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

[peplaw06]

Whatever man. I am merely asking why 11 is safe and 10 is alarms going off. The number seems damned arbitrary to me. Like I said, if it had been 2 TDs I think I'd have been more concerned. From now on I promise if we score 4 FGs instead of TDs I will pee myself in excitement that we broke this magic barrier.

I could be wrong... But I would guess that we're the only team who hasn't scored more than 11 in a first half too.

And the correlation is obvious. You have a better chance of winning when you lead at halftime. When you're not scoring in the first half, that's more difficult.

 

[Kilyin]

We averaged 11.4 in the first half last season. Averaging 6.6 this year. Pretty big dropoff.

For perspective, in 2007 we averaged 13.1 in the first half.

 

[peplaw06]

This thread is hilarious. People are actually "answering" the fact that we suck in the first half, by citing our terrible offensive line. How does that make our anemic first half performances any better?

We clearly aren't doing something right to start out games and that is making it much harder to win them. Sometimes we do win, like the Cleveland game, but my guess, and its just a guess, is that you if you are consistently trailing at halftime by more than one score you are going to lose more games than you win. Once again, just a guess.

To add to this... If you blame the poor starts solely on the OL, then I would assume you would think the OL gets markedly better in the second halves of games.

 

[burmafrd]

To add to this... If you blame the poor starts solely on the OL, then I would assume you would think the OL gets markedly better in the second halves of games.

and if that is the case why are they not better in the first half?
Poor game plan?

WHY?

 

[Hostile]

I could be wrong... But I would guess that we're the only team who hasn't scored more than 11 in a first half too.

And the correlation is obvious. You have a better chance of winning when you lead at halftime. When you're not scoring in the first half, that's more difficult.

Great, so from now on I will worry about winning the first half and calling it mission accomplished if we do.

For the final time, I ask for a correlation across the league. It apparently has been too much to ask. I hate the slow starts, but 11 points is in fact arbitrary as I said. This would have made more sense to me to say 2 TDs, again as I have said.

I have learned today that if we score a 1st half TD we need to go for 2 points instead of a PAT because if we score a FG it increases our chances of winning. Awesome info.

 

[TheDude]

Great info. Tell me the correlation in reference to the Chiefs who have achieved this benchmark as well as how it puts Atlanta and Houston at risk when they don't.

Thanks in advance.

Working on the regression and correlation (work is getting in the way), but the highlights:

- 12 teams average less than 10pts in the first half - No Team has a winning record
- 5 teams average more than 10pts in the half, but have a losing record (NO, Buf, Ten, SD, Was) - NO and Was are 5-6
- Dallas is the 30th ranked 1st half scoring team at 6.6pts in the H1 (Philly and KC are worse)
- Dallas is tied for 3rd worst(Jax) in Q1 scoring at 2.73pts (Phil, KC worse)
- Dallas is dead last in Q2 scoring at 3.9pts.
- Dallas is third best - avg 15.1 in the H2 (Denver at 18.9 and NE at 17.2)

collective record of Top 10 H1 scoring teams (68-42) normalized for a 16 game season - 9.89wins

 

[burmafrd]

It is truly hilarious how SOME posters in this thread are trying to make the fact that we stink in the first half of EVERY game as something not very important

 

[Hostile]

It is truly hilarious how SOME posters in this thread are trying to make the fact that we stink in the first half of EVERY game as something not very important

Yeah, except no one is. Nice try though.

 

[Hostile]

Working on the regression and correlation (work is getting in the way), but the highlights:

- 12 teams average less than 10pts in the first half - No Team has a winning record
- 5 teams average more than 10pts in the half, but have a losing record (NO, Buf, Ten, SD, Was) - NO and Was are 5-6
- Dallas is the 30th ranked 1st half scoring team at 6.6pts in the H1 (Philly and KC are worse)
- Dallas is tied for 3rd worst(Jax) in Q1 scoring at 2.73pts (Phil, KC worse)
- Dallas is dead last in Q2 scoring at 3.9pts.
- Dallas is third best - avg 15.1 in the H2 (Denver at 18.9 and NE at 17.2)

collective record of Top 10 H1 scoring teams (68-42) normalized for a 16 game season - 9.89wins

Thank you. I mean that.

