NFL 2013 Season Thread

[Ben Kenobi]

Why can't you acknowledge the rate at which the seahawks gained turnovers might have been a crucial factor in their ability to win against opponents through out the season. What is wrong with your brain.

If we averaged out the turnover advantage for the Seahawks, would it give us a ratio of 4:0 turnovers? That's my point. Was it helpful? Sure. Was it helpful to the tune of 4 turnovers to none committed? No.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh so first you say show one person who predicted the actual outcome. I showed you. Then you say I need more people?

Yes because there were far, far more people predicting other scores.

Upsets happen. The Giants beat the Patriots in 2008.

By 35 points?

Even without the (perhaps lucky) helmet catch and even if the Giants had lost that Super Bowl, they played the Patriots far closer than the game line indicated. The Patriots were 13-point favorites. The Giants played them like equals in all facets of the game.

Yeah, how does that compare to a 35 point victory by 3 point Dogs?

Maybe, just maybe, the general consensus was WRONG!

General consensus being wrong would show Seahawks domination. But, that's not what the stats show. Compare Niners vs Denver and Seahawks vs Denver. The Seahawks benefitted from big plays, that were also rather unlikely to occur.

The Seahawks defense is the first defense to lead the NFL in points allowed, yards allowed and takeaways since the 1985 Bears.

And the Denver O set records for yardage, TDs and points scored.

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm not quite sure how one finds yardage/point a confusing metric.

I don't know. You tell me. You used it wrong.

It's just a bizarre metric. How meaningful really is it to find out how many yards a team gained for every point they scored? It could be useful as part of a package of metrics but as a singular metric, it has no all-inclusive aspect. Turnovers, for one, completely ruin it as does special teams.

If a team begins every offensive drive from their own 30 and scores on every possession, they have a 10 yards per point average.
If a team begins every offensive drive from the 50 (due to great special teams) but they only get 20 yards every time before settling for a field goal, they have a 6.67 yards per point average.

Who's the better team?

By your favorite metric, the second team is better. They need less yards to score.

In actuality, their offense cannot sustain drives. They only get 20yds and can't score touchdowns whereas the first team always gets 70 yards and scores a touchdown.

Also in actuality, the second team loses the game. FG's every possession vs. TD's every possession, the TD's win.

So why exactly is this metric so meaningful?

General consensus being wrong would show Seahawks domination. But, that's not what the stats show.

[Ban Kenobi]

The Seahawks were lucky to play against an inferior team.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know. You tell me. You used it wrong.

How is (Yards - penalties) / (points scored) difficult?

It's just a bizarre metric. How meaningful really is it to find out how many yards a team gained for every point they scored?

Because it's usually a consistent band that doesn't vary tremendously between teams.

It could be useful as part of a package of metrics but as a singular metric, it has no all-inclusive aspect.

As a baseline it works just fine, refinements would improve it.

By your favorite metric, the second team is better. They need less yards to score.

Look at the per team rankings. Top 8 in this stat are all playoff teams. Bottom 8 in this stat are all non-playoff teams. That's a pretty good stat!

So why exactly is this metric so meaningful?

It's a quick and dirty stat that shows similarities between teams in general and is less luck dependent than many other stats. You're right in that it's not luck independent, but only that luck plays a smaller role.

The seahawks having 5 yards per point is just ridiculous. It's the same as starting every TD drive on the opponent's 35 yard line.

THAT's how ridiculous the game was.

[Al B. Sure!]

Look at the per team rankings. Top 8 in this stat are all playoff teams. Bottom 8 in this stat are all non-playoff teams. That's a pretty good stat!

That's not even true. Why do you lie?

First of all, you're not even using the differential. You're using the yards per point alone. In that case, the top 8 includes the Cowboys and Bears while the remaining 6 playoff teams are scattered, including the Chargers at #23.

Using the differential as intended for the stat (but not what you used in this thread), the Cowboys are still in the top 8 and the playoff Green Bay Packers are #23.

No. It's not a pretty good start.

[Al B. Sure!]

You want to know what's a better stat, Ben: Points Per Play Differential.

