Time of Possession vs. Number of Possessions

[DandyDon52]

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%?

It will reduce possessions for both. long drives tire out opposing defense, and gets our offense warmed up, while their offense gets cold
on the bench.
We just need to score at least a fg and some tds on those drives.

 

[Longboysfan]

Doesn't Philly actually lead TOP?

Yes. I saw that. I thought they would be middle of the pack on TOP.

 

[aikemirv]

It will reduce possessions for both. long drives tire out opposing defense, and gets our offense warmed up, while their offense gets cold
on the bench.
We just need to score at least a fg and some tds on those drives.

No, you really have to score TD's if you are going to eat up the clock like that unless you have an elite defense. A couple FG's and a TD is a 2 possession game. That is not good enough as we saw in the NYG game.

 

[waldoputty]

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.

I was making some other point about # of possessions.
As part of the argument, I said TOP is generally high for a team that runs a lot and runs well.
Adam said that is not the case based on stats.
Since "runs well" is not a stat, I dont see how he makes such a statement.
For example, "runs well" generally requires that the offense is not one-dimensional and at least have an effective passing game or the opponents can load up to stop the run.

 

[erod]

TOP means nothing if you're kicking field goals and giving up easy touchdowns on defense.

However, Chip Kelly is killing his defenses with his style when things aren't going well.

 

[Doomsday101]

TOP means nothing if you're kicking field goals.

However, Chip Kelly is killing his defenses with his style when things aren't going well.

True if scoring FG instead of TD does not matter what offense you operate out of be it a fast pace or grinding offense. I do think where TOP becomes important to this team is it allows a suspect defense to play fewer snaps and to stay fresh.

 

[waldoputty]

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.

Stats have their place, but I think it is something fundamentally flawed with the way we are using stats here.

As I stated, 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.
I dont know how anyone can argue that 3rd down conversion would be quite different if you use Zeke in one game and a crappy running back in another game.
Percy said that there would not be very different given our OL, but that basically means that there would be a bigger difference with an 'average' OL.

Why do the available stats not agree, I think it is because of the built-in parity of the NFL.
Basically the salary cap structure results in limitations in resource allocation (where you put your $).
If your running game sucks, that generally means you allocated your resources in the passing game and/or defense.
So improving one area results in hurting other areas, essentially cancelling each other out.

I am not saying stats are useless.
I think Adam has quoted stats that passing efficiency correlates with success.
Though I would suggest that passing success is essentially offensive success, even for a team with a dominant OL and dominant RB.
How does one improve offensive success (passing success)?
It is really how to improve one area of the game while minimally detracting the other areas.

Thus the gamechangers would be when you find a franchise quarterback in the 4th round.
Or if you can put together an OL (generally longevity) that you can lock into long term contracts that become bargains in 2-3 years.
These could buy you 4-5 years of dominance.
Or perhaps 6-7 years when the salary cap is raising at an historical pace.

 

[JD_KaPow]

And win more often than you would by simply playing keepaway.

Dallas TOP per drive
2014 3:01 (1st)
2015 2:59 (2nd)
2016 3:37 (1st)

Points per drive
2014 2.62 (2nd)
2015 1.56 (27th)
2016 2.59 (4th)

Aha! So we can conclude with certainty that if you average over 3 minutes per drive, your offense will be great. If you average under 3 minutes per drive, your offense will be terrible.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Stats have their place, but I think it is something fundamentally flawed with the way we are using stats here.

As I stated, the only scientific way is to change one variable at a time.

This is simply not true. Scientists analyze data all the time where multiple variables are changing, and there are very sophisticated techniques for interpreting what the data means and how much uncertainty there is in the analysis. There's a whole methodology, called Design of Experiments, for how to study systems with many variables without changing one variable at a time.

 

[waldoputty]

This is simply not true. Scientists analyze data all the time where multiple variables are changing, and there are very sophisticated techniques for interpreting what the data means and how much uncertainty there is in the analysis. There's a whole methodology, called Design of Experiments, for how to study systems with many variables without changing one variable at a time.

