DMN Blog: Football Outsiders: How are the Cowboys the NFC East's worst team?

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,018
Reaction score
44,718
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Five Downs With Football Outsiders: How are the Cowboys the NFC East's worst team?

12:45 AM Fri, Oct 10, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Tim MacMahon http://www.***BANNED-URL***/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg E-mail http://www.***BANNED-URL***/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg News tips
http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***/NS_15Ratliff-thumb-250x213.jpg

Bill Barnwell, a contributing editor at footballoutsiders.com and one of the minds behind the must-read Pro Football Prospectus, will answer five Cowboys questions each week of the season using the FO data and methodologies. Here's the Week 6 edition:

1. If the NFC East standings went by the Football Outsider team efficiency rankings, the Cowboys would be in last place. They're seventh overall, and it's tough to argue that the No. 1 Giants and No. 5 Commanders have been more impressive through five games. How the heck are the 2-3 Eagles ranked third?
It's a tricky one, a combination of several factors. Some of the issue is luck -- the Eagles' opponents have gone nine-for-nine on field goals, including several 50+ yarders. The success rate of opposing field goals, of course, is totally random from year-to-year. They've also been subject to some long turnover returns, which is also random, while their turnover returns have been shorter.

The biggest thing, though, is how they've played in their games. Among the NFC East teams, who can say they've blown out a very good team? Washington's won four games by a total of 20 points. Dallas beat Philadelphia by four, Green Bay by 11 (in their most impressive performance of the year), and Cincinnati by nine. The Giants have blown out Seattle (the best performance of any team in the league so far by DVOA) and dominated the Commanders in a game they won by nine. They also had a close win against Cincinnati and a blowout against St. Louis.

Philadelphia, meanwhile, dominated Pittsburgh in a nine-point win the same way the Giants handled the Commanders, making their opposition look silly. They lost to Dallas by four on the road, lost to Chicago by four on the road, and lost to the Commanders by six points. They've looked very impressive in their two wins (the other a blowout of the Rams), and we give them credit for outplaying the Cowboys despite losing, perhaps owing to two 47+ yard field goals by Nick Folk.

Of course, shoulda coulda doesn't mean you can go back in time and change what happened. DVOA's pretty nifty at using these sort of things to predict future performance, though, so I'm pretty confident that the Eagles are still going to have a say in the playoff picture in the NFC.

2. Jason Witten ranks first by a large margin among tight ends in your Defense-adjusted Yard Above Replacement stat (DYAR) but only eighth in your Defense-adjusted Value Over Average stat (DVOA). Why such a big difference? Which formula do you consider more indicative of a player's performance?
The difference is volume. DVOA is like batting average -- if a guy gets one throw in his direction and he catches it and goes for 40 yards, his DVOA is going to be off the charts! His DYAR, on the other hand, will recognize that he had one great play, but that there's only so much damage you can do on a single play; in that sense, it's more like runs scored or RBI.

DYAR's a much better indicator of how a player is affecting a team on the whole; if a guy is consistently dropping passes or picking up solid chunks of yardage, DYAR will tell you so. Witten's so far above everyone else in DYAR because he's been thrown 48 passes; the only other tight end to be thrown more than 40 is Tony Gonzalez, who hasn't caught enough of the ones thrown to him to be valuable.

3. Felix Jones is off the charts in those metrics for running backs, although he doesn't have enough carries to qualify for the RB rankings. How do his numbers so far compare with the best change-of-pace backs since FO started tracking those statistical formulas?
He sure does look fantastic so far -- in light of the idea that he had a pretty middling Speed Score, it will be interesting to see if he can become an everydown back or at least a guy who picks up 150 carries a year. If he can do that at the rate he's performing at now, he'd be an incredibly valuable player.

Jones' rushing DVOA at the moment is an absurd 87.7%. That will drop some once we begin to adjust for opponent, but it would be the best performance by any back with ten or more carries since 1995, the beginning of the DVOA era.

