As I have said, you are using that stat to represent something it does not.
Here is an example.
Game is tied 21 to 21 and each team has allowed 210 yards.
Team A has the ball and goes 3 and out. Team B has allowed 210 yards and 21 points, 10 points per yard.
Team B drives 80 yards for a game winning TD and now has 290 yards and 28 points. That is 10.3 yards per point.
By your argument Team A has a better defense because it allowed less points per yard.
Its the same with the Patriots. If they allowed 75% of the yards they did, and also 75% of the points they did, they would have been a much better defense, but you are using a statistic that would call them equal.
Bad defesnive plays give up yards and points. Your statistic calls a team that gives up ADDITIONAL YARDS AND POINTS better if it does it in a different ratio.
Another example. 10 drives each on defense.
On 8 of them the teams have identical stats.
Say 210 yards and 21 points.
On the other 2, one team gets 3 and outs with no yards and the other allows 2 TD drives of 90 yards each.
They now have allowed 390 yards and 35 points.
They are a better defense in your statistic because they allowed more yards per point.
Do you see now how these stats divided by each other are not meaningful?
First let me just say that I would really appreciate it if we discuss defense or yards per point in any of the other defense threads if you wish. I feel obligated to respond to you, but honestly, it's off topic and considering Giants fans love it so much I wouldn't want to disappoint them by not discussing the original point.
Having said that, congratulations you found the
minor flaws of it. 3 and outs. Which is why you should also use it in conjunction with offensive efficiency and turnovers, because believe it or not, almost all major NFL measurements are offensive measurements, including yards.
Having said that, let's take a quick look at
the big picture because that's what you're supposed to use it for. It measured everything accurately up until the
final 1 minute or so of the game when the team with the ball scored last, and the other team was unable to do the same because the game ended? Right? So for 59 minutes
it correctly measured that both defenses were neck in neck, and because of the fact the game ended after their last drive it was no longer able to accurately measure what took place in the final minute.
Does
yards measure correctly that those teams were basically neck in neck for 59 minutes of the football game? Does points? No....it sees one team as far superior doesn't it? So does winning. All because of
1 minute of football.
This is one of the reasons why no one ever looks at it on a "per game", "per minute" or "per drive" basis but as a season stat or multi-game stat and it does such a great job of matching up reality of most teams.
It's not meant to be used to do what you are doing. Teams are also measured by what took place in the other 59 minutes of the game, for the
entire season because typically what you do in the full 60 minutes matters. You don't use it as a yard per point
per drive. You don't use it as a yard per point
per game. But rather as simply yards
per point.
If you want to use it in that manner then apply it to
every drive of
every team of
every minute and see how many it gets correct vs how many it gets wrong. No
one particular situational example you can think of. The more important thing that it would measure in your example is that both defenses sucked. 10.0-10.3 is pretty insignificant when it's all said and done. But it does say both offenses were able to score efficiently against those defenses. Given an extra minute we will never know what would have happened in your example.
You know when I said earlier that
any stat can be shown to have flaws? This one is no different. However, and I re-iterate, despite its flaws, it's still
the best stat when it comes to measuring overall excecution, efficiency, scoring ability and winning.
If it was perfect it would match up 100% of the time. Since it's not, it does it about 90% of the time. Which is still better than anything else you can possibly come out with that correlates better to winning. It's better than any of the other stats that are thrown around. It's the stat that matches up best with reality.
But yes, every once in awhile, you will have a team who came out looking efficient in scoring, and still lose the game. Precisely because of one play or one final drive. It
does happen. Nobody said it was perfect. Just that it ultimately correlates better to winning than any other stat in football. Your example is the equivalent of measuring gravity on top of Mt. St. Helen and saying the speed of gravity isn't 9.8 m/s because it's slightly different than when measured on the ground.
Your examples of the specific events that it doesn't always measure correctly doesn't come close to the entire body of work that
it does measure correctly. So just because you can find something wrong with it, if you try hard enough, it still doesn't change the fact that it correlates
best to winning. It's also far more reliable than
your eyes, and
your personal perception or interpretation of what it means to be a "good enough team to win". Or mine. It doesn't make it a terrible measurement because you can find flaws in it.
Compared to everything else available it has
the least flaws.
Now can we please get back on topic in this tread or continue this discussion in any of the other threads it was brought up?
