Pete Shrager is excited about our prospects this year.. | Page 7 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Pete Shrager is excited about our prospects this year..

That's the most annoying sports show I've ever seen. I can barely stand to watch it for more than a few minutes. I'm sure he doesn't think that Miami will be in the championship, I think they do that with numerous teams...
 
Digital said:
For those stats to mean much you would have to run them for the time period after the first 5 games. The time before that was when both our offense and defense were learning drastically new systems.

Only after the first 5 games did we start playing as a team. We will have that knowledge from game one this year.

I'm not saying there wasn't any smoke and mirrors, but run those turnover, points for and against, and other stats over the last 11 games.

Remember, we had about half of our starting lineup out by the time the playoffs rolled around, but the team had learned the systems.

I think you will find that over the last 11 games there was less smoke and mirrors needed. Just more seeking out wins in winnable close games.
Click to expand...


You mention turnovers as though they aren't a "smoke and mirrors" variable, when in fact the opposite is true.

See here for example:

So after a few hundred words of statistics, we arrive at a whopping conclusion that just over half of seasonal turnover differential is due to luck. That’s huge, especially when you consider that (from earlier) seasonal turnover differential explains over 40% of seasonal winning percentage.

At first glance, this does seem very high to me but evidence for this magnitude is the extraordinary year-to-year variability in turnover differential, which you would expect if luck was a mega factor as my analysis suggests. While starting quarterbacks absolutely play a role in turnover differential (Tom Brady throws fewer picks than Chad Henne) and tend to be fairly constant from year-to-year, nevertheless the correlation between turnover differential last year and this year is only 0.086 which is not significant at the 5% level.
Click to expand...


http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2014/10/how-random-are-turnovers/
 
hoops said:
Tampa won't have Doug Martin he's been suspended. That helps. Those two tight ends though are gonna be a problem. Tampas lb group is better than miamis. Maxwell seems to play better vs bigger WRs so maybe the matchup won't be too bad of one on the outside. Give him the Texas a & m kid put Howard on desean Jackson McCain has to limit the slot humphries. And if and when Jamieus has a brain fart capitalize on it. He doesn't look like he's kicked the forcing it habit yet. Should be some plays to be made got to make them.
Click to expand...

I agree and it all sounds well and good, but we do not deploy our CB's for specific match ups. Maxwell plays LCB and Howard plays right. No one shadows or marks a particular receiver.
 
Sons Of Shula said:
Takeaways have little to nothing to do with luck. They are coached.
Click to expand...


How often do takeaways occur? What is the likelihood that a team will replicate something close to its takeaway total from one year to the next, even if it has the same coaching staff?

If the answer to either of those questions is a relatively small number, then takeaways are relatively meaningless as a measure of the strength of a team.
 
<O> said:
How often do takeaways occur? What is the likelihood that a team will replicate something close to its takeaway total from one year to the next, even if it has the same coaching staff?

If the answer to either of those questions is a relatively small number, then takeaways are relatively meaningless as a measure of the strength of a team.
Click to expand...

Still does not deem takeaways as luck.
 
Sons Of Shula said:
Still does not deem takeaways as luck.
Click to expand...


Sure it does, in that if a team benefits from an exceptionally large number of takeaways in a season, it was lucky.

If hypothetically takeaways occur infrequently, and teams are unlikely to replicate something close to their number of takeaways from one year to the next, even with the same coaching staff, then if a team benefits from an exceptionally large number of takeaways in a season, it was indeed lucky that year.

If on the other hand it suffered from an exceptionally small number of takeaways in a season, it was unlucky that year.

Takeaways can be focused on by coaches when coaching players, but that doesn't mean the way they play out throughout the league will be systematic and not random.
 
<O> said:
Sure it does, in that if a team benefits from an exceptionally large number of takeaways in a season, it was lucky.

If hypothetically takeaways occur infrequently, and teams are unlikely to replicate something close to their number of takeaways from one year to the next, even with the same coaching staff, then if a team benefits from an exceptionally large number of takeaways in a season, it was indeed lucky that year.

If on the other hand it suffered from an exceptionally small number of takeaways in a season, it was unlucky that year.

Takeaways can be focused on by coaches, but that doesn't mean the way they play out throughout the league will be systematic and not random.
Click to expand...

How does that not stand for everything and anything that occurs in football.

Say a team scores 400 pts one year but only 300 the next. You chalk that up to luck?

A DE registers 3 sacks one year but 14 the next. That's luck?

A QB throws 18 INTs one year but only 7 the next? Just lucky?
 
Sons Of Shula said:
How does that not stand for everything and anything that occurs in football.

Say a team scores 400 pts one year but only 300 the next. You chalk that up to luck?

A DE registers 3 sacks one year but 14 the next. That's luck?
Click to expand...


But those things don't tend to fluctuate anywhere near as much as you've portrayed them, and so those variables don't reflect luck as much as do turnovers. Those variables change systematically and are therefore reflective of stable characteristics of players and teams.

Turnovers vary randomly, and so they can't possibly reflect a stable characteristic of teams. Random fluctuation is luck. Systematic fluctuation is talent.
 
<O> said:
But those things don't tend to fluctuate anywhere near as much as you've portrayed them, and so those variables don't reflect luck as much as do turnovers. Those variables change systematically and are therefore reflective of stable characteristics of players and teams.

Turnovers vary randomly, and so they can't possibly reflect a stable characteristic of teams. Random fluctuation is luck. Systematic fluctuation is talent.
Click to expand...

BS. Yes, they absolutely do. Saying otherwise is ignorant. Here are perfectly mirrored examples to what I gave previously.

The Dolphins offense in '09 scored 360 pts, but in '10 we only managed 273.

Cutler for example. In '09 he threw 26 INT's and in '10 he only threw 16.

How about Cameron Wake. In '09 he had 5.5 sacks and in '10 he had 14.
 
Sons Of Shula said:
BS. Yes, they absolutely do. Saying otherwise is ignorant. Here are perfectly mirrored examples to what I gave previously.

The Dolphins offense in '09 scored 360 pts, but in '10 we only managed 273.

Cutler for example. In '09 he threw 26 INT's and in '10 he only threw 16.

How about Cameron Wake. In '09 he had 5.5 sacks and in '10 he had 14.
Click to expand...


Now compare Cameron Wake's year-to-year variation in sacks to the year-to-year variation in William Hayes's sacks, for example.

What does it say that Wake's numbers of sacks vary at a level much higher than that of Hayes? That Wake is luckier than Hayes?

You won't find any such systematic variation in turnover differential from team to team, from year to year. The league's teams are almost entirely random in that regard.

Knowing you're dealing with Cameron Wake and William Hayes allows you to predict a number of sacks each player will have, with far more certainty than knowing you're dealing with let's say the Dolphins versus the Bears, in terms of predicting turnover differential.
 
<O> said:
Now compare Cameron Wake's year-to-year variation in sacks to the year-to-year variation in William Hayes's sacks, for example.

What does it say that Wake's numbers of sacks vary at a level much higher than that of Hayes? That Wake is luckier than Hayes?

You won't find any such systematic variation in turnover differential from year to year, and from team to team. The league's teams are almost entirely random in that regard.
Click to expand...

Your argument is flawed. Hayes isn't a pass rusher. It's like comparing the interceptions b/w a LB and a CB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom