PDA

View Full Version : Shanny a Stat Master?


epicSocialism4tw
11-30-2005, 10:59 AM
This article shows the 5 statistics most highly correlated with wins. It is no mistake that Shanahan built his team to excel in all 5 categories. Another poster posted part of this article in another thread, but I thought that it deserved it's own discussion...

Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Updated: November 30, 11:50 AM ET
Turnovers, early deficits lead to losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Greg Garber
ESPN.com

Vince Lombardi, the celebrated coach of the Green Bay Packers whose name adorns the sterling Super Bowl trophy, said that statistics are for losers. Point taken.
Still, culled from the most recent evidence -- the NFL's 2003 and 2004 regular-season statistics -- here are five leading sins of the game that are indisputably (did we mention amazingly?) and undeniably true, more often than not. Upon further review, notice that they are all, like the myriad creatures of the universe, interconnected.

Here, then, is the key to the matrix you never knew existed. The percentage in parenthesis refers to the probability of losing when committing that particular sin.


Sin No. 1: Trailing after the first quarter (75 percent)

While so much emphasis is placed on the fourth quarter and a team's finishing power, it's really how you start the game that matters. Teams that found themselves trailing after the first quarter lost a staggering 75 percent of their games in '03-04.
If you're pressed for time, this will eliminate the need to watch the last three quarters.

Seriously, teams that start slowly invariably lose. The 3-8 Arizona Cardinals have trailed at the end of the first quarter in nine of 11 games. They are 2-7 in those games (22 percent), a figure almost identical with the 23 percent achieved (if that's the word for it) over the course of the 2003 season.

By the same token, teams that set the tone early wind up prevailing -- three times out of four. Take the Indianapolis Colts, for example. The 11-0 Colts have trailed only once after the first quarter. Somehow, they recovered from a 17-0 deficit in spectacular fashion against the St. Louis Rams in Week 7 to win 45-28.

"Is that number right?" asked Insider Rick Spielman, who spent five seasons as the Dolphins' general manager. "That's unbelievable.

"Still, it makes sense. If you're playing with a lead, you can play solid defense and run the ball and control the clock. Your odds of winning will always be better when you can control the clock."

In Week 15 of the 2003 season, all 15 teams that led after one quarter won the game.

Said Green, "I guess that means the old cliché about halftime adjustments isn't true. After the first 15 minutes, the game is essentially over."


Sin No. 2: Losing the turnover battle (81 percent)

This is a tried-and-true truism of the NFL -- what's surprising is the gravity of the number. Lose the turnover battle and you'll lose four games out of five.

Steve McNair's fumble led to a touchdown for the Raiders in Week 8.

Take the Tennessee Titans. While the Titans are 3-2 when they have fewer turnovers than their opponent, they are a dead, solid 0-5 when they have more turnovers. Tennessee committed 13 turnovers in those five games, while opposing teams lost the ball a total of only two times. That kind of hole is difficult to escape.

During the first four weeks of the 2004 season, teams that won the turnover battle went a collective 43-6, a winning 87.8 percent of games.

It's common sense, really. When you lose the ball, you lose a chance to score, while the opposition receives that same opportunity. At worst, it can be a 14-point swing. At best, it's usually a loss of 40 yards in field position. One turnover, quite often, can swing a game.

In Sunday's game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the Chicago Bears scored their only touchdown after Alex Brown hit quarterback Chris Simms and induced him to fumble on his own 1-yard line. The ensuing one-yard scoring pass from Kyle Orton to John Gilmore held up as the difference in the 13-10 victory.

Good teams almost always tend to force more turnovers than they yield.

Of the nine top teams in turnover margin -- Cincinnati has the league's best figure, plus-20 -- only one isn't at least three games over .500. And the 4-7 Buffalo Bills (plus-8) are actually still in playoff contention in the anemic AFC East.


Sin No. 3: Allowing a 100-yard runner (75 percent)

On the five occasions the Rams (5-6) have allowed a 100-yard rusher, they are 1-4.
The season began uneventfully for the Rams, who didn't allow a 100-yard runner in the first three games. Then, all hell broke loose: In three successive games, Tiki Barber (24 carries, 128 yards, 1 TD), Shaun Alexander (25-119, 2 TDs) and Edgerrin James (23-143, 3 TDs) sliced up the Rams' defense. Needless to say, all three games resulted in losses.

Although Fred Taylor ran wild on St. Louis -- carrying 22 times for 165 yards -- the Rams managed to hold off Jacksonville 24-21 in Week 8 to even their record at 4-4. But, after their bye week, the Rams reverted to form in Week 10. Alexander savaged the Rams for 165 yards and three touchdowns on 33 carries, and the Seahawks won another game on their way to the NFC's best record so far (9-2).

In 2004, teams that featured a 100-yard rusher had a collective winning record every single week. During Weeks 6-9, the overall record was an astounding 32-1.

Last year, Patriots running back Corey Dillon cleared 100 yards nine times during the regular season. New England won eight of those games; only a four-interception game by Tom Brady (see Sin No. 2) cost them a 29-28 decision at Miami. The Patriots, you might recall, won the Super Bowl and finished with a 17-2 record. This year Dillon has been injured and has produced only one 100-yard game. The Patriots are 6-5 and limping toward the playoffs.

Producing a 100-yard runner usually means that team has actually had the luxury of methodically handing the ball off. And thatsuggests the team is playing with a lead, which, in turn, means that passing is not a necessity.

As former Ohio State coach Woody Hayes used to say, three things can happen when you throw the ball -- and two of them are bad. A turnover (see Sin No. 2) can be deadly and sometimes produce an early hole (see Sin No. 1). A dropped ball counts for nothing and also stops the clock (see Sin. No. 5). And then there is the sack, which leads us to…


Sin No. 4: Allowing more sacks (70 percent)

When legendary Rams defensive end David "Deacon" Jones coined the term "sack" -- as in, sacking and pillaging a rival village -- he saw savage tackling of the quarterback as a means to an end. What he didn't know was that, far more often than not, allowing your quarterback to be sacked more than your opponent's means The End.

Texans QB David Carr knows a thing or two about getting sacked.

Look no further than poor, unfortunate David Carr of the Houston Texans, the poster child of sackitis.

In 54 career starts, Carr has been sacked a ludicrous 190 times (more than 3.5 per game). Houston's record in those games is 15-39 (.278).

In his rookie season, he was decked 76 times -- an NFL record that is being threatened by this year's Texans. After a brutal stretch of three games against Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Tennessee -- when Carr was sacked a total of 22 times -- the dubious record appeared in jeopardy. But now, through 11 games, with Carr suffering a league-high 50 sacks, the projection is 73. Chances are, based on more recent results, the number will wind up in the high 60s.

The correlation between sacks allowed and losing is a powerful one. The Texans are 1-10, and in their only win (19-16 over the Browns) each quarterback was sacked twice.

This statistic, upon reflection, fits into the matrix. The flip side of a 100-yard runner is a team desperate to catch up. When teams are forced to abandon the run, opposing defenses can rush the passer with abandon. This usually results in increased sacks and all the bad things that come with them.

Teams that allowed more sacks in Week 10 in 2003 were 0-11; in Week 9 of 2004 they were 0-12.

Good teams, as you might expect, protect their quarterbacks. Is it a coincidence that the 11-0 Colts have allowed Peyton Manning to be sacked only nine times -- easily the league's lowest total (among full-time starting quarterbacks). Meanwhile, the Patriots' Brady has been decked 12 times in the last five games, two of them losses.

It is worth noting, too, that the Texans won their only game by avoiding Sins. No. 2 and No. 3 and, instructively, Sin No. 5.


