Statistical Musing on the Season to Come

…and despite what you may think of Stafford and Calvin Johnson, Hanson has been and will probably still be our biggest offensive threat! If you guys can post more than five field goals (or the point total equivalent), you should have no problems game 1. This didn’t seem to be too much of a challenge last season, when I’m pretty sure you guys didn’t punt the entire game.
I only ask you take it easy on our new franchise QB game 1. I would think Saints fans would be sympathetic to having a lousy team for so many years, it’s nice to have a little excitement for the future right now.

that will change the way I view the outcome of games from here on out

The HIGHER the number of plays run on offense per point, the better. This would indicate an offense’s ability to control the clock.

The LOWER the number of plays run against your defense per point, the better. This would indicate a defense’s ability to hold their opponent to three-and-out, get off the field and get the ball back to their offense, in order to control the clock.

In the inverse, what you’re doing is gaging prolificity. Generally speaking, that’s pretzel logic. Scoring quickly is not what wins games.

The fewer plays you run on offense, the more opportunities you give your opponent to equal (or better) your point production. The more plays your opponent runs, the fewer your opportunities to score. Not to mention, you’re likely giving up valuable field position.

Barring turnovers, a 3:0 play-to-point ratio is ideal on defense. Obviously, you can’t divide by zero.

Conversely, a ∞:∞ play-to-point ratio is ideal on offense. Obviously, no team is going to score infinity points, nor run infinity number of plays. And even if they did, you can’t divide by infinity. Therefore, we’ll stick with “as many as possible” for both the ideal numerator and denominator.

is a DRIVE-to-point ratio (in lieu of number of plays). I’m pretty sure number of possessions is an available statistic, at least on a per game level. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a cumulative total for a season, but that’s going to be your more telling statistic. For every possession, how many points is a particular team scoring and/or giving up. Once you divide that out, you should be able to incorporate both offense and defense into a ratio to get the big picture; the extremes being 8.000/0.000 or vice versa.

CP, it is obvious that you feel that time-of-possession wins games somehow. Do you not remember the days when the Saints would win TOP and every other statistical category in a game (see LSU vs. UDUB), and still lose the game? Scoring often and quickly does win games. So what if their offense takes forever to move the ball into the red zone and then comes up empty handed or with just 3 points? Score, score, score! Often and quickly! Even if they score on every possession, if it takes them longer to do it, guess what?

You win!

1. of plays cant be used but i love that you actually tried.

Its not TOP either… As others have said TOP means about as much a 3 dollar bill.

Possessions is a good yardstick.

cuz at the end of the day, the final score is what determines the winner and loser.

score points and keep the other team from scoring points… that’s pretty much all there is to it at the end of the day

all of the nuances in between do matter, but what they do is… simply contribute to the final score.

Mea maxima culpa. I did not realize that I was arguing a point with someone who had already “done it” on Madden. Computer gaming, of course, trumps everything. My bad.

Nor did I suspect that a simple, straightforward, commonsensical speculation such as what this thread started out to be would be enough to bring the Hitler Youth back out…particularly after the scorched earth of World War Chase. Again, I was wrong: it seems that wasting not a single opportunity to be obnoxious is a categorical imperative with coldpizza.

CP, I have this to say to you, and then you and I are done: if there were a way to block user comments, nobody would know you were here. May you be happy in the life you have chosen.

I liked this and SS’s posts on producing arcane statistical comparisons to predict team effectiveness. It’s like the awkward postnatal period of the Football Outsiders phenom. Like with them, I can’t tell if it’s genius, and far beyond my limited reckoning, or a ridiculously convoluted statistician wet dream that may predict nothing. Interesting to think about either way.

The TOP versus point-per-snap argument added a good debatable level to it, but 35 nitpicking posts later, I have little to add.

Like cp, I think that a modicum of attention payed to clock control late in games last year could have gotten us into the playoffs, all other things being equal, but without the statistical homework of the primary post, the TOP-as-predictor argument failed to provide a foil to the initial hypothesis beyond the anecdotal “pass-heavy teams don’t win championships as much as balanced teams” point.

