Trevor Siemian's "Gift"

[VBCheeseGrater]

Id respond with some comment about being burned by lousy QBs before, but that would imply i actually watched the game to evaluate what happened. These days the team is worth periodic stat tracker glances at best. No time for it, i've got paint drying to watch over, for petes sake.

 

[<O>]

If we had won the game with Siemians posting a 101 rating, would you have started a thread saying the Fins pass D sucks and they should have lost the game? Still, thats a ****load of stats just to state that a 30- rating from a QB usually loses the game... I mean... No ****!

And by nearly 20 points on average, and by 26 points or more (like Sunday) in more than one of every five such games.

In other words, a 35-9 win isn't impressive under those circumstances, like it might be normally. Anything non-lopsided would've been a disappointment.

 

[PhinsAAA]

When the QB on the other team has a horrible game his team more often than not loses??? Earth shattering wisdom there guy

 

[<O>]

When the QB on the other team has a horrible game his team more often than not loses??? Earth shattering wisdom there guy

The (unconventional) wisdom consists of the finding that a 35-9 victory doesn't necessarily indicate that the winning team played all that well.

Rather, it takes an extremely poor performance by but one player on the opposing team to make a victory that large be 1) expected, and 2) caused almost exclusively by him.

 

[<O>]

The (unconventional) wisdom consists of the finding that a 35-9 victory doesn't necessarily indicate that the winning team played all that well.

Rather, it takes an extremely poor performance by but one player on the opposing team to make a victory that large be 1) expected, and 2) caused almost exclusively by him.

Here's a corollary:

Between 2004 and 2016, there were 302 games in which a team won by between 23 and 29 points (the Dolphins won by 26 Sunday).

240 of those games (79%) involved the losing team's passer rating's being at least 10 points higher than Trevor Siemian's was Sunday.

81 of them (27%) involved a losing team's passer rating that was in the range in which Jay Cutler played on Sunday or higher (70+).

So, obviously it doesn't require a horrendous game by an opposing quarterback to win by 26.

In at least one in four such games, the opposing quarterback plays far better than Siemian did Sunday, meaning that those wins by 26 can be far more safely attributed to the winning team's very good performance, and not to the losing team's ineptitude.

In other words, the Dolphins had a 26-point win Sunday that, by its nature, should be attributed to the losing team, and not to the winning team.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

News flash. A win against a 3-8 record on a 7 game losing streak isn't necessarily impressive.

I still disagree with your premise that the Dolphins D didn't have much to do with Siemian's performance. They harassed him all day. You also failed to mention that a few bogus calls kept still more points off the board. The point differential could have been 40.

 

[madmic21]

[QUOTE="<O>,

221 of them (6.6%) involved a passer rating of 33 or less by one of the two teams involved. This is a fairly rare event in the league.

19 of those 221 games in which a team had a QB with a passer rating of 33 or less resulted in a win. 202 of the 221 games resulted in losses.

In other words, if a team has a QB with a passer rating of 33 or less in a game, it has a 0.6% chance of winning that game. Six wins out of a thousand tries, in games of that nature.

[/QUOTE]
Confused how 19 of 221 games equates to 6 in a thousand when 19 were won out of 221?

 

[<O>]

News flash. A win against a 3-8 record on a 7 game losing streak isn't necessarily impressive.

It didn't have to go the way it did, however.

Consider that the 26-point win could've involved a passer rating of 110 by Jay Cutler, with a passer rating of 65 by Siemian. The win would've then been much more safely attributable to the Dolphins good play, and not to Siemian's extreme ineptitude.

That would've been far more impressive, and would've been far more consistent with what good teams usually do to teams like the Broncos. An argument could be made, then, that something better than usual should be expected from the Dolphins this week against New England.

I still disagree with your premise that the Dolphins D didn't have much to do with Siemian's performance. They harassed him all day. You also failed to mention that a few bogus calls kept still more points off the board. The point differential could have been 40.

That's obviously more likely to happen when a team is down big on the scoreboard and the opposing team knows it has to pass.

 

[<O>]

Confused how 19 of 221 games equates to 6 in a thousand when 19 were won out of 221?

19 games with a passer rating of 33 or less were also won out of the 3,328 played between 2004 and 2016.

 

[SwissPhins]

Rather, it takes an extremely poor performance by but one player on the opposing team to make a victory that large be 1) expected, and 2) caused almost exclusively by him.

I absolutely disagree on that one. A QB doesn't have to play bad, that he gets a bad rating. There can be good pressure by the front 7 so he doesn't have the time to complete his passes. There can be great coverage on the defense backs, so the QB doesn't find his open receivers. There can be great interceptions play on otherwise good passes by a QB. Starting every drive in your own 10 yards line because of great punts by the opposing team, etc. So in my opinion there can be many different reasons why a passer rating is that low.

I'm definitely not saying Siemian played a good game, but I can't agree on saying that a QB has to have a bad game for having a low rating and being exclusively responsible for a loss. There is a saying over here in Switzerland that we use in Soccer: "You only play as good as your opponent lets you to". So in my opinion the Dolphins played a good game in all three phases of the game against a bad Broncos team. But we didn't let them to have a better game so the win was deserved.

