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

[peplaw06]

Originally Posted by Hostile

If I had maintained being behind by any margin is okay I could see the reason to be asked this. Since I haven't, I am perplexed as to why I even need to consider answering something so obvious. Especially when it appears like I am the lone person thinking 11 points in the first half isn't some magical barrier to more wins. So I don't see any need for a formula either. That all is interesting, but trivial at best.

I have given several examples of how it is insufficient, arbitrary data.

No you haven't. McLovin is posting detailed formulas and statistical analysis, and you're doing the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

He does the work, and you move the goalposts.

Hos: How does the 10 point benchmark correlate to wins and losses?
McLovin: *correlating **** *
Hos: Oh yeah? What about 14 points and a lead?
McLovin: *correlating **** *
Hos: What about 21 points with a lead and being at home in a domed stadium?
McLovin: Seriously?
Hos: See! Arbitrary!

[Shinywalrus]

If you create a categorical variable called "1H Points Above 10" and "1h Points 10 or Fewer" you get a similar R-squared.

The flaw in the statistical analysis is that teams who score poorly in the first half tend to score poorly in the second half, but that's not really true for us. What sort of qualitative assessments could you guess at based on this?

That we don't gameplan well, but we make good adjustments, perhaps?

That we try and fail to establish the run in the first half but are forced into passing in the second, at which we tend to be more successful?

Probably some validity to both.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by peplaw06

No you haven't. McLovin is posting detailed formulas and statistical analysis, and you're doing the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

He does the work, and you move the goalposts.

Hos: How does the 10 point benchmark correlate to wins and losses?
McLovin: *correlating **** *
Hos: Oh yeah? What about 14 points and a lead?
McLovin: *correlating **** *
Hos: What about 21 points with a lead and being at home in a domed stadium?
McLovin: Seriously?
Hos: See! Arbitrary!

Wrong. I simply asked how the formula he presented accounts for scoring 11+ points and still being down at the half?

I doubt it does.

You know what? This is beyond silly. Knock yourselves out believing 11 points is relevant to something but 10 points isn't, even if the other team scores more.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Thank you. I mean that.

Np, not often I get to use math geekness on forums

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by McLovin

Np, not often I get to use math geekness on forums

It was very enlightening and I do appreciate the work. I still don't see the relevance of 11 points, but you're the only person who made any effort at all and it was interesting. Everyone else just wants to rub old wounds.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Shinywalrus

If you create a categorical variable called "1H Points Above 10" and "1h Points 10 or Fewer" you get a similar R-squared.

The flaw in the statistical analysis is that teams who score poorly in the first half tend to score poorly in the second half, but that's not really true for us. What sort of qualitative assessments could you guess at based on this?

That we don't gameplan well, but we make good adjustments, perhaps?

That we try and fail to establish the run in the first half but are forced into passing in the second, at which we tend to be more successful?

Probably some validity to both.

Degree of truth there. Like I said in a previous post, I think people remember comebacks mean reversion would submit that strong teams outscore opponents in most every quarter over time. Stronger teams perform better early and can make another team one dimensional

However, I think there is a case to be made that usually going into the half with a lead (which means scoring points) is statistically beneficial and increases your chances of winning. The top teams always seem to be in this category.

I tried to illustrate that teams that score early have a better record. Basically Denver is the only outlier to that

[Shinywalrus]

Originally Posted by McLovin

Degree of truth there. Like I said in a previous post, I think people remember comebacks mean reversion would submit that strong teams outscore opponents in most every quarter over time. Stronger teams perform better early and can make another team one dimensional

However, I think there is a case to be made that usually going into the half with a lead (which means scoring points) is statistically beneficial and increases your chances of winning. The top teams always seem to be in this category.

I tried to illustrate that teams that score early have a better record. Basically Denver is the only outlier to that

Well, the better question would be whether 1H scoring has any significance after taking into account total scoring output - that is to say, is scoring in the first half actually more valuable than just scoring more in general? I'm not sure the analysis showed that or not, since I suspect 1H scoring and total scoring have an extremely high correlation.

