the difference in the defense between this week and last

[Ring 6]

I'm 100% confident that the "gameplan" didn't say "let's let them drive to the 1, then try to stop them"

No, the gameplan said we are ahead by 18 points with less than 19 minutes left.
The 'gameplan' said we need to prioritize taking away the quick score. The downside of those defensive calls is that they could drive the length of the field in 6 minutes, if they do not care that they are using up so much clock that the game will be out of reach by then. They decided to take that 6 minutes, and we were happy with the downside.
If the Steelers did what they shouldhave to win, and tried to score in less than 2-3 minutes, so they have a chance to have enough time to get back in the game, that drive would have gone entirely differently.
You are criticizing our defense for playing the correct scheme, and saying it is bad because Pittsburgh did exactly what we would want them to, call plays that would require burning 6 minutes of time, which was more than they could afford to.
But, hey, their stats looked prettier that way.

 

[RayClay]

no, I never said that the Red Sox are run "only" on stats. I have said various times that a mix of the subjective (scouting) and the objective (stats) will produce the best analysis. I have linked to various articles which say the same. however, stats do form a very healthy part of their decision analysis.

but your fear and loathing of stats have led you to believe that that's what I mean.

in either case, saying "stats are for losers" is dumb.

All that matters with statistics is interpreting them and using them in the right situation.

If they are used incorrectly, it doesn't matter what numbers you come up with.

 

[makewayhomer]

How does a post analyzing a play have anything to do with arguing that reading stats is how you assess football?

b/c somebody above said that I and other "statheads" have no understanding of the nuances of football. the guy who wrote that article is one of the main forces behind Football Outsiders. my guess is that he understand the nuances of football far better than people who mock his work.

Furthermore how does watching the film of a play and typing what each player did indicate any knowledge or insight?

uh, it's called understanding X's and O's dude, and the point is that they are learning WHY certain plays succeed. I guess you didn't actually read what I pasted?

 

[makewayhomer]

All that matters with statistics is interpreting them and using them in the right situation.

If they are used incorrectly, it doesn't matter what numbers you come up with.

wow amazing insight

 

[Ring 6]

no, I never said that the Red Sox are run "only" on stats. I have said various times that a mix of the subjective (scouting) and the objective (stats) will produce the best analysis. I have linked to various articles which say the same. however, stats do form a very healthy part of their decision analysis.

but your fear and loathing of stats have led you to believe that that's what I mean.

in either case, saying "stats are for losers" is dumb.

See this is where you lose.
Anyone on this board will tell you, I am somewhat of a stat guy. But raw stats tell you absolutely nothing. They must be taken in CONTEXT. Yards that do not add up to points are almost meaningless. Stats are a VEHICLE to winning and losing. Equal raw stats, on their face, have a very different impact on winning or losing when you analyze them. The fact that the Steelers gained yards, in and of itself tells you something. But you cannot know what it tells you until you watch the game, and look at the situations those stats were accumulated in. Its just like the Marino discussion. A novice would say he had the best stats ever, therefore is the best QB ever. But when you look inside those stats, you see first that his offense was designed for him to accumulate stats. (That is not a knock, because his team felt that was the best way to win, but it blurs the comparison between his stats and other QBs') But when it came to the post-season, he was the primary reason they lost, in most of their losses. To be the greatest, he should come through when it matters, otherwise those stats went for nothing.

Look at the argument here. You are citing stats to decry that drive, yet are totally ignoring the situation. Do you truly believe that if it were a 7 point game at that point, the Pats would have played the same schemes that they played up 18? You can't, can you? How can you dismiss that part of defensive strategy is that when the clock is in your favor, you are willing to allow plays that result in timeconsuming drives, at the expense of giving up big plays?

While Theo Epstein is reading those stats, Terry Francona is having his 1st and 3rd basemen guarding the lines, in the 9th up by 3. If that results in more singles through the hole, does Epstein treat that on the statsheet as bad pitching.

 

[makewayhomer]

See this is where you lose.
Anyone on this board will tell you, I am somewhat of a stat guy. But raw stats tell you absolutely nothing. They must be taken in CONTEXT.

umm, this is the entire point behind DPAR and DVOA. perhaps you should read up on it.

I'll paste it again:

THE SHORT VERSION: DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on SITUATION. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: five yards on 3rd-and-4 are worth more than five yards on 1st-and-10 and much more than five yards on 3rd-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent.

While Theo Epstein is reading those stats, Terry Francona is having his 1st and 3rd basemen guarding the lines, in the 9th up by 3. If that results in more singles through the hole, does Epstein treat that on the statsheet as bad pitching.

Theo is smart enough to know luck from skill

 

[FirstAndGoal]

was not as much as some would have you believe.

Baltimore's RB's ran 36 times for 162 yards (4.5 Y/C).

