Pats D still Number 2 in AFC points against

[Ring 6]

Yes I did :






So there isn't a stat that correlate to winning an NFL Championship more than differential passer rating. Much more than average defensive PPG.

You didn't prove there is no correlation of how many points you allow in the regular season to how many you allow in the post-season, you gave an anecdotal example.

Passer rating is not a stat, it is a formula, and a poor one.
NET passer rating, is not a defensive stat.
One thing having a correlation does not mean another thing doesn't.

 

[Ring 6]

I'll concede on CK. He was much better against the Dolphins than I expected. I'm not impressed about the gaudy week 9 stats. That was against the Saints who have a truly bad defense.

I'm confused. A bad player does bad against us and our defense sucks, because he tore up a defense that sucks. This makes no sense.

 

[RDS11]

BTW, teams scoring less than 24 points are 13-42 in the playoffs in the last 5 years, and 31-83 in the lasy 10, so pretty much everyone has to score 24 to win.

So basically, you are taking the easy way out.
If we lose and the offense doesn't score 24, then the loss is on the offense, no matter what the defense does. Problem with that logic is that it just prove that the regular season average defensive PPG does not correlate to anything. Scoring above 24 means more.

 

[RDS11]

NET passer rating, is not a defensive stat.
One thing having a correlation does not mean another thing doesn't.

???
That's the whole point of the argument, to show that average PPG is not the be-all, end-all stat some on this board think it is.
I'm showing you the best tool to predict the NFL Champion. Show me another stat that has an higher success rate in predicting the NFL Champion.

Passer rating is not a stat, it is a formula, and a poor one.

Says who ? You ?
Convenient to throw out stats when they don't fit your agenda. Prove me that the formula is a poor one.
If passer rating is so poor, then how the application of that formula leads to the best model for prediction of the NFL Champion over 70 years ?

 

[Ring 6]

So basically, you are taking the easy way out.
If we lose and the offense doesn't score 24, then the loss is on the offense, no matter what the defense does. Problem with that logic is that it just prove that the regular season average defensive PPG does not correlate to anything. Scoring above 24 means more.

WTF are you talking about?
You do realize that football, first of all is not a sport where statistics are very valuable at all, and secondly that any correlation of anything is not THE answer, right?

But you are correct how many points you score and give up are what matters. Amazing it took you this long to figure it out.

 

[RDS11]

WTF are you talking about?
You do realize that football, first of all is not a sport where statistics are very valuable at all, and secondly that any correlation of anything is not THE answer, right?

But you are correct how many points you score and give up are what matters. Amazing it took you this long to figure it out.

So you finally came to the conclusion that being number 3 on average defensive PPG doesn't mean much ?

 

[Ring 6]

???
That's the whole point of the argument, to show that average PPG is not the be-all, end-all stat some on this board think it is.
I'm showing you the best tool to predict the NFL Champion. Show me another stat that has an higher success rate in predicting the NFL Champion.

No one EVER said it was be all end all.
It IS the most important statistic of a defense, followed closely by takeaways.
How a defense played is judged by how many points they allowed, not as an absolute, but in conjunction with takeaways, and situation.
Passer rating is a stupid formula that tells you nothing.
If a QB is 20/30/250 and 3 TDs he has a 125.7 rating
If he is 19/29/249 and 2 TDs but runs the 3rd one in from the 1 he has a 115.4.
That is not a usable statistic.

Says who ? You ?
Convenient to throw out stats when they don't fit your agenda. Prove me that the formula is a poor one.
If passer rating is so poor, then how the application of that formula leads to the best model for prediction of the NFL Champion over 70 years ?

Its called a coincidence. Correlation is not causation.
Are you telling me that the stats that show 100 yard rushers win often is causation?
How about 300 yard passers?

I just showed you one example of the formula stinking.
He is another.

20/21/85/0/0 = 83.5
20/42/300/0/0 = 71.5
32/42/300/0/0 = 95.3



Tell me that makes any sense at all

 

[skinnydog]

I'm confused. A bad player does bad against us and our defense sucks, because he tore up a defense that sucks. This makes no sense.

Now you're just being typically obtuse. I conceded your point as to CK, perhaps you lack reading comprehension. Please show me where I've claimed in this thread that the defense sucks. I've repeated said it's an average defense. And then bad QB performed pretty close to his average as you pointed out above. That's it for me in this thread.

 

[Ring 6]

So you finally came to the conclusion that being number 3 on average defensive PPG doesn't mean much ?

It means that in 11 games the Patriots (takeaways aside) have contributed the 3rd best effort to their team winning.

It is moronic that you think when the game is decided by points, that points mean nothing.

Please give me the examples of teams that scored more points losing because of another statistic.

