tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post8821535100818549212..comments2023-11-05T04:16:44.937-05:00Comments on Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): Super Bowl XLII and Team PossessionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-87244594825407388982011-12-23T18:06:41.947-05:002011-12-23T18:06:41.947-05:00Yes, points per possession is more important than ...Yes, points per possession is more important than points per game.<br /><br />But the idea that the worst team wants fewer possessions isn't based on just offense.<br /><br />If team A is good enough to "on average" outscore team B 3:2, it's to team B's advantage to keep the game to the number of possessions such that the score is at most 24-16 late, rather than having it be 30-20 late, for example.<br /><br />Another way of thinking about it is the Law of Large Numbers. The more data you have, the more likely it will be to follow the expected trends. Rolling, say, 10 dice and averaging 2.0 or 5.0 instead of 3.5 is more likely than rolling > 10 dice and averaging 1.5 off the expected mean.Daniel Bhttp://www.facebook.com/events/260323834023708/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-48215867987799429222009-12-10T00:50:13.867-05:002009-12-10T00:50:13.867-05:00That post makes no sense^
There is no such thing ...That post makes no sense^<br /><br />There is no such thing as a defensive or offensive advantage for points per possession. You just take the expected PPP scored and subtract the expected PPP allowed. Say you have a great defense but a bad offense. You might score 1.7 PPP and allow 1.5. Subtract that, and for every possession on the field, you gain .2 points (expected). <br /><br />Now reverse it, say you have a great offense and bad D, you score 2.5 PPP and allow 2.3 PPP. Subtract them, and same thing, you gain .2 points for every possession you are on the field. Offensive/defensive strengths don't affect it.<br /><br />In terms of the argument for good defenses being more likely to get tired, that would take an ambitious statistical study to prove. Common sense says a bad defense is just as likely to get tired as a good one, so shortening the game for a good defense doesn't help much at all.anolandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08032939584924513164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-66275346401419797062008-02-06T00:44:00.000-05:002008-02-06T00:44:00.000-05:00I think you're completely right about the importan...I think you're completely right about the importance to the Giants' winning of reducing the number of possessions in this game, and about why, but I think there might be some more to the concept. <BR/><BR/>When you write, <I>"The more possessions each team has, the more likely it is the better team is going to eventually come out on top." </I> the assumption seems to be that the "better team" is the better offensive team, for whom this is certainly true. But there are other cases. The golden stat for possessions is points-per-possession. Higher PPP = victory, absent some sort of fluke on a "non-possession" play. But net PPP is the result of both offense and defense.<BR/><BR/>Imagine a team with only an average offense, or a sub-average offense, but a superior defense. It's a good team, better than most, maybe very good, but it isn't going to benefit any on average by getting its offense a lot of possessions. Its comparative advantage that produces its net +PPP is its defense.<BR/><BR/>And remember the human element of football defense. Defenders have to cover the entire field every play while the offense knows just where it is attacking. Defenders have to hide their schemes, while the offense given time can ferret them out. Defenders are much more subject than attackers to exhaustion and exposure if they are on the field a long time. (Think of why Buddy Ryan punched out Kevin Gilbride when the latter's run-and-shoot offense was producing 65-second three-and-outs.) <BR/><BR/>If expected net PPP is constant, then mathematically a higher number of possessions helps the "better" team, always. But if a team's advantage is defensive, it gets its net +PPP from its defense, then a lot of plays and possessions that leave its defense on the field subject to exhaustion and exposure may reduce its expected net PPP during the course of the game, and reduce its winning percentage. A team with an average game score of 20-10 has a higher expected winning percentage than one with an average score of 30-20.<BR/><BR/>If all this is true, then when a superior offensive team plays a superior defensive team, when the latter chews up the clock to reduce the number of possessions and plays, it's not just hoping to improve its odds of somehow getting lucky, it's actually playing aggressively to its strength. It also means that when great defensive-oriented teams like Lombardi's Packers, Shula's Fish, and Noll's Steelers ran over average teams all season long with extremely run-oriented offenses that consumed the clock and reduced possessions, they weren't inadvertently increasing their own risk of being upset, they were aggressively maximizing their net +PPP and winning expectations.<BR/><BR/>As to the Giants last Sunday, they were so different during their last five games compared to the rest of the season I don't know if they were an offensive team, defensive team, or what ;-) . Surely they wanted to reduce Brady's possessions because the Pats were the better offensive team. But if they were basing their fight on their D-line, then reducing the number of plays wasn't just hoping for luck, it was also maxing their strength. And that 10-minute opening drive was just what the doctor ordered for both objectives. Sort of Gilbride's Revenge on Buddy!JGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11164150812219689611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-35857489132159292732008-02-04T13:37:00.000-05:002008-02-04T13:37:00.000-05:00I would have loved to see Rupert Murdoch's face to...I would have loved to see Rupert Murdoch's face toward the end of the opening drive. He was probably on the phone with Goddel screaming <B>"I need a TV timeout! I don't care How you do it! Get the referees to make a measurement or something! These ads pay 2.7 million!!"</B><BR/><BR/>Good point about the shortened game. Ultimately, this was not a predictable event. You couldn't project the Giants defensive line playing the game of their collective lives, and the Patriots' fantastic offensive line playing, by far, their worst game of the year. Even with all that, it took the remarkably unlikely Tyree grab to give the Giants a chance to win.Tarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368810359650066790noreply@blogger.com