Sin No. 5: Losing time of possession (67 percent)

Possession, they say, is nine-tenths of the law. But in today's NFL you'll have to settle for seven-tenths. OK, to split hairs, 6.7-tenths.
The Buccaneers, by today's air-it-out standards, are a conservative team. Watching them, you might think it's still 1950. Head coach Jon Gruden drafted Cadillac Williams in the first round so, along with fullback Mike Alstott, he could keep pounding teams into submission while the defense did its muscular job.

So far, it's worked out pretty well for the Bucs. They have outscored opponents by a paltry 20 points, but at 7-4 they've won three more games than they've lost. Their narrow margin of error can be seen in the time-of-possession statistics. In 11 games, they have held the ball an average of 2 minutes and 40 seconds longer than opponents.

The Bucs are 5-2 when they win time of possession; 2-2 when they don't. Sunday's 13-10 loss to Chicago underlines the fragile dynamic. The Bears possessed the ball for all of six more seconds than the Bucs -- and won.

Scan the 2005 team numbers and you'll find the usual suspects at the top of the list.

Dallas (33:30) leads the NFL with Kansas City (32:26) and Denver (32:21) second and third, respectively. Those teams -- all in playoff contention -- are guided by old-school coaches Bill Parcells, Dick Vermeil and Mike Shanahan, who have always employed a run-first, pass-second philosophy.

There's one other thing they all have in common: Super Bowl rings.

Greg Garber is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

ludo21
11-30-2005, 11:12 AM
Great post!

We do excel in all 5 and that is exactly why we win. Still only stat that matters is W!

Lidderer
11-30-2005, 11:29 AM
ludo has a point, wins correalate with wins 100% of the time.

also, great post llama.

ludo21
11-30-2005, 11:30 AM
ludo has a point, wins correalate with wins 100% of the time.


Thats truly the only stat this is 100% reliable.

Lidderer
11-30-2005, 11:32 AM
the cause and effect of #3 is a bit shaky,however. One shouldn't simply try and rush for 100 yards--or that more peculiar benchmark of '20 carries'. A significant lead or a victory most often gives way to 100 yards, rather than the other way around, i'd assume.

that 1st one is quite surprising though.

Lidderer
11-30-2005, 11:33 AM
Thats truly the only stat this is 100% reliable.

if you throw an interception there is a good chance the other team will have picked you off.

chanesaw
11-30-2005, 11:34 AM
What about yards per pass play? I've always heard that one is a good indicator.

ludo21
11-30-2005, 11:42 AM
What about yards per pass play? I've always heard that one is a good indicator.


it is, but its kinda flawed as it doesnt really count TO's.

yavoon
11-30-2005, 11:47 AM
I hate that allowing a 100 yard rusher one, the turnover also isnt really my favorite. both of those are pretty backwards reinforcing. winning teams run more and losing teams do more turnover prone things. of course that has NEVER EVER stopped announcers from peddling the old 100 yard rusher crap out.

Beantown Bronco
11-30-2005, 12:02 PM
Sin # 6 = losing at the end of the 4th quarter (100 percent)

footstepsfrom#27
11-30-2005, 12:08 PM
I think that teams win 75% of the time when leading after the 1st quarter not because that has much to do with it, but because a team that's better than its opponent will probably jump out on top. Common sense says that the better team will usually jump out on top. Chicken or egg syndrome...it's not leading after the 1st quarter that determines that you win...it's being a better team and that's why you're leading after the 1st quarter. Most of the rest I agree on though, although in Denver's case a 100 yard rusher doesn't mean much since we could have two guys go over 50 and achieve the same thing. Most teams rely on only one feature back though so I see the correlation there.

Broncos Rule
11-30-2005, 12:11 PM
Here is the rest of the story:

Vince Lombardi said, "Football is a game of clichés, and I believe in every one of them."

