Dolphins Showing Succesfull Execution... | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Dolphins Showing Succesfull Execution...

D

Disnardo

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
3,829
Reaction score
0
Age
64
Location
Miami
IMHO...

I have kind of developed this formula, to show Offensive as well as Defensive performance (Team in general) and what can be expected from them as the season and the games are played…



I have been using lately the Total of Points Scored (PS) and divide them by FD’s (No. of 1st Down). It kind of shows me how efficient the team (Defense or Offense) is running. Let’s take a look at our Fins…



In the 3 games played we have 68 PS and totaled 52 FD’s = 68/52 = 1.30 points per FD’s (including INT or Fumbles returned for TDs)…

In the same 3 games the Defense has 51 PA on 62 FD’s = 51/62 = 0.82 point per FD’s by opponents…

Note the + (positive) 0.480 variance, while the team is .666 in wins. This shows a nice cushion in performance between both O and D in scoring and stopping opponents from scoring…

So how were we in 2004, awful as we all know, the variance was negative (-) 0.23, in 2003 with a 10-6 record it was + 0.24, and in 2002 with a 9-7 record it was + 0.13…



Now let’s look at NE, they have – (negative) 0.29, when using this same formula, their Defense is allowing 1.40 Points per FD, the main culprit on their 2-2 record this…



Buffalo’s Offense is only scoring 0.81 p/FD, the main culprit for their 1-3 record, while their D is allowing 0.89 p/FD…



And the Jets have problems on both Offense (0.79 p/FD), and Defense (1.00 p/FD)…



Some of the Teams in the Post Season Last Year were:



Indi (12-4) = +0.31 points/FD; NE (14-2) = + 0.38; Pit (15-1) = + 0.19; Phili (13-3) = + 0.42; SD (12-4) = + 0.38; Denver (10-6) = +0.21 ; Seattle (9-7) = (-) 0.05 ; STL (8-8) = (-) 0.27 ; and KC (7-9) = (-) 0.12…



To me this has shown that Offenses with a (+) variance are doing a good job of execution, especially when the variance is significantly bigger (0.20 >), such as this year with Cinci + 0.69, Indi +0.59, NE in 2004 (+ 0.38), and NE in 2003 (+ 0.36), shows great execution which count for a great possibility for a Post season showing. Now they have to be consistent all throughout the Season…



Now for some reason, Washington this year is not helping my formula. They are undefeated but they have a negative (-) 0.06 variance. I believe the reason why, is that Washington’s D has given up 0.80 p/FD, compared to their opponents D giving up an averaged 1.07 p/FD this year…



Looking at some of the teams records and stats, and standings, for the last few years, this formula reveals that as long as we maintain a + 0.200 in variance between or O and D, we will have a winning Season, and no excuse from extending it to the Post Season…

Hope you all like the break down…
 
good way of summing all that up, yo have too much time on your hands, but please keep us inform, see you have the formula down so please do keep us informed.
 
Disnardo said:
IMHO...

I have kind of developed this formula, to show Offensive as well as Defensive performance (Team in general) and what can be expected from them as the season and the games are played…



I have been using lately the Total of Points Scored (PS) and divide them by FD’s (No. of 1st Down). It kind of shows me how efficient the team (Defense or Offense) is running. Let’s take a look at our Fins…



In the 3 games played we have 68 PS and totaled 52 FD’s = 68/52 = 1.30 points per FD’s (including INT or Fumbles returned for TDs)…

In the same 3 games the Defense has 51 PA on 62 FD’s = 51/62 = 0.82 point per FD’s by opponents…

Note the + (positive) 0.480 variance, while the team is .666 in wins. This shows a nice cushion in performance between both O and D in scoring and stopping opponents from scoring…

So how were we in 2004, awful as we all know, the variance was negative (-) 0.23, in 2003 with a 10-6 record it was + 0.24, and in 2002 with a 9-7 record it was + 0.13…



Now let’s look at NE, they have – (negative) 0.29, when using this same formula, their Defense is allowing 1.40 Points per FD, the main culprit on their 2-2 record this…



Buffalo’s Offense is only scoring 0.81 p/FD, the main culprit for their 1-3 record, while their D is allowing 0.89 p/FD…



And the Jets have problems on both Offense (0.79 p/FD), and Defense (1.00 p/FD)…



Some of the Teams in the Post Season Last Year were:



Indi (12-4) = +0.31 points/FD; NE (14-2) = + 0.38; Pit (15-1) = + 0.19; Phili (13-3) = + 0.42; SD (12-4) = + 0.38; Denver (10-6) = +0.21 ; Seattle (9-7) = (-) 0.05 ; STL (8-8) = (-) 0.27 ; and KC (7-9) = (-) 0.12…