 

[RDS11]

No one EVER said it was be all end all.
It IS the most important statistic of a defense, followed closely by takeaways.
How a defense played is judged by how many points they allowed, not as an absolute, but in conjunction with takeaways, and situation.
Passer rating is a stupid formula that tells you nothing.
If a QB is 20/30/250 and 3 TDs he has a 125.7 rating
If he is 19/29/249 and 2 TDs but runs the 3rd one in from the 1 he has a 115.4.
That is not a usable statistic.

I'm guessing you are not a math major.
The way you use statistics more closely follows how politician are using them. You are throwing passer rating numbers out of nowhere, and that's proof for you ? How about context ?

I will repeat myself, because I'm arguing with a toddler. After that, I'm done.
POINTS is the most important stat. As in the final score OF A GIVEN GAME.
Taking 16 different games and taking the average is irrelevant. First, a win is a win. Second, a 16 game sample is much too small to make anything of it. And since you refuse to take into consideration the strength of these 16 opponents and compare it to what other teams faced, it means even less.

Its called a coincidence. Correlation is not causation.

Coincidence ? You got to be kidding. A coincidence over 70 years, that's one crazy big coincidence...
Obviously correlation is not causation. We are talking about a prediction model. But that's the whole point of evaluating the importance of a given statistic.

Are you telling me that the stats that show 100 yard rushers win often is causation?
How about 300 yard passers?

You keep changing the subject. We are talking about the defensive PPG, remember ?
I said that it wasn't a relevant stat pertaining to postseason success. I gave you a better way of evaluating our postseason chances. What does this have to do with 100 yard rushers and 300 yard passers all of a sudden, I don't know, except that I have proven you wrong and you try to go in as many direction as possible to make a point that doesn't exist.

 

[RDS11]

I'll show another example why the defensive PPG does not mean much, how can 1 aberration changes the whole picture.

Let's say the Pats lose the next game 59-0 (let's reverse the outcome of the last time the Pats faced a Fisher team in Foxboro). Then all of a sudden, instead of being number 3 we become number 11th in defensive PPG in the league. Now, for those who thought the defense was great before the game, do you change your opinion after that ? Because this result doesn't change anything to the 11 games that were played before, so if you change your opinion, that's based on the results of a single game.

 

[mihap]

Please...just stop. This defense is below average.

hopefully they will improve

 

[Ring 6]

I'm guessing you are not a math major.
The way you use statistics more closely follows how politician are using them. You are throwing passer rating numbers out of nowhere, and that's proof for you ? How about context ?

Why would you need context to see it is a terrible formula.

Not sure how I am 'using statistics' when I am the one saying result on the field matters.

I will repeat myself, because I'm arguing with a toddler. After that, I'm done.

Good because you are acting like one.

POINTS is the most important stat. As in the final score OF A GIVEN GAME.
Taking 16 different games and taking the average is irrelevant. First, a win is a win. Second, a 16 game sample is much too small to make anything of it. And since you refuse to take into consideration the strength of these 16 opponents and compare it to what other teams faced, it means even less.

So no statistic at all is valid then? That's what I have been saying for years. Statistics do not relate to analyzing football well at all. Its about scoring points, stopping the other team, matchups, situations and winning.
In baseball you can reasonably replicate situations enough to make statistics valid. In football its not even close.

Coincidence ? You got to be kidding. A coincidence over 70 years, that's one crazy big coincidence...
Obviously correlation is not causation. We are talking about a prediction model. But that's the whole point of evaluating the importance of a given statistic.

Yes a coincidence. Someone created a formula that favors teams playing from ahead, and VOILA teams do well when they are good in that statistic. Correlation is not causation, and passer rating is a stupid formula, as I showed.

You keep changing the subject. We are talking about the defensive PPG, remember ?

LOL. You bring in a non-causal correlation and I list others that are non-causal and you think I changed the subject.

I said that it wasn't a relevant stat pertaining to postseason success.

But you are wrong.

I gave you a better way of evaluating our postseason chances

No you really didn't.

. What does this have to do with 100 yard rushers and 300 yard passers all of a sudden, I don't know, except that I have proven you wrong and you try to go in as many direction as possible to make a point that doesn't exist.

You have proven nothing. I am 'going in different directions' because you are bringing in idiocy.
Passer rating is no more cause and effect than who ran the most. If you play from ahead, you create those stats.

 

[mosslost]

???
That's the whole point of the argument, to show that average PPG is not the be-all, end-all stat some on this board think it is.
I'm showing you the best tool to predict the NFL Champion. Show me another stat that has an higher success rate in predicting the NFL Champion.



Says who ? You ?
Convenient to throw out stats when they don't fit your agenda. Prove me that the formula is a poor one.
If passer rating is so poor, then how the application of that formula leads to the best model for prediction of the NFL Champion over 70 years ?

