The Importance of a "Team Win"

[Idgit]

...Stats are used to confirm your observations unless you're talking quantum physics. Not the other way around. Many here don't seem to understand this basic fact.

What if their basic observations differ from your own? And the stats confirm what they've observed and argued previously?

 

[jobberone]

What if their basic observations differ from your own? And the stats confirm what they've observed and argued previously?

I'm not speaking about my personal observations. I'm talking about basic science. Anyone who can't see this team has trouble running in short situations is blind BTW.

 

[Idgit]

I'm not speaking about my personal observations. I'm talking about basic science. Anyone who can't see this team has trouble running in short situations is blind BTW.

If you say so. I guess I'm not seeing the distinction you're trying to make. And I think the short yardage and goal line running debate has been pretty well covered at this point, but fwiw, I agree that we don't run well in those situations.

 

[percyhoward]

The problem here is that with us as obvious the exception, lack of return and rushing TDs correlates with making the playoffs. To me that diminishes the impact of it.

You're not interpreting it right.

Lack of RB or return TD doesn't correlate to making the playoffs in any way. Quite the opposite--the teams with the fewest wins that featured either a running back TD or a return TD were mostly the league's worst teams. Only the Cowboys had better than a 5-11 record:

3 or Fewer Wins in 2011 WITH
a RB or Return TD
Vikings 3 (3-13)
Jaguars 3 (5-11)
Browns 2 (4-12)
Buccaneers 2 (4-12)
Cowboys 2 (8-8)
Colts 1 (2-14)
Rams 1 (2-14)

You have to consider that 75% of Dallas' wins (6 of 8) is a ridiculously high percentage of wins with all your scores coming only from TD passes to WR or TE (or non-RB runs). And forget percentage, 6 is a ridiculously high number of such wins, compared to the rest of the league.

When you put all of the rest of the teams in the NFL together, out of their 248 wins, only 60 came without a running back TD or return TD. A little more than 24%. The exact opposite of what the Cowboys did.

It was like Dallas had one kind of season, and the rest of the league had another kind. Events that are routinely part of winning football games weren't happening at all for the Cowboys in 2011, and yet the "team" still managed to come up with 8 wins.

 

[jobberone]

I have no idea what your point is. Mine is u observe first then do the stats. If they don't jive then u need to look more closely. Stats are meaningless without proper context and application.

 

[percyhoward]

i guess my point is that when its 3rd and goal from the 2 yard line
it doesn't matter whether you run it in or pass it in , as long as you score.
you still get 6 points , the clock still stops , you still line up for a 1 or 2 point conversion.
how you scored has no relevance whatsoever.

I get your point completely, that it doesn't matter how you score a TD as long as you score a TD. But then, it's not an either/or proposition. If it were, there would be a history of teams with 33 passing TD and 4 TD by RB. There are no such teams. Dallas is the first. Why do you think that is?

If a passing TD simply takes the place of a rushing TD, shouldn't there be a lot of teams with similar numbers? Since 2000, the lowest RB touchdown total for a team with more than 30 passing TD is 9. The average is 17. And Dallas had 4?

Even with an exceptionally bad red zone running game, the Cowboys should have had double the amount of RB touchdowns. Or to look at it another way, with only 4 RB touchdowns, Dallas should not have even come close to 33 passing TD. Since 2000, the most passing TD for a team with only 4 RB touchdowns was 21. The average is 14. And Dallas had 33?

The points is, a successful running game goes hand in hand with a successful passing game. And in the red zone, it's not an either/or proposition, because the red zone running failures usually turn into FG attempts or worse (turnovers on downs). They don't automatically become passing TD, or else there would be a history of teams with 40 passing TD and 5 rushing TD.

Red-zone efficiency is a much more important/relevant stat.

And the Cowboys were 20th in red zone TD percentage precisely because they couldn't run the ball in the red zone.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're not interpreting it right.

Lack of RB or return TD doesn't correlate to making the playoffs in any way. Quite the opposite--the teams with the fewest wins that featured either a running back TD or a return TD were mostly the league's worst teams. Only the Cowboys had better than a 5-11 record:

3 or Fewer Wins in 2011 WITH
a RB or Return TD
Vikings 3 (3-13)
Jaguars 3 (5-11)
Browns 2 (4-12)
Buccaneers 2 (4-12)
Cowboys 2 (8-8)
Colts 1 (2-14)
Rams 1 (2-14)

You have to consider that 75% of Dallas' wins (6 of 8) is a ridiculously high percentage of wins with all your scores coming only from TD passes to WR or TE (or non-RB runs). And forget percentage, 6 is a ridiculously high number of such wins, compared to the rest of the league.

When you put all of the rest of the teams in the NFL together, out of their 248 wins, only 60 came without a running back TD or return TD. A little more than 24%. The exact opposite of what the Cowboys did.

It was like Dallas had one kind of season, and the rest of the league had another kind. Events that are routinely part of winning football games weren't happening at all for the Cowboys in 2011, and yet the "team" still managed to come up with 8 wins.

You showed that teams that had wins without doing so and they had a bunch and made the playoffs anyway. Like a third or more of their wins.

You know the old proverb about counting buckets. I just see nothing that correlates to anything really. I actually agree with your conclusion I just do not feel you are approaching it the right way to come to it.

Your OP basically says that teams can get bunches of wins without rushing and ST TD and make the playoffs anyway and that we were an exception to what otherwise was a very consistent trend.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have no idea what your point is. Mine is u observe first then do the stats. If they don't jive then u need to look more closely. Stats are meaningless without proper context and application.

In wholisitc analysis which this is but a reductionist would argue that it works both ways. You mentioned physics but there are more fields then just that that it works both ways.

 

[percyhoward]

You showed that teams that had wins without doing so and they had a bunch and made the playoffs anyway. Like a third or more of their wins.

Help me understand why you're focusing on what happened in one third of their wins, and ignoring what happened in the other 2/3.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Help me understand why you're focusing on what happened in one third of their wins, and ignoring what happened in the other 2/3.

What I am focusing on is that the good teams managed to win despite not getting those to a high degree. I think a better question is why you merged ST and running TD into one metric. Its pretty obvious you were looking for your conclusion in the numbers and not allowing the numbers to dictate your conclusion.

And lets be clear i actually agree with you assessment that our lack of ability in short yardage hurt us a ton last season; merging ST to try and make the point is not the answer.

 

[percyhoward]

What I am focusing on is that the good teams managed to win despite not getting those to a high degree.

74% is a high degree. And there wasn't much of a difference between good and bad teams as far as how often the wins included RB and return TD. 74% for playoff teams and 76% for the rest of the league as a whole, excluding Dallas (25%).

I think a better question is why you merged ST and running TD into one metric.

Nah, I liked my question better. j/k

I looked at them because they're both relevant to 2011 Cowboys. I could have looked at each individually, but unless you're talking about multiple teams, there's no problem in combining them.

Its pretty obvious you were looking for your conclusion in the numbers and not allowing the numbers to dictate your conclusion.

Either way...