Number crunching: D Stats during "Garbage Time"

[mgcolby]

I am trying to understand your analysis. It sounds like the entire fourth quarter is garbage time if we are leading by two scores. What happens if the opponent comes within one score after we have been leading by two scores in the fourth quarter? Is the previous garbage time voided? Or is the garbage time over and non-garbage time start? Has this situation never arisen?

Also as someone pointed out, you cannot deduct the garbage time points entirely. You would have to include the points that would be allowed had the defense played the same way in garbage time as in non-garbage time. One way to do this would be to figure out the points per unit time by the opponents during non-garbage time and use that to estimate what the points in garbage time would have been.

But all this aside, one has to ask why in principle we would like to allow more points in garbage time? Naively, one would think that it is more beneficial to stop them from scoring rather than to allow them to score in such a situation. On the other hand, if indeed there is such a principle, I would have to think it would be to have the opponent run out of time by allowing them to move but take time off the clock. Since you have the raw data, I would be much more curious to see what the time taken per point scored by the opponent is during garbage time as opposed to out of it. If they are scoring at a faster clip during garbage time then I would have to say that the defense is not doing well.

I only counted the drives during the 4th quarter in which the Pats opponents start the drive 9+ points behind. Let's say the Jets started the first drive of the 4th quarter down 28-17 and went down the field and scored. That drive counted in my compilation. Now if they start their second drive still down 28-24 that second drive is not included.

Similiar situations occured during the Jets and Chargers games.

 

[Deus Irae]

I edited my post to add some facts. See above.

All that's really needed is to look at the Patriots during the BB tenure. While there is a degree of variance, points and yards generally follow one another for this team. I posted on it in an earlier thread.

 

[Darolyn72]

Hey Da Bruinz,

You can read right. Based on your post you can't, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can read Pass Rush has nothing to do with Sacks. Where did I mention sacks? I didn't. I mentioned Pass Rush and they don't have one.

 

[lamafist]

All that's really needed is to look at the Patriots during the BB tenure. While there is a degree of variance, points and yards generally follow one another for this team. I posted on it in an earlier thread.

Actually, what stands out to me is that, during BB's tenure, the Patriots have ranked better in points allowed per game than in yards allowed per game in every single season. That's some pretty dependable variance, considering that it should be a 50/50 prospect.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, what stands out to me is that, during BB's tenure, the Patriots have ranked better in points allowed per game than in yards allowed per game in every single season. That's some pretty dependable variance, considering that it should be a 50/50 prospect.

Why would you expect a 50/50 prospect given BB's defensive philosophy and it's difference from the norm? If the defense ever is rated higher in yards than points, that's a cause for absolute panic.

 

[Metaphors]

The Patriots are 32nd in yards allowed and 13th in points allowed. So they are the worst team in yards allowed and above average team in points allowed. Buffalo is 31st in yards allowed and 22nd in points allowed. Chicago Bears are 29th in yards allowed and 12th in points allowed. The Packers are 22nd in yards allowed and 7th in points allowed. KC is 19th in yards allowed and 32nd in points allowed. Where is the corelation?

It isn't true what you are saying. There is no correlation between yards and points. You are more likely to give up more points if you give up more yards, but there is no guarantee of that.

Below are two links. One for the ranking of yards allowed and the other points allowed and the there is not a lot of similiarities to the list:

Yards allowed

NFL Stats: by Team Category


Points allowed
NFL Stats: by Team Category

The reason is that football is not baseball. In baseball, as long as the score isn't out of hand, each at bat has similar objectives...inning to inning, game to game, team to team. Stats tend to be reflective of reality. So much so that they have separate stats to account for additional context (IBB, sacrifice, etc.).

Football is different. Context is everything. Each snap is different from every other snap...drive to drive, game to game, team to team. When you aggregate stats in football, you abstract out all context which limits their usefulness.

Even the YPG and PPG differences you point out above don't account for the effect of the offenses. Compare the bottom 10 defenses in YPG and the top 10 offense in PPG and you see 50% carryover...NE, GB, BUF, CHI, OAK. The remaining teams are mostly hapless (STL, IND, MIA, DEN) with TB being the only oddball.

What does this mean? Nothing definitive but it suggests that teams able to score lots of points will tend to yield more yards on defense. Lots of reasons why this might be...opposing teams have to open up their offensive playbook, defending big leads, meaningless drives at end of games, etc. Basically I think it has to do with the mentality of defending a hill (having a superior offense) being different than taking a hill.

But what about the Ravens? They score a lot but don't give up a lot of yards. Their case brings up even more context...quality of opposition and defensive mentality. The Ravens play the AFC South and the NFC West (also known as the Path to the Playoffs). And their defense tends to ignore game situations and tries to dominate every snap. As an army, they are more Mongol Horde than Roman Infantry. That works well when your opposition is weak, sloppy and/or injured. But it also allows a composed Matt Hasselbeck to pass for 350+ yards in an easy win. Does that variability sound like a Belichick team to you?

Comparing the team ERA of the Rangers and the Cardinals can yield some insight. Comparing the defensive yards allowed of the Jags (#8) and the Pats (#32) and drawing any conclusions is just silly.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Actually, what stands out to me is that, during BB's tenure, the Patriots have ranked better in points allowed per game than in yards allowed per game in every single season. That's some pretty dependable variance, considering that it should be a 50/50 prospect.