The current holder of that title is Jerry Ellison, a halfback for the 1995 Tampa Bay Buccaneers who gained 218 yards on 26 carries, scoring five touchdowns. He only had 48 mediocre carries over the rest of his career, though.

Other guys in the top 10 include DeDe Dorsey and Ahmad Bradshaw last year, Stephen Davis in 1996, Moe Williams' impressive 2002 campaign where he scored 11 times in 84 carries, Brian Mitchell's 1995 season, and surprisingly, two years from a forgotten former Cowboy -- Michael Wiley.

After a very mediocre 2000, Wiley had huge numbers in 2001 and 2002, putting up a DVOA of 48.4% and 58.0%, respectively. He averaged over seven yards a carry in both seasons. He was out of the league by 2003, but obviously, the man still had at least something to offer.

4. The Cowboys have the league's best TD-to-drive ratio (.341). How does that compare to their ratio last season? What's the best ratio since FO has tracked that stat?

Last year, Dallas was 4th in the league, averaging .282 touchdowns per drive. The best that we've seen is the 2007 Patriots, who averaged .424 touchdowns per drive, as well as a league-leading 3.37 points per drive. Kinda scary. So far this year, the Giants lead the league with 3.08 points per drive. These stats take out drives like kneeldowns and Hail Mary's, so they're a good way of judging how well a team is playing when they're actually trying to score.

5. I have Larry Fitzgerald on my fantasy team. Can you crunch some numbers and tell me what kind of stats he'll put up against the Cowboys secondary?
Unfortunately, our stats aren't quite that advanced yet. What I do for my ESPN column on fantasy matchups each week is run a regression analysis based upon several factors (like opposing defense, performance against similar wide receivers, likelihood of a team to be winning/losing in the second half, injuries on offense and defense, etc) to spit out a percentage value above or below the player's expected fantasy performance against an average team, as determined by KUBIAK, our fantasy football algorithm. Yes, it's named after Gary Kubiak. It's a long story.

This week, we have Fitzgerald at eight percent above average. That's primarily due to two things. The first is the expected outcome and pace of the game; the Cowboys are likely going to win this game, which means that the Cardinals will be throwing the ball to catch up. That also likely indicates a fast-paced game, meaning more drives (and points) for each team.
Second is injuries -- it looks like the Cowboys will be missing Terence Newman this week, and at the time of writing that column, it appeared that Adam Jones would be suspended. At this point, who knows whether he'll play or how good he'll be. Either way, Fitzgerald's the better receiver, and while he'll see more double coverage without Anquan Boldin, he's still the Cardinals' only real target downfield. If I had to guess what his line will be... I'll say seven catches, 118 yards, and a score. Maybe two.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,015
Reaction score
6,903
WoodysGirl;2323002 said:
Philadelphia, meanwhile, dominated Pittsburgh in a nine-point win the same way the Giants handled the Commanders, making their opposition look silly. They lost to Dallas by four on the road, lost to Chicago by four on the road, and lost to the Commanders by six points. They've looked very impressive in their two wins (the other a blowout of the Rams), and we give them credit for outplaying the Cowboys despite losing, perhaps owing to two 47+ yard field goals by Nick Folk.

Stats don't kill people. People using stats kill people.


That is just stupid. They are given so much credit for losing a game plus two other games that they rank high. I am glad that in the big scheme of things that these rankings don't really matter. Philly was ranked high most of last season as well and did not make the playoffs. That is because the things that really matter are wins and losses and they were poor at that last year and so far are doing the same.

Even so I never thought Philly outplayed Dallas in that MNF game. At worst it was dead even, but I still gave Dallas the advantage.

Philly's defense did not stop the Dallas offense at all in that game. The offense moved at will except for two boneheaded plays by Tony Romo. The only reason Dallas had to settle for a FG on one drive was because it was just before halftime and they did not have the time to try for a TD. The clock stopped Dallas more than the Philly defense.

The Dallas defense did not play a great game, but they held when it mattered. The defense made Philly settle for FGs instead of TDs. They also shut down Philly in the second half.

Dallas outplayed Philly and that is why they won.
 

