Time of Possession vs. Number of Possessions

[percyhoward]

Right.
There are some really poor stats.

Last year the offense was so poor that opponents could play us conservatively and still win.
That is because we could simply not score.
I am not sure how you capture that situation in a statistic.

Maybe look at play selection while the game was close to see if teams were running more than the year before, or target distance to find out if they weren't throwing as many deep balls while the game was close. Also how many times they went for it on 4th down.

 

[waldoputty]

Nope. "Running well" has NO correlation with third-down conversion rate or completion percentage.

Running well, third down conversion rates and running ability are NOT independent variables.
Ability to run changes the type of plays, the way the defense defends etc.
All these things will affect 3rd down conversion rates, some higher and some lower.

The only scientific way is to change one variable at a time.
To look at a statistic such as third down conversion, you need to have the same Cowboys team play the same opponents in 2 separate games using the same plays but with drastically different running backs.

So you could have Zeke in one game and a crappy running back in another game.
If you did that, I would suspect the 3rd down conversion rate would be quite different.

 

[waldoputty]

Maybe look at play selection while the game was close to see if teams were running more than the year before, or target distance to find out if they weren't throwing as many deep balls while the game was close. Also how many times they went for it on 4th down.

One way to look at it may be the score at the end of the 3rd, play selection, play selection before and after the 3rd quarter.
Of course, an incredible amount of work.

 

[AdamJT13]

Running well, third down conversion rates and running ability are NOT independent variables.
Ability to run changes the type of plays, the way the defense defends etc.
All these things will affect 3rd down conversion rates, some higher and some lower.

The only scientific way is to change one variable at a time.
To look at a statistic such as third down conversion, you need to have the same Cowboys team play the same opponents in 2 separate games using the same plays but with drastically different running backs.

So you could have Zeke in one game and a crappy running back in another game.
If you did that, I would suspect the 3rd down conversion rate would be quite different.

Or you can just look at the correlation of statistics over time. As I said, there is NO correlation. None -- as in 0.00 correlation and 0.02 correlation, respectively.

 

[AdamJT13]

One way to look at it may be the score at the end of the 3rd, play selection, play selection before and after the 3rd quarter.
Of course, an incredible amount of work.

Not really. It takes only a few seconds to set the variables and run the search.

 

[percyhoward]

So you could have Zeke in one game and a crappy running back in another game.
If you did that, I would suspect the 3rd down conversion rate would be quite different.

To make any difference with this OL, that running back might have to be the essence of crap.

3rd or 4th down, 1-2 yards to go
2015 McFadden 13 of 17 (76.5%)
2016 Elliott 5 of 7 (71.4%)

 

[conner01]

Stats are a funny thing. A lot of top is great but the most important stat seems to me would be what you do with those processions
You could dominate top and be kicking fg's
You could have a 10 second drive that produces a td
Since the name of the game is to score more than your opponent seems like scoring is the really important stat on both sides of the ball
If you score the most and give up the least you are gonna win more games than you lose

 

[waldoputty]

To make any difference with this OL, that running back might have to be the essence of crap.

3rd or 4th down, 1-2 yards to go
2015 McFadden 13 of 17 (76.5%)
2016 Elliott 5 of 7 (71.4%)

So you would agree that if the OL is less dominant, then the RB will have a bigger effect on 3rd down conversion.

I would be curious to see Elliott's performance as Prescott progresses and reduce the # defenders in the box..

 

[percyhoward]

So you would agree that if the OL is less dominant, then the RB will have a bigger effect on 3rd down conversion.

I think whatever you do on 1st and 2nd down has a huge effect on 3rd-down conversions -- whether that be run or pass, great OL or great RB.

 

[waldoputty]

Or you can just look at the correlation of statistics over time. As I said, there is NO correlation. None -- as in 0.00 correlation and 0.02 correlation, respectively.

You are combining stats across teams, across time, across game rules, across teams with different strategies, ...
I guess what you are really saying is that the NFL is reasonably parity, so teams are able to compensate weakness' with strengths, so a running team will pass etc., essentially drowning out weakness'.

I have actually had a reasonable amount of statistics for econometrics, but dont know what all this does to the validity of your statistics.

 

[xwalker]

There has been a lot of discussion about our time of possession, and whether that is important.

However, is there any stats out there on the number of possessions?
With long time consuming drives, I have got to think that we are reducing the number of possessions in the game.
That goes beyond keeping the defense rested.

