Interesting Stat, That Shows Football Stats Arent That Meaningful

[Ring 6]

What you're actually arguing is that some stats (the ones you don't like) aren't accurate enough for your satisfaction. That's fine and all, and it's something of a point (essentially that, in sports, compiler a/k/a cumulative stats are often a lot less meaningful than other types of stats) but that's not new ground, and it's an essentially hollow argument. Nobody looks to total yardage in a game and says "I can't believe Miami won that game, when they were out gained 300-299!", and nobody looks at total yardage in a season as the signature stat for which team will win the Super Bowl.

But, if you want to get a decent start at figuring out which offenses/defenses were best, or worst, total yardage isn't a bad place to go. It's not perfect, you can usually find exceptions, and context is important, but it can be a good indicator.

2017 NFL Team Total Stats - National Football League - ESPN
2017 NFL Team Total Stats - National Football League - ESPN

I’m talking about using stats as predictive of how a game will turn out.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

points per game:
NE-28.6
Phil-28.6

points allowed per game
NE-18.5
Phil-18.4

Compare home and away points allowed. Eagles are much worse ( 9 points per game or so) while Pats are much better on the road ( about 4 ppg)...

 

[Deus Irae]

Teams with better offensive and defensive stats seem to end up in the playoffs. For instance NE and PHI were 4th and 5th in defensive scoring and 2nd and 3rd in offensive scoring.

Top 12 offenses (by yards, those that didn't make the playoffs are in bold)

NE
NO
Pit
LAC (game winning FG missed, game tying FG missed)
KC
Jax
Phi
Atl
Tam (dead last in defensive yards allowed)
LAR
Min
SF (24th in defensive yards allowed, offensive yardage skyrocket after JAG began playing,)

Top 12 defenses (by yards, those that didn't make the playoffs are in bold)

Min
Jax
Den (17th in offensive yardage, but lousy QB play: 2nd in INTs)
Phi
Pit
Ari (Lost starting QB for season, finished 22nd in offensive yardage gained: 4th in INTs)
Car
Dal (Without best offensive player for 6 weeks, complete offensive disruption)
Atl
Chi
Sea (Lost all those defensive players, then dropped 3 of last 4)
Bal (26th in offensive yards gained, choked playoffs with week 17 loss)


So 9 of the top 12 yardage offenses made the playoffs and 7 of the top 12 yardage defenses made the playoffs. Those who fit one group or the other had pretty obvious reasons as to why they didn't make the playoffs (The Ravens' missing is the most pathetic and least justified, IMO, especially because they were also #1 in turnover differential)

Interestingly, 5 of the top 12 (well, 13, because of a tie) teams in NFL takeaway differential failed to make the playoffs.

2017 NFL Team Givetake Stats - National Football League - ESPN

 

[Deus Irae]

I’m talking about using stats as predictive of how a game will turn out.

Same rules apply.

 

[Deus Irae]

9 of the top 12 scoring offenses made the playoffs (Lions, Ravens and Seahawks missed)
9 of the top 12 scoring defenses made the playoffs (Chargers, Ravens and Bears missed)

The Ravens are the only team to field both a top 12 scoring offense and top 12 scoring defense and miss the playoffs. The Patriots, Eagles, Vikings, Jaguars, Steelers, Saints, Panthers and Rams, also in the top 12 in both scoring offense and scoring defense, all made the playoffs.

So, 8 of the 9 teams that were top 12 in both offense and defensive ppg made the playoffs.

 

[Deus Irae]

In the AFC, every playoff team was among the top 8 teams in point differential, and the two teams that didn't make the playoffs with a top 6 point differential were the Chargers and Ravens, both of whom lost out on tiebreakers.

In the NFC, the top 6 teams in point differential were the 6 playoff teams.

 

[Deus Irae]

So, yes, stats can be quite meaningful in sports. What they aren't is perfect, especially without context, but nobody should be expecting such perfection anyway.

