Elimination games -- Most skewed statistic

[TwoDeep3]

I would argue that if you're trying to get to 9-7 or 10-6, you clearly arn't a poor team.

I would also argue that while Romo has put us in position to make the postseason at the end of the year at times (like the second half of last season), he's also sometimes helped put us in the position to be having to win the last game to make the postseason (like the first half of last season).

And this thread mercifully ends because Roy summed it up without calling anyone names or using psycho-babble to slander those who are not drinking from the trough.

Thanks Roy for summing this up succinctly.

 

[CyberB0b]

I saw all I needed last year. Game on the line, less than 3 minutes to put us in the playoffs and he throws a pick on a dumpoff pass.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Exactly. Ignorance is the driving force behind it.

If there is no difference between an isolated event and the control group then that parameter has no bearing on the outcome. Small sample sizesw can be overcome by expanding the set to include all contributors. When this is done there is no difference between the isolated event and the whole.

2deep specifically has had this pointed out to him over and over again over the years. Yet he repeats the same drivel over and again.

I am not putting any weight on anything in this thread other than when someone states an elimination game is bogus. And we both know that it is not true, there are such things.

Hence the Commander game last year which eliminated Dallas from the play-offs.

You can run out your intelligentsia posts but in the end you once again took a shot at me with no substance what-so-ever.

And that includes your sabermetric comments since I do not value stats except win-lose, which for a team is the only stat that matters.

No substance?

I have explained to you how W-L is at best a poor predictive stat. You in know way refute that.

Then you regurgitate that not only is W-L is important but that the elimination game stat is valid. All of this after I explained how it is not valid. You don't even try and refute anything that the OP or I have said.

Then you think that it is valid to state that 'we both know' that what you are claiming is true. I just got done stating not only that it was not true but also why it is not true.

You act like what you are claiming is self evident. This isn't life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness though. This is you being spoonfed your sports analysis by ESPN.

I don't take shots at you. I take shots at what you post.

For example: you put no faith in sabermetric stats but you think that elimination game stats are valid? Cherry pick much?

There is no validation or logical consistency from you. At best, its emotion in place of analysis. At worst? Well, I am just going to leave that alone.

 

[VACowboy]

I would argue that if you're trying to get to 9-7 or 10-6, you clearly arn't a poor team.

I would also argue that while Romo has put us in position to make the postseason at the end of the year at times (like the second half of last season), he's also sometimes helped put us in the position to be having to win the last game to make the postseason (like the first half of last season).

My take is that the Cowboys lose to playoff-caliber teams if Tony doesn't play a flawless game. Rarely does the rest of the team help him out.

I'm on the fence about the relative importance of non-playoff "one and done" games. On the one hand, every single game on an NFL schedule is important. You can point to any loss as the one that knocked you out of the playoffs, whether it was played in September or January. On the other hand, if you're 9-6 in week 17 and you know a win gets you in the playoffs, then you know the stakes. You know that playing your best gives you your best chance to win, and that absolutely a win means your season lives. Either you (as a team) make it happen that day or you don't.

My problem with the latter philosophy is that everyone knows the stakes are high in every single NFL game. If you're 10-5 going into the last game and already in the playoffs, isn't that at least as impressive as coming up with that last win to put you in? And if a guy is "clutch" and plays his best football when it "counts," why wasn't he playing his best football the rest of the season so he didn't have to face a must-win?

(Why does intensity rise during the playoffs? Are the players holding back the rest of the time or what?)

Anyway...

The Cowboys' need to win enough games to make the playoffs, whether they get the job done in the first 16 weeks or clinch on Sunday 17. And they haven't done much of either in way too long.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And this thread mercifully ends because Roy summed it up without calling anyone names or using psycho-babble to slander those who are not drinking from the trough.

Thanks Roy for summing this up succinctly.

lol 2deep the martyr.

Nevermind that what Roy said does not address the premise of the OP. You apparently don't even know what psycho-babble means.

When people start talking about axis-1 disorders, narcissism or citing from the DSM then try again.

Sorry if my attempts to be accurate come across as 'intelligentsia.' Have to love it when people try making out sounding smart as a bad thing.

 

[TwoDeep3]

No substance?

I have explained to you how W-L is at best a poor predictive stat. You in know way refute that.

