Interesting Stat No One Has Mentioned

Ochmed Jones · Feb 4, 2012

jnug said:
I think BB will still be afraid to use Ridley. Fumbles are real killers as you are for the most part giving up the ball at or near the line of scrimmage.

Ridley had his shot in the last game of the season and unfortunately fumbled again. In fact he fumbled once in each of the last two games. I don't think BB will let him in the game here unless it is far out of reach which is not likely.

It is a real shame as Ridley is a threat. However that sounds great all the way up until the ball is on the ground and I think that is how BB sees it.

I agree Ridley needs to grab some pine on Sunday and used exclusively on ST. (Where he excelled in college.)

Turnovers, penalties and negative plays are to be avoided at all costs if we have any chance to win. A high conversion rate on third down would be helpful as well to securing a victory.

Lampshade · Feb 4, 2012

The other stat that doesn't get mentioned is that the Giants lost 7 games this season.

JJDChE · Feb 4, 2012

Lampshade said:
The other stat that doesn't get mentioned is that the Giants lost 7 games this season.

Because it's not terribly relevant when they've won 5 in a row while knocking all 5 teams out of the playoffs in the process.

Ring 6 · Feb 4, 2012

jnug said:
I think BB will still be afraid to use Ridley. Fumbles are real killers as you are for the most part giving up the ball at or near the line of scrimmage.

Ridley had his shot in the last game of the season and unfortunately fumbled again. In fact he fumbled once in each of the last two games. I don't think BB will let him in the game here unless it is far out of reach which is not likely.

It is a real shame as Ridley is a threat. However that sounds great all the way up until the ball is on the ground and I think that is how BB sees it.

I don't agree. If he wasn't going to play, he would be inactive. If fumbling were an inherent problem, he wouldn't have played all year. BB isn't going to give up on a player becuase of 2 fumbles (if he did, Hernandez would be with Taylor Price). He punished him by sitting him in the AFCCG, got his message across, and I expect Ridley to have a big game in the chance he gets. I can see 10-12 carries, and I can easily see him turning that in 60-70 yards.

Lampshade · Feb 4, 2012

JJDChE said:
Because it's not terribly relevant when they've won 5 in a row while knocking all 5 teams out of the playoffs in the process.

That's kind of of my point. People are harping on nothing but the positives of Giants, and nothing but the negatives of the Patriots. The Giants losing 7 games is as relevant as all the nonsense being spouted about the Patriots based on the regular season.

SVN · Feb 4, 2012

AndyJohnson said:
I disagree. We beat a better team in the AFCCG without winning the turnover battle.
I would say this: The Giants MUST win the turnover battle to win the game. The Patriots have a better chance to win if they win the to battle, but can certainly win without it.

Winning/losing turnover battle is one. Pats must produce a turnover though. They have a turnover in almost all the games this season which has translated to this success.

PatsGirl2011 · Feb 4, 2012

This is why I laugh at the media. The Pats had 3 turnovers vs. the Ravens and were still winning the game into the 2 minute warning. Yet they got lucky? They are just that damn good. I wish more people would realize how good this team is. They are def flawed and do have significant weaknesses, but I wish people would stop putting down this team like they are average.

wistahpatsfan · Feb 4, 2012

The worst turnover is the return team fumble. That's a killer and a huge momentum shift in big games. They seem to be much harder to recover from because they often end upo in 14-point swings in a game. Just killer. Just ask the Niners.

cmasspatsfan · Feb 4, 2012

Originally Posted by JJDChE
Because it's not terribly relevant when they've won 5 in a row while knocking all 5 teams out of the playoffs in the process.

That's kind of of my point. People are harping on nothing but the positives of Giants, and nothing but the negatives of the Patriots. The Giants losing 7 games is as relevant as all the nonsense being spouted about the Patriots based on the regular season.

