Stats the correlate well with scoring

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Stats that correlate well with scoring

    Given the dearth of football news right now, I spent a little time looking at some of the commonly available stats to see which correlated most strongly with scoring.  We all know that, when judging an offense, points scored by the offense is the most important stat.  But my question was which other stats, if any, are good indications of how much an offense will score?  

    A few things don't correlate well with scoring:

    • Run-pass balance.  This bugaboo has almost no correlation at all with offensive points scored.  It seems like lots of the highest scoring teams in the league pass a lot, but so do a lot of the lowest scoring teams. 
    • Basic rushing stats, like attempts, yards, and yards per carry. These have a weak correlation with scoring. The highest scoring teams have a slight tendency to get a bit more from their running game, but there are lots of exceptions.  

    Better correlations with scoring seem to be many of the passing statistics, including:

    • Completion percentage
    • Passing yards
    • Low number of sacks given up
    • Yards per completion


    The absolute best correlations with scoring, though, are three yards statistics:

    • Total yards. Good.
    • Yards per play. Better.
    • Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    I see the data but I disagree with on general thing and that's the run-pass doesn't correlate.

    In general I agree it's doesn't correlate in a direct manner however there are some variables not accounted for:

    • High scoring teams tend to pass more and also tend to have higher amounts of possessions because of the higher number of passes. More possessions give more oppertunity to score in general so games tend to be higher scoring as a whole for both teams.
    • Bad teams tend to fall behind so they tend to have to pass more and of course bad teams don't score well so it's a skewed stat.
    • High running teams tend to have less possessions per game so obviously less chances to score, however, the other team also tends to have less chances to score too so in general lower scoring games.

    So as much as you run can and general does affect the amount of possible scoring by limiting possessions and chances to score in general. Bad teams that are forced to become one dimensional then further skew the stat because they are forced into a single dimension limiting their ability to score.

    However, I would love to see the stat of points per series of each 3 phases. I would wager those who are to one extreme or the other tend to have a lower point per series average than those with balance. This is mainly due to the ability of a D to concentrate on a single aspect or have to worry about multiple issues. I'm willing to be those with more balanced run games (with good QB's) tend to see a bump in completion %, ypc, and net yards per play while also reducing lost yards and sacks.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Sacks are a big deal. A high percentage of the time they equate to a defensive stop. So they are a huge factor regarding scoring.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    As usual Queen Babe is attacking the defense in order to excuse the offense ( and by extension her love) from any responsibility for losses

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see the data but I disagree with on general thing and that's the run-pass doesn't correlate.

    In general I agree it's doesn't correlate in a direct manner however there are some variables not accounted for:

    • High scoring teams tend to pass more and also tend to have higher amounts of possessions because of the higher number of passes. More possessions give more oppertunity to score in general so games tend to be higher scoring as a whole for both teams.
    • Bad teams tend to fall behind so they tend to have to pass more and of course bad teams don't score well so it's a skewed stat.
    • High running teams tend to have less possessions per game so obviously less chances to score, however, the other team also tends to have less chances to score too so in general lower scoring games.

    So as much as you run can and general does affect the amount of possible scoring by limiting possessions and chances to score in general. Bad teams that are forced to become one dimensional then further skew the stat because they are forced into a single dimension limiting their ability to score.

    However, I would love to see the stat of points per series of each 3 phases. I would wager those who are to one extreme or the other tend to have a lower point per series average than those with balance. This is mainly due to the ability of a D to concentrate on a single aspect or have to worry about multiple issues. I'm willing to be those with more balanced run games (with good QB's) tend to see a bump in completion %, ypc, and net yards per play while also reducing lost yards and sacks.

    [/QUOTE]

    These are possibilities, Eng, but I'm not sure we can assume that more passing necessarily leads to more posssessions.  In fact, in 2011,  GB, NO, and NE were all high-scoring teams that passed a lot and all had below average number of offensive possessions.  GB and NO both had relatively long TOP/drive, so that reduced possessions.  NE had average TOP/drive on offense, but gave up lots of TOP/drive on defense, reducing possessions too. I'll look more closely when I'm home, but I'm not sure the old ideas about running really hold in today's NFL.  I think there's a reason we are seeing the evolution to less running and more passing, and it's because OCs are seeing that an efficient passing game is critical to sustaining drives. you do need to mix in the run a bit, but maybe only on 4 in 10 plays.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    These are possibilities, Eng, but I'm not sure we can assume that more passing necessarily leads to more posssessions.  In fact, in 2011,  GB, NO, and NE were all high-scoring teams that passed a lot and all had below average number of offensive possessions.  GB and NO both had relatively long TOP/drive, so that reduced possessions.  NE had average TOP/drive on offense, but gave up lots of TOP/drive on defense, reducing possessions too. I'll look more closely when I'm home, but I'm not sure the old ideas about running really hold in today's NFL.  I think there's a reason we are seeing the evolution to less running and more passing, and it's because OCs are seeing that an efficient passing game is critical to sustaining drives. you do need to mix in the run a bit, but maybe only on 4 in 10 plays.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    11' from NFL.com

