NFL 2013 Season Thread

[MRT144]

Yes or no, MRT. All else being equal, would you expect the team with greater yardage after penalties to win more often than the team with lesser yardage?

It's a false dichotomy that begs the question. What is the relevancy of such a metric? I can't give a yes or no answer to a question that I am suspect of having relevancy to anything. There might be correlation in yards gained but assigning causation to that ignores the complexity of the game of football, and the way you backwards logic your way into thinking that it was nothing but luck based on this statistic is especially dubious. If you want people to not look at you like an idiot, stop doing these illogical things.

[Ben Kenobi]

So since I showed you someone who predicted it, will you admit you're wrong?

And how many people predicted other scores? If we were to take a chart of everyone's predictions, it would look like a bell curve centred around DEN +3 or so. That's my point - this was a very unlikely result.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a false dichotomy that begs the question.

What question does it beg? If it's not relevant, why are wins more associated with greater yardage and inversely correlated with lesser yardage? That's my point. All else being equal - getting more yards is more likely to win you the game than fewer yards.

What is the relevancy of such a metric?

The fact that total yardage is positively correlated with winning games?

I can't give a yes or no answer to a question that I am suspect of having relevancy to anything.

AHAHAHA. Bull****.

If you want people to not look at you like an idiot, stop doing these illogical things.

Yeah, I'm the idiot because I'm stating that gaining more yards is associated with winning football games. Yeah. I see that. I'm amused that people are willing to make themselves look like idiots to avoid agreeing with me.

[MRT144]

What question does it beg? If it's not relevant, why are wins more associated with greater yardage and inversely correlated with lesser yardage? That's my point. All else being equal - getting more yards is more likely to win you the game than fewer yards.



The fact that total yardage is positively correlated with winning games?



AHAHAHA. Bull****.



Yeah, I'm the idiot because I'm stating that gaining more yards is associated with winning football games. Yeah. I see that. I'm amused that people are willing to make themselves look like idiots to avoid agreeing with me.

You're stating this with the intention of diminishing the victory of the seahawks, now shut up

[MRT144]

4+ turnover ratio? Yeah, I can see one pick advantage. 4? No. So you'd have the pick where Manning threw it in the Seahawks zone, and not the picks he threw in the other end of the field, any of their TDs and the TD return. That would put them at what? 8-0 at the half? Different game.

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.

[MRT144]

. Why are you trying to be an amateur statistician when you lack the ability to to so?

[Al B. Sure!]

And how many people predicted other scores? If we were to take a chart of everyone's predictions, it would look like a bell curve centred around DEN +3 or so. That's my point - this was a very unlikely result.

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

Upsets happen. The Giants beat the Patriots in 2008.

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.

Then, four years later, again underdogs, the Giants beat the Patriots again as if to say it isn't a fluke. I'm not going to go into a breakdown of the Giants 2007 and 2011 rosters and how their defense was built to neutralize Tom Brady but know that it wasn't luck. The Giants personnel and defensive schemes have given the Giants a 3-0 record in their last 3 regular season and Super Bowl matchups with the Patriots.

Yet in both Super Bowls, the Giants were deep underdogs. Luck struck twice?

No. The Giants' strengths matched up well with the Patriots.

Just because something is believed to be unlikely doesn't mean that it's the result of luck if it happens. Maybe, just maybe, the general consensus was WRONG!

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.

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

[MRT144]

Just because something is believed to be unlikely doesn't mean that it's the result of luck if it happens. Maybe, just maybe, the general consensus was WRONG!

That is Ben's biggest failing in this discussion - he believes there are predestined binary possibilities and anything that doesnt fall into the more likely scenario is luck. It is the most facile way of dealing with probability I have ever seen.

The lengths he goes to justify his opinions without even thinking of the mode of causality isn't surprising but it totally pisses me off because its so fundamental. He doesnt ask why nearly enough. I really believe his fundamentalist and hateful approach to god, creation and humans is highly correlated with his lack of critical thinking skills.

[MRT144]

The only thing that even comes close to annoying me is how he tries to drill everything down into one big meaningful thing but then doesnt have any good reason to do so and often it comes out with stupid results that only reaffirm what he already believed. He is a wolf selling wolf tickets and nobody likes him because they can see right through him.

[MRT144]

It's like if Ben's mind would allow him to, he could see that the Seahawks longest TD drive was 58 yards. LONGEST. What are the proximate causes of having short drives for TDs? Defense out executing offense. it makes the entire argument that the yard differential is indicative of luck look like the canard it is.

[Al B. Sure!]

I still don't get why yards per point? That's not a typical stat you see people use. How many yards did a team gain for every point scored? Seems more like a convoluted and inadequate proxy for redzone efficiency than anything else. If the league average is 15 yds/pt as Ben says, that means on average, NFL teams must gain 105yds offense for every touchdown scored. Okay. So now what? Why is deviation from that significant in measurable ways that not only are not superseded by other stats but make this the be-all, end-all metric?

It seems that to use it as a singular metric is preposterous especially since there's a very obvious flaw with it: it doesn't play well with turnovers and special teams production.


Also the offensive stat is not meaningful by itself. The proposition was that defensive yards per point allowed minus offensive yards per point correlates with winning %:

At the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in 2013, football coach Tim Chou proposed Yards Per Point as this essential metric for football. For offense, take yards gained and divide by points scored. Substitute yards allowed and points allowed for the defense.

On offense, lower values for Yards Per Point mean a more efficient offense. This unit tends scores touchdowns instead of field goals after long drives. On defense, higher values of Yards Per Point corresponds to better defenses. These defense bend but don't break, letting the opposition to sustain long drives before forcing a field goal or turnover.

In his talk, Chou showed that the difference in Yards Per Point (defense minus offense) correlated strongly with winning percentage in college football. Hence, Yards Per Point is a good efficiency metric to judge a football team.

[MRT144]

Well duh he skipped it. It doesnt reflect his preconceived notions so he would lie through omission

[Al B. Sure!]

Well duh he skipped it. It doesnt reflect his preconceived notions so he would lie through omission

Ironically, if he used the full metric (differential between defensive yards per point allowed and offensive yards per point), the Seahawks come out even more dominating... or, in the Beniverse, statistically unlikely and therefore lucky.

[Ben Kenobi]

I still don't get why yards per point? That's not a typical stat you see people use. How many yards did a team gain for every point scored? Seems more like a convoluted and inadequate proxy

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

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are you trying to be an amateur statistician when you lack the ability to to so?

Yes, because rocket scientists don't learn stats.