Outside of all the crap above, I would argue that the Saints’ positive defensive scoring might be skewed by the fact that, during the preseason, we often let opponents drive for quite a few yards, only to force a turnover in or near the red zone, which gives the opposing offense a lot of snaps for no points, AND acts as an argument against the importance of TOP, as opponents held the ball a lot without putting up points. But I don’t think drives like those are going to be something our defense can rely on in the actual season. I hope so, as it is awesome to watch and utterly demoralizing for the other team, but it seems unlikely.

That said, I hope y’all figure out more strange statistical comparisons to illustrate that paint such a pretty picture for the Saints.

on the drive home and realized that we’re both wrong. Or rather, not 100% correct. I’ll start with my error first. I’m operating under the assumption that more snaps = more time. That’s not necessarily true. Take a two minute offense, for example. Starting from your own 22 yard line, you could theoretically run three perfectly executed 26 yard screen passes, be tackled in bounds each time and eat up the better part of those two minutes, just by milking the play clock down to nil before each snap. This is somewhat reminiscent of how the Saints beat the Eagles in 2006. You could also go on a dink and dunk frenzy, ducking out of bounds every time you catch the ball, throw a few incomplete passes along the way, total a eight or nine play scoring drive and STILL leave more time on the clock than the three play drive. So, the corrulation is not a true one. There’s just too many variables to factor in there. At the same time, whether the the drive takes nine plays or three, the offense still accomplished their goal of putting the ball in the end zone. The defense failed either way. TOP remains a factor, because one left more time on the clock, while the other left very little, if any. So, basically, I’m wrong to assume that LESS snaps-per-points is definitely better, Mt-E is wrong to assume that MORE snaps-per-points is definitely better. However, I am ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT in stating that TOP is the telling factor of which drive was closer to ideal. One left more time on the clock for the other team, regardless of how many snaps that drive actually consisted of.

So, unless you ultimate goal is to determine a team’s scoring frequency per play — something I still fail to see the inherent importance of in a TIMED contest — number of snaps shouldn’t even enter the equation.

Here’s what I suggest:

1. Take the raw number of offensive points scored. This would be TDs scored by an offensive player on 1st through 4th downs, plus FGs, PATs, 2 pt conversions and the rare offensive safety. You would NOT include defensive safeties, INT and fumbles returned for TDs by the defense, nor punt or kickoff returns for TDs.

2. Divide that total by the number of possessions that team had. This represents the number of scoring opportunities they were afforded by the opposing team.

3. The result would be average number of points scored per scoring opportunity.

4. Multiply that by the team’s time of possession.

5. The HIGHER the product, the better the offense.

6. For defense, do the exact same thing for all opponents of that particular team — against that team — combined. In this case, the LOWER the product, the better the defense.

Simple logic here. The defense that allows LESS points per opponent possession, regardless of how many plays are run against them, is the better defense. The defense that best limits the time of possession of their opponent, AGAIN regardless of how many plays are run against them, is the better defense. This method combines both critical factors and leaves out the irrelevant “number of plays run”.

Feel free to use it. Feel free to ignore it. Just putting it out there.

people say something to the effect that a ball control offense is only important in the waning moments of a ball game. That’s not true. That’s only when its importance is most apparent to the casual observer and I’ll illustrate this with a closer to real world example:

Suppose you had two teams and both were guaranteed to have EXACTLY 10 possessions in a ball game. I’m too lazy to pull up the league average there. Let’s just assume it’s roughly 10. Let’s also know that both teams are going to score a TD on all 10 drives, no matter what. Without milking the clock Madden style, that’s a guaranteed 60 pts per team, correct? Now, suppose one of those teams averaged 4 1/2 minutes per drive. The other notoriously ran a no-huddle offense and averaged 2 1/2 minutes. What team would you rather be a fan of?

If you get off on a fast-paced aerial attack, the no-huddle team is probably the way to go. I know a lot of people do and I don’t blame them. It’s entertaining. Do realize, however, that this team has in essence afforded their opponent 35 minutes worth of offense to either match or exceed their 60 pts. This is the cumulative amount of time they failed to use THROUGHOUT the game, not just within a certain time frame. Will their opponent be able to pull it off? Probably not, but I will say this. They have a better chance of winning the game than the opponent with 15 minutes total to work with.