    Total plays for O

    #1 NO - 1,117 plays (2nd in passing att)

    #2 NE - 1,082 plays (3rd in passing att)

    GB was #28 though with 988 plays

    However, Det 4th in league in scoring was 1st in league in passing att and 4th in total O plays

    so 3 out of the 4 highest in scoring per game were also in the top 4 in passing atts per game and in total plays per game

    http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&season=2011&seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&role=TM&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&conference=ALL&d-447263-s=SCRIMMAGE_PLAYS

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Troy Aikman's efficiency ratings he was doing a while back are a pretty accurate measure of offensive performance.  I'm sure the bonehead didn't calculate the metrics himself so not to worry.

    Link

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    These are possibilities, Eng, but I'm not sure we can assume that more passing necessarily leads to more posssessions.  In fact, in 2011,  GB, NO, and NE were all high-scoring teams that passed a lot and all had below average number of offensive possessions.  GB and NO both had relatively long TOP/drive, so that reduced possessions.  NE had average TOP/drive on offense, but gave up lots of TOP/drive on defense, reducing possessions too. I'll look more closely when I'm home, but I'm not sure the old ideas about running really hold in today's NFL.  I think there's a reason we are seeing the evolution to less running and more passing, and it's because OCs are seeing that an efficient passing game is critical to sustaining drives. you do need to mix in the run a bit, but maybe only on 4 in 10 plays.

     

     



    11' from NFL.com

    Total plays for O

    #1 NO - 1,117 plays (2nd in passing att)

    #2 NE - 1,082 plays (3rd in passing att)

    GB was #28 though with 988 plays

    However, Det 4th in league in scoring was 1st in league in passing att and 4th in total O plays

    so 3 out of the 4 highest in scoring per game were also in the top 4 in passing atts per game and in total plays per game

    http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&season=2011&seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&role=TM&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&conference=ALL&d-447263-s=SCRIMMAGE_PLAYS

    [/QUOTE]

    Total plays don't equate to total drives though.  All three of those teams were good at sustaining drives, which meant they averaged more plays per drive, but not more drives.

     The thing that seems to be driving scoring success is sustaining drives, and a lot of the ability to do that rests on efficient passing.  Running is nice for variety, but it's passing that keeps drive alive and leads to points. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    This team will score some points. How about what correlates with red zone scoring? And what correlates with holding a lead in the 4th quarter? And what stats correlate with playoff game winning percentage?

    We are not rally concernedf about whether the Patriots score 480 points or 580 points as much as what their winning percentage is and how deep they go in the playoffs. So more than points is effectiveness. Can they control the game when they have a lead? Can they take leads into the 4th quarter. ...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to seymonster's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Troy Aikman's efficiency ratings he was doing a while back are a pretty accurate measure of offensive performance.  I'm sure the bonehead didn't calculate the metrics himself so not to worry.

    Link

    [/QUOTE]


    This is impossible. The offense #6 and the defense #18? The homers will never stand for this.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Given the dearth of football news right now, I spent a little time looking at some of the commonly available stats to see which correlated most strongly with scoring.  We all know that, when judging an offensive, points scored by the offense is the most important stat.  But my question was which other stats, if any, are good indications of how much an offense will score?  

    A few things don't correlate well with scoring:

    • Run-pass balance.  This bugaboo has almost no correlation at all with offensive points scored.  It seems like lots of the highest scoring teams in the league pass a lot, but so do a lot of the lowest scoring teams. 
    • Basic rushing stats, like attempts, yards, and yards per carry. These have a weak correlation with scoring. The highest scoring teams have a slight tendency to get a bit more from their running game, but there are lots of exceptions.  

    Better correlations with scoring seem to be many of the passing statistics, including:

    • Completion percentage
    • Passing yards
    • Low number of sacks given up
    • Yards per completion


    The absolute best correlations with scoring, though, are three yards statistics:

    • Total yards. Good.
    • Yards per play. Better.
    • Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll Buy that for a dollar!

    Quick Trivia. What movie is that line from?  Recently Remade

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    I'll Buy that for a dollar!

    Quick Trivia. What movie is that line from?  Recently Remade

    [/QUOTE]

    Robocop, I believe it was crazy eddie? He was with 3 women in bathing suits I remember that much.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    The analysis has to be considered in light of which teams drive the numbers with outliers, with performance far better than the norm and WHY that's the case...teams like NO and NE pass more than other teams and have substantially better QB's, so the teams with better QB's will have better passing attacks, all other things being equal...so for these stats to be a bit more meaningful, this would have to be taken into account. Also, the factors which help QB's  to dominate opposing defenses have to be taken into account....not every QB can control a defense like Manning and Brady and the other "elite" QB's....there may be no way to completely quantify those factors, but they have toi be examined when interpreting the summary stats.