Not yards. Per play.

Under this measure, 10/12 playoff teams show up in the top-11 (Chargers/Packers at #15/20). Non-playoff teams in the top-half of the league are those teams that just barely missed the playoffs... 9 Cowboys, 12 Cardinals, 13 Dolphins, 14 Steelers.

Hell, tell me this isn't compelling: of the top-16 teams in this stat, 11 made the playoffs, 4 were Week 17 playoff contenders who just missed, and 1 (St Louis Rams at #16) was a 7-9 team playing in a division that produced the 2 NFC Championship teams and nearly produced a 3rd playoff team in the Cardinals (judging by their divisional opposition, the Rams might have been a playoff team in a different division).

According to this measure, the Seahawks were 2013's best team, the 49ers #2, and the Broncos #3.

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all, you're not even using the differential. You're using the yards per point alone. In that case, the top 8 includes the Cowboys and Bears while the remaining 6 playoff teams are scattered, including the Chargers at #23.

Interesting. You care more about attacking my devotion to the stat and not to the Chargers. Shouldn't this be reinforcing your faith in the stat?

Looking at your stat, assuming equal plays, we'd expect 1.27 Seattle vs Denver, so we'd expect a 27-21 Seahawks victory assuming an equal number of plays. A 6 point victory. That would make this result about 2, 2.5 standard deviations from the norm assuming equivalent luck factors.

Face it albie, it doesn't matter what stat you use. There was a less that 3 percent chance of this result. Sure, you can call it skill, but most would call it luck.

[Al B. Sure!]

Shut up. Read Greg Cosell break down key plays to show what the Seahawks did right on defense to win the game:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/greg-cosell-super-bowl-film-review-seattle-dominated-214531436--nfl.html

Seattle's defense was quicker and faster, with great recognition of what the Broncos wanted to do, especially in their route concepts. The Seahawks did a phenomenal job of playing their zone concepts. They’re really, really good at the details of their defense and nuances of what they do.

I think they got to Manning early. He rushed some throws in which he had a chance for some big plays. He wasn’t comfortable right from the start (and I have no idea how the first play, the botched snap for a safety, affected him). The Seahawks got him doing everything faster than he wanted to. The goal become to get the ball out of his hands, and you can’t play quarterback that way.

There’s no question Manning didn’t play well. There were reasons for that. The biggest reason was the Broncos found themselves playing against a better team.

[Ben Kenobi]

He wasn’t comfortable right from the start (and I have no idea how the first play, the botched snap for a safety, affected him)

So, long story short. Seahawks got a break with an early turnover on the very first play from the game and then it snowballed from there.

Well spoken, Cosell.

That's why Cosell 'doesn't know', yet he's willing to say, 'he felt uncomfortable.'

Please, how much would you bet on the first play of the game scoring a safety in the next superbowl, Al?

[Al B. Sure!]

Please, how much would you bet on the first play of the game scoring a safety in the next superbowl, Al?

Well the first score in the recent Giants-Patriots SB was a safety and the last play in the 49ers-Ravens SB was a safety... so that's 3 safeties (two being the first score) in the past 3 Super Bowls.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well the first score in the recent Giants-Patriots SB was a safety and the last play in the 49ers-Ravens SB was a safety... so that's 3 safeties (two being the first score) in the past 3 Super Bowls.

So, I have you down at 3:2 for the next one? Sounds legit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Michael Sam

[-Jrabbit]

Indeed.

[Al B. Sure!]

So I was in the barbershop yesterday and I saw a copy of ESPN Magazine from Sept 2, 2013 with their NFL predictions. Did you know ESPN predicted a Broncos-Seahawks Super Bowl, albeit with the Broncos winning? Their playoffs teams were mostly wrong but they also somehow predicted that the Chiefs would make the playoffs coming off of a 2 win season. They also predicted Nick Foles would eventually beat out Michael Vick, something which was not seen as likely by most in Sept given that Foles was a lame duck backup drafted by Reid, considered the wrong type of QB for Chip Kelly's offense, and Kelly drafted Barkley.

They had a number of wrong predictions but those stood out as oddly prescient.