"Win-or-go-home" from a team point of view

[IrishAnto]

You're mistaking 2010 for 2011.

Indeed you're right my bad, however I feel my argument still stands.

Overall standing in the turnover differential can be skewed by a small number of games.

If you’re on the wrong side in the majority of the games, you’ll probably loose the majority of those games.

 

[percyhoward]

In a nutshell you could go three games in a row generating 3 turnovers in each and conceding none in each of those games winning all three, then go the next three games generating no turnovers but conceding two in each game loosing all three. The overall differential would be +3 which would look good until you looked at each individual game.

I understand but I'm having trouble seeing your point as it relates to the Cowboys' pass defense or rushing TD the last two seasons.

 

[IrishAnto]

I understand but I'm having trouble seeing your point as it relates to the Cowboys' pass defense or rushing TD the last two seasons.

Our ability to defend the pass is also related to our ability to get interceptions and hence will have an effect the opposition QB’s passing rating which was one of your main points.

 

[jobberone]

Turnovers are highly correlative to winning or losing. The chance of winning a game at home with a negative turnover differential of 2 (-2) is not quite 23%.

If you combine turnover (TO) differential with explosive (EXP) differential then it is even more correlative. Explosive plays are 20+ yards and EXP differential is plays made less plays given up. Adding those two together correlates highly with entering the playoffs and winning in the playoffs. That should come as no surprise if you look at offensive snaps somewhat (can get shewed fairly easily) and esp offensive possessions and scoring success which is scoring/possession. If you turn the ball over you are losing chances to score and vice versa. If you have good pass defense and RZ success then you limit scoring success and points scored. So there's nothing magical about turnovers and explosive plays. Some teams can overcome it partially by increasing TOs or scoring success. Last year the Patriots scored almost 50% of the time they got the ball which was way more than the next teams success.

There are only so many ways to win football games consistently. There are a lot more ways to lose them.

 

[dallasfan4lizife]

"My mind's made up, don't bother me with the facts."

facts? like what?

ohhh you want to throw statistics to defend why romo is a big game QB?

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

1-6 in win or go home games...that statistic doesn't count though huh?

 

[percyhoward]

facts? like what?

ohhh you want to throw statistics to defend why romo is a big game QB?

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

1-6 in win or go home games...that statistic doesn't count though huh?

That 1-6 is a statistic. A team statistic.

 

[percyhoward]

Our ability to defend the pass is also related to our ability to get interceptions and hence will have an effect the opposition QB’s passing rating which was one of your main points.

I see what you're saying now, but it's hard to talk about pass defense and ignore INT. But even using a good passing stat that leaves out INT, we were awful these last two years (24th and 26th in yards per attempt).

 

[jobberone]

facts? like what?

ohhh you want to throw statistics to defend why romo is a big game QB?

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

1-6 in win or go home games...that statistic doesn't count though huh?

Stats have to be applied carefully or they can be less than useful. You seem to understand the importance of a franchise QB to the playoff success of a team but you fail to understand why teams win and lose. We've tried to present some of that here but you seem more interested in defending your point of view that Romo is the only person responsible for those losses than in discussing why the team has had limited success in the last 15 years +.

 

[IrishAnto]

I see what you're saying now, but it's hard to talk about pass defense and ignore INT. But even using a good passing stat that leaves out INT, we were awful these last two years (24th and 26th in yards per attempt).

I agree.
Hopefully Kiffin's 4-3 can bring a happy compromise between reducing the yards/attempt and increasing the interceptions/turnovers in general.
As for the rushing touchdowns that will be down largely (though not completely) to the OL.
In both cases only time will tell.

 

[dallasfan4lizife]

Stats have to be applied carefully or they can be less than useful. You seem to understand the importance of a franchise QB to the playoff success of a team but you fail to understand why teams win and lose. We've tried to present some of that here but you seem more interested in defending your point of view that Romo is the only person responsible for those losses than in discussing why the team has had limited success in the last 15 years +.

Go back and read my responses. I never put all the blame on Romo. I said it's natural for Romo to receive most of the blame because that's how it is for a glorified position like that.

I said if he retires now he would be considered a choke. point blank. maybe not by those on this forum, and not necessarily by me.

He still has alot to prove to me however, and I'm not the biggest believer in him at this point.

 

[jobberone]

Go back and read my responses. I never put all the blame on Romo. I said it's natural for Romo to receive most of the blame because that's how it is for a glorified position like that.

I said if he retires now he would be considered a choke. point blank. maybe not by those on this forum, and not necessarily by me.

He still has alot to prove to me however, and I'm not the biggest believer in him at this point.

Ok. We're all fans here.

 

[Clove]

Just an outstanding thread, percy. Really smart stuff.

