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

Hostile;4865303 said:
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.
No you haven't. McLovin is posting detailed formulas and statistical analysis, and you're doing the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

He does the work, and you move the goalposts.

Hos: How does the 10 point benchmark correlate to wins and losses?
McLovin: *correlating **** *
Hos: Oh yeah? What about 14 points and a lead?
McLovin: *correlating **** *
Hos: What about 21 points with a lead and being at home in a domed stadium?
McLovin: Seriously?
Hos: See! Arbitrary!
 
If you create a categorical variable called "1H Points Above 10" and "1h Points 10 or Fewer" you get a similar R-squared.

The flaw in the statistical analysis is that teams who score poorly in the first half tend to score poorly in the second half, but that's not really true for us. What sort of qualitative assessments could you guess at based on this?

That we don't gameplan well, but we make good adjustments, perhaps?

That we try and fail to establish the run in the first half but are forced into passing in the second, at which we tend to be more successful?

Probably some validity to both.
 
peplaw06;4865390 said:
No you haven't. McLovin is posting detailed formulas and statistical analysis, and you're doing the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

He does the work, and you move the goalposts.

Hos: How does the 10 point benchmark correlate to wins and losses?
McLovin: *correlating **** *
Hos: Oh yeah? What about 14 points and a lead?
McLovin: *correlating **** *
Hos: What about 21 points with a lead and being at home in a domed stadium?
McLovin: Seriously?
Hos: See! Arbitrary!
Wrong. I simply asked how the formula he presented accounts for scoring 11+ points and still being down at the half?

I doubt it does.

You know what? This is beyond silly. Knock yourselves out believing 11 points is relevant to something but 10 points isn't, even if the other team scores more.
 
McLovin;4865439 said:
Np, not often I get to use math geekness on forums :)
It was very enlightening and I do appreciate the work. I still don't see the relevance of 11 points, but you're the only person who made any effort at all and it was interesting. Everyone else just wants to rub old wounds.
 
Shinywalrus;4865434 said:
If you create a categorical variable called "1H Points Above 10" and "1h Points 10 or Fewer" you get a similar R-squared.

The flaw in the statistical analysis is that teams who score poorly in the first half tend to score poorly in the second half, but that's not really true for us. What sort of qualitative assessments could you guess at based on this?

That we don't gameplan well, but we make good adjustments, perhaps?

That we try and fail to establish the run in the first half but are forced into passing in the second, at which we tend to be more successful?

Probably some validity to both.

Degree of truth there. Like I said in a previous post, I think people remember comebacks mean reversion would submit that strong teams outscore opponents in most every quarter over time. Stronger teams perform better early and can make another team one dimensional

However, I think there is a case to be made that usually going into the half with a lead (which means scoring points) is statistically beneficial and increases your chances of winning. The top teams always seem to be in this category.

I tried to illustrate that teams that score early have a better record. Basically Denver is the only outlier to that
 
McLovin;4865461 said:
Degree of truth there. Like I said in a previous post, I think people remember comebacks mean reversion would submit that strong teams outscore opponents in most every quarter over time. Stronger teams perform better early and can make another team one dimensional

However, I think there is a case to be made that usually going into the half with a lead (which means scoring points) is statistically beneficial and increases your chances of winning. The top teams always seem to be in this category.

I tried to illustrate that teams that score early have a better record. Basically Denver is the only outlier to that

Well, the better question would be whether 1H scoring has any significance after taking into account total scoring output - that is to say, is scoring in the first half actually more valuable than just scoring more in general? I'm not sure the analysis showed that or not, since I suspect 1H scoring and total scoring have an extremely high correlation.
 
Hostile;4865435 said:
Wrong. I simply asked how the formula he presented accounts for scoring 11+ points and still being down at the half?

I doubt it does.

You know what? This is beyond silly. Knock yourselves out believing 11 points is relevant to something but 10 points isn't, even if the other team scores more.
It's a simple concept that you're trying to make difficult in order to fit it with your agenda. We haven't scored more than 10 points in the first half all season. We're the only team in the NFL that can say that. If you can't understand how that's not a good thing, I can't help you.