    The only true way to determine Off. efficiency, and specificly passing efficiency, has to be in relation to specific opposing Def. efficiency at the same time...You mention Sacks as a key impact limiting factor in Passing Efficiency, but other factors, like pass pressures and specific down versus Def. formation would have to be fully explored to efffectively measure true Off efficiency and pass efficiency...

    Interesting facts you bring up...thanks for the discussion.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring


    how about pts. for?  lol :)

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    I'll Buy that for a dollar!

    Quick Trivia. What movie is that line from?  Recently Remade

    [/QUOTE]

    Robocop, I believe it was crazy eddie? He was with 3 women in bathing suits I remember that much.

    [/QUOTE]

    Winner, Winner chicken Dinner! 

    It was on tv a few weeks ago, I guess to get people out to the see the remake. Just M.O. but the remake was nowhere good as the 1st maybe because the concept was new then. I still enjoyed it 20 years later tho' 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Given the dearth of football news right now, I spent a little time looking at some of the commonly available stats to see which correlated most strongly with scoring.  We all know that, when judging an offensive, points scored by the offense is the most important stat.  But my question was which other stats, if any, are good indications of how much an offense will score?  

    A few things don't correlate well with scoring:

    • Run-pass balance.  This bugaboo has almost no correlation at all with offensive points scored.  It seems like lots of the highest scoring teams in the league pass a lot, but so do a lot of the lowest scoring teams. 
    • Basic rushing stats, like attempts, yards, and yards per carry. These have a weak correlation with scoring. The highest scoring teams have a slight tendency to get a bit more from their running game, but there are lots of exceptions.  

    Better correlations with scoring seem to be many of the passing statistics, including:

    • Completion percentage
    • Passing yards
    • Low number of sacks given up
    • Yards per completion


    The absolute best correlations with scoring, though, are three yards statistics:

    • Total yards. Good.
    • Yards per play. Better.
    • Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not clear on how you decided which stats correlate good/better/best.  Was this an eyeball test?  Any stat that is quantifiable can be put through a Regression Model to eliminate doubt as to which stat best correlates with Points Scored.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Given the dearth of football news right now, I spent a little time looking at some of the commonly available stats to see which correlated most strongly with scoring.  We all know that, when judging an offensive, points scored by the offense is the most important stat.  But my question was which other stats, if any, are good indications of how much an offense will score?  

    A few things don't correlate well with scoring:

    • Run-pass balance.  This bugaboo has almost no correlation at all with offensive points scored.  It seems like lots of the highest scoring teams in the league pass a lot, but so do a lot of the lowest scoring teams. 
    • Basic rushing stats, like attempts, yards, and yards per carry. These have a weak correlation with scoring. The highest scoring teams have a slight tendency to get a bit more from their running game, but there are lots of exceptions.  

    Better correlations with scoring seem to be many of the passing statistics, including:

    • Completion percentage
    • Passing yards
    • Low number of sacks given up
    • Yards per completion


    The absolute best correlations with scoring, though, are three yards statistics:

    • Total yards. Good.
    • Yards per play. Better.
    • Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not clear on how you decided which stats correlate good/better/best.  Was this an eyeball test?  Any stat that is quantifiable can be put through a Regression Model to eliminate doubt as to which stat best correlates with Points Scored.

    [/QUOTE]

    Can't be a very rigourous test if it is a true regression model, sounds like a fairly well thought out eye-ball test which could serve as a precursor to a true hypothesis and modeling attempt...I'm sure it's been tried, but then again, there are ample regular observations to render a model meaningless. (ie, the professionals already know this without a rigorous breakdown by we amatures)

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Given the dearth of football news right now, I spent a little time looking at some of the commonly available stats to see which correlated most strongly with scoring.  We all know that, when judging an offensive, points scored by the offense is the most important stat.  But my question was which other stats, if any, are good indications of how much an offense will score?  

    A few things don't correlate well with scoring:

    • Run-pass balance.  This bugaboo has almost no correlation at all with offensive points scored.  It seems like lots of the highest scoring teams in the league pass a lot, but so do a lot of the lowest scoring teams. 
    • Basic rushing stats, like attempts, yards, and yards per carry. These have a weak correlation with scoring. The highest scoring teams have a slight tendency to get a bit more from their running game, but there are lots of exceptions.  