Be careful, fans of football, which clichés you choose to believe.
Here are five myths that have survived the years. Like any good myth, these are rooted in truths. Yet you might be surprised how marginal their effect can be on a game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2241159

CHEF LUIGI
11-30-2005, 12:31 PM
"stats are for losers"
if you win, that is the only stat that matters.
when you lose, you search the myriad of stats to find some saliva for your wounds.
300 yard passers lose more times than they win!
when a 3oo+ yard passer does win, there is usually a 300 yard passer on the opposite side of the field who lost!
Winners run the ball!
Losers cant run the ball, thats why they spend so much time passing!
when the broncos run the ball 35+ times a game, they win better than 95 % of the time!

epicSocialism4tw
11-30-2005, 12:32 PM
I think that teams win 75% of the time when leading after the 1st quarter not because that has much to do with it, but because a team that's better than its opponent will probably jump out on top. Common sense says that the better team will usually jump out on top. Chicken or egg syndrome...it's not leading after the 1st quarter that determines that you win...it's being a better team and that's why you're leading after the 1st quarter. Most of the rest I agree on though, although in Denver's case a 100 yard rusher doesn't mean much since we could have two guys go over 50 and achieve the same thing. Most teams rely on only one feature back though so I see the correlation there.

These correlations are indicators of success. If you see a team regularly jump out to large leads, then you can assume that they are probably on their way to a successful season. If a team does well in every category, you have to think that their chances for success are much greater than they would be otherwise.

Lidderer
11-30-2005, 01:00 PM
"stats are for losers"
1) if you win, that is the only stat that matters.
2) when you lose, you search the myriad of stats to find some saliva for your wounds.


1) remember that giants game we lost? remember that game where the skins lost to the giants? tell me there's not a difference, and tell me the stats don't show this. If the win is the only thing that matters then why don't you just pick up the newspaper monday morning, scan the boxscore for the final tally, and not think about it again until next monday?

2) Yes, and that's probably not a bad idea. dallas can leave that thursday game knowing they have the ability to beat an excellent team based on countless stats of the game. I imagine this helps and says more about the cowboys as a team than simply "dallas lost to denver".

epicSocialism4tw
11-30-2005, 01:10 PM
1) remember that giants game we lost? remember that game where the skins lost to the giants? tell me there's not a difference, and tell me the stats don't show this. If the win is the only thing that matters then why don't you just pick up the newspaper monday morning, scan the boxscore for the final tally, and not think about it again until next monday?

2) Yes, and that's probably not a bad idea. dallas can leave that thursday game knowing they have the ability to beat an excellent team based on countless stats of the game. I imagine this helps and says more about the cowboys as a team than simply "dallas lost to denver".

National football league football is just football. Football players in the national football league care who wins football games football style. Whoever plays national football league football must make football plays. Football plays cant be measured with statistics. Football is football...national football league football.

Lidderer
11-30-2005, 01:37 PM
National football league football is just football. Football players in the national football league care who wins football games football style. Whoever plays national football league football must make football plays. Football plays cant be measured with statistics. Football is football...national football league football.

it's unfortunate that so many would agree with your fake post. and yet...

CHEF LUIGI
11-30-2005, 01:56 PM
1) remember that giants game we lost? remember that game where the skins lost to the giants? tell me there's not a difference, and tell me the stats don't show this. If the win is the only thing that matters then why don't you just pick up the newspaper monday morning, scan the boxscore for the final tally, and not think about it again until next monday?

2) Yes, and that's probably not a bad idea. dallas can leave that thursday game knowing they have the ability to beat an excellent team based on countless stats of the game. I imagine this helps and says more about the cowboys as a team than simply "dallas lost to denver".
I see your a mets fan, and a baseball fan.
two reasons why you would be interested in stats, insteAD OF WINNING!

Lidderer
11-30-2005, 02:04 PM
I see your a mets fan, and a baseball fan.
two reasons why you would be interested in stats, insteAD OF WINNING!

i am not a mets fan. And i never said i'm against winning. But there is grey area that is worth focusing on too.