And after all I don't get the sense of the thread by putting up a thread with lot of numbers to just say that our team sucks after just seeing a cool game (probably every Dolphin Fan had a lot of fun watching this game) with 2 safeties, 3 interceptions, a pick six, a recovered on-side kick and a win by 26 points. But that's just my opinion. Looking forward for the Patriots game. Even though it will be hard, i would love to see us beating the sh*t out of this team and Tom Brady!

 

[<O>]

I absolutely disagree on that one. A QB doesn't have to play bad, that he gets a bad rating. There can be good pressure by the front 7 so he doesn't have the time to complete his passes. There can be great coverage on the defense backs, so the QB doesn't find his open receivers. There can be great interceptions play on otherwise good passes by a QB. Starting every drive in your own 10 yards line because of great punts by the opposing team, etc. So in my opinion there can be many different reasons why a passer rating is that low.

I'm definitely not saying Siemian played a good game, but I can't agree on saying that a QB has to have a bad game for having a low rating and being exclusively responsible for a loss. There is a saying over here in Switzerland that we use in Soccer: "You only play as good as your opponent lets you to". So in my opinion the Dolphins played a good game in all three phases of the game against a bad Broncos team. But we didn't let them to have a better game so the win was deserved.

I would agree with that if Sieman's passer rating had been somewhere between 55 and 65, and against a team with one of the league's best pass defenses. That would imply that he'd had a poor game caused primarily by the strength of the opposing defense, in that it would fall at the lower end of his personal range of passer ratings, in association with an opposing team that had an established track record in defending against opposing QBs in that manner.

What we saw on Sunday, rather, was a passer rating well below the lower end of Siemian's personal range, against a pass defense that had done nothing anywhere near that to any QB it had played, no matter how bad, in the previous 11 games on the season. The odds are clearly with Siemian in that instance, in my opinion.

And after all I don't get the sense of the thread by putting up a thread with lot of numbers to just say that our team sucks after just seeing a cool game (probably every Dolphin Fan had a lot of fun watching this game) with 2 safeties, 3 interceptions, a pick six, a recovered on-side kick and a win by 26 points. But that's just my opinion. Looking forward for the Patriots game. Even though it will be hard, i would love to see us beating the sh*t out of this team and Tom Brady!

It was a cool game, yes. Does it indicate the team turned a corner in 2017? No. That's the point.

Some of us here want to feel good about the team whenever we can. I understand that. I would rather know what to expect and know how hopeful I should be, personally. Not everyone has to be that way, however.

 

[PhinsAAA]

So to sum up this thread..... How dare anyone enjoy a win during an otherwise terrible season!!!! Not on my watch- <O>

 

[russianbear]

Another stat: 99% of fans watching a blowout victory by their team enjoyed it

I don't think anyone puts much significance to the win, but the fans love seeing it.

This is an advanced statistical analysis that doesn't really provide much insight. We know their QB sucked, we all saw it. We know his extraordinary sucking is what led to that win more than anything else. Generally I enjoy obscure statistical analysis, but here it seems more purposed to serve as a wet blanket thread during a season that doesn't need it. We've got real issues to deal with beyond this fictitious false hope you imply provided by a blowout win.

 

[<O>]

Another stat: 99% of fans watching a blowout victory by their team enjoyed it

I don't think anyone puts much significance to the win, but the fans love seeing it.

This is an advanced statistical analysis that doesn't really provide much insight. We know their QB sucked, we all saw it. We know his extraordinary sucking is what led to that win more than anything else. Generally I enjoy obscure statistical analysis, but here it seems more purposed to serve as a wet blanket thread during a season that doesn't need it. We've got real issues to deal with beyond this fictitious false hope you imply provided by a blowout win.

What purpose it serves for me personally is the objective grounds for determining whether I should have any more hope for the remaining four games than I did prior to the Denver game.

What purpose it appears to serve for you says more about you than it does about me.

When the team truly turns a corner, I'll post a thread with similarly objective information that details why I believe they have, and perhaps that one will be more popular. :)

 

[russianbear]

What purpose it serves for me personally is the objective grounds for determining whether I should have any more hope for the remaining four games than I did prior to the Denver game.

What purpose it appears to serve for you says more about you than it does about me.

When the team truly turns a corner, I'll post a thread with similarly objective information that details why I believe they have, and perhaps that one will be more popular. :)

Someone as smart as yourself didn't need objective stats from Denver's game to determine whether or not you should have hope for the next four games, so I challenge your "advertised personal purpose" of the thread as bullshit (pardon my french). Or maybe you did and that's just how you function, statistically driven and intellectually compelled.

Regardless if that's your wiring I think the act of actually publishing a thread with the thought process is more for attention than anything else. I say that because you know your audience here, and you know the likely reaction. As interesting as it may be to some, it's not to most, for better or worse. This is just my opinion though so feel free to carry forth, and there are plenty of posters here that I'm sure get a kick out of seeing the nuts and bolts of the evaluation. I think you just like going back and forth to play with the masses. I'm not as detail oriented so I get bored quickly. The intricacies of this type of stuff are a little beyond my scope of interest, personally speaking.

As to your second point, I think it's pretty obvious that it would be.