We used to run DOEs all the time for work.
You should not be combining data across time (different rules), teams (different financial constraints).
Especially with football with smaller data sets compared to something like baseball.

The bigger problem is actually the way we are trying to use stats here.

When one says, a better running game will improve the offense, that generally means a better running game, with everything else being equal, will improve the offense (also increase TOP).
I suspect that most of us would agree with that statement.
However, there is a cost for the better running game that feeds negatively back to success (and TOP) due to the salary cap and the college draft that limit resource allocation.
So the hypothesis (better running game increase TOP and success) cannot be tested by the statistical test unless you have stats that holds everything else being equal.

 

[percyhoward]

Aha! So we can conclude with certainty that if you average over 3 minutes per drive, your offense will be great. If you average under 3 minutes per drive, your offense will be terrible.

Some things go without saying, jim.

 

[jobberone]

Stats have their place, but I think it is something fundamentally flawed with the way we are using stats here.

As I stated, 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.
I dont know how anyone can argue that 3rd down conversion would be quite different if you use Zeke in one game and a crappy running back in another game.
Percy said that there would not be very different given our OL, but that basically means that there would be a bigger difference with an 'average' OL.

Why do the available stats not agree, I think it is because of the built-in parity of the NFL.
Basically the salary cap structure results in limitations in resource allocation (where you put your $).
If your running game sucks, that generally means you allocated your resources in the passing game and/or defense.
So improving one area results in hurting other areas, essentially cancelling each other out.

I am not saying stats are useless.
I think Adam has quoted stats that passing efficiency correlates with success.
Though I would suggest that passing success is essentially offensive success, even for a team with a dominant OL and dominant RB.
How does one improve offensive success (passing success)?
It is really how to improve one area of the game while minimally detracting the other areas.

Thus the gamechangers would be when you find a franchise quarterback in the 4th round.
Or if you can put together an OL (generally longevity) that you can lock into long term contracts that become bargains in 2-3 years.
These could buy you 4-5 years of dominance.
Or perhaps 6-7 years when the salary cap is raising at an historical pace.

This is not a scientific setting where variables can be controlled. Here the use of stats works well over time proving the hypotheses. Passing more effectively than the other team is what wins 85+% of the time. You must have an effective running game in order to pass well, speaking in general and looking at not multiple games but seasons work of data. It's important to understand we are looking at data spread across multiple teams and seasons. With a large enough sample you can draw some conclusions.

You make observations then test them with the data. When they have a high correlation then you have something to hang your hat on.

 

[T-RO]

TOP, if coupled with scoring, is important if your defense can keep the other teams offense in check a few times throughout the game. Preferably 3 and out them...

A long drive that ends in a score demoralizes a defense and raises the pressure on an offense. It is enhanced if coupled with Short drives by the opposing teams offense.

JMO, not based in any kind of stats or fact.

It can also demoralize a team if you have a 12 play drive...converting 3 pressure-packed third downs by just a yard....and then the opposing team turns right around and scores in one or two plays!

There is a lot of fan mythology surrounding "controlling the clock."

 

[drawandstrike]

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.

It's also pretty much what we were doing in 2014 with Tony and DeMarco Murray, building 1st half leads by throwing a lot, then using the running game to eat up the clock in the 2nd half with Murray.

 

[T-RO]

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

Adam...always love your posts. Let's bring SABR to football!

What does the data say about teams with high Yards-Per-Carry running games and red zone conversion?

 

[drawandstrike]

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.

I was responding to a post where you said playing ball control limits not just your opponents # of possessions, it limits your own as well.

Well of course it does. Ball control limits the # of possessions for both teams, yes. Which team does this reduced number of possessions hurt the most? The one that's BEHIND. The one that's ahead doesn't NEED the ball as time runs off the clock in the 4th quarter.