If a team loses 10 games by a combined total of 16 points, and another team loses 10 games by a total of 122 points, I'd be wary of anyone who says "oh, team A and team B are both 6-10, therefore interchangeable".

I mean how do you think teams correct their flaws? or even discern them?

Excerpted non-existent chat between coaches:

Head Coach: "goddamnit, 5-11 this season!"
GM: "Hmm, let's try and trade up in the first round and draft some wins."
Head Coach: "I like the way you think."

Mediator12
11-30-2005, 02:05 PM
Stats correlate to wins. Correlate does not mean cause, and is not a linear function.

Correlation is a statistical technique which can show whether and how strongly pairs of variables are related. For example, height and weight are related - taller people tend to be heavier than shorter people. The relationship isn't perfect.

People of the same height vary in weight, and you can easily think of two people you know where the shorter one is heavier than the taller one. Nonetheless, the average weight of people 5'5'' is less than the average weight of people 5'6'', and their average weight is less than that of people 5'7'', etc. Correlation can tell you just how much of the variation in peoples' weights is related to their heights.

It is simply an indicator of how strongly succeeding in certain area's ties to winning football games.

yavoon
12-01-2005, 07:33 AM
i am not a mets fan. And i never said i'm against winning. But there is grey area that is worth focusing on too.

If a team loses 10 games by a combined total of 16 points, and another team loses 10 games by a total of 122 points, I'd be wary of anyone who says "oh, team A and team B are both 6-10, therefore interchangeable".

I mean how do you think teams correct their flaws? or even discern them?

Excerpted non-existent chat between coaches:

Head Coach: "goddamnit, 5-11 this season!"
GM: "Hmm, let's try and trade up in the first round and draft some wins."
Head Coach: "I like the way you think."

glorious

Bronco202
12-01-2005, 09:11 AM
Does he realize we havent beaten the Chiefs in Arrowhead in December for at least 10 years?

Mile High Shack
12-01-2005, 09:14 AM
Does he realize we havent beaten the Chiefs in Arrowhead in December for at least 10 years?

why are you posing as a Bronco fan troll?

CHEF LUIGI
12-01-2005, 09:15 AM
i am not a mets fan. And i never said i'm against winning. But there is grey area that is worth focusing on too.

If a team loses 10 games by a combined total of 16 points, and another team loses 10 games by a total of 122 points, I'd be wary of anyone who says "oh, team A and team B are both 6-10, therefore interchangeable".

I mean how do you think teams correct their flaws? or even discern them?

Excerpted non-existent chat between coaches:

Head Coach: "goddamnit, 5-11 this season!"
GM: "Hmm, let's try and trade up in the first round and draft some wins."
Head Coach: "I like the way you think."
Both teams are 6-10
thats why stats are for losers!
they look at the stats to figure out what they need to do to win.
its very simple.
LOMBARDI was not a simpleton, he made a very accute statement.
when you win, stats dont matter...
Hence, STATS are for LOSERS.
Like baseball fans.

Bronco202
12-01-2005, 09:20 AM
why are you posing as a Bronco fan troll?

I am a Bronco Fan. I have pictures of Elway all over my house. And please don't refer to me as a troll, It reminds me of your mother.

2KBack
12-01-2005, 09:25 AM
thats why stats are for losers!

Actually, stats are for discussion boards and sport related conversations. If a win or loss was all we were allowed to discuss without being considered a "loser," this whole place would be worthless.

Guy #1 "Damn, we lost"
Guy#2 "yeah, that sucks"
Guy#1 "nothing left to say about it"
Guy #2 "see ya next week"

RhymesayersDU
12-01-2005, 09:29 AM
if you throw an interception there is a good chance the other team will have picked you off.

rofl

I guarantee Madden said that at one point.

55CrushEm
12-01-2005, 09:31 AM
statistics are for losers.