[peplaw06]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Wrong. I simply asked how the formula he presented accounts for scoring 11+ points and still being down at the half?

I doubt it does.

You know what? This is beyond silly. Knock yourselves out believing 11 points is relevant to something but 10 points isn't, even if the other team scores more.

It's a simple concept that you're trying to make difficult in order to fit it with your agenda. We haven't scored more than 10 points in the first half all season. We're the only team in the NFL that can say that. If you can't understand how that's not a good thing, I can't help you.

You're trying some kind of master spin job to make it not seem so awful. It's about the most obtuse and transparent I've ever seen you be.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Shinywalrus

Well, the better question would be whether 1H scoring has any significance after taking into account total scoring output - that is to say, is scoring in the first half actually more valuable than just scoring more in general? I'm not sure the analysis showed that or not, since I suspect 1H scoring and total scoring have an extremely high correlation.

The regression was first half scoring to wins. That was very strong and a little stronger than 2H scoring differential.

I have to clean this up a bit, but here is a look at all single game data (not aggregate scores:

In 176 games to date:
- 99 times - Teams scoring 1st and scoring => 10 pts win 69.1% of the time (68.5/99) - one tie is in there for StL
- 77 times - Teams score first but do not get 10 pts by halftime win 42.9% of the time (44/77)

Of the the 176 games the team who scored first won 101 times or 57.3%

Dallas has scored first 3 times (Car, Atl, Was) all FGs and are 1-2

Other notables (only games where the team scored first)
Min - 9 times - Won 6, Won 5-1 when scoring >10 in H1
Pit - 9 times - Won 5, 3-2 when scoring >10 in H1
SF - 8 times - Won 6, 6-0 when scoring >10 in H1
Sea - 9 times - Won 5, 2-1 when scoring >10 in H1
Hou - 6 times - Won 6, 4-0 when scoring > 10 in H1
GB - 6 times - Won 5, 4-1 when scoring > 10 in H1
Balt - 7 times - Won 6, 4-0 when scoring > 10 in H1
NYG - 5 times - won 4, 4-0 when scoring > 10 in H1
Cincy - 7 times - won 5, 5-1 when scoring > 10 in H1
NE - 5 times - won 4, 3-1 when scoring > 10 in H1
Chi - 6 times - won 6, 1-0 when scoring >10 in H1

If I had data by scoring first TD I would assume the correlation is higher. FGs are easier to overcome

[tupperware]

Not sure why we're talking about 10/11 points. 6.6 for the first half is what we're averaging.

Here are the records for teams that average below 10 points in the first half:

2012

19 Seattle 6-5
20 Denver 8-3
21 St Louis 4-6
22 Carolina 3-8
23 Detroit 4-7
24 Miami 5-6
25 NY Jets 4-7
26 Arizona 4-7
27 Cleveland 3-8
28 Oakland 3-8
29 Jacksonville 2-9
30 Dallas 5-6
31 Philadelphia 3-8
32 Kansas City 1-10

2011

22 Washington 5-11
23 Jacksonville 5-11
24 Cincinnati 9-7
25 Tampa Bay 4-12
26 Denver 8-8
27 Seattle 7-9
28 Cleveland 4-12
29 Indianapolis 2-14
30 Arizona 8-8
31 Kansas City 7-9
32 St Louis 2-14

2010

21 Washington 6-10
22 San Francisco 6-10
23 NY Jets 11-5
24 Houston 6-10
25 Arizona 5-11
26 Cincinnati 4-12
27 Denver 4-12
28 Miami 7-9
29 Seattle 7-9
30 Minnesota 6-10
31 Buffalo 4-12
32 Carolina 2-14

2009

21 Seattle 5-11
22 San Francisco 8-8
23 Detroit 2-14
24 Chicago 7-9
25 Buffalo 6-10
26 Denver 8-8
27 Cleveland 5-11
28 Washington 4-12
29 Oakland 5-11
30 Kansas City 4-12
31 Tampa Bay 3-13
32 St Louis 1-15

[peplaw06]

Originally Posted by tupperware

Not sure why we're talking about 10/11 points. 6.6 for the first half is what we're averaging.