Rack

Federal Agent
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
3,106
Aren't these the same yahoos that said Felix Jones wouldn't succeed in the NFL cuz his Size/Speed ratio wasn't high enough?

The same morons that thing 40 times are the same thing as football speed...



Nuff said.
 

Clove

Shrinkage
Messages
64,838
Reaction score
27,404
I love where they rank us, now we can go about our business quietly, yeah right.
 

arglebargle

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,373
Reaction score
409
AdamJT13;2323319 said:
What a couple of doofuses MacMahon and Barnwell are.

Adam, do you feel that Barnwell's statistical methods are flawed, or is it just his analysis, or what? Objective or subjective issue?

If this has been talked to death before, is there a thread on it here somewheres?
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
arglebargle;2323854 said:
Adam, do you feel that Barnwell's statistical methods are flawed, or is it just his analysis, or what? Objective or subjective issue?

Both. Most (maybe all) of Football Outsiders' statistical methods aren't his, but yes, I consider most of them flawed to some degree or another. And I don't value his analysis and opinions at all.
 

AKATheRake

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
2,963
That's why the NFl runs this league and not the Football insiders/outsiders. Accoridng to their stats, who cares about their stats. The Eagles clearly outplayed us? We hung 41 on them and their only turnover was in our end. The refs gave them 7 points on that pass interference, Romo gave them 7 points on that end zone fumble. It was more like we were handing them the game and slappen them around offensively. That's my depiction of that game. In regards to them getting 9/9 field goals with (4) 50 + yarders on them in 5 games well you went up against Folk from Dallas and Gould from Chicago, those 2 will put 50 yarders up no problem. Plus Pittsburgh put a couple FG's on you in a defensive showdown. Wow that's luck? Not at all. That game they lost to Chicago, they would have been up by 3 with a little under 2 minutes to if they could have made one yard after a 2nd down. 2 running plays and a pass and they couldn't get it on the Bears 1. I lost $500 on the moneyline in that game. When you can't put 1 yard together on 3 plays to lead the game that's not luck, that's you're not a team that deserves to win that game. How bout these Football guru's put those stats together. Unreal, non relevant statistical information that they are just spitting out to get page views.
 

arglebargle

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,373
Reaction score
409
AdamJT13;2323988 said:
Both. Most (maybe all) of Football Outsiders' statistical methods aren't his, but yes, I consider most of them flawed to some degree or another. And I don't value his analysis and opinions at all.

Ouch! Thanks.
 

sweetness0986

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
2,388
I think this guy just wants to spout his stupidity and hope that he's right so he can look back and say he's "the one that thought outside the box and knew all along."
 

Rack

Federal Agent
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
3,106
AdamJT13;2323988 said:
Both. Most (maybe all) of Football Outsiders' statistical methods aren't his, but yes, I consider most of them flawed to some degree or another. And I don't value his analysis and opinions at all.

Agreed.

Not only are their methods flawed, but they put way too much stock into them.


Hence, them predicting Felix would be a failure.


I wish these guys would learn the difference between speed on the field, and a 40 time.
 

cowboys2233

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,983
Rack;2324135 said:
Agreed.

Not only are their methods flawed, but they put way too much stock into them.


Hence, them predicting Felix would be a failure.


I wish these guys would learn the difference between speed on the field, and a 40 time.


It's not even the difference between playing speed and combine speed that drives me nuts about these dorks. It is their obvious lack of statistical knowledge when they put together their incredibly simplistic formula that derived the magic figure known as the Speed Score (or whatever dumb *** name they called it).

Weight x 40 time = Speed Score. Wow, Einstein and his theory of relativity has nothing on these guys. :laugh2:
 

Rack

Federal Agent
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
3,106
cowboys2233;2324184 said:
It's not even the difference between playing speed and combine speed that drives me nuts about these dorks. It is their obvious lack of statistical knowledge when they put together their incredibly simplistic formula that derived the magic figure known as the Speed Score (or whatever dumb *** name they called it).

