2013 Fumble Recovery Data Has Jets, Cowboys at Extremes

[Deep_South]

Don't forget Cluttz/Kluttz/whatever his name is. I think it was the second Skins game.

Oh man, I was trying to forget that - it led to a touchdown. We did come back and win the game against the Skins though, 24-23. Here's the headline:

FB Tyler Clutts botches first and only touch as member of Dallas Cowboys

 

[OhSnap]

Dallas forced the 6th fewest opponent fumbles at 16, while Philly forced 29 (best). Dallas recovered 81% and Philly recovered 41%. THe league average was 48% (close to 50%).

The premise is forcing fumbles is not luck, recovering is. We weren't very good at forcing them and creating odds. We got dealt 20 and 21 4/5 hands.

No where have I ever said that forcing fumbles was luck. I said the writer Chase Stuart attributes luck to the recovery rate on any given year. Dallas was -14 in turnovers in 2012 and +7 in 2013 and thats why I said the reason the recovery number going up was not luck, you cant recover as many if your not forcing as many. Using 2012 as a starting point the increase was a positive one.

 

[OhSnap]

Statistically this tells us that a) we are almost assured of doing worse % wise this year and much more importantly b) you recover more fumbles if you force more fumbles

Fumble recovery is likely a truly random process. You knock that ball out, it bounces funny, and can end up anywhere.

Forcing fumbles is not a random process. Some teams consistently force more. That's the important issue.

Exactly. It was up last year and with Marinelli will likely stay up at least close to the + side and with something crazy like Church and Claiborne being better in the 4-3 or Lee playing more games the points off turnovers could actually go up.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Forcing fumbles is not a random process. Some teams consistently force more. That's the important issue.

Exactly. It was up last year and with Marinelli will likely stay up at least close to the + side and with something crazy like Church and Claiborne being better in the 4-3 or Lee playing more games the points off turnovers could actually go up.

Huh? The Cowboys forced more fumbles in 2012 than they did in 2013 (18 vs. 16). Their recovery rate was better in 2013, but there's good reason to be skeptical that that will continue.

 

[TheDude]

No where have I ever said that forcing fumbles was luck. I said the writer Chase Stuart attributes luck to the recovery rate on any given year. Dallas was -14 in turnovers in 2012 and +7 in 2013 and thats why I said the reason the recovery number going up was not luck, you cant recover as many if your not forcing as many. Using 2012 as a starting point the increase was a positive one.

No you are saying recovery is not luck - which as the article states and most statisticians put as complete 50/50.

For the links you provided, In 2012, Dallas Opponents had 18 fumbles and Dallas recovered 9. In 2013, opponents had 16 fumbles and Dallas recovered 13.

Forced fumbles/opponents fumbles (which is not luck) was down 2 year over year.

It sounds like your position is that coaching got them more recoveries than normal and that is sustainable - THat is not the premise of the article but your interpretation

 

[percyhoward]

Defensively, we faced 109 more plays than the previous season, and opposing offenses had one less fumble.

Offensively, we ranked 5th in points that were NOT scored off turnovers in 2013.
1 Broncos 479
2 Saints 360
3 Eagles 351
4 Packers 350
5 Cowboys 339

 

[OhSnap]

Huh? The Cowboys forced more fumbles in 2012 than they did in 2013 (18 vs. 16). Their recovery rate was better in 2013, but there's good reason to be skeptical that that will continue.

They may have forced more fumbles(I have only looked at turnover ratio) in 012 but I think I said they had a better turnover ratio not forced fumbles and yes the recovery rate will probably go down but the turnover ratio could go up. I would prefer the TO ratio go up by int's and thats a distinct possibility. If they get less int's look me up and rub my nose in it but I'll go out on a limb and say they get 4 more int's out of the secondary in 014 than they did in 013 just because of the second year of being in the 4-3.

 

[OhSnap]

No you are saying recovery is not luck - which as the article states and most statisticians put as complete 50/50.

For the links you provided, In 2012, Dallas Opponents had 18 fumbles and Dallas recovered 9. In 2013, opponents had 16 fumbles and Dallas recovered 13.

Forced fumbles/opponents fumbles (which is not luck) was down 2 year over year.

It sounds like your position is that coaching got them more recoveries than normal and that is sustainable - THat is not the premise of the article but your interpretation

Sorry. I blurred the convo by making it about turnovers as a whole while trying to point out the positive in last year. The article does predict a "regression" but it also points out that the Cowboys had a great year in recovering fumbles. I would never suggest that forcing fumbles is luck and recovering a bouncing oblong ball is a skill.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I think some people are allergic even to small amounts.

Around here they are. And you can bet neither JG or JJ will get any credit for it.

 

[TheDude]

They may have forced more fumbles(I have only looked at turnover ratio) in 012 but I think I said they had a better turnover ratio not forced fumbles and yes the recovery rate will probably go down but the turnover ratio could go up. I would prefer the TO ratio go up by int's and thats a distinct possibility. If they get less int's look me up and rub my nose in it but I'll go out on a limb and say they get 4 more int's out of the secondary in 014 than they did in 013 just because of the second year of being in the 4-3.

Ok, so we agree the fumble stat isn't core positive and causation is better linked to forced fumbles

As for Ints:

Dallas had 20 Ints in 2010, 15 in 2011, 7 in 2012 and 15 last year. I dont see how the 4-3 is largely changing the Int number. There's no evidence a 4-3 is better at that

 

[TheDude]

Around here they are. And you can bet neither JG or JJ will get any credit for it.