Unfortunately, it means nada. The bottom line is, Romo has been here long enough to win at least one of those years. Guys are coming up with a hundred ways to make Romo better than he is and the proof is in the 8 years he's been here. All I hear are excuses. Every day there's a new way to say the same crap. But the result is the same. Romo, or whatever team Romo has around him, CAN'T WIN. That's a fact. Even when Romo went to the pro bowl, his team there couldn't win. I don't see anything smart about this thread, it's the same stuff, with more numbers attached.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Even when Romo went to the pro bowl, his team there couldn't win.

Holy Moly.

 

[Lonestar94]

Holy Moly.

Romo is a choker because he can't win those darn Pro Bowl games!!

Unreal.

 

[jobberone]

Unfortunately, it means nada. The bottom line is, Romo has been here long enough to win at least one of those years. Guys are coming up with a hundred ways to make Romo better than he is and the proof is in the 8 years he's been here. All I hear are excuses. Every day there's a new way to say the same crap. But the result is the same. Romo, or whatever team Romo has around him, CAN'T WIN. That's a fact. Even when Romo went to the pro bowl, his team there couldn't win. I don't see anything smart about this thread, it's the same stuff, with more numbers attached.

I'm unable to come up with an adequate answer for this.

 

[Idgit]

Unfortunately, it means nada. The bottom line is, Romo has been here long enough to win at least one of those years. Guys are coming up with a hundred ways to make Romo better than he is and the proof is in the 8 years he's been here. All I hear are excuses. Every day there's a new way to say the same crap. But the result is the same. Romo, or whatever team Romo has around him, CAN'T WIN. That's a fact. Even when Romo went to the pro bowl, his team there couldn't win. I don't see anything smart about this thread, it's the same stuff, with more numbers attached.

Yeah. You're just wrong, and can't tell the difference between a reason and an excuse. If you care to address the primary argument of the thread, though, I'd be interested in your take. What you've got here is just a cop-out in my book.

 

[percyhoward]

Unfortunately, it means nada. The bottom line is, Romo has been here long enough to win at least one of those years. Guys are coming up with a hundred ways to make Romo better than he is and the proof is in the 8 years he's been here. All I hear are excuses. Every day there's a new way to say the same crap. But the result is the same. Romo, or whatever team Romo has around him, CAN'T WIN. That's a fact. Even when Romo went to the pro bowl, his team there couldn't win. I don't see anything smart about this thread, it's the same stuff, with more numbers attached.

If you want to know why teams win or lose, then you have to study what kinds of performances historically lead to wins and losses. It takes some effort, but then anything worth knowing usually does. If, after filtering out the performance of the passing game, you find that the rest of the team performed well enough to win on a consistent basis, you can be reasonably sure that the passing game is primarily to blame for the team's lack of success. If you don't, then you can be reasonably sure that it isn't. "Reasonably" is the important word.

If it's going to be an informed opinion, reason needs to play a role in there somewhere.

 

[dwmyers]

This notion that a play at the very end of a game contributes more to a win than the exact same outcome in the second quarter is simply emotional.

I can't buy this. An interception in a tied game run back for a touchdown in the second quarter is a setback. An interception in a tied game run back for a touchdown with just seconds on the clock clearly loses the game. You don't need to believe me. Go to Brian Burke's site and look for his win probability calculator, and check how much value a 7 point lead has at different times of the game.

Went ahead and did the calculation myself. The calculator is here: http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php

1 minute left in the 2nd quarter. Your ball. 25 yard line. first and ten. Your odds of winning are 27%
1 minute left in the 4th quarter. Your ball. 25 yard line. first and ten. Your odds of winning are 5%.

 

[5Stars]

Unfortunately, it means nada. The bottom line is, Romo has been here long enough to win at least one of those years. Guys are coming up with a hundred ways to make Romo better than he is and the proof is in the 8 years he's been here. All I hear are excuses. Every day there's a new way to say the same crap. But the result is the same. Romo, or whatever team Romo has around him, CAN'T WIN. That's a fact. Even when Romo went to the pro bowl, his team there couldn't win. I don't see anything smart about this thread, it's the same stuff, with more numbers attached.

Good post, Clove, right on with everything you say right here.

 

[percyhoward]

I can't buy this. An interception in a tied game run back for a touchdown in the second quarter is a setback. An interception in a tied game run back for a touchdown with just seconds on the clock clearly loses the game. You don't need to believe me. Go to Brian Burke's site and look for his win probability calculator, and check how much value a 7 point lead has at different times of the game.

Went ahead and did the calculation myself. The calculator is here: http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php

1 minute left in the 2nd quarter. Your ball. 25 yard line. first and ten. Your odds of winning are 27%
1 minute left in the 4th quarter. Your ball. 25 yard line. first and ten. Your odds of winning are 5%.

If everybody understood win probability added, threads like this one would not be necessary.

Four times in his career, Romo has been a Top 5 QB in win probability added, including each of the last two seasons. In fact, 2011 and 2012 were the best WPA totals of his career.