Weight x 40 time = Speed Score. Wow, Einstein and his theory of relativity has nothing on these guys. :laugh2:

:lmao2:

So true. Nevermind straight ahead speed (40 times) are pretty useless in football. There are some RARE occasions where a player is able to run full speed in a straight line, but lateral quick, burst, balance, vision (none of which is factored in to their "Formula") are far more important.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,015
Reaction score
6,903
cowboys2233;2324184 said:
It's not even the difference between playing speed and combine speed that drives me nuts about these dorks. It is their obvious lack of statistical knowledge when they put together their incredibly simplistic formula that derived the magic figure known as the Speed Score (or whatever dumb *** name they called it).

Weight x 40 time = Speed Score. Wow, Einstein and his theory of relativity has nothing on these guys. :laugh2:

Is that really their formula or are you just really giving them the business? I got no problems with you giving them the business.

Emmitt probably scored very low if you looked at his speed to his size coming out of college. He gained some weight and thickness once he was in the league a few years, but he was not that big at first and obviously was never a speedster. Felix is a similar weight and faster.
 

peplaw06

That Guy
Messages
13,699
Reaction score
413
joseephuss;2323027 said:
Stats don't kill people. People using stats kill people.


That is just stupid. They are given so much credit for losing a game plus two other games that they rank high. I am glad that in the big scheme of things that these rankings don't really matter. Philly was ranked high most of last season as well and did not make the playoffs. That is because the things that really matter are wins and losses and they were poor at that last year and so far are doing the same.

Even so I never thought Philly outplayed Dallas in that MNF game. At worst it was dead even, but I still gave Dallas the advantage.

Philly's defense did not stop the Dallas offense at all in that game. The offense moved at will except for two boneheaded plays by Tony Romo. The only reason Dallas had to settle for a FG on one drive was because it was just before halftime and they did not have the time to try for a TD. The clock stopped Dallas more than the Philly defense.

The Dallas defense did not play a great game, but they held when it mattered. The defense made Philly settle for FGs instead of TDs. They also shut down Philly in the second half.

Dallas outplayed Philly and that is why they won.
If the Cowboys don't win by double digits, the perception is that we were outplayed. The Eagles outplayed us, the Bengals outplayed us, and the Skins outplayed us decisively (despite the fact that we were one onside kick recovery from winning the game).

Don't know what makes me feel better.... That we can win games when are outplayed, or that we're perceived to be outplayed if we don't blow teams out of the building.

But I'll take it.
 

cowboys2233

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,983
joseephuss;2324221 said:
Is that really their formula or are you just really giving them the business? I got no problems with you giving them the business.

Emmitt probably scored very low if you looked at his speed to his size coming out of college. He gained some weight and thickness once he was in the league a few years, but he was not that big at first and obviously was never a speedster. Felix is a similar weight and faster.


I'm pretty sure it was something ridiculously simple like that because it is all they're capable of putting together. Hell, even throwing in a shuttle time woudl probably make their "Speed Score" a whole heck of a lot more telling.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
cowboys2233;2324259 said:
I'm pretty sure it was something ridiculously simple like that because it is all they're capable of putting together. **** even throwing in a shuttle time woudl probably make their "Speed Score" a whole heck of a lot more telling.

Their book lists what they found to be the success correlation of various combine measurements, and they could have used other factors that would give a higher correlation to success (some that would suggest that Felix should be more successful than his Speed Score suggests). But for some reason, they chose to use only weight and 40-yard dash time.
 

cowboys2233

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,983
AdamJT13;2324271 said:
Their book lists what they found to be the success correlation of various combine measurements, and they could have used other factors that would give a higher correlation to success (some that would suggest that Felix should be more successful than his Speed Score suggests). But for some reason, they chose to use only weight and 40-yard dash time.

That probably suggests that they were only looking at binomial relationships. IOW, one combine measurement at a time in relation to "success" (whatever the heck that subjective term means). Stringing together a number of variables and giving them logical, sensible weights would elicit a much stronger relationship to "success" IMO.

But again, I have a feeling that is beyond their intellectual means. :laugh2:
 
Top