside of their 20 and
2. it wouldn't have changed the ultimate result.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

Did I make that claim? Point out anywhere in this entire thread where I stated "The Patriots can be expected to score 78.5% of the time when they start within their own 20," or anything remotely like that. I compared the Patriots' performance - 11 of 14 - with the rest of the listed teams - 7 of 54. You continue with your "bogus" a "small sample size" mantra, without the least bit of hard evidence to back it up (apparently you DO doubt the numbers - explain how else a reader is supposed to interpret those statements?). You churn out technical-sounding language like "which hypothesis I'm testing", "strength of data", etc. that have no relevance. And you resort to name-calling.

According to chi-squared (as utilized by you), this proves (likelihood of error a smidge more than 1%, well within the 5% that you expressed comfort with) that the Patriots are more likely to score touchdowns on drives starting from INSIDE their own 20, than on drives where they have good field position.

Which of the following would explain this result:

1. The Patriots are more likely to score a TD on drives starting within their own 20 than when they have better field position
2. The use of chi square in this instance (with your methodology) produces an erroneous result.

I think we can safely choose option number 2, but if you believe otherwise feel free to send BB and email and tell him to stop trying to return kickoff returns and punts beyond the 19.

I love it, as if this is a methodology I invented. Did you miss the repeated "in the situations from which their sample was drawn" in my previous post? Again, you're showing a complete and utter misinterpretation of what the numbers mean. I suppose your personal income has gone up since you were 18. Does that mean that if you want to be a millionaire, you should just sit on your ass and get older?

[Edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Did you take biology in college? I didn't. But I'm not going to go around telling doctors their diagnoses are bogus. [Edit] And I sure as hell am not going to tell them they're "an ass" when I'm wrong.