 

[burmafrd]

Yeah, except no one is. Nice try though.

look in the mirror

 

[Hostile]

look in the mirror

I shaved this morning. Thanks.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Great, so from now on I will worry about winning the first half and calling it mission accomplished if we do.

For the final time, I ask for a correlation across the league. It apparently has been too much to ask. I hate the slow starts, but 11 points is in fact arbitrary as I said. This would have made more sense to me to say 2 TDs, again as I have said.

I have learned today that if we score a 1st half TD we need to go for 2 points instead of a PAT because if we score a FG it increases our chances of winning. Awesome info.

You are deliberately being obtuse. We have been terrible in the first half of most games, and our record is 5-6. If we were better prepared for the games and ready to start right off the bat because Garrett prepared them better, we would be in the playoff hunt. Since he doesn't, at this point, we aren't in the playoff hunt.

 

[Hostile]

You are deliberately being obtuse. We have been terrible in the first half of most games, and our record is 5-6. If we were better prepared for the games and ready to start right off the bat because Garrett prepared them better, we would be in the playoff hunt. Since he doesn't, at this point, we aren't in the playoff hunt.

This has nothing to do with Garrett for me. Funny how others cannot say the same thing.

You know what I imagine? Being very honest here. Someone actually wanted to see about scoring 2 TDs in the first half, and we haven't done that yet. Very alarming.

But I'm going to guess more teams besides us haven't and it skews the alarm. Can't have that. Must have a loud alarm in Dallas.

So the person randomly picked 10 points. Only to discover we've scored 10 four times. So then they went searching up from there starting at 11.

That is how arbitrary this seems to me. If we score 10 points next week are you going to dread we didn't get to 11? Seriously?

I'd like to see us score 2 or more TDs. That would thrill me. But I am honestly not going to sit here and pretend 11 points is a benchmark for rising above mediocrity.

As I said, if we score 4 FGs instead of 4TDs I'm not going to celebrate that we got over the 11 point hurdle.

If that is obtuse to the lot of you then so be it. I am going to stick with the 2 TDs thing is the alarming aspect of it. Not the 11 points.

Games are not won in the first half. That doesn't mean I want or accept the slow starts because I don't. But until someone can actually show me a correlation of 11 points to winning the game I am not impressed.

Here's another thing, how many of the games where someone scored 11 or more did the other team score 12 or more? If that doesn't tell you how arbitrary 11 points is nothing will. Welcome to the real obtuse part of this. Enjoy.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

I think a team that starts out slow is a team that is not ready to play. I blame coaching. It’s their job to have the players ready to go. I think the game plans have been poor. They have to go into halftime and re-adjust and come out with another tactic. Too many penalties and turnovers. Again, players not being ready to play. Probably poor practice habits. I think the second half points improve because they players are giving a better effort knowing the situation. Even with the horrible OL, there is enough talent to score more points and play better in the first half.

 

[TheDude]

Stats for H1pts to wins

- The correlation (R) is .65
- The variance (R^2) is .42
- The slope (m) of the regression is .461
- The Y-intercept (Y) = .23
- The linear formula is Y=mX+b. Y being wins, X being H1 pts
- P-value is .000067 or

Ex: Using the formula above on the 11 game sample, if X=0 (meaning a team has not scored in the 1st half all year) the expected wins (Y) = 0.23 (0.23=.461*0+.23)

Dallas forecast would be Y=.461*6.6+.023 = 3.27 wins (difference likely attributed to the #3 scoring in H2)

So in stats, all of these numbers are great, but the P-value determines if you can reject the Null Hypothesis - or if this relationship is statistically sound and significant and not just coincidence or happenstance. Is therea possibility that there is a stronger relationship out there?