I love positive news as long as it is tangible results and not esoteric data or spinning. And yes, that can happen on the negative side as well.

 

[OhSnap]

Ok, so we agree the fumble stat isn't core positive and causation is better linked to forced fumbles

As for Ints:

Dallas had 20 Ints in 2010, 15 in 2011, 7 in 2012 and 15 last year. I dont see how the 4-3 is largely changing the Int number. There's no evidence a 4-3 is better at that

To me it's obviously the coaching change and having Barry Church, I said 4-3 with that in mind because they came together. But the 2 biggest differences last year where the coaches and Church. I would love to debate which defense is better but they both need each other and I don't think I said one was better than the other and didn't mean to if I did. I only said the article contained SOME positive information which I regret now I never said the article predicted a great season ahead for the Cowboys.

 

[OhSnap]

Around here they are. And you can bet neither JG or JJ will get any credit for it.

Well I was really just throwin a lil sarcasm in on what I thought was a halfway interesting article, I never meant to suggest the article was a prediction of better things. Generally speaking fumbles are turnovers and we got more turnovers and we recovered a higher percentage of the fumbles. My bad on the warning

 

[OhSnap]

Defensively, we faced 109 more plays than the previous season, and opposing offenses had one less fumble.

Offensively, we ranked 5th in points that were NOT scored off turnovers in 2013.
1 Broncos 479
2 Saints 360
3 Eagles 351
4 Packers 350
5 Cowboys 339

Interesting stat which could have been evened out if David Wilson hadn't hurt his neck. Have you looked into why we faced so many more drives? Top and 3rd down conversions would be my first guess. Also if you have a site or somewhere you normally post lemme know.

 

[percyhoward]

Have you looked into why we faced so many more drives? Top and 3rd down conversions would be my first guess. Also if you have a site or somewhere you normally post lemme know.

The defense faced fewer drives than the league average. In fact, 7 of the top 10 defenses in points per drive faced more drives than ours. Compared to 2012 on a per-drive basis, the defense faced more plays, and gave up more yards and more points. The average TOP per drive by opposing offenses was actually less in 2013, but that's mostly because teams were scoring so easily on us (one of the reasons TOP isn't one of the best stats).

The defense ranked 29th in 3rd down conversion % allowed, but when looking at conversions, there's no reason to focus just on 3rd downs. You're talking about a down that only accounted for 19.2% of all the plays that were run against our defense last year. If you look at all the plays, our defense ranked 32nd (dead last) in percentage of plays that resulted in a first down against them--that's plays run on any down. Our offense ranked 4th in the same category.

If I'm anywhere writing something football related, I'm usually here.

 

[OhSnap]

The defense faced fewer drives than the league average. In fact, 7 of the top 10 defenses in points per drive faced more drives than ours. Compared to 2012 on a per-drive basis, the defense faced more plays, and gave up more yards and more points. The average TOP per drive by opposing offenses was actually less in 2013, but that's mostly because teams were scoring so easily on us (one of the reasons TOP isn't one of the best stats).

The defense ranked 29th in 3rd down conversion % allowed, but when looking at conversions, there's no reason to focus just on 3rd downs. You're talking about a down that only accounted for 19.2% of all the plays that were run against our defense last year. If you look at all the plays, our defense ranked 32nd (dead last) in percentage of plays that resulted in a first down against them--that's plays run on any down. Our offense ranked 4th in the same category.

If I'm anywhere writing something football related, I'm usually here.

I think that answers my question. Makes more sense that a good defense would face more drives. But sounds crazy to think that the 2012 def. was better even if only 3 plays per game. 109 is allot. Thanks.

 

[OhSnap]

Oh man, I was trying to forget that - it led to a touchdown. We did come back and win the game against the Skins though, 24-23. Here's the headline:

FB Tyler Clutts botches first and only touch as member of Dallas Cowboys

I keep wantin to give you likes because of your pic but we all knew how a guy name Clutts was gonna work out last year.

 

[Idgit]

Huh? The Cowboys forced more fumbles in 2012 than they did in 2013 (18 vs. 16). Their recovery rate was better in 2013, but there's good reason to be skeptical that that will continue.

Honest question: why is recovery rate considered luck? I can easily see defenses emphasizing calling out loose balls and swarming to the ball, how to hold it in a pile, how to attract the attention of officials, how to get down with possession, how to block offenders away from loose balls, whatever, more effectively.

 

[coult44]

I said it contains SOME positive news- mainly about last year. I think some people are allergic even to small amounts.

There's nothing positive about being a loser!!

 

[OhSnap]

There's nothing positive about being a loser!!

Well the Cowboys have only had 2 losing records in the last 10 years. Just because they aint won enough to suit you doesn't technically mean they're losers and just because I wont call them losers doesn't mean I think they've been doing great. It's ok to say good things about your team occasionally IMO. Some of you guys think anyone not saying the team, the owner, and the coach sucks are the same as saying they're happy with the number of games won and thats waaaaaaaay off base. Constantly bashing a team is just taking the easy way out IMO but thats ok I enjoy the debate once in awhile. The ironic thing is my expectations are actually higher than the person calling his team a loser because he already gave up.