Then you regurgitate that not only is W-L is important but that the elimination game stat is valid. All of this after I explained how it is not valid. You don't even try and refute anything that the OP or I have said.

Then you think that it is valid to state that 'we both know' that what you are claiming is true. I just got done stating not only that it was not true but also why it is not true.

You act like what you are claiming is self evident. This isn't life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness though. This is you being spoonfed your sports analysis by ESPN.

I don't take shots at you. I take shots at what you post.

For example: you put no faith in sabermetric stats but you think that elimination game stats are valid? Cherry pick much?

There is no validation or logical consistency from you. At best, its emotion in place of analysis. At worst? Well, I am just going to leave that alone.

Your explanation is taken in the context of your condescension. It has value in your mind and not mine since it clearly does not represent what I am saying. So when you pat yourself on the back as if you wrote Burning Bush stuff here, I just see it as the usual things you post.

I think a game that if you lose your team is done for the year is an elimination game. No more, no less. Your trying to change that is ridiculous because you cannot dispute it with any authority. Your just being Fuzzy, who is cantankerous and thinks he is never wrong.

I am not giving the elimination game any weight other than the team goes home after. So, ipso facto if the game eliminates you from the contestants that move on, it is in fact an elimination game.

I am not assigning it any extra weight.

But lets see you admit you were wrong in what you thought I was saying.

Vegas won't post odds on that fact.

 

[burmafrd]

Your explanation is taken in the context of your condescension. It has value in your mind and not mine since it clearly does not represent what I am saying. So when you pat yourself on the back as if you wrote Burning Bush stuff here, I just see it as the usual things you post.

I think a game that if you lose your team is done for the year is an elimination game. No more, no less. Your trying to change that is ridiculous because you cannot dispute it with any authority. Your just being Fuzzy, who is cantankerous and thinks he is never wrong.

I am not giving the elimination game any weight other than the team goes home after. So, ipso facto if the game eliminates you from the contestants that move on, it is in fact an elimination game.

I am not assigning it any extra weight.

But lets see you admit you were wrong in what you thought I was saying.

Vegas won't post odds on that fact.

none so loud as that one which is guilty

 

[Super_Kazuya]

And this thread mercifully ends because Roy summed it up without calling anyone names or using psycho-babble to slander those who are not drinking from the trough.

Thanks Roy for summing this up succinctly.

The funny thing is, he summed it up while smacking your beloved elimination game down in the process.

I also agree with Roy: evaluate a player and team based on their performance for the entire season. Don't make up a stat simply because you don't think a 1-3 playoff record isn't bad enough.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And this thread mercifully ends because Roy summed it up without calling anyone names or using psycho-babble to slander those who are not drinking from the trough.

Thanks Roy for summing this up succinctly.

Your explanation is taken in the context of your condescension. It has value in your mind and not mine since it clearly does not represent what I am saying. So when you pat yourself on the back as if you wrote Burning Bush stuff here, I just see it as the usual things you post.

I think a game that if you lose your team is done for the year is an elimination game. No more, no less. Your trying to change that is ridiculous because you cannot dispute it with any authority. Your just being Fuzzy, who is cantankerous and thinks he is never wrong.

I am not giving the elimination game any weight other than the team goes home after. So, ipso facto if the game eliminates you from the contestants that move on, it is in fact an elimination game.

I am not assigning it any extra weight.

But lets see you admit you were wrong in what you thought I was saying.

Vegas won't post odds on that fact.

Rich in vitamin I, I say. 2deep the martyr.

If all you are saying is that elimination games eliminate a team from the playoffs and nothing more than I am more than fine admitting that I was wrong. It's no big deal.

That being said, that is just a statement of the obvious. In other news, an opening day game is played on opening day.

 

[Future]

I saw all I needed last year. Game on the line, less than 3 minutes to put us in the playoffs and he throws a pick on a dumpoff pass.

Just like anything, you can put blame in a lot of places.

Murray should have run that route farther behind the LOS to get separation from the LB.

JG should not have been using the same check down ALL YEAR, it was only a matter of time before that pass got picked.

If Romo had a clean pocket, he would have been able to see the LB vacate his zone.

Some will say these are excuses, I will say that there are reasons everything happens. Those are all reasons why the pick occurred. Not absolving Romo, but acting like that play, and the game as a whole, was on Romo, is a mistake.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Just like anything, you can put blame in a lot of places.