You're trying some kind of master spin job to make it not seem so awful. It's about the most obtuse and transparent I've ever seen you be.
 
Shinywalrus;4865648 said:
Well, the better question would be whether 1H scoring has any significance after taking into account total scoring output - that is to say, is scoring in the first half actually more valuable than just scoring more in general? I'm not sure the analysis showed that or not, since I suspect 1H scoring and total scoring have an extremely high correlation.

The regression was first half scoring to wins. That was very strong and a little stronger than 2H scoring differential.

I have to clean this up a bit, but here is a look at all single game data (not aggregate scores:

In 176 games to date:
- 99 times - Teams scoring 1st and scoring => 10 pts win 69.1% of the time (68.5/99) - one tie is in there for StL
- 77 times - Teams score first but do not get 10 pts by halftime win 42.9% of the time (44/77)

Of the the 176 games the team who scored first won 101 times or 57.3%

Dallas has scored first 3 times (Car, Atl, Was) all FGs and are 1-2

Other notables (only games where the team scored first)
Min - 9 times - Won 6, Won 5-1 when scoring >10 in H1
Pit - 9 times - Won 5, 3-2 when scoring >10 in H1
SF - 8 times - Won 6, 6-0 when scoring >10 in H1
Sea - 9 times - Won 5, 2-1 when scoring >10 in H1
Hou - 6 times - Won 6, 4-0 when scoring > 10 in H1
GB - 6 times - Won 5, 4-1 when scoring > 10 in H1
Balt - 7 times - Won 6, 4-0 when scoring > 10 in H1
NYG - 5 times - won 4, 4-0 when scoring > 10 in H1
Cincy - 7 times - won 5, 5-1 when scoring > 10 in H1
NE - 5 times - won 4, 3-1 when scoring > 10 in H1
Chi - 6 times - won 6, 1-0 when scoring >10 in H1

If I had data by scoring first TD I would assume the correlation is higher. FGs are easier to overcome
 
Not sure why we're talking about 10/11 points. 6.6 for the first half is what we're averaging.

Here are the records for teams that average below 10 points in the first half:

2012

19 Seattle 6-5
20 Denver 8-3
21 St Louis 4-6
22 Carolina 3-8
23 Detroit 4-7
24 Miami 5-6
25 NY Jets 4-7
26 Arizona 4-7
27 Cleveland 3-8
28 Oakland 3-8
29 Jacksonville 2-9
30 Dallas 5-6
31 Philadelphia 3-8
32 Kansas City 1-10

2011

22 Washington 5-11
23 Jacksonville 5-11
24 Cincinnati 9-7
25 Tampa Bay 4-12
26 Denver 8-8
27 Seattle 7-9
28 Cleveland 4-12
29 Indianapolis 2-14
30 Arizona 8-8
31 Kansas City 7-9
32 St Louis 2-14

2010

21 Washington 6-10
22 San Francisco 6-10
23 NY Jets 11-5
24 Houston 6-10
25 Arizona 5-11
26 Cincinnati 4-12
27 Denver 4-12
28 Miami 7-9
29 Seattle 7-9
30 Minnesota 6-10
31 Buffalo 4-12
32 Carolina 2-14

2009

21 Seattle 5-11
22 San Francisco 8-8
23 Detroit 2-14
24 Chicago 7-9
25 Buffalo 6-10
26 Denver 8-8
27 Cleveland 5-11
28 Washington 4-12
29 Oakland 5-11
30 Kansas City 4-12
31 Tampa Bay 3-13
32 St Louis 1-15
 
tupperware;4865796 said:
Not sure why we're talking about 10/11 points. 6.6 for the first half is what we're averaging.