In this case, the P-value is extremely low at .000067 (.05 is significant and smaller is stronger)

Therefore, we can reject the null and assume that this is a valid forecasting formula until a better is presented

(Sorry if I butchered the stat explanation for those Stat wonks - trying to be somewhat layman)

If this was a lab, more data (years) should be used, but a totla of 176 observations with that p-value is pretty good

 

[Hostile]

Stats for H1pts to wins

- The correlation (R) is .65
- The variance (R^2) is .42
- The slope (m) of the regression is .461
- The Y-intercept (Y) = .23
- The linear formula is Y=mX+b. Y being wins, X being H1 pts
- P-value is .000067 or

Ex: Using the formula above on the 11 game sample, if X=0 (meaning a team has not scored in the 1st half all year) the expected wins (Y) = 0.23 (0.23=.461*0+.23)

Dallas forecast would be Y=.461*6.6+.023 = 3.27 wins (difference likely attributed to the #3 scoring in H2)

So in stats, all of these numbers are great, but the P-value determines if you can reject the Null Hypothesis - or if this relationship is statistically sound and significant and not just coincidence or happenstance. Is therea possibility that there is a stronger relationship out there?

In this case, the P-value is extremely low at .000067 (.05 is significant and smaller is stronger)

Therefore, we can reject the null and assume that this is a valid forecasting formula until a better is presented

(Sorry if I butchered the stat explanation for those Stat wonks - trying to be somewhat layman)

I have. Several times. 2 TDs and a lead. Because I don't think it's worth a crap to score 17 points and be behind 21-17. While this hypothesis wants me to believe 11 points scored is a benchmark to success.

 

[TheDude]

I have. Several times. 2 TDs and a lead. Because I don't think it's worth a crap to score 17 points and be behind 21-17. While this hypothesis wants me to believe 11 points scored is a benchmark to success.

Whoa, for clarification, the hypothesis is the relationship between H1 pts and wins. You can iterate the math to find the line of demarcation, but the relationship seems to hold that if you score more points in the first half, you are likely to win more games.

On the 11 game sample, 10 point in a half would equate to 4.84 wins, still a losing record. 14 points = ~7wins. Its a forecast. However, the further you get from 10 (i.e. 35 or 0) your winning % is stronger.

Ive seen other analysis that supports the fact that you must score points to win. Ranking in the top 10 in total points gives you a better chance at a winning record than finishing in the bottom 10. Ive also seen stats about team who scores first, goes up by 10, etc exponentially increase their odds of winning.

Averaging 6.6 in H1 does nothing to help you.

 

[peplaw06]

I have. Several times. 2 TDs and a lead.

Great, present the formula then...

Because I don't think it's worth a crap to score 17 points and be behind 21-17. While this hypothesis wants me to believe 11 points scored is a benchmark to success.

being behind 21-17 is better than being behind 28-3 or even 21-10. Do you dispute that?

 

[TheDude]

Somebody said games are not won in the first half. Im not sure that is true. I think people remember the comebacks per week much more than than win at half go on to win the game.

I'll have to get more data, but here is the avg point differential for H1 and wins

- 15 teams have a positive point differential in the first half, the average of wins is 7
- 3 teams has a positive point differential and a losing record (Was, NO, SD)
- 17 teams have a negative H1 differential, avg of wins is 4
- 1 team has a negative H1 differential and a winning record (Denver, who owns the highest 2nd half differential of 10.45 and total avg H1 points at 18.9 - my god Manning is a stud)

Teams that have a negative H1 differential but positive H2
- 4 teams, 2 with winning record - Den, Dal, Det, Min, Cle
Min has a 1 point positive H2 over 11 games (123PF vs 122PA)

Teams that have a positive H1 differential but negative H2
- 6 teams, 3 with winning records (2 @5-6) Cin, SD, Was, GB, Pit, NO
GB has a 1 point negative H2 over 11 games (128PF vs 129PA)
Pit has a 3 point negative H2 over 11 games (93PF vs 96PA)
NO has a 6 point negative H2 over 11 games (131PF vs 137PA)
Cincy has outscored opp 73pts in H1 and ben outscored 38pts in H2, but are 6-5

Granted this is just a stat and hasn't been PCA or regression tested, but it seems to continue to paint a story.

One thing for sure, SD may be the only team more frustrating than the Cowboys

 

[Hostile]

Great, present the formula then... being behind 21-17 is better than being behind 28-3 or even 21-10. Do you dispute that?

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.