Here are the records for teams that average below 10 points in the first half:

2012

19 Seattle 6-5
20 Denver 8-3
21 St Louis 4-6
22 Carolina 3-8
23 Detroit 4-7
24 Miami 5-6
25 NY Jets 4-7
26 Arizona 4-7
27 Cleveland 3-8
28 Oakland 3-8
29 Jacksonville 2-9
30 Dallas 5-6
31 Philadelphia 3-8
32 Kansas City 1-10

2011

22 Washington 5-11
23 Jacksonville 5-11
24 Cincinnati 9-7
25 Tampa Bay 4-12
26 Denver 8-8
27 Seattle 7-9
28 Cleveland 4-12
29 Indianapolis 2-14
30 Arizona 8-8
31 Kansas City 7-9
32 St Louis 2-14

2010

21 Washington 6-10
22 San Francisco 6-10
[View Full Quote]23 NY Jets 11-5
24 Houston 6-10
25 Arizona 5-11
26 Cincinnati 4-12
27 Denver 4-12
28 Miami 7-9
29 Seattle 7-9
30 Minnesota 6-10
31 Buffalo 4-12
32 Carolina 2-14

2009

21 Seattle 5-11
22 San Francisco 8-8
23 Detroit 2-14
24 Chicago 7-9
25 Buffalo 6-10
26 Denver 8-8
27 Cleveland 5-11
28 Washington 4-12
29 Oakland 5-11
30 Kansas City 4-12
31 Tampa Bay 3-13
32 St Louis 1-15

By my math that's 4 out of 47 teams have a winning record when they average below 10 points in the first half.... or 8.5%.

To put it in perspective, in order to get to an average of 10+ points in the first half for the season, we would need to average MORE than 17 points (17.4) for the first half of our last 5 games. Out of 22 total halves of football, we have done that exactly 4 times so far... or 18% of the time.

[DALLASCOWBOYS2080]

Originally Posted by Hostile

It was very enlightening and I do appreciate the work. I still don't see the relevance of 11 points, but you're the only person who made any effort at all and it was interesting. Everyone else just wants to rub old wounds.

i might be wrong but it seems that you are being way too literal and missing the essence or symbol behind the concept here.

cowboys are consistently scoring too low in the first half.

it could be 10 it could be 6 it could be 13 who cares. its consistently not enough scoring going on in the first half and it puts them behind and playing catch up in the second half. not just one game not just two games not just a handful but a lot of them.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by DALLASCOWBOYS2080

i might be wrong but it seems that you are being way too literal and missing the essence or symbol behind the concept here.

cowboys are consistently scoring too low in the first half.

it could be 10 it could be 6 it could be 13 who cares. its consistently not enough scoring going on in the first half and it puts them behind and playing catch up in the second half. not just one game not just two games not just a handful but a lot of them.

Yes sir, but thank you for at least replying in a civil manner.

[DALLASCOWBOYS2080]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Yes sir, but thank you for at least replying in a civil manner.

no probs.

so it is a very literal thing here than? the point or crux of the argument hangs on a literal point?

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by DALLASCOWBOYS2080

no probs.

so it is a very literal thing here than? the point or crux of the argument hangs on a literal point?

I don't know. McLovin was the only one actually trying to make a correlation and I really just think it is one of the most arbitrary things I have ever seen. I gave two scenarios I considered to make more sense and they got skipped and lost interest after that. If you want answers I think carefully reading McLovin's posts and shinywalrus too. Mine will confuse you because I want to see relevance and there doesn't seem to be any. Avoid me, focus on the 2 guys who actually had good analysis.