League leading turnover ratio not good sign for w-l the following season....

[FCB02062]

This is from some betting site, but, HISTORICALLY the team that leads the league in turnover differential almost always has a much lower +/- and considerably fewer wins the following season (results through the 2009 season)...

Credit to Doc's Sports Blog - Sports Betting Blog for this info...

2008 Turnover Leader: Miami (11-5 record with +17 turnovers)
2009 Record: Miami (7-9 record, -8 TO) for -4 wins
2007 Turnover Leaders: San Diego (11-5, +24 TO) and Indianapolis (13-3, +18 TO)
2008 Results: San Diego (8-8, +4 TO) and Indianapolis (12-4, +9 TO) for -3 and -1 wins
2006 Turnover Leader: Baltimore (13-3, +17 TO)
2007 Results: Baltimore (5-11, -17 TO) for -8 wins
2005 Turnover Leaders: Cincinnati (11-5, +24 TO) and Denver (13-3, +20 TO)
2006 Results: Cincinnati (8-8, +7 TO) and Denver (9-7, +0 TO), for -3 and -4 wins
2004 Turnover Leaders: Indianapolis (12-4, +19 TO) and New York Jets (10-6, +18 TO)
2005 Results: Indy (14-2, +12 TO) and New York Jets (4-12, -6 TO), for +2 and -6 wins
2003 Turnover Leaders: Kansas City (13-3, +19 TO)
2004 Results: Kansas City (7-9, -6 TO) for -6 wins
2002 Turnover Leaders: Tampa Bay (12-4, +17 TO) and Green Bay (12-4, +17 TO)
2003 Results: Tampa Bay (7-9, +2 TO) and Green Bay (10-6, +0 TO), for -5 and -2 wins
2001 Turnover Leaders: New York Jets (10-6, +18 TO)
2002 Results: Jets (9-7, +4 TO) for -1 win

In the Patriots case, it's hard to argue that their ridiculous TO differential of +28 didn't "inflate" their record. If they're in the middle of the pack in that department they're probably a 10 win team...

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

This is from some betting site, but, HISTORICALLY the team that leads the league in turnover differential almost always has a much lower +/- and considerably fewer wins the following season (results through the 2009 season)...

Seems more like an issue of correlation rather than causation.

In any case, though, note that in the last decade, only nine times has a team won 14 games—but the Patriots are responsible for four of those nine (and the Colts two).

 

[Don Kipines]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

I think this tells us what we already know about the team. They weren't very good on defense,and had trouble getting stops, but they won games because they were often bailed out by turnovers. So clearly there needs to be a defensive improvement.

On the other hand, they were very good on offense and the low turnover count was probably only somewhat of a fluke, especially when you factor in the chief ballhandlers on the team, Brady and Green-Ellis, who historically have always taken good care of the ball.

It's a young team on defense, they have multiple high picks and will probably improve at least a little bit on that side of the ball. I think we'd all take it if they were unluckier next year but won 11 or 12 games and headed into the playoffs with a better defense.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

Given that Brady is as careful with the ball as any QB and BJGE hasn't fumbled since high school, if then, the chance of a turnover prone team next year is almost zero. Sure we'll have a few more, Brady had a few that should have been picked (as all QB do) but BJGE isn't going to suddenly become a fumbler and Brady isn't going to become an INT machine.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

This is from some betting site, but, HISTORICALLY the team that leads the league in turnover differential almost always has a much lower +/- and considerably fewer wins the following season (results through the 2009 season)...

In the Patriots case, it's hard to argue that their ridiculous TO differential of +28 didn't "inflate" their record. If they're in the middle of the pack in that department they're probably a 10 win team...

That's it, we're doomed! ... May as well not bother watching next year.


My guess is you could do the same sort of thing with most points scored, fewest points allowed, most wins, etc., and compare the team's record that season to their record the following year. Or you could do the reverse and look at who has had the worst turnover differential, fewest points scored, most points allowed, and compare their records to the next year. Obviously it is extremely difficult to stay on top (or on the very bottom) in the salary cap/free agency era.

It's probably not very realistic to expect the team to go 14-2 again; so what? On the other hand it is realistic for the defense to improve overall with a year of experience, getting some key players back, hopefully fewer injuries, and some valuable additions in the draft. If and when the team can add some free agents, that should help too. To me that's progress even if the won-loss record goes down.

I find the words you use (ridiculous, inflate) in the last paragraph rather telling though. Everybody knows that the defense needs to improve; that's no secret. But why is it that so many people seem to think winning in large part due to turnovers is something to be ashamed of? I don't see anyone saying the Packers defense simply got lucky and didn't deserve to win the Super Bowl with those three turnovers - but when it comes to the Patriots that seems to be the thought process by many.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

It's an effect that is called "regression to the mean". On average the Patriots will not have a +/- figure anywhere near that, so it's a good bet next season their +/- is less.