I agree with your point, their 7 losses are irrelavant because of the way they have played the last 5 games but they keep bringing up the Pats defensive woes, the worst 4 games on defense were the first 4 games, the stats improve greatly if you exclude the first four games and improve even more if you just use our last 4 games. Its almost as if they're all looking for reasons on why the Giants will win.

captain stone · Feb 4, 2012

AndyJohnson said:
I disagree. We beat a better team in the AFCCG without winning the turnover battle.

I would say this: The Giants MUST win the turnover battle to win the game. The Patriots have a better chance to win if they win the to battle, but can certainly win without it.

I don't know if the Ravens > Jints; but the point is well-made, in that if we lose tomorrow,
we also prob. lost the turnover battle.

Whoever wins tomorrow will also prob. have sacked the losing team more often.

jnug · Feb 4, 2012

I had actually thought I had caught Ridley's number on the sidelines for the Raven's game and never went to check that he had dressed for sure.

He actually did not dress for that game. My bad!

Wax Frog · Feb 4, 2012

PatriotSeven said:
Not all of Brady's interceptions are game killers. The majority of them happen near the opponent's red-zone [etc.]

IOW, all it amounts to is an untimely punt.

Brady_to_Moss · Feb 4, 2012

Team who wins TO battle will win...simple as that IMO

BlueThunder · Feb 4, 2012

Brady has to be on his A game and the D has to win the TO battle. If that happens I can see Pats winning by double digits. Anything less and it will be a nail biter to the end

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 4, 2012

AndyJohnson said:
When losing the turnover battle the Giants are 0-5.

Patriots when losing the turnover battle are 4-2, including both playoff win.

Suggests that the Pats have a greater margin for error, which makes sense given how prolific their offense has been this year. I looked at some numbers:

Here is how the Pats and Giants stacked up against each other in some major categories throughout the regular season.

I have to admit that, if you showed me these data and told me that one of the two teams had the 31st "worst" Defense in the league, I wouldn't identify the Pats as the "guilty party" based on these numbers.

What it suggests is what we have all either known or intuited: measuring a Defense by "Yards Surrendered," especially given the Pat's Offense, is virtually a useless exercise.

Offense:

Passing TD's: 39 by Pats--26 by Pats Opponents
Passing TD's: 29 by Giants--28 by Giants Opponents

So, the Pats scored more TD's via the air and surrendered fewer on D than the Giants.

Rushing TD's: 18 by Pats--13 by Pats Opponents
Rushing TD's: 17 by Giants--15 by Giants Opponents

Here too, though more closely, the Pats outperform the Giants.

INT"s thrown: 12 by Pats--23 by Pats Opponents
INT's thrown: 16 by Giants--20 by Giants Opponents

Pats plus 11. Giants plus four. This stat blew me away to the extent that I double and triple checked the numbers.

Fumbles Lost: 15 by Pats--21 by Opponents
Fumbles Lost: 19 by Giants--21 by Giants Opponents

Pats plus six. Giants plus two.

Defense:

INT's returned for TD's: 2 by Pats
INT's returned for TD's: 0 by Giants!!!

Fumbles recovered for TD's: 1 by Pats
Fumbles recovered for TD's: 1 by Giants

Special Teams:

Punts returned for TD's: 1 by Pats
Punts returned for TD's: 0 by Giants

KO's returned for TD's: 0 by Pats
KO's returned for TD's: 0 by Giants

KO's returned for TD's: 0 by Pats
KO's returned for TD's: 0 by Giants

Field Goals: made/ATT by Patriots 28/33; made/ATT by Pats' Opponents 20/23
Field Goals: made/ATT by Giants 19/24; made/ATT by Giants Opponents 25/31

I think I'm beginning to understand why Belichick is so relaxed this week.

PatriotSeven · Feb 4, 2012

It's not so much that the Patriots have a greater margin of error. It's that they don't make a lot of errors, so naturally, they "have room" to make an error. But if they were to use that room, they wouldn't be efficient. It's a catch 22.

We track turnovers to keep track of something very important: major loss or gain in field position and ball control.

It's a lot easier to keep track of turnovers but in reality what's happening is a significant loss or gain in both field position and ball control. The correct phrase is and should have been from the get go: whoever wins the field position battle. This larger measurement overrides turnovers.

