Huge Reason we Won

[Nightman]

Here is another rule:

Try to read before posting
If it's too complicated for your simple brain, ask

Captain Strawman..... you don't even move the goalposts..... you aren't even on the right field

 

[Doomsday101]

Taking a long drive and getting a FG is not a killer...you get 3 points and you flip the field and rest your D

Three and outs are killers...... punting from the other teams 40 is a killer..... turnovers are killers

BS yes it is, going up 6-0 or 14 to 0 is big difference in a game, Redzone offense matters big time. Teams forced to take 3's instead of producing TD has come back many times in game because you are leaving your opponent in the game doing that especially this time of year when you are facing the best teams out there. Dallas is not going to beat a team like the Rams with 3's

 

[Stash]

BS yes it is, going up 6-0 or 14 to 0 is big difference in a game, Redzone offense matters big time. Teams forced to take 3's instead of producing TD has come back many times in game because you are leaving your opponent in the game doing that especially this time of year when you are facing the best teams out there. Dallas is not going to beat a team like the Rams with 3's

Being ranked at the bottom of the league in red zone touchdown scoring is exactly why this team was 3-5, and ultimately 10-6 and not having a better record. And why the wins the team has were far closer than the cumulative stats showed they should have been.

That's not up for debate.

 

[Doomsay]

Ok, I've brought this with you at length in the other thread and I'll do this one last time because I know you will try to change the subject because you don't have the answer.

Many of these things will depend on how you define it and how the person collecting the data defined it, because as you have admitted in the past, you have NO CONTROL of the data or HOW IT WAS ANALYZED, all you are doing is copying and pasting little bits and pieces of other people's work without any knowledge of whether it is accurate or not. You should know as a statistician that what data was collected and how it was collected and analyzed is CENTRAL to whether or not it is reliable. Yet you post statistics from data that you KNOW is incomplete and inaccurate.

Saying that the real data is too difficult to collect is not an explanation, that is an admission that the data you are posting is NOT RELIABLE and therefore should NOT be used to draw hard conclusions. Yet you post it repeatedly to try and shout down other voices as if you have accurate and reliable data, which you don't.

Garbage in garbage out

E.g. "Rushing success" was defined how? "Third down conversion had a good correlation" but a many of our 3rd downs are due to rushing and even our passing third downs are successful because the other team expects us to run so "rushing success" is inherently buried in "3rd down conversion ". This is patently obvious.

Anyway, go back to that thread and answer my questions I had brought up directly.

When data is inaccurately collected and without context and multiple correlations are run without corrrction, then flawed results are achieved. This not only a well known statistical issue but makes common sense.

Don't give us an isolated statistic that is convenient for you to make your point. This is EXACTLY why statistics have a bad name because people quote them out of context and parse bits and pieces without presenting the entire picture.

1. Show me where you KNOW data was collected in the context of situational running and other issues (e.g. running to run out the clock, running to get a first down, how often the running tendency of a team dictated the defense allowing the pass to be successful etc) as I had pointed out in that thread. What data SHOULD HAVE been collected, what WAS ACTUALLY collected and what COULD NOT be collected and entered and why not

2. show me what univariable models YOU RAN (not copied and pasted) and what was statistically significant in a multi variable fashion AFTER correction for confounding variables.

3. Show me where you ran other models like C statistic which are used to show the real significance of a measure in outcomes relative to other variables

4. Show me where any of this was published in a peer reviewed fashion so other experts could point out obvious flaws and limitations in the work

That has been my main problem with you. If you are a stats person you know this data has OBVIOUS limitations yet in your zeal to forward your belief system you ignore them and don't want to admit them. This tells me you have a conclusion looking for data to support it instead of following the data to let it lead you where it does as an open minded researcher would.

These are BASIC statistical norms and if you cannot answer them, then we will know you are simply copying and pasting other people's work and you need to stop trying to pretend you have any more information than any run of the mill blogger. I am doing this because other less sophisticated posters (like @Idgit) assume what you post is gospel and run with it without realizing they are being made fools of.

The multicollinearity stuff is fun, I discussed this topic with my cousin's husband at a wedding last fall. He's a director of stats at Wake Forest & his take seemed similar to yours. Here's a non doctoral level experiment we could employ: substitute Smith for Zeke and see how our offense (and defense) would have fared against Seattle.

 

[Nightman]

BS yes it is, going up 6-0 or 14 to 0 is big difference in a game, Redzone offense matters big time. Teams forced to take 3's instead of producing TD has come back many times in game because you are leaving your opponent in the game doing that especially this time of year when you are facing the best teams out there. Dallas is not going to beat a team like the Rams with 3's

Points you don't score don't beat you.... why do you think you deserve them just because you got close?

Allowing the other to score beats you

If you are up 6-0 early why did you stop scoring....why did you start allowing them to score?

 

[Fmart322]

Points win games.... FGs matter

This nonsense that they don't is just nonsense

If a team scored a FG every time they had the ball they would a lot of games

To bad a kicker like that doesn't exist.

 

[Nightman]

Being ranked at the bottom of the league in red zone touchdown scoring is exactly why this team was 3-5, and ultimately 10-6 and not having a better record. And why the wins the team has were far closer than the cumulative stats showed they should have been.