    Better correlations with scoring seem to be many of the passing statistics, including:

    • Completion percentage
    • Passing yards
    • Low number of sacks given up
    • Yards per completion


    The absolute best correlations with scoring, though, are three yards statistics:

    • Total yards. Good.
    • Yards per play. Better.
    • Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     




    I'm not clear on how you decided which stats correlate good/better/best.  Was this an eyeball test?  Any stat that is quantifiable can be put through a Regression Model to eliminate doubt as to which stat best correlates with Points Scored.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good question. I didn't do an R^2 test . . . but I used the heat map feature and sorting on excel to visually judge correlation.  This works well enough when differences aren't fine and you don't nead absolute precision.  

     

    So Catfish . . . I did go back and actually calculate correlation coefficients rather than eyeballing.  In doing so, I found that the correlation between total offensive points and yards per play is about 84%, while the correlation between total offensive points and net yards per pass play is about 83% (2013 data).  So actually (in 2013) yards per play correlated slightly better with scoring than net yards per passing play (it was reversed in 2012, with net yards per play correlating a bit better than yards per play).  Both, however, very highly correlate every year.  By comparison, run percentage has just a 13% positive correlation with scoring (and, pass percentage therefore has a -13% correlation with scoring), while yards per rush has just a 29% correlation.  For those who don't know correlation coefficients a 100% correlation would be perfect correlation, 0 would be no correlation, and -100% would be perfect inverse correlation. 

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    One other methodological detail.  I looked at three season's worth of data to see if the results held for multiple seasons.  They did.  What I thought was interesting was how that net yards per passing play statistic correlated to offensive points scored so much better than any (or nearly any--yards per play is close) other stat I looked at.  

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring


    I guess that's why the 15.5 ppg we scored in our last 6 playoff losses hasn't quite cut the mustard. Scoring more = winning more.

    Real innovative notion.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I guess that's why the 15.5 ppg we scored in our last 6 playoff losses hasn't quite cut the mustard. Scoring more = winning more.

    Real innovative notion.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Or the dead on correlation that our last 4 playoff losses had the same common denominator:  ZERO forced turnovers.

    In the BB Era:

    17 wins 4 losses when forcing a TO

    1   Win  4 losses when not forcing a TO

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I guess that's why the 15.5 ppg we scored in our last 6 playoff losses hasn't quite cut the mustard. Scoring more = winning more.

    Real innovative notion.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And another thing ...

    The study Prolate conducted was to find the variable (stat) that most closely correlated to Scoring.  "Winning" was not part of the study. 

    Nice try.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I guess that's why the 15.5 ppg we scored in our last 6 playoff losses hasn't quite cut the mustard. Scoring more = winning more.

    Real innovative notion.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And another thing ...

    The study Prolate conducted was to find the variable (stat) that most closely correlated to Scoring.  "Winning" was not part of the study. 

    Nice try.

    [/QUOTE]


    Funny, our D had 3 turnovers in those last 6 playoff losses. The average NFL defense gets around 10 turnovers in 6 games. That doesn't even come close to cutting the mustard.

    How many more points would we have scored if the D got even an average number of turnovers?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    The never ending struggle to find the magic bullet to how to what wins

    i think there is a difference between 2st half and second half of the season, and then the difference with play offs. 

    Then too, a Qb can bulk up his stats against weak teams. Manning started off las yr with 7 tds against an over matched D

    I think there is also something to say about efficiency. If the number of possessions are reduced, and then  the number of points scored is in the same relationship, Did the offense do it's job?  And how does one look at the D?

    At the same time , in one game, one or two plays make the difference. What happens in clutch time.?

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I guess that's why the 15.5 ppg we scored in our last 6 playoff losses hasn't quite cut the mustard. Scoring more = winning more.

    Real innovative notion.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And another thing ...

    The study Prolate conducted was to find the variable (stat) that most closely correlated to Scoring.  "Winning" was not part of the study. 

    Nice try.

    [/QUOTE]


    Funny, our D had 3 turnovers in those last 6 playoff losses. The average NFL defense gets around 10 turnovers in 6 games. That doesn't even come close to cutting the mustard.

    How many more points would we have scored if the D got even an average number of turnovers?

    [/QUOTE]

    And possessions? How many more points with an average amount?  7 or 8 aint cutting it.

    Chump doesn't think you need them to score although time and time again, I've seen the O score 28 points with 4 or 5 possessions.. When they are hot.  Sitting on the bench for 15-20 full minutes (real time) a drive makes you cold, not hot.

    Running the ball is the LEAST influential factor in a SB win.  Do the research.

    And you sure as hell ain't running when your D is on the field for 2/3rds a game.

    Chump thinks you should still run 30 times when you literally have 20 minutes and 7-8 possessions to do all your scoring.

    Chump must think a game should be 4 possessions with nothing but 30 rushes @ 11 yards a clip.

    Chump isn't very smart.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share