With reduced number of possessions, I have got to believe that protects our defense?
For example, if an opponent scores 40% of the time, then reducing their number of drives by 10% will reduce their expected score by 10%?

The average time per drive is the stat that I like.

TOP by itself could be an indication that the defense is limiting the other teams TOP. Comparing TOP average/possession to league averages shows how much is really on the offense.

 

[AdamJT13]

You are combining stats across teams, across time, across game rules, across teams with different strategies

Kind of like you did when you claimed, "TOP is generally high for a team that runs a lot and runs well," which of course is not actually true.

 

[waldoputty]

Kind of like you did when you claimed, "TOP is generally high for a team that runs a lot and runs well," which of course is not actually true.

I used the word generally not universally.
As you must be aware, problems can be viewed analytically or numerically.
I am analyzing the situation analytically because there are too many issues with the data set.

When you say TOP does not favor a team that runs a lot and runs well, that does not make sense analytically.
I would expect running plays generally yield less yardage than passing plays - your stats would probably support that.
Given the same field position, it would take more running plays to go down the field - this is is simple multiplication.
I have already assumed that the team is "running well", so by definition, the team is getting a good number of plays per possession (you are not running well if you are 3 and out).
Since running plays generally do not stop the clock, that should result in more time ran off (in general) thereby increasing TOP.
Thus the offense consumes quite a bit of clock.
Even if the defense is bad, then the opponent can only do the same thing in TOP.
It would be hard to believe that the TOP is much worse than even?

I am not saying ALL teams that run well and run often have high TOP, but generally.
Can you name many teams that do not have higher TOP but yet runs a lot AND runs well?
May be the problem is how one defines "running well"...

 

[jobberone]

While your opponent has fewer drives, so do you. Thereby reducing your own expected score by the same amount.

And putting a premium on RZ% and Sc%. You had better score a high percentge of TDs if you limit your possessions.

 

[jobberone]

I think 'running well' is incorporated into 3rd down conversion rate. I would suspect 'running well' is also incorporated into completion percentage given the same quarterback.

If you are saying teams need an effective running game then you'll get no argument from anyone who has a basic knowledge of the game.

You cannot win games in the NFL just running the ball. You win by passing more effectively than the other team and this is enhanced and advanced by having an effective running game.

 

[jobberone]

Running well, third down conversion rates and running ability are NOT independent variables.
Ability to run changes the type of plays, the way the defense defends etc.
All these things will affect 3rd down conversion rates, some higher and some lower.

The only scientific way is to change one variable at a time.
To look at a statistic such as third down conversion, you need to have the same Cowboys team play the same opponents in 2 separate games using the same plays but with drastically different running backs.

So you could have Zeke in one game and a crappy running back in another game.
If you did that, I would suspect the 3rd down conversion rate would be quite different.

I like looking at the game from a common sense angle because stats are worthless without content (generally esp speaking for non-quantum mechanics).

But the stats mentioned reflect the reality of the NFL very well.

 

[drawandstrike]

While your opponent has fewer drives, so do you. Thereby reducing your own expected score by the same amount.

Well ball control offense to slow the game down while speeding up the clock is usually utilized to protect a lead. You're not trying to increase your team's # of possessions in the time remaining in the game, you're trying to strangle the other team to death by eating up as much of the clock as you can.

 

[percyhoward]

Well ball control offense to slow the game down while speeding up the clock is usually utilized to protect a lead. You're not trying to increase your team's # of possessions in the time remaining in the game, you're trying to strangle the other team to death by eating up as much of the clock as you can.

Sounds like when I said reducing possessions wasn't a good idea, you thought that meant I was saying that increasing them was, maybe? There's nothing to gain by trying to have a certain amount of possessions.

 

[Jarv]

Well ball control offense to slow the game down while speeding up the clock is usually utilized to protect a lead. You're not trying to increase your team's # of possessions in the time remaining in the game, you're trying to strangle the other team to death by eating up as much of the clock as you can.

This theory seems to fit the 90s team from a 30,000 ft overview. I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but I recall Troy had passing stats at one time that echoed this. His passed more in the 1st half as we built up leads and passed much less..ie ran more in the 2nd half with Mr. Smith, protecting the lead and running the clock.

 

[percyhoward]

And putting a premium on RZ% and Sc%. You had better score a high percentge of TDs if you limit your possessions.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/time-of-possession-vs-number-of-possessions.358660/#post-6872025