>>I'm showing you the best tool to predict the NFL Champion. Show me another stat that has an higher success rate in predicting the NFL Champion.

Um.. no.

That's a good stat. But "Scoreboard" is 100% accurate.

 

[Ring 6]

I'll show another example why the defensive PPG does not mean much, how can 1 aberration changes the whole picture.

Let's say the Pats lose the next game 59-0 (let's reverse the outcome of the last time the Pats faced a Fisher team in Foxboro). Then all of a sudden, instead of being number 3 we become number 11th in defensive PPG in the league. Now, for those who thought the defense was great before the game, do you change your opinion after that ? Because this result doesn't change anything to the 11 games that were played before, so if you change your opinion, that's based on the results of a single game.

So no statistic is valid? Because you can make up something that will never happen?
As I have said all along. The ability to not allow points is what is most important.
You can create a bunch of statistics but they do not tell you whether that defense allows points unless you look at points.

My comments have centered mostly on the fact that in 7 of the last 8 games the defense allowed 17 points or less (discounting the garbage TD by the Bills vs backups) and that is absolutely excellent defense no matter who you are playing.

I have no interest in trying to parse statistics to show why you think something different than what actually happened on the field could have, should have or would have.

Games are played on the field. Statistics are for Madden, or people trying to prove something that doesn't exist. When you have a result of how many points a team allows, you do not need to examine the statistics that 'typically' result in allowing points when they do not with that team.

I guess you can find some stats to say we should be 5-4 too, but that is equally hogwash.

 

[RDS11]

>>I'm showing you the best tool to predict the NFL Champion. Show me another stat that has an higher success rate in predicting the NFL Champion.

Um.. no.

That's a good stat. But "Scoreboard" is 100% accurate.

Thank you Mr Obvious.

I said 'predicting'. Once the game is played, prediction are useless.

 

[Ring 6]

Thank you Mr Obvious.

I said 'predicting'. Once the game is played, prediction are useless.

this isn't really about predicting any way. I know you tried to push it toward that to avoid the facts but this has always been about how the defense has played through 11 games.

 

[luuked]

Thank you Mr Obvious.

I said 'predicting'. Once the game is played, prediction are useless.

Go become a Seahawks fan where you can jerk off to SPARQ and that simple, never changing defense of theirs that they apply so well and enjoy being able to predict their performances against teams like the Bucs.

I'd rather sit here and enjoy watching other teams struggling to consistently put up points against us because we are the hardest team to prepare for.

Nobody knows what our offense or defense will focus upon on any given Sunday which also means your precious stats are all useless to properly model this team and its impossible by design to predict anything in the future.

 

[RDS11]

this isn't really about predicting any way. I know you tried to push it toward that to avoid the facts but this has always been about how the defense has played through 11 games.

Please read my posts instead of trying to have the last word. You are being childish, saying 'you're wrong' every time I'm bringing a proven fact. It reminds me of a Presidential debate, but let's leave that for the Political forum.

So I'm repeating myself again: I have never said this defense is bad. Never said this defense is great. Never said this team shouldn't be 9-2. I have not even tried to predict the results of games to come.

I said that the current efficiency numbers of this defense are not good, and no Super Bowl winner have been able to win it all despite such mediocre defensive efficiency numbers. Because that's the goal, right ? Win the Super Bowl ?

I have shown the best tool to predict a Super Bowl winner. No other statistic model comes close to what the differential passer rating has predicted in the last 70 years. You have chosen to ignore this argument for some obtuse reasons. That's your right, even though you couldn't come up with anything better. Doesn't make my argument less valid because of your idea of what makes a defense great.

That being said, using this model, the Pats are still looking good. They are looking good because the offense has been amazing so far. And the question that I dare to ask is : what if the offense cannot attain this level of greatness in a given playoff game ? Could the defense overcome that ? And, in my opinion, they can't.

 

[RDS11]

Go become a Seahawks fan where you can jerk off to SPARQ and that simple, never changing defense of theirs that they apply so well and enjoy being able to predict their performances against teams like the Bucs.

I'd rather sit here and enjoy watching other teams struggling to consistently put up points against us because we are the hardest team to prepare for.

Nobody knows what our offense or defense will focus upon on any given Sunday which also means your precious stats are all useless to properly model this team and its impossible by design to predict anything in the future.

So you don't think this stat apply to the Pats, because of their 'chameleon' defense ?

In the Belichick years, 5 of their top 7 years in differential passer rating resulted in a Super Bowl berth. On the other end, 3 of the worst 5 years in differential passer rating were years we didn't make the playoffs.

There's an obvious pattern, even for the Pats.

2016 looks good so far (5th best year in the Belichick era), but in this model the offense is carrying much of the weight.