You stated reducing your own teams # of possessions using ball control/TOP wasn't a good idea. If you're talking about the ENTIRE GAME, playing ball control in the 1st half, there's a case for that. I merely pointed out the only time you'd do it smartly would be to protect a lead and run the clock down on the other team and force them into desperate mistakes as they run out of time to catch up.

 

[waldoputty]

This is not a scientific setting where variables can be controlled. Here the use of stats works well over time proving the hypotheses. Passing more effectively than the other team is what wins 85+% of the time. You must have an effective running game in order to pass well, speaking in general and looking at not multiple games but seasons work of data. It's important to understand we are looking at data spread across multiple teams and seasons. With a large enough sample you can draw some conclusions.

You make observations then test them with the data. When they have a high correlation then you have something to hang your hat on.

i agree that an effective running game is needed to pass well, and an effective passing game is needed to run well.
also agree an effective passing game is essentially offensive efficiency.
these are common sense and to argue these points is plain silly, with possible exceptions being an amazing OL or someone like brady for a qb.

however, every time this type of topic is argued on this board, it becomes a statistical argument over common sense.
i started out this thread talking about # of possessions in a game, and it degenerated into an argument into running the ball, again.

if you try hard enough, you can manipulate statistical tests to prove most opinions.
for my final project in an econometrics class, i had to create a test/argument that world war 2 did not affect durable consumption.
is that silly enough for you?
i actually got an A for the project.
only took a few days on either TSP or SPSS.

one problem with using stats with the available data set is that the cowboys team is unusually constructed.
the other is that the data set is pretty small while there are many many variables.
after all, what we care about is the cowboys, and all other teams are not really important.
with the investment the team has made in the OL and offense in general, we are an outlier statistically.
to use a limited data set in an outlier situation is not robust.

you can draw some conclusions with some statistical tests.
i suspect they work pretty well for predicting the future success of college players.
but for what we are talking about here, it is a far more complicated situation.
you would have to take into account the particulars of the team e.g. romo's 'health', the existing investments already made.
i would be surprised if these are actually accounted for in existing models.
your data set is not big enough - this is not baseball.
if you include too many years, your data set is flawed because of the changes in the game including the rules of the game.
if you include all the teams, it washes out the individual differences in the teams - particularly the makeup of the cowboys with the investments in OL etc.

you can try to incorporate the strengths and weakness of the team in your model as additional models.
i suspect you would not get much more predictive benefits other than saying 'draft well and pick FAs wisely'.

 

[DandyDon52]

No, you really have to score TD's if you are going to eat up the clock like that unless you have an elite defense. A couple FG's and a TD is a 2 possession game. That is not good enough as we saw in the NYG game.

Well it varys, the giants scored a td on all their red zone's, and we did too many fg's not enough td's.
Had our defense held on just one giant red zone, then we would have won.
It works both ways, we need td's, or the defense has to hold other team to some fg's.
We lost that game by 1 point, so any positive change for us and we win.
That last drive time was wasted by dunbar and then the twill gaff, or they might have won.

 

[Ken]

It can also demoralize a team if you have a 12 play drive...converting 3 pressure-packed third downs by just a yard....and then the opposing team turns right around and scores in one or two plays!

There is a lot of fan mythology surrounding "controlling the clock."

I don't believe there is any mythology around it at all. Parcels and our 90s Cowboys showed that.

Defense and running the ball will always be the real way to win championships.

 

[T-RO]

I don't believe there is any mythology around it at all. Parcels and our 90s Cowboys showed that.

Defense and running the ball will always be the real way to win championships.

No.

For the past few decades being able to pass with efficiency and being able to stop the other team's quarterback with pass rush and coverage...that's how you win. The Patriots are the era's most successful team and that is their template. They sometimes throw 80% of the time and they make pass defense their focus.

I could give you all kinds of examples and data to back it up but I find that a lot of fans hold onto their notions with an almost religious conviction...so...no point.