Ya hear that, Chef fans? Boob? thwack

fdf
12-01-2005, 11:20 AM
Sin No. 3: Allowing a 100-yard runner (75 percent)


I agree with all of these statistics as predictive of a winner except this one. Teams that are already winning run the ball a lot more than teams that are behind. So they will naturally have more 100 yard running games. This stat is at least a good-part correlation, not causation.

CHEF LUIGI
12-01-2005, 11:38 AM
teams that cannot stop a particular runner from gaining 100 yards, LOSE 75% of the time .
This indicates that the team with the 100yard runnewr is able to dominate the game with one guy, that cant be stopped.
It reveals that the other team cannot stop the run, more specificly, ONE RUNNER!
Of course this "causes' the team to continue to run, in the latter stages of the game.
if they cant stop it, keep doing it!
Stats/ schmats, winning counts, stats are for evaluation, something losers spend a lot of time doing,
evaluating why they lost.
losers dwell on stats, they become pre-occupied with stats.
#s that dont often tell an accurate picture.
Last year, jerome Bettis had five runs for four yards to start the season.
The stats tell you he averaged less than a yard per carry.
Perhaps they should have benched him or cut him after those five carries?
the SCOREBOARD, however, showed those five carries yielded four touchdowns.
scoreboards are what winners concentrate on, stats are for losers, something they would rather look at then the scoreboard!
300 yard passers, I am not impressed, those are losers, more times than not!
a runner gets 30 carries, he is more than likely on the winning team, regardless of the associated yardage!

yavoon
12-01-2005, 11:40 AM
teams that cannot stop a particular runner from gaining 100 yards, LOSE 75% of the time .
This indicates that the team with the 100yard runnewr is able to dominate the game with one guy, that cant be stopped.
It reveals that the other team cannot stop the run, more specificly, ONE RUNNER!
Of course this "causes' the team to continue to run, in the latter stages of the game.
if they cant stop it, keep doing it!
Stats/ schmats, winning counts, stats are for evaluation, something losers spend a lot of time doing,
evaluating why they lost.
losers dwell on stats, they become pre-occupied with stats.
#s that dont often tell an accurate picture.
Last year, jerome Bettis had five runs for four yards to start the season.
The stats tell you he averaged less than a yard per carry.
Perhaps they should have benched him or cut him after those five carries?
the SCOREBOARD, however, showed those five carries yielded four touchdowns.
scoreboards are what winners concentrate on, stats are for losers, something they would rather look at then the scoreboard!
300 yard passers, I am not impressed, those are losers, more times than not!
a runner gets 30 carries, he is more than likely on the winning team, regardless of the associated yardage!

its actually more common for the "runner" to not be "stopped" because the other team is running down the clock in the second half. like the post(I think its this one) sez, ypc dont mean much to victories its the team that can afford to run the ball more. and who can afford to run the ball more? THE TEAM THATS WINNING.

Alkazar
12-01-2005, 12:03 PM
if you throw an interception there is a good chance the other team will have picked you off.
Ok, that sounded a little too much like something John Madden would say.

CHEF LUIGI
12-01-2005, 12:26 PM
its actually more common for the "runner" to not be "stopped" because the other team is running down the clock in the second half. like the post(I think its this one) sez, ypc dont mean much to victories its the team that can afford to run the ball more. and who can afford to run the ball more? THE TEAM THATS WINNING.
Perhaps that team is WINNING because it runs the ball BETTER!
you run when you have the lead to keep the clock running late in the game.
If you cant make a first down running the ball, then so much for clock management.
100 yards is mis-leading, # of carries is a more accurate indicator!
If a guy gets 30 carries, the team is obviously acheiving its objectives by letting him pound the rock.
LOKMBARDI, had more to say than,
"stats are for losers"
He also said, as long as football is played outdoors, in the winter, teams that run, and those that can stop the run, are the ones that will be holding the hardware at the end of the season.
Thats not an exact quote, but the essence of his comment.
winners run, losers pass, thats what it all boils down to.
ASndy REID got it twisted around.
he said, "i would pass every play if I could"
when the real truth to victory is the security of being able to RUN every down , if you could.