Here are the records for teams that average below 10 points in the first half:

2012

19 Seattle 6-5
20 Denver 8-3
21 St Louis 4-6
22 Carolina 3-8
23 Detroit 4-7
24 Miami 5-6
25 NY Jets 4-7
26 Arizona 4-7
27 Cleveland 3-8
28 Oakland 3-8
29 Jacksonville 2-9
30 Dallas 5-6
31 Philadelphia 3-8
32 Kansas City 1-10

2011

22 Washington 5-11
23 Jacksonville 5-11
24 Cincinnati 9-7
25 Tampa Bay 4-12
26 Denver 8-8
27 Seattle 7-9
28 Cleveland 4-12
29 Indianapolis 2-14
30 Arizona 8-8
31 Kansas City 7-9
32 St Louis 2-14

2010

21 Washington 6-10
22 San Francisco 6-10
23 NY Jets 11-5
24 Houston 6-10
25 Arizona 5-11
26 Cincinnati 4-12
27 Denver 4-12
28 Miami 7-9
29 Seattle 7-9
30 Minnesota 6-10
31 Buffalo 4-12
32 Carolina 2-14

2009

21 Seattle 5-11
22 San Francisco 8-8
23 Detroit 2-14
24 Chicago 7-9
25 Buffalo 6-10
26 Denver 8-8
27 Cleveland 5-11
28 Washington 4-12
29 Oakland 5-11
30 Kansas City 4-12
31 Tampa Bay 3-13
32 St Louis 1-15
By my math that's 4 out of 47 teams have a winning record when they average below 10 points in the first half.... or 8.5%.

To put it in perspective, in order to get to an average of 10+ points in the first half for the season, we would need to average MORE than 17 points (17.4) for the first half of our last 5 games. Out of 22 total halves of football, we have done that exactly 4 times so far... or 18% of the time.
 
Hostile;4865450 said:
It was very enlightening and I do appreciate the work. I still don't see the relevance of 11 points, but you're the only person who made any effort at all and it was interesting. Everyone else just wants to rub old wounds.



i might be wrong but it seems that you are being way too literal and missing the essence or symbol behind the concept here.

cowboys are consistently scoring too low in the first half.

it could be 10 it could be 6 it could be 13 who cares. its consistently not enough scoring going on in the first half and it puts them behind and playing catch up in the second half. not just one game not just two games not just a handful but a lot of them.
 
DALLASCOWBOYS2080;4865901 said:
i might be wrong but it seems that you are being way too literal and missing the essence or symbol behind the concept here.

cowboys are consistently scoring too low in the first half.

it could be 10 it could be 6 it could be 13 who cares. its consistently not enough scoring going on in the first half and it puts them behind and playing catch up in the second half. not just one game not just two games not just a handful but a lot of them.
Yes sir, but thank you for at least replying in a civil manner.
 
Hostile;4865955 said:
Yes sir, but thank you for at least replying in a civil manner.


no probs.

so it is a very literal thing here than? the point or crux of the argument hangs on a literal point?
 
DALLASCOWBOYS2080;4865970 said:
no probs.

so it is a very literal thing here than? the point or crux of the argument hangs on a literal point?
I don't know. McLovin was the only one actually trying to make a correlation and I really just think it is one of the most arbitrary things I have ever seen. I gave two scenarios I considered to make more sense and they got skipped and lost interest after that. If you want answers I think carefully reading McLovin's posts and shinywalrus too. Mine will confuse you because I want to see relevance and there doesn't seem to be any. Avoid me, focus on the 2 guys who actually had good analysis.
 
Hostile;4864987 said:
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. :rolleyes:

Maybe I am missing your point, if so it is unintentional.
The correlation of .65 was across the league. That in and of itself may or may not be relevant. For example house prices and honey be population decline are more correlated since 2008, does that mean anything - no.

The regression and P value asserts that is significant linkage.

I will agree that the 10pts or 11 or 13 is somewhat arbitrary, but the league average in 2011 in H1 was just over 11 and 2012 is 10.76 (I think, left my data sheet on work computer). So seems as reasonable as any

I have been troubled by the slow starts for awhile, I had created a thread a couple of weeks ago about how the dallas defense was holding opponents to low scores in the 1st half and we werent capitalizing.