Murray should have run that route farther behind the LOS to get separation from the LB.

JG should not have been using the same check down ALL YEAR, it was only a matter of time before that pass got picked.

If Romo had a clean pocket, he would have been able to see the LB vacate his zone.

Some will say these are excuses, I will say that there are reasons everything happens. Those are all reasons why the pick occurred. Not absolving Romo, but acting like that play, and the game as a whole, was on Romo, is a mistake.

They aren't excuses, you're correct imo, but thinking that part of that play shouldn't be on Romo is also a mistake. Clearly, in that situation, you have to have the awareness to see that you just can't try to make that throw right there. As a talented, experienced QB, you have to know that.

 

[AbeBeta]

1) There's no such things an "elimination game", it's basically a made up concept to demonize Romo (Phil Simms recently admitted such: http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...eams-doing-cartwheels-trying-to-get-him.html/

So it is just imaginary that there are games where the winner moves on and the loser's season is done?

 

[Future]

They aren't excuses, you're correct imo, but thinking that part of that play shouldn't be on Romo is also a mistake. Clearly, in that situation, you have to have the awareness to see that you just can't try to make that throw right there. As a talented, experienced QB, you have to know that.

I didn't mean that Romo wasn't in part to blame. He threw the ball, part of every INT is his fault.

But as an experienced QB, wouldn't you expect your check down to be open? What is the point of a check down if he isnt? I would compare the way Murray ran that route to the way Dez didn't make sight adjustments earlier in the season. Murray should have seen that he was being covered by that LB, and gone less up the field so it was more difficult to jump the route. I think you could also argue that he should have seen the defender in Romo's face, and worked into a throwing lane. Might be difficult because it was a bit of a bang bang play, but that one seemed obvious, imo.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I didn't mean that Romo wasn't in part to blame. He threw the ball, part of every INT is his fault.

But as an experienced QB, wouldn't you expect your check down to be open? What is the point of a check down if he isnt? I would compare the way Murray ran that route to the way Dez didn't make sight adjustments earlier in the season. Murray should have seen that he was being covered by that LB, and gone less up the field so it was more difficult to jump the route. I think you could also argue that he should have seen the defender in Romo's face, and worked into a throwing lane. Might be difficult because it was a bit of a bang bang play, but that one seemed obvious, imo.

In a word.. no.

If every QB just automatically went to their checkdown when they needed to, but didn't even bother to look to see if they were open before they threw the pass, do you realize how many more INT's that would result in?

That doesn't even make sense how you could think that the checkdown route should be open every single time. I agree completely that Murray should have worked himself into a better position there.. but you can't just throw the pass before you see if there's a defender right on him or not.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

So it is just imaginary that there are games where the winner moves on and the loser's season is done?

If the Cowboys were 3-12 entering the game and the Commanders were 14-1, the winner would have moved on and the loser's season would have been done. You aren't properly identifying the cause and effect. You think the Cowboys didn't make the playoffs because they lost that game. You're wrong.

No matter how hard people get down on their knees and pray it ain't so, there are two kinds of games: regular season and playoff. You can't invent a new kind of game to make Romo look bad.

 

[AbeBeta]

If the Cowboys were 3-12 entering the game and the Commanders were 14-1, the winner would have moved on and the loser's season would have been done. You aren't properly identifying the cause and effect. You think the Cowboys didn't make the playoffs because they lost that game. You're wrong.

No matter how hard people get down on their knees and pray it ain't so, there are two kinds of games: regular season and playoff. You can't invent a new kind of game to make Romo look bad.

That isn't what an eliminate game entails.

It is a playoff game like in Seattle, where Romo was sorta blah.

Or a Playoff game against the Giants where he is blah.

Or getting killed against Philly and not moving on to the playoffs.

It is also destroying Philly two straight weeks the next year.

But then it is being ineffective against Minny and going home.

It is losing to the Giants and Washington in week 17 over the past two years.

I love Romo but he just had not been good enough in most of those games.

 

[KJJ]

Can someone compare a legit or elite QB who has a good record in regular season finales where they are 8-7 or 9-6 and needed the final game in order to make the playoffs?

A lot of teams have entered week 17 needing a win to qualify for the playoffs. In most cases their opponent was either done for the season having already been eliminated or had already qualified for the playoffs and the game was meaningless to them. Very few season finales come down to 2 divisional opponents needing the win to make the playoffs. That's a true "elimination game." Romo and the Cowboys have been involved in 3 week 17 elimination games since 08 vs Philly, NY and Washington.