Another example of "regression to the mean" is if you only go to the doctor when you are at your very sickest point in an illeness. Now, no matter what the doc does, you are likely to feel better, since, well, you never felt worse and your body has a way of fixing things on its own. He could give you sugar pills or do voodoo chants and you will fell better, and perhaps you'll attribute your recovery to something that in reality had no effect.

So yes, next year we can't expect as large a turnover differential. But our young team could improve enough in other ways to compensate fully.

 

[ChesBay]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

It's an effect that is called "regression to the mean". On average the Patriots will not have a +/- figure anywhere near that, so it's a good bet next season their +/- is less.

Another example of "regression to the mean" is if you only go to the doctor when you are at your very sickest point in an illeness. Now, no matter what the doc does, you are likely to feel better, since, well, you never felt worse and your body has a way of fixing things on its own. He could give you sugar pills or do voodoo chants and you will fell better, and perhaps you'll attribute your recovery to something that in reality had no effect.

So yes, next year we can't expect as large a turnover differential. But our young team could improve enough in other ways to compensate fully.

This :agree::agree:

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

It's an effect that is called "regression to the mean". On average the Patriots will not have a +/- figure anywhere near that, so it's a good bet next season their +/- is less.

That's true but it's "regression to the Patriots mean", not "regression to the League mean". If we have players who are more careful with the ball than the league average then we won't regress to the league mean.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

I think this tells us what we already know about the team. They weren't very good on defense,and had trouble getting stops, but they won games because they were often bailed out by turnovers. So clearly there needs to be a defensive improvement.

On the other hand, they were very good on offense and the low turnover count was probably only somewhat of a fluke, especially when you factor in the chief ballhandlers on the team, Brady and Green-Ellis, who historically have always taken good care of the ball.

It's a young team on defense, they have multiple high picks and will probably improve at least a little bit on that side of the ball. I think we'd all take it if they were unluckier next year but won 11 or 12 games and headed into the playoffs with a better defense.

I like this guy.

Welcome to the forums brother.

 

[FCB02062]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

That's true but it's "regression to the Patriots mean", not "regression to the League mean". If we have players who are more careful with the ball than the league average then we won't regress to the league mean.

If their regressing = 11-5 and a +8 turnover differential AND a deep playoff run I'll be happy as a pig in sh#T...

 

[TriplecHamp]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

Seems more like an issue of correlation rather than causation.

In any case, though, note that in the last decade, only nine times has a team won 14 games—but the Patriots are responsible for four of those nine (and the Colts two).

Psych 101?

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

Psych 101?

Psych? Try statistics...

 

[TriplecHamp]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

Psych? Try statistics...

eh should have known, we used that same phrase in psych when breaking down studies lol.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

I think it's a safe bet that the Pats will win fewer games next year than they did this year, and I think it's also safe to say that their turnover differential will be lower. They can still contend for a SB even in that case, though.

They could go 12-4 with +12 turnovers and, as far as this metric is concerned, it will be a considerable down year.

 

[billdog3484]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

all it tells me is that the turnover battle is very important. my coach always told me,

if you turn the ball over 1 time fewer than your opponent you win 68% of the time

if you turn the ball over 2 times fewer than your opponent you win 80% of the time

if you turn the ball over 3 times fewer than your opponent you win 91% of the time

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

all it tells me is that the turnover battle is very important. my coach always told me,

if you turn the ball over 1 time fewer than your opponent you win 68% of the time

if you turn the ball over 2 times fewer than your opponent you win 80% of the time

if you turn the ball over 3 times fewer than your opponent you win 91% of the time

See: the Super Bowl.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Re: League Leading +/- not good for following season....

I think it's a safe bet that the Pats will win fewer games next year than they did this year, and I think it's also safe to say that their turnover differential will be lower. They can still contend for a SB even in that case, though.

They could go 12-4 with +12 turnovers and, as far as this metric is concerned, it will be a considerable down year.

Not to sound like a homer but regardless of these stats, I could see them going 12-4 to 15-1 again. I will not lay the curse on I think it all depends on how this team addresses it's needs and free agency in the off season. Another slam dunk draft class with LB/DE help and some O-line help could go a long way to making this happen.

I highly believe they will turn the ball over more. That was an anomaly watching opposing players dropping ints those last few weeks. Who knows? Maybe with a revved up pass rush and Bodden and Warren back, the Pats will have an even better +/- turnover ratio next season?