That's not up for debate.

It is up for debate

You are allowed to score outside of the RZ and you aren't guaranteed anything once you are there

The best teams score 5.5 pts per visit and DAL scored 4.2

The lost games by 14,11, 8, 23 .... that wasn't the difference

It is just silly when someone points to a made FG in the 1st qtr as the reason they lost a game

 

[Stash]

It is up for debate

You are allowed to score outside of the RZ and you aren't guaranteed anything once you are there

The best teams score 5.5 pts per visit and DAL scored 4.2

The lost games by 14,11, 8, 23 .... that wasn't the difference

It is just silly when someone points to a made FG in the 1st qtr as the reason they lost a game

"Silly" is how you're looking here, trying to debate something that's not up for debate but is fact. It's not worthy of anyone's time.

 

[Doomsday101]

Points you don't score don't beat you.... why do you think you deserve them just because you got close?

Allowing the other to score beats you

If you are up 6-0 early why did you stop scoring....why did you start allowing them to score?

Deserve has nothing to do with it, earning is what good teams do. 3 keep the other team in the game, everyone who has played this game knows this. Yes sometimes you settle for the 3 and that is exactly what you are doing settling for 3. As for allowing them to score? NFL rules have made it easier on offense and completely shutting teams down very hard to do and with many of these top offensive teams they do it quit often. If Dallas ends up settling for 3's vs a team like the Rams we will lose. Dallas was 3-5 early on and a main reason was because we were only 33% in the redzone. Compare that to now hitting over 70% and the last game winning by 2 you bet that TD mattered and were the difference in that game

 

[Flamma]

TOP.

Not sure why no one is talking about it, but it was a huge reason we won yesterday as well as several other times this year.

Our first drive was like 6 min. SEA 3 n out. Then more TOP.

At the end, the SEA O had a horrific time getting traction and our D was kept fresh.

I've said this before, and it also applies to other games. A huge reason we won is when our opposition comes back to tie or take the lead, Dak starts throwing downfield. It's as if the offense opens up out of necessity. But not before then. Not to say you're not right as well, because your example is typical of how we win. Mine was just an observation over a few games.

 

[kskboys]

I've said this before, and it also applies to other games. A huge reason we won is when our opposition comes back to tie or take the lead, Dak starts throwing downfield. It's as if the offense opens up out of necessity. But not before then. Not to say you're not right as well, because your example is typical of how we win. Mine was just an observation over a few games.

Of course. There is no one thing that wins/loses games. Many factors.

 

[Flamma]

Of course. There is no one thing that wins/loses games. Many factors.

But your OP is the formula for success. My observation is more by design IMO. I wish the Cowboys would go for the throat earlier as opposed to doing it only when being challenged.

 

[visionary]

The multicollinearity stuff is fun, I discussed this topic with my cousin's husband at a wedding last fall. He's a director of stats at Wake Forest & his take seemed similar to yours. Here's a non doctoral level experiment we could employ: substitute Smith for Zeke and see how our offense (and defense) would have fared against Seattle.

Yeah, that should be fun
If that happens, suddenly (for no earthly reason) we will not be able to pass effectively, I wonder why?
But rest assured, it will have absolutely nothing to do with the run game

 

[Idgit]

Oh believe me, everyone is aware that you are in no position to answer anything specific regarding what you tout as fact

Yes, they all probably know I can’t answer specific questions about the background research of a detailed technical post I didn’t make. Good catch. Thanks for bringing that to light for everybody.

 

[cern]

Of course. There is no one thing that wins/loses games. Many factors.

actually there is. having more or less points at the games end.

 

[kskboys]

actually there is. having more or less points at the games end.

It's not the destination, it's the journey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nightman]

"Silly" is how you're looking here, trying to debate something that's not up for debate but is fact. It's not worthy of anyone's time.

Just because you swallow the group think and can't look a problem in a different way it isn't my fault

There are a million "known rules" about sports that are being proven wrong by new data every year

Making FGs doesn't cause a team to lose.....that is ********

You still didn't address the fact we lost games by 11, 13, 8 and 23

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Seattle has lived off of turnovers all year. They didn't get that in our game, except for the no call PI on the INT. To me, that was a big reason Seattle could not get the edge.

JMO

 

[GMO415]

TOP.

Not sure why no one is talking about it, but it was a huge reason we won yesterday as well as several other times this year.

Our first drive was like 6 min. SEA 3 n out. Then more TOP.

At the end, the SEA O had a horrific time getting traction and our D was kept fresh.

We need to do the same to the lambs. Otherwise, they will be fresh and they will take off on us.

 

[Stash]

Just because you swallow the group think and can't look a problem in a different way it isn't my fault

No, your "fault" comes from trying to refute an irrefutable fact.

There are a million "known rules" about sports that are being proven wrong by new data every year

Making FGs doesn't cause a team to lose.....that is ********

Not scoring when you have the best chance to score does. I'm not fixated on FG's, that's just you.

You still didn't address the fact we lost games by 11, 13, 8 and 23

And I won't. This is nonsense and I've already said my piece. I'm not going to further debate with you something that's not debatable.