Even though those games weren't official "playoff games" they were exactly like a playoff game with the winner moving on and the loser going home. A lot of FANS hate adding those 3 losses to Romo's elimination game record because it takes him from 1-3 in the playoffs to 1-6 in elimination games. In Romo's 3 season finale elimination game losses he was outplayed by the opposing QB in all 3 games. In 08 vs Philly with a wildcard birth on the line McNabb had 2 TD passes, no turnovers and a passer rating of 116.2 in a blowout win over the Cowboys. Romo had no TD's, 3 turnovers and a passer rating of 55.8.

In 2011 vs the Giants in the season finale with the NFC East on the line Eli had 3 TD's, no turnovers and a passer rating of 136.7 in a blowout win over the Cowboys. Romo had 2 TD's, 2 turnovers and a passer rating of 106.0. Not a bad game for Romo when you look at his passer rating but he missed some throws one to a wide open Dez early in the game and got outplayed. In 2012 vs Washington in the season finale with once again the NFC East up for grabs an injured RG3 had no TD's, no turnovers and a passer rating of 66.9 in a 28-18 win over the Cowboys. Romo had 2 TD's, 3 turnovers and had a passer rating of 55.9. Although RG3 didn't play well he didn't do anything to get his team beat. Had Romo just played decently in that game and avoided the turnovers the Cowboys would have won the game.

There was simply no excuse for Romo to play as poorly as he did vs Washington after coming off a 406 yard 4 TD performance the week before. He was red hot coming into Washington and tanked. It's these terrible turnover filled performances in do or die games that have so many scrutinizing his play in these elimination games. It's hard to figure how Romo can be so good one week and completely fall apart when it's all on the line the following week. If Romo had some playoff success no one would focus so much on his elimination game record. This scrutinization of his do or die record is a result of him faltering consistently in these type of games it's been a troubling trend with him that makes many scratch their head. When you have a QB who can play so exceptionally well most through most of the regular season as Romo does then repeatedly falter in games that are do or die it leads to heavy scrutiny.

The only current top QB I can think of who's played consistently well during the regular season but falters a lot when it's all on the line is Peyton Manning. Although Peyton has won a lot of do or die games he's lost more than he's won having a 9-11 playoff record but he has a ring. I've said it many times Romo's problems in these elimination games are between the ears. He makes a lot of poor decisions in these games and a lot of it is due to not being able to deal with do or die pressure.

He doesn't play well in front of a hostile crowd on the road in win or go home games and he doesn't play well in cold weather. The only real chance the Cowboys have of ever winning a championship with Romo is being able to stay at home throughout the playoffs. All 12 of Romo's elimination game turnovers including the ones in his playoff losses have come on the road while his only elimination game win came at home and was turnover free.

 

[Doomsay]

Career statistical significance is hard to come by in the NFL, given the reality of 16 game seasons and 3-4 year average player tenures, but if we are willing to consider "playoff performance" as a category of measurement - where a team faces a maximum of 4 games in a Superbowl run, then combining the elimination game with the playoff measurement, shouldn't be a problem. Tony, and the team, have mostly underperformed in crunch time vs. their same season averages in elimination games since the 2006 season, to suggest that that isn't meaningful, is an interesting premise.

 

[03EBZ06]

At one time they did not keep stats on sacks. As fans become enamored with the excuses stats offer, then each category will suddenly become germane.

Hence the elimination stat.

I've never seen it as a category, but that doesn't mean these results cannot be tabulated.

Until few years ago, no one ever mentioned elimination stat and only time this elimination stat is brought up is whenever mediots are talking about Romo, I have not seen any other QBs' (past or present) elimination stat.

There is no running tabulation of elimination stat on any other QBs, just on Romo.

 

[Nightman]

So it is just imaginary that there are games where the winner moves on and the loser's season is done?

It's just like a one game tie breaker in baseball. You win, you go on, you lose you home. The circumstances of why you are there are irrelevant. You may have won 10 in a row or lost 10 in a row, it's still a one and done "elimination" game. Yes, ESPN and others love having a new way to slam Romo, but it doesn't alleviate Tony from the blame for playing below par in those games. Dallas hasn't been good enough as a team to overcome bad games from Romo.