If you can score first or early, it places some pressure on the other team. Any stress to the other team is better than giving them confidence that they can give up 2 drives and at likely only be down 6pts at worst.
 
McLovin;4866030 said:
Maybe I am missing your point, if so it is unintentional.
The correlation of .65 was across the league. That in and of itself may or may not be relevant. For example house prices and honey be population decline are more correlated since 2008, does that mean anything - no.

The regression and P value asserts that is significant linkage.

I will agree that the 10pts or 11 or 13 is somewhat arbitrary, but the league average in 2011 in H1 was just over 11 and 2012 is 10.76 (I think, left my data sheet on work computer). So seems as reasonable as any

I have been troubled by the slow starts for awhile, I had created a thread a couple of weeks ago about how the dallas defense was holding opponents to low scores in the 1st half and we werent capitalizing.

If you can score first or early, it places some pressure on the other team. Any stress to the other team is better than giving them confidence that they can give up 2 drives and at likely only be down 6pts at worst.

So the league average is generally somewhere between 10 and 11 points. That would grant some significance to the 10 point number, right?
 
ScipioCowboy;4866034 said:
So the league average is generally somewhere between 10 and 11 points. That would grant some significance to the 10 point number, right?

Actually 1st half points on average is about 11.4 in 2012 and 11.03 in 2011.

Seems a fine starting point for me. The >500 teams likely score more than 10 and the losing teams likely score less.
 
Rank Avg First Half points by year

2007 13.1pts - 7th
2008 11.8 - 16th
2009 11.1 - 16th
2010 10.9 - 15th
2011 11.4 - 17th
2012 6.6 - 30th

Rank Avg Second Half points by year

2007 14.7pts - 2nd
2008 10.8 - 17th
2009 10.7 - 12th
2010 13.6 - 4th
2011 11.3 - 13th
2012 15.1- 3rd

This has been a 2nd half team for a while.
 
McLovin;4866030 said:
Maybe I am missing your point, if so it is unintentional.
The correlation of .65 was across the league. That in and of itself may or may not be relevant. For example house prices and honey be population decline are more correlated since 2008, does that mean anything - no.

The regression and P value asserts that is significant linkage.

I will agree that the 10pts or 11 or 13 is somewhat arbitrary, but the league average in 2011 in H1 was just over 11 and 2012 is 10.76 (I think, left my data sheet on work computer). So seems as reasonable as any

I have been troubled by the slow starts for awhile, I had created a thread a couple of weeks ago about how the dallas defense was holding opponents to low scores in the 1st half and we werent capitalizing.

If you can score first or early, it places some pressure on the other team. Any stress to the other team is better than giving them confidence that they can give up 2 drives and at likely only be down 6pts at worst.
Honestly man, it just is that I see 11 points as very arbitrary. That is my point. Is is very hard to score 11 points in the NFL. So why wasn't 10 points used? Why not 12 points? Infinitely easier to score 12 than 11. 10 would signify double digit scoring and it is also common. I would have had no issues at all if the parameter had said 2 TDs in the first half. That is alarming and I admit I had no idea we hadn't. Nor would I have likely chimed in if it was double digit scoring, or 10 points. Unless of course it was to show that we had scored 10 four times.

I also brought up the fact that it is possible to score 11 or more and still be behind.

My only point is that 11 points is a manufactured, cherry picked number that does not signify a large increase in chances of winning. Would you feel better if in one of our games we scored 4 FGs in the first half? I wouldn't, because to me that still means we are stalling drives and settling for FGs. Yet it would be above that 11 point barrier. So by the original premise this would mean we are doing something right like the rest of the league supposedly.

I don't see it that way at all. Therefore I don't see 11 points as an incredible leap over 10 points which we have done 4 times as I originally noted when I misread the OP. In other words 11 points is not a huge advantage over 10 points as it seemed to be presented.

Again, I appreciate the work you did. It was interesting and I thank you. I just do not see this as alarming. The not scoring 2 TDs...oh hell yeah. That sucks.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,909
Messages
13,838,286
Members
23,782
Latest member
Cowboyfan4ver
Back
Top