This is a very interesting post but didn’t like the fact that it turned into an extremely large math problem afterwards. Football is just a sport not a big a** math problem mixed with science but that’s my opinion

but trying to create a comprehensive model that uses statistics to predict without failure the “ideal” performance on-field is wrought with inherent problems. while ME’s approach is overly-simplistic, it does get at the heart of interpreting the raw figures (such as detroit’s alleged #1 preseason offense) in a more meaningful way. in fact, by contrasting the offensive analysis (plays-per-point) with the inverse relationship defensively, it really accounts for the problem that CP brings up, and satisfies the assumption of the “control the clock” mentality. That is, by scoring quickly and by not allowing the other team to score quickly, the result is generally a victory. Of course there are confounding variables—and lots of them. I think the original point was lost because sometimes some people prefer to argue than to see the bigger picture.

I get the point you’re trying to make, and I agree—sometimes the raw numbers don’t tell the whole story, so it’s important to consider other factors. Don’t know why that’s so contentious…

“by scoring quickly and by not allowing the other team to score quickly, the result is generally a victory”

The word “quickly” is completely superfluous in that sentence. I cannot fathom the perceived importance of expeditious scoring. What is its inherent advantage over scoring in general? Someone please explain this to me.

Conversely, of what inherent advantage is preventing “quick” scoring by your opponent, as opposed to preventing scoring in general? In my mind, if they’re absolutely positively going to score, it’s better that they do it as quickly as possible.

For as long as I’ve been preaching this, I have NEVER gotten a straight answer to these questions.

First off… Thank you ME. You looked at an issue, dived into the stats, and came out making the Saints look good. You didn’t have to do that. From one fan to another, I appreciate that.

CP…. ToP is a stat. So are INTs, fumbles, sacks, rushing yards, passing yards, total yards, and 3rd down conversions. Each one by itself has no correlation to the final game results. The ONLY stat that matters at the end of the game is the final score. It is true that if you are on the right side of each of those stats you have a better shot of winning.

The word "quickly" is completely superfluous in that sentence. I cannot fathom the perceived importance of expeditious scoring. What is its inherent advantage over scoring in general? Someone please explain this to me.

Controling the clock is a strategy. So is scoring quickly. Look at the post about the keys to the game. One thing the Saints will want to do is score quickly so the Lions are playing from behind. New Orleans has that kind of offense. The Saints want to go out there every week and score quickly. Drew and company like to work at a fast tempo. (Look at the first three drives of the Oakland game) If you make your opponent play catch-up, he is more likely to abandon his gameplan. And that leads to more victories.

That being said…. I would like to see the Saints controling the clock more. It would mean we have more of a well rounded team.

“ToP is a stat. So are INTs, fumbles, sacks, rushing yards, passing yards, total yards, and 3rd down conversions. Each one by itself has no correlation to the final game results. The ONLY stat that matters at the end of the game is the final score. It is true that if you are on the right side of each of those stats you have a better shot of winning.”

This is all very true, btw. Only, TOP has a closer corrulation to winning than any of the other statistics you mentioned. Scoreboard aside, the only other statistic that even comes close to TOP is turnover ratio. And the only reason it comes close, is because turnovers lead to more TOP. Even if it’s just for the few seconds it takes to run an interception back for a TD. The other team is being denied the ball in those few seconds, hence the advantage. The score is nice too, obviously, but if he fell down on the pick and the offense spent another few minutes driving it in, they’d be even better off than had he taken it to the house. I realize no one thinks like that and that’s because there are no guarantees that the offense is going to do their part. But that doesn’t make it any less true.

Scoreboard aside, the only other statistic that even comes close to TOP is turnover ratio. And the only reason it comes close, is because turnovers lead to more TOP. Even if it’s just for the few seconds it takes to run an interception back for a TD. The other team is being denied the ball in those few seconds, hence the advantage. The score is nice too, obviously, but if he fell down on the pick and the offense spent another few minutes driving it in, they’d be even better off than had he taken it to the house. I realize no one thinks like that and that’s because there are no guarantees that the offense is going to do their part. But that doesn’t make it any less true.

I don’t think a coach with your mentality would have a job for very long. To say that the only reason turnovers are valuable is that it allows you to control the clock—and that the actual scoring of points is just a little side benefit—is so patently absurd I don’t even really know how to respond to it effectively (and maybe that’s your strategy).