 

[PlainOldEd]

.......Finally for comic relief I will add the Browns.

The Browns played 1026 snaps of defense. On 57% of them they have less than a 20% probability to win, on 88% they had less than 40, and on a whopping 23 snaps, or 2% they have an 80% or better probability of winning.

when they figured the 23 snaps where the Browns had a 80%+ chance to win did they take into consideration that they were... uh, the Browns?

 

[Deus Irae]

If you want to see a pretty good stat for a specific team's win/loss situation, here's one for you (I acknowledge that I did the lookup in a tedious manner, so it's possible that I made an error somewhere, but it's a stat worth noting even if I missed an instance, IMO):

The Patriots and Eagles are a combined 28-6 this season. In each of the six losses, the starting QB of the opponent had a better QB rating than the Patriot/Eagle counterpart. The Patriots are 14-3, but I thought adding the Eagles' data would be a nice little extra tidbit.

The Patriots were 17-2 last season. In both of the losses, the starting QB of the opponent had a better QB rating than the Patriot counterpart.

In 2015, the Patriots went 13-5. In 4 of the 5 losses, the starting QB of the opponent had a better QB rating than the Patriot counterpart. The only loss where the Patriot QB had the higher QB rating was the overtime loss to Denver.

In 2014, the Patriots went 15-4. In all 4 losses, the starting QB of the opponent had a better QB rating than the Patriot counterpart.

In 2013, the Patriots went 13-5. In all 5 losses, the starting QB of the opponent had a better QB rating than the Patriot counterpart.

In 2012, the Patriots went 13-5. In all 5 losses, the starting QB of the opponent had a better QB rating than the Patriot counterpart.

In 2011, the Patriots went 15-4 In 3 of the 4 losses, the starting QB of the opponent had a better QB rating than the Patriots counterpart.

So, you have to go all the way back to the 2011 season (v. Pit, on 10/30/2011) to find a game where the Patriots lost in regulation without the opposing QB having a higher QB rating than the Patriots starter, which means that, beginning with the 2011 season, the Patriots have had the lower starting QB rating in 26 of their 28 losses.

 

[Poker]

Andy,

Thanks very interesting. Point being, total yards is not meaningless, but it’s an aggregate of very different situations calling for different strategies of defense. Like a pitchers era in a 1-1 tie game vs a 9-1 game.

Can you tease out easily from that data how good the pats D is comparatively when they have to clamp down ie when prob of winning is 50% or less? Anecdotally they’ve done it in a lot of big games over last 3 years.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

It really doesn't mean that. Even if Brady won every SB since 2007 the QB with the highest yardage would not have won a SB. The idea there's been some philosophical shift since 2014 on passing doesn't show in the stats. It doesn't say much about the team offense. Last year he was a bigger part of the offense than 2013, 2014, or this year, averaging more yards per game.

In a lot of those SBs the QB with more yards on the season still won so it's certainly not a negative correlation. Brady had more yards than Wilson in 14. Manning more than Brady but beat us in 13. Eli had near identical yards as Brady in 12.

I just said the offense was more balanced starting in 2014.

I was talking about the style of the offense and how when it is balanced and more of a strategic style off offense, our own defense has always looked better.

This is why i feel the offense lost us sb 42 and 46, not the defense.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

There's a balance in there and I'll get better, but it's been an interesting hobby so far.

Gedankenexperiment: On the side, I challenge you to knowingly not change your methodology in another version of your predictive project, and by dint of limiting/expanding your time series, etc., consider the best ad copy to describe your "system" if you were to market it in a given "up" week.

Consider that any stat you like, every week, and do it ex post facto. With luck, your initial method from this year will yield results that you could use to lure in suckers.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Er, the gedanken part means don't really do it. I should have phrased the rest of the post to match the first line.

 

[Ring 6]

Same rules apply.

Not at all.
Better teams make more plays and end up being above average in cumulative statistics.
This is not all what I am talking about.
But you have moved so far away from my point that there is no sense in starting what this would turn into.