The Cowboys are the only team in the NFL who has not achieved this goal

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Great, so from now on I will worry about winning the first half and calling it mission accomplished if we do.

For the final time, I ask for a correlation across the league. It apparently has been too much to ask. I hate the slow starts, but 11 points is in fact arbitrary as I said. This would have made more sense to me to say 2 TDs, again as I have said.

I have learned today that if we score a 1st half TD we need to go for 2 points instead of a PAT because if we score a FG it increases our chances of winning. Awesome info.

Maybe I am missing your point, if so it is unintentional.
The correlation of .65 was across the league. That in and of itself may or may not be relevant. For example house prices and honey be population decline are more correlated since 2008, does that mean anything - no.

The regression and P value asserts that is significant linkage.

I will agree that the 10pts or 11 or 13 is somewhat arbitrary, but the league average in 2011 in H1 was just over 11 and 2012 is 10.76 (I think, left my data sheet on work computer). So seems as reasonable as any

I have been troubled by the slow starts for awhile, I had created a thread a couple of weeks ago about how the dallas defense was holding opponents to low scores in the 1st half and we werent capitalizing.

If you can score first or early, it places some pressure on the other team. Any stress to the other team is better than giving them confidence that they can give up 2 drives and at likely only be down 6pts at worst.

[ScipioCowboy]

Originally Posted by McLovin

Maybe I am missing your point, if so it is unintentional.
The correlation of .65 was across the league. That in and of itself may or may not be relevant. For example house prices and honey be population decline are more correlated since 2008, does that mean anything - no.

The regression and P value asserts that is significant linkage.

I will agree that the 10pts or 11 or 13 is somewhat arbitrary, but the league average in 2011 in H1 was just over 11 and 2012 is 10.76 (I think, left my data sheet on work computer). So seems as reasonable as any

I have been troubled by the slow starts for awhile, I had created a thread a couple of weeks ago about how the dallas defense was holding opponents to low scores in the 1st half and we werent capitalizing.

[View Full Quote]If you can score first or early, it places some pressure on the other team. Any stress to the other team is better than giving them confidence that they can give up 2 drives and at likely only be down 6pts at worst.

So the league average is generally somewhere between 10 and 11 points. That would grant some significance to the 10 point number, right?

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

So the league average is generally somewhere between 10 and 11 points. That would grant some significance to the 10 point number, right?

Actually 1st half points on average is about 11.4 in 2012 and 11.03 in 2011.

Seems a fine starting point for me. The >500 teams likely score more than 10 and the losing teams likely score less.

[McLovin]

Rank Avg First Half points by year

2007 13.1pts - 7th
2008 11.8 - 16th
2009 11.1 - 16th
2010 10.9 - 15th
2011 11.4 - 17th
2012 6.6 - 30th

Rank Avg Second Half points by year

2007 14.7pts - 2nd
2008 10.8 - 17th
2009 10.7 - 12th
2010 13.6 - 4th
2011 11.3 - 13th
2012 15.1- 3rd

This has been a 2nd half team for a while.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by McLovin

Maybe I am missing your point, if so it is unintentional.
The correlation of .65 was across the league. That in and of itself may or may not be relevant. For example house prices and honey be population decline are more correlated since 2008, does that mean anything - no.

The regression and P value asserts that is significant linkage.

I will agree that the 10pts or 11 or 13 is somewhat arbitrary, but the league average in 2011 in H1 was just over 11 and 2012 is 10.76 (I think, left my data sheet on work computer). So seems as reasonable as any

I have been troubled by the slow starts for awhile, I had created a thread a couple of weeks ago about how the dallas defense was holding opponents to low scores in the 1st half and we werent capitalizing.

[View Full Quote]If you can score first or early, it places some pressure on the other team. Any stress to the other team is better than giving them confidence that they can give up 2 drives and at likely only be down 6pts at worst.

Honestly man, it just is that I see 11 points as very arbitrary. That is my point. Is is very hard to score 11 points in the NFL. So why wasn't 10 points used? Why not 12 points? Infinitely easier to score 12 than 11. 10 would signify double digit scoring and it is also common. I would have had no issues at all if the parameter had said 2 TDs in the first half. That is alarming and I admit I had no idea we hadn't. Nor would I have likely chimed in if it was double digit scoring, or 10 points. Unless of course it was to show that we had scored 10 four times.