That should only confirm the Belichick thesis that "Bend but don't Break" Defenses are inherently superior. They will consistntly produce better records than gamble on blitzing Defenses too. Proof? Belichick's W-L %

 

[condon84]

That should only confirm the Belichick thesis that "Bend but don't Break" Defenses are inherently superior. They will consistntly produce better records than gamble on blitzing Defenses too. Proof? Belichick's W-L %

Besides our SB championships, what other defense have won with a bend-but-dont-break philosophy recently?

 

[Metaphors]

The only real stat in football that is meaningful is net points. Correlates very well with team success (for obvious reasons). Only 1 real outlier (TB) in the league (4-2 but with a -32 net). The Pats are #5 in the league in net (+50) and are behind only GB, BAL, SF and DET. While SF is a little high (inverse of TB) that seems like a pretty fair assessment of where NE is at this point.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Your methodology deducts the entire score and yardage allowed in garbage time. However, that cannot be the case as Opposing Offenses do spend time on the field (however minutes in the 4th quarter). An allowance has to be made for the points and yardage that would have been allowed (as in if the defense played during non-garbage time).

I get your point. Our defense has played from behind less than a quarter since the season opened. This defense has not allowed the opposing teams to score repeatedly (Buffs excepted). Keeps them coralled until the offense pulls away.
That's all that matters.

I calculated this out prorating back as if "non garbage". We come up with about a 360 yards per game avg.

After 6 games, we have had roughly one quarter of "garbage" football.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Besides our SB championships, what other defense have won with a bend-but-dont-break philosophy recently?

2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005

For starters.

Are you suppose to be accepting a Mensa award over at Jets Insider?

 

[Airkuhl]

Too much over-thinking in this thread. Different defensive schemes have different goals. In "garbage time", the Pats tend to go into some variation of "force them to burn the clock, even if that means giving up yards."

If there are 5 minutes left in a game and you are up by 9, which is worse, give up 7 points in 4 minutes, or 3 in one minute?

I may not agree with all the definitions and numbers in the OP, but I agree with the general concept that our "garbage time" defense is willing to give up yards on purpose, and it doesn't mean that they are not playing 60 minutes.

 

[Ring 6]

Your methodology deducts the entire score and yardage allowed in garbage time. However, that cannot be the case as Opposing Offenses do spend time on the field (however minutes in the 4th quarter). An allowance has to be made for the points and yardage that would have been allowed (as in if the defense played during non-garbage time).

I get your point. Our defense has played from behind less than a quarter since the season opened. This defense has not allowed the opposing teams to score repeatedly (Buffs excepted). Keeps them coralled until the offense pulls away.
That's all that matters.

I think the 3 and out vs Dallas in the 4th quarter are the only plays our defense has been on the field for while trailing.

 

[Observer]

Too much over-thinking in this thread. Different defensive schemes have different goals. In "garbage time", the Pats tend to go into some variation of "force them to burn the clock, even if that means giving up yards."

If there are 5 minutes left in a game and you are up by 9, which is worse, give up 7 points in 4 minutes, or 3 in one minute?

I may not agree with all the definitions and numbers in the OP, but I agree with the general concept that our "garbage time" defense is willing to give up yards on purpose, and it doesn't mean that they are not playing 60 minutes.

I would like to know if indeed the scoring rate slows down in garbage time vs. the rest of the game. I asked the same question in an earlier post.

 

[condon84]

2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005

For starters.

Are you suppose to be accepting a Mensa award over at Jets Insider?

What qualifies those defenses as bend but don't break?

And also, is it necessary for your posts to always include insults?

 

[Kontradiction]

2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005

For starters.

Are you suppose to be accepting a Mensa award over at Jets Insider?

2010: Green Bay's defense was and is most definitely not a "bend but don't break" defense.

2009: Saints were a BBDB defense that relied on turnovers, and got them at great times.

2008: 2008 Steelers? See Green Bay, 2010.

2007: A defense that's able to CONSTANTLY hit the quarterback with a four to five man pass rush and drop the rest into coverage is a BBDB defense? For a BBDB defense, the greatest offense in history certainly couldn't make it bend very much.

2006: The Colts had a BBDB defense right up until the playoffs when Bob Sanders came back healthy and in his prime.

2005: See 2008 Steelers and 2010 Packers.

That's two defenses out of the six you mentioned that were true BBDB defenses. Both of whom just happened to have very high powered offenses behind them and one of whom qualified as a BBDB until the playoffs when one of their rocks returned. No wonder you were unable to have an intelligent conversation about the defense a few weeks ago. You don't even know what a bend-but-don't-break defense is when you see it, apparently.

 

[condon84]

2010: Green Bay's defense was and is most definitely not a "bend but don't break" defense.

2009: Saints were a BBDB defense that relied on turnovers, and got them at great times.

2008: 2008 Steelers? See Green Bay, 2010.

2007: A defense that's able to CONSTANTLY hit the quarterback with a four to five man pass rush and drop the rest into coverage is a BBDB defense? For a BBDB defense, the greatest offense in history certainly couldn't make it bend very much.

2006: The Colts had a BBDB defense right up until the playoffs when Bob Sanders came back healthy and in his prime.

2005: See 2008 Steelers and 2010 Packers.

That's two defenses out of the six you mentioned that were true BBDB defenses. Both of whom just happened to have very high powered offenses behind them and one of whom qualified as a BBDB until the playoffs when one of their rocks returned. No wonder you were unable to have an intelligent conversation about the defense a few weeks ago. You don't even know what a bend-but-don't-break defense is when you see it, apparently.

Good post and my thoughts exactly. But I really wanted to find out his reasoning for why he mentioned those teams. Just for sh!ts and giggles.

What say you pittsburghfan?