Pittsburgh's RB's ran 27 times for 157 yards (5.8 Y/C)

Edge: Pitt

Ben was 19/32, 187 yards, 1 TD.
Boller was 15/23 , 210, 2 TD, 1 INT.

Edge: Boller

of course, Baltimore scored 24 points, Pitt 13. but remove some terrible playcalling on the goaline (when Pitt ran a fade route, then the WR run, where Rodney made 2 great play) and just pound ahead twice, and I think Pitt ends up with 20 points.

basically, for all the talk about how "we stepped up", etc, I'm not sure we were that much better, defensively.

(offensively, we certainly played a lot better)

You're wrong. Pitt ran when we let them run. We went to the nickle when they got yards in the second half. Who cares if they run when we're up by 20 points? Let them run at that point.

Baltimore ran when they wanted to run, not when we wanted to let them run. Huge difference.

 

[makewayhomer]

You're wrong. Pitt ran when we let them run. We went to the nickle when they got yards in the second half. Who cares if they run when we're up by 20 points? Let them run at that point.

Baltimore ran when they wanted to run, not when we wanted to let them run. Huge difference.

No, you are wrong. in the first half, when the game was close, Pitt rushed 12 times for 58 yards, average of 4.8

 

[RayClay]

wow amazing insight

It would be for you if you understood it, believe me.

 

[Deus Irae]

umm, this is the entire point behind DPAR and DVOA. perhaps you should read up on it.

I'll paste it again:

THE SHORT VERSION: DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on SITUATION. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: five yards on 3rd-and-4 are worth more than five yards on 1st-and-10 and much more than five yards on 3rd-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent.



Theo is smart enough to know luck from skill

DVOA is just a formula created by a group on a website. It's nothing more than that. It's got major flaws, just like every other attempt to statistically quantify any of the 'motion' sports (football, basketball, hockey).

 

[makewayhomer]

DVOA is just a formula created by a group on a website. It's nothing more than that. It's got major flaws, just like every other attempt to statistically quantify any of the 'motion' sports (football, basketball, hockey).

I would love to hear your thoughts on how the team or unit DVOA rankings have "major flaws".

 

[makewayhomer]

It would be for you if you understood it, believe me.

of course I understand it. what you said should be obvious to anyone

 

[bradmahn]

No, you are wrong. in the first half, when the game was close, Pitt rushed 12 times for 58 yards, average of 4.8

Did you look at the breakdown I posted of the runs they had in that half?

I doubt you did because you're an arrogant know-it-all.

 

[bradmahn]

I would love to hear your thoughts on how the team or unit DVOA rankings have "major flaws".

Does DVOA take into account a lead? Time on the clock? The defense that is being played?

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

the difference was the pats ahd the lead the entire game

 

[makewayhomer]

Did you look at the breakdown I posted of the runs they had in that half?

I doubt you did because you're an arrogant prick.

if you don't count the long one, the average goes down.

but, the long one happened.

if you're argument is "the run defense was good except for 1 terrible play", then I agree.

 

[makewayhomer]

Does DVOA take into account a lead? Time on the clock? The defense that is being played?

yes, yes, yes

"Every single play run in the NFL gets a "success value" based on this system, and then that number gets compared to the average success values of plays in similar situations for all players, adjusted for a number of variables. These include down and distance, field location, time remaining in game, and current scoring lead or deficit. "

 

[FirstAndGoal]

No, you are wrong. in the first half, when the game was close, Pitt rushed 12 times for 58 yards, average of 4.8

Right, and 30 of that came on one play.

How much the second half? Exactly. Let them eat up the clock. Who cares?

 

[makewayhomer]

Right, and 30 of that came on one play.

How much the second half? Exactly. Let them eat up the clock. Who cares?

jesus, you guys keep acting like the game was over at that point.

When Hines Ward was stopped at the 1, the clock was at 13:32. that drive started int he 3rd quarter!

and the score was 31-13. it's not like the Pats main strategy in the 3rd quarter was to kill the clock. I mean they aren't against it, but they're much happier getting the ball back at that point with a 3 and out so they can score more.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

jesus, you guys keep acting like the game was over at that point.

When Hines Ward was stopped at the 1, the clock was at 13:32. that drive started int he 3rd quarter!

and the score was 31-13. it's not like the Pats main strategy in the 3rd quarter was to kill the clock. I mean they aren't against it, but they're much happier getting the ball back at that point with a 3 and out so they can score more.

It was over as soon as Pitt started running when they were down. If you think it wasn't, then you need to pay closer attention.

Also, we kept throwing short passes. Completed passes keep the clock running too. In fact, the Pats stated that the reason they stayed with the passing game was that Pitt kept their run-stoppers in the game.

BTW, they ran for over 100 yards in the second half. How many points did that yield?

If we were so worried about the run game in the second half, why did we stay in the nickle?