And I understand what you mean in theory (although it’s impossible for one team to completely control the clock for an entire half—the math just doesn’t work out from a purely hypothetical standpoint), but the reality of the NFL is incongruent with this strategic game of reverse-hot-potato you suggest. History shows that dominant defenses can only be successful if they are able to be EFFICIENT with regards to scoring points. Which is what ME’s original position was about—offensive efficiency, rather than overall yards, ToP, etc. And efficiency means converting offensive drives into points. And NFL games are timed. It seems so basic, then, to understand why it’s important to SCORE QUICKLY to establish a lead, then try to protect that lead by NOT GIVING UP POINTS quickly. That way you have more points than the opponent before the time runs out.

Now obviously that’s pedantic, but it’s also true. The advantages to establishing an early lead (rather than bleeding out the clock the entire game) are numerous, but let’s just pick one— it eliminates your opponents “control the clock” strategies. If Drew & Co. score 5 TDs in the first quarter while holding the opponent to no points, then the 2nd half strategy for said opposing team looks very different. However, under your bizarre football model, it would be better to spend the entire first half with like 3 drives, only one of which results in a TD. Which you somehow liken to “throwing gas on a fire to extinguish it.” I just don’t get it—and I think you’re just trying to make arguments so that you can post more often than you already do.

“And NFL games are timed. It seems so basic, then, to understand why it’s important to SCORE QUICKLY to establish a lead, then try to protect that lead by NOT GIVING UP POINTS quickly.”

You hit the nail on the head in your first sentence. GAMES are timed. DRIVES are not. Unless you’re up against the clock at the end of the second or fourth quarters, there is absolutely no reason to score QUICKLY. Score? Yes. QUICKLY? No.

“That way you have more points than the opponent before the time runs out.”

Outside of those end of the half situations, scoring quickly does NOT, in any way, shape or form, better your odds of having more points than your opponent before time runs out.

“The advantages to establishing an early lead (rather than bleeding out the clock the entire game) are numerous, but let’s just pick one— it eliminates your opponents "control the clock" strategies.”

a. If you’re talking about an “early lead” in general, it doesn nothing of the sort. A well-coached team is still going to stick to their game plan, regardless of the way you’re running your offense. You can also establish an “early lead” by moving down the field methodically, so I’m not sure how this point even begins to support scoring QUICKLY in the first place.

“If Drew & Co. score 5 TDs in the first quarter while holding the opponent to no points, then the 2nd half strategy for said opposing team looks very different.”

Also, if those same 5 formidably crafted, quick strike TD drives that “Drew & Co.” put together in the first half were spread out over longer stretches of time — for example, 3 drives eating up much of the first half, 2 more bleeding most of the third quarter, etc., wouldn’t it alter your opponent’s 2nd half strategy EVEN MORESO? It’s the same 35 points on the scoreboard either way. Same 5 TD deficit, only now they have LESS time to match! What’s so hard to understand about this?

I’ve actually said the same thing quite a few times now and I promised Dave I wouldn’t beat dead horses, so consider that my lone rebuttal (to you) on this subject.

I will sneak this in there, though:

Offense is the opposite defense.

A defense’s primary goals are to prevent scores, to prevent the opponent from advancing the ball down the field and to get their offense back out on to the field as QUICKLY as possible.

Common sense would dictate that an offense’s goals are the exact OPPOSITE of that, correct? This would mean that their responsibility is to SCORE, to ADVANCE the ball down the field and to get their defense back out on to the field as __________ as possible.

Please feel free to fill in the blank. Is the opposite of QUICKLY … “quickly”? Hmm, I’m not sure. I’m going to go out on a limb and say it ISN’T the opposite. I’m also going to point out that there’s no mention of preventing anything “slowly” by the defense. In fact, the quinessential defensive appearance is over and done with in three plays, i.e., QUICKLY. Just the opposite of “slowly”, in case you were not aware.

So, why then would I want to AVOID the opposite on offense by doing things QUICKLY? Answer: I wouldn’t. All I want to do is ADVANCE the ball. And SCORE. No mention of a pace whatsoever, yet understood to be the OPPOSITE of “get our brethren unit back on the field QUICKLY”.

I’ll let you reason your way through the rest of that, since I’m just arguing “for the sake of it”.

deregard the bold, it was itemized as b.