If they cant stop the run, keep running!
if they load up to stop the run, play-action pass.
Thats how the broncos win football games, and the stats take care of themselves.

yavoon
12-01-2005, 12:29 PM
Perhaps that team is WINNING because it runs the ball BETTER!
you run when you have the lead to keep the clock running late in the game.
If you cant make a first down running the ball, then so much for clock management.
100 yards is mis-leading, # of carries is a more accurate indicator!
If a guy gets 30 carries, the team is obviously acheiving its objectives by letting him pound the rock.
LOKMBARDI, had more to say than,
"stats are for losers"
He also said, as long as football is played outdoors, in the winter, teams that run, and those that can stop the run, are the ones that will be holding the hardware at the end of the season.
Thats not an exact quote, but the essence of his comment.
winners run, losers pass, thats what it all boils down to.
ASndy REID got it twisted around.
he said, "i would pass every play if I could"
when the real truth to victory is the security of being able to RUN every down , if you could.


If they cant stop the run, keep running!
if they load up to stop the run, play-action pass.
Thats how the broncos win football games, and the stats take care of themselves.

well lombardi would be happy to know that the superbowl is not played in foul weather.

also, I'm also pretty sure the stats *always* take care of themselves, unless of course ur busy making them up.

CHEF LUIGI
12-01-2005, 12:38 PM
well lombardi would be happy to know that the superbowl is not played in foul weather.

also, I'm also pretty sure the stats *always* take care of themselves, unless of course ur busy making them up.
The fact that the superbowl is ale\ways played on a good weather, or "protected' field is why , the team with the best passing game usually wins the contest.!
It takes a great running game to get there, usually both participants are good run defenders, and therefore the team with the best passing attack will usually win on SB sunday!
consequently the trophy usually goes to the best all around team, Just ask the BILLS about the importance of special teams.

yavoon
12-01-2005, 12:40 PM
The fact that the superbowl is ale\ways played on a good weather, or "protected' field is why , the team with the best passing game usually wins the contest.!
It takes a great running game to get there, usually both participants are good run defenders, and therefore the team with the best passing attack will usually win on SB sunday!
consequently the trophy usually goes to the best all around team, Just ask the BILLS about the importance of special teams.

usually both participants are good at a lot of things, they're in the superbowl afterall.

epicSocialism4tw
12-01-2005, 01:14 PM
I agree with all of these statistics as predictive of a winner except this one. Teams that are already winning run the ball a lot more than teams that are behind. So they will naturally have more 100 yard running games. This stat is at least a good-part correlation, not causation.


The stats that the author listed were correlary. It doesnt mean that having a 100 yd rusher will win you the game, but having a 100 yd rusher is a trait that is common of teams that win. I think that total rushing yards is a more obvious correlary, but I think that the implication of the authors stat is that a team dominates with its rushing staple, or that it forces it's will on the opponent by dominating the ball with it's bread and butter.

Merlin
12-01-2005, 08:14 PM
Stats/ schmats, winning counts, stats are for evaluation, something losers spend a lot of time doing,
evaluating why they lost. losers dwell on stats, they become pre-occupied with stats. #s that dont often tell an accurate picture...scoreboards are what winners concentrate on, stats are for losers, something they would rather look at then the scoreboard!



300 yard passers, I am not impressed, those are losers, more times than not!
a runner gets 30 carries, he is more than likely on the winning team, regardless of the associated yardage!
Oh, the irony.

BTW, the best passing team does not always win the SB.

Ravens-Giants
Patriots-Rams
Tampa-Raiders
Patriots-Eagles

Being a balanced team (which you imply later), is more important.

minibronco
12-01-2005, 08:36 PM
Excellent post.

Although I do know that these stats will not automatically win, it's always good to be on the right side of the statistics. :)