Typically whoever wins the turnover battle wins the field position battle, so it's easy to stick to the rule of thumb of turnovers.......but not always. For very smart and efficient teams like the NE Patriots, the number of turnovers are not always a good measurement of that. They can lose the turnover battle, and still win the field position battle.

The facts are, and you can go look this up, for the majority of NFL teams, 50% of all yards allowed go through their special teams, offense and quarterback. Your quarterback, offense and special teams play just as much defense, as your defense does, every single game. If your offense gives up 50 yards of field position after an interception, you just ruined 5-10 minutes of effort and work that your defense puts in every game. If your punt or kick-off coverage unit gives up lots of yards, same thing. If your punter, doesn't kick it far enough, same thing. If your offense is stopped on a 3 and out, same thing. All of these things, not just turnovers, end up costing you the field position battle.

Which is why the Pats generally have it right. They make sure that if a team wants to score points they have to travel the most yards through their defense. Not special teams or offense. And this goes for the QB's interceptions and where they occur. This gives the advantage to the Patriots. They don't make it easy. If you wanna gain yards against the Patriots it's going to come against their defense, not other weaker defensive units.

A team's offense and defense are completely intertwined. You can't separate them. Which is why most stats and people who use them in a vacuum comparison get it wrong.

Now this didn't actually happen in the first game, unfortunately.

Example: Giants -Patriots Game 1

Yards allowed
Patriots defense: 438 yards
Giants defense: 361 yards
Pats offense: 17 yards
Giants offense: 0 yards
Pats ST: 68 yards
Giants ST: 90 yards

Total yards allowed:
Patriots: 523 yards
Giants: 451 yards

Now that might not look all that bad, but here's what happens when you view it in terms of field position.

Field position allowed.
Patriots defense: 438 yards
Giants defense: 361 yards

Pats offense: 177 yards
Giants offense: 20 yards

Patriots ST: 222 yards
Giants ST: 184 yards

Pats offense gave up nearly 9 times the amount of yards in field position compared to the Giants, and yeah that was on turnovers, most of which came on the fumble.

Field position yards allowed:
Patriots defense: 438 yards
Patriots quarterback, offense & ST: 399 yards

Giants defense: 361 yards
Giants quarterback, offense & ST: 104 yards

Total yards allowed:
Patriots true total defense: 837 yards
Giants true total defense: 465 yards

Uhm, yeah. It's not the 438 yards our defense gave up that killed us, it was the 399 yards of field position our offense and special teams gave up. That's 4 times the amount the Giants other units gave up, nearly 300 additional yards. These are the yards nobody ever talks about. That's a lot of freaking yards of field position. The Patriots true total defense gave up 837 yards in Game 1 and that was almost evenly split between their defense, and everyone else playing defense that game.

Giants attacked our weakest point and beat us where we are best and at our own game: special teams and offensive defense.

Now that game is an aberration, because the Pats do have the #2 special teams in the league, as well as one of the best defensive offenses and defensive quarterbacks in the league. So I'm not worried, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants are going to try to do it again because that's still our weakest point of attack, not our defense. Hopefully we're not going to let them beat us at what we do best this time around.

Knowing Bill, he would use this game as an example in the film room and say: "Here's how NOT to play football the Patriots Way."

PS: While that might look bad you should also keep this in mind. The Giants total offense gained an additional 372 yards against us(almost double) but only 4 extra points to show for it all and that's also thanks in part to a missed FG by the Pats.

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 5, 2012

PatriotSeven said:
It's not so much that the Patriots have a greater margin of error. It's that they don't make a lot of errors, so naturally, they "have room" to make an error. But if they were to use that room, they wouldn't be efficient. It's a catch 22.

We track turnovers to keep track of something very important: major loss or gain in field position and ball control.

It's a lot easier to keep track of turnovers but in reality what's happening is a significant loss or gain in both field position and ball control. The correct phrase is and should have been from the get go: whoever wins the field position battle. This larger measurement overrides turnovers.