I also brought up the fact that it is possible to score 11 or more and still be behind.

My only point is that 11 points is a manufactured, cherry picked number that does not signify a large increase in chances of winning. Would you feel better if in one of our games we scored 4 FGs in the first half? I wouldn't, because to me that still means we are stalling drives and settling for FGs. Yet it would be above that 11 point barrier. So by the original premise this would mean we are doing something right like the rest of the league supposedly.

I don't see it that way at all. Therefore I don't see 11 points as an incredible leap over 10 points which we have done 4 times as I originally noted when I misread the OP. In other words 11 points is not a huge advantage over 10 points as it seemed to be presented.

Again, I appreciate the work you did. It was interesting and I thank you. I just do not see this as alarming. The not scoring 2 TDs...oh hell yeah. That sucks.

[SkinsandTerps]

The point was not really 11 points. It was simply more than 10.

[jnday]

I think this info should be alarming for the simple fact that it shows that this is a very bad first half team and some of the stats support that scoring in the second half is average. It simply reflects the state of the offense, which hasn't been that good.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by SkinsandTerps

The point was not really 11 points. It was simply more than 10.

11 is more than 10. Again, it wasn't 12. It was not 13. It was not even 2 TDs.

If your Skins score 4 FGs instead of 4 TDs, are you going to be concerned or elated because it is over 10?

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by jnday

I think this info should be alarming for the simple fact that it shows that this is a very bad first half team and some of the stats support that scoring in the second half is average. It simply reflects the state of the offense, which hasn't been that good.

Well, I suppose it would if McLovin hadn't already shown we score the 3rd most points in the NFL in the 2nd half of games.

[Hook'em#11]

This whole thread is pathetic.

And, really shows the decline of this Cowboys team and it's fans.

Clamoring over 10 pts.. LOL...


*****, half of yous are gonna be at the edge of your seats this Sunday, PRAYING the Cowboys score 10 pts in the first half.. Then, if they do, you can sit back and maintain composure because the "stats" are in Dallas's favor if they can score 10 by the half...

I myself am hoping just for the Cowboys to have MORE pts at the end of the game than the other team.

Don't care how many there are.

Carry on. This is amusing. I feel like I am back in high school.

[Shinywalrus]

Alright, so I ran the regression with 1H and 2H together as variables - interestingly, it still does appear that first half scoring is more highly correlated with winning, but not greatly, and the results would be very difficult to parse.

Essentially the model works out to this: every point per game you score in the first half gets you about 0.54 wins. Every point per game you score in the second half gets you about 0.43. Then subtract 2.8. So if you average 10 in the first and 10 in the second, you should expect about 6.9 wins.

This is all a bit silly and tautological, of course, because obviously scoring is associated with winning, and football is very path-dependent. Generalizing relationships doesn't work well with path-dependence.

I think the real substantative point would concern average MARGIN in the 1st half, because I think you do actually probably have some otherwise arbitrary breakpoints there at 10 points, 14 points and 16 points that change play-calling and defensive scheme behaviors in the second half simply by merits of the number of scores it would take to cover them.

I continue to think that what we're seeing in the numbers is just our offense trying - and usually failing - to establish the run in the first half.

[burmafrd]

Its hilarious how hard Hoss is defending his golden boy

Now by arguing over 10 vs 11 pts

talk about trying to muddy the waters

Red Ball has so far FAILED as a HC.
Simple as that

Not being able to score more than 10 pts in the first half is only a symptom of the disease

[Hook'em#11]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Its hilarious how hard Hoss is defending his golden boy

Now by arguing over 10 vs 11 pts

talk about trying to muddy the waters

Red Ball has so far FAILED as a HC.
Simple as that

Not being able to score more than 10 pts in the first half is only a symptom of the disease

Why stop at just Garrett? The whole team has been and is a failure.

[cowboys#1]

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

It's such an odd stat for a team that ranks in the top 10 in total offense. I understand that points win games, but how can you run up and down the field so much and not score?

they drive the field and then penalties or turnovers.


all the time

[EPL0c0]

Originally Posted by ScipioCowboy

It's such an odd stat for a team that ranks in the top 10 in total offense. I understand that points win games, but how can you run up and down the field so much and not score?

That's because Romo can carry the offense to 31pts in the 2nd half like he did vs WAS. sadly sometimes even that feat isn't enough.