Typically whoever wins the turnover battle wins the field position battle, so it's easy to stick to the rule of thumb of turnovers.......but not always. For very smart and efficient teams like the NE Patriots, the number of turnovers are not always a good measurement of that. They can lose the turnover battle, and still win the field position battle.

The facts are, and you can go look this up, for the majority of NFL teams, 50% of all yards allowed go through their special teams, offense and quarterback. Your quarterback, offense and special teams play just as much defense, as your defense does, every single game. If your offense gives up 50 yards of field position after an interception, you just ruined 5-10 minutes of effort and work that your defense puts in every game. If your punt or kick-off coverage unit gives up lots of yards, same thing. If your punter, doesn't kick it far enough, same thing. If your offense is stopped on a 3 and out, same thing. All of these things, not just turnovers, end up costing you the field position battle.

Which is why the Pats generally have it right. They make sure that if a team wants to score points they have to travel the most yards through their defense. Not special teams or offense. And this goes for the QB's interceptions and where they occur. This gives the advantage to the Patriots. They don't make it easy. If you wanna gain yards against the Patriots it's going to come against their defense, not other weaker defensive units.

A team's offense and defense are completely intertwined. You can't separate them. Which is why most stats and people who use them in a vacuum comparison get it wrong.

Now this didn't actually happen in the first game, unfortunately.

Example: Giants -Patriots Game 1

Yards allowed
Patriots defense: 438 yards
Giants defense: 361 yards
Pats offense: 17 yards
Giants offense: 0 yards
Pats ST: 68 yards
Giants ST: 90 yards

Total yards allowed:
Patriots: 523 yards
Giants: 451 yards

Now that might not look all that bad, but here's what happens when you view it in terms of field position.

Field position allowed.
Patriots defense: 438 yards
Giants defense: 361 yards

Pats offense: 177 yards
Giants offense: 20 yards

Patriots ST: 222 yards
Giants ST: 184 yards

Pats offense gave up nearly 9 times the amount of yards in field position compared to the Giants, and yeah that was on turnovers, most of which came on the fumble.

Field position yards allowed:
Patriots defense: 438 yards
Patriots quarterback, offense & ST: 399 yards

Giants defense: 361 yards
Giants quarterback, offense & ST: 104 yards

Total yards allowed:
Patriots true total defense: 837 yards
Giants true total defense: 465 yards

Uhm, yeah. It's not the 438 yards our defense gave up that killed us, it was the 399 yards of field position our offense and special teams gave up. That's 4 times the amount the Giants other units gave up, nearly 300 additional yards. These are the yards nobody ever talks about. That's a lot of freaking yards of field position. The Patriots true total defense gave up 837 yards in Game 1 and that was almost evenly split between their defense, and everyone else playing defense that game.

Giants attacked our weakest point and beat us where we are best and at our own game: special teams and offensive defense.

Now that game is an aberration, because the Pats do have the #2 special teams in the league, as well as one of the best defensive offenses and defensive quarterbacks in the league. So I'm not worried, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants are going to try to do it again because that's still our weakest point of attack, not our defense. Hopefully we're not going to let them beat us at what we do best this time around.

Knowing Bill, he would use this game as an example in the film room and say: "Here's how NOT to play football the Patriots Way."

PS: While that might look bad you should also keep this in mind. The Giants total offense gained an additional 372 yards against us(almost double) but only 4 extra points to show for it all and that's also thanks in part to a missed FG by the Pats.

I've read enough of your posts now to think that maybe you might have something of value to say, but you just never articulate it clearly and resort to long winded efforts that lose even a reader who tries to be interested. The pattern seems to have become that you compose long posts and, after one tortuous thread in which many folks, including myself, tried to engage you, people now just move on.

For example, in the above you jump from Yards Allowed "Pats Offense": "17 yards," to Yards Allowed "Pats Offense": "177 yards" (your bolding) without ever clearly and concisely defining the term or explaining how the number grew from 17 in one paragraph to 177 in another. If that was just a typo, it suggests that even you don't read the stuff that you write!!!

So, once again, I just lost interest.

I don't know where you were educated, but you seem like you might be a smart person. I'd suggest that you dust off the notes from any courses you might have taken in writing or theme composition.

PatriotSeven · Feb 5, 2012

PatsFanSince74 said:
I've read enough of your posts now to think that maybe you might have something of value to say, but you just never articulate it clearly and resort to long winded efforts that lose even a reader who tries to be interested. The pattern seems to have become that you compose long posts and, after one tortuous thread in which many folks, including myself, tried to engage you, people now just move on.

For example, in the above you jump from Yards Allowed "Pats Offense": "17 yards," to Yards Allowed "Pats Offense": "177 yards" (your bolding) without ever clearly and concisely defining the term or explaining how the number grew from 17 in one paragraph to 177 in another. If that was just a typo, it suggests that even you don't read the stuff that you write!!!

So, once again, I just lost interest.

I don't know where you were educated, but you seem like you might be a smart person. I'd suggest that you dust off the notes from any courses you might have taken in writing or theme composition.

I actually tried my best to make it fairly clear while using minimum words. But in order for me to explain to you in even more detail, it will simply require more words which you're going to complain about. But here goes anyway.

First, the obvious difference between the two separate sets of numbers was emphasized by stating it and then bolding the subtitle as well(I assumed it may cause some confusion). First it was stated:

Now that might not look all that bad, but here's what happens when you view it in terms of field position

Then it was also bolded in an attempt to point out that it's a completely different set, without using a million words to explain it: "Field position allowed". Unfortunately this is also kept track of using yards which adds confusion.

The actual difference those two sets of numbers represent can be best explained using an example. If Tom Brady throws an interception and gets picked off at the 50 yard line, and ran back for 10 yards the offense initially allowed 50 yards of field position from the turnover, followed by an additional 10 yards after catch for a total of 60 yards of field position allowed. Two separate types of gains by our opponent against our offense. The first type was simply by our offense's own mistake in terms of field position given up by the turnover(the offense was playing offense). The second was yards by their own effort against our offense(the offense was literally playing typical defense and trying to tackle).

So going back to my post, the first set presents yards totals gained by the opponent against our defense, offense(such as yards after interception or fumble), or special teams defense, where those parts of our team was playing typical defense.

The second set presents total field position gained by the opponent. Everything combined.

And if the similar digits 1 & 7 used in the the two completely different numbers confused you, then notice that 4 of those numbers were completely different from the first set to the second. That should have helped signify two different sets of numbers. It just so happens that yes, coincidentally, the yards the Giants actually worked for against our offense was 17, and the total field position our offense allowed added up to 177.

But yes, I do pay attention to detail. And I give others the same credit that they can pick up on it. After all, does the NFL ever clarify the difference between the label "total defense"(ypg) and what everyone assumes the label to represent? Equally confusing, no? And they don't bold anything. The NFL expects you to understand they're not really referring to "true" total defense and figure that out on your own. And after enough complaints of the length of my posts, the subtle use of underlines and bolding is just going to have to do.

PatsFanSince74 · Feb 5, 2012

PatriotSeven said:
...
But yes, I do pay attention to detail. And I give others the same credit that they can pick up on it. After all, does the NFL ever clarify the difference between the label "total defense"(ypg) and what everyone assumes the label to represent? Equally confusing, no? And they don't bold anything. The NFL expects you to understand they're not really referring to "true" total defense and figure that out on your own. And after enough complaints of the length of my posts, the subtle use of underlines and bolding is just going to have to do.

You lost me there guy. You are insufferable. And, worse, you think you're smart and you're not. I'm done.

I guess I didn't learn much at that school in Cambridge and its B-school across the river.

patstd · Feb 5, 2012

What about the stat of when the Giants have a bye week and they lose afterwards. Anybody know what that is?

Interesting Stat No One Has Mentioned

Pro Bowl Player

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

On the Game Day Roster

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

28-3....

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

On the Roster

Similar threads