To me this has shown that Offenses with a (+) variance are doing a good job of execution, especially when the variance is significantly bigger (0.20 >), such as this year with Cinci + 0.69, Indi +0.59, NE in 2004 (+ 0.38), and NE in 2003 (+ 0.36), shows great execution which count for a great possibility for a Post season showing. Now they have to be consistent all throughout the Season…



Now for some reason, Washington this year is not helping my formula. They are undefeated but they have a negative (-) 0.06 variance. I believe the reason why, is that Washington’s D has given up 0.80 p/FD, compared to their opponents D giving up an averaged 1.07 p/FD this year…



Looking at some of the teams records and stats, and standings, for the last few years, this formula reveals that as long as we maintain a + 0.200 in variance between or O and D, we will have a winning Season, and no excuse from extending it to the Post Season…

Hope you all like the break down…
Click to expand...

You need to clean up the anomolies, ie. Washington and get back to us with a better formula... :lol: :lol:
 
Actually, and I am pretty sparing with my praise for statistical constructions such as this, I find this to be a pretty interesting construction. It certainly seems to weed out at least some of the "pretenders" vs. the guys who have a good record for a reason.

What would be interesting to see is to go a step further and somehow weight the results based on the the +/- ratio of each team's opponents.

The Bengals have obviously been beating up on their opponents, but if their opponents have pretty big negative ratios for this construction, obviously their competition-adjusted ratio would be more competitive with some other teams' ratios.

Interesting, to say the least.
 
Good formula, I think you may have missed something there seing that WAS is undfeated despite the negative ratio.
 
now maybe if you could calculate the statistical probability of a team covering or not covering the spread I could greatly benifit from all of this. Nonetheless, it is interesting.
 
I think the value of this formula would be as a predictor of teams' success, not an analysis of how they won necessarily. If we (being anyone, including disnardo) can run regressions based on the ratio disnardo constructed and its correlation to winning records (including playoff wins and super bowls) then you have a formula that should help you weed out the "pretenders" (teams that have won despite not playing well) versus the real good teams who are winning by playing well.

Rather than looking at Washington's 3-0 record as a strong indictment of the formula's validity, I look at it as evidence that the Redskins are not as good as their record says. I would look at it as a predictor that the Redskins future record will not be reflective of their current 3-0 record, but will instead be more reflective of their low negative ratio.

A formula that says the exact same thing as a team's win/loss record is useless. Why not just look at the win/loss record instead? It is the discrepancies that are interesting.
 
Interesting stats but I'm not sure sure it's anything but interesting. I see a couple problems, while it would show productivity, including defensive scores where no first downs or scoring drives occur would seem to me to skew your numbers.

Lets say you have a team where the defense has scored 6 defensive TDs and the offense has scored 6 TDs. Your formula would make the offense appear twice as productive as they really are and typically defensive scores seem to come in waves and my not be a continued occurance.

Also, the length of the drive would seem to come into play. If the opposing team turns over the ball 3 times inside the 20, and the Dolphins score each time, the points per first down would seem very high. Not likely to happen week in and week out.

Once again, the really good teams put together many long scoring drives where many first downs occur again skewing your number downward when it really is an indication of a solid offensive team. Who could forget "The Drive" when the Broncos drove 98 yards to beat Cleveland and go to the SB? Great teams can start at the two yard line for points, bad teams can't. Most teams can score when they're given the ball at opponents one yard line and they never got a first down.

Before anyone points out that things even out somewhat over the season, some teams defenses score many points while others score few or none which will skew your numbers no matter what.

Look at how the wind gets taken from an opposing team when the Dolphins put together a long 8-9 minute drive for a TD. It seems to suck the life right out of the opposition, the offense get impatient and the defense wilts.

Maybe a better indication would be points per drive, throw out the defensive scores and include how many yards per scoring drive the team had to go. I have no idea how you would weigh the longer drives vs the shorter ones.
 
I'm not so sure I see a problem. Historically speaking defensive scores usually represent a very small portion of PA or PF...so, while it would be BETTER if we eliminate those defensive and special teams scores, I can see the logic behind the assumption that teams that successfully shorten drives better than they allow other teams to shorten drives against them, are generally really good teams.
 
ckparrothead said:
Rather than looking at Washington's 3-0 record as a strong indictment of the formula's validity, I look at it as evidence that the Redskins are not as good as their record says. I would look at it as a predictor that the Redskins future record will not be reflective of their current 3-0 record, but will instead be more reflective of their low negative ratio.

A formula that says the exact same thing as a team's win/loss record is useless. Why not just look at the win/loss record instead? It is the discrepancies that are interesting.
Click to expand...
I did check the opponents that played against them, and they have a combined (-) 0.13. Funny thing is that the opponents variance is greater that Wahington's, which might show why the are undefeated...

CK I agree with you on that Washington is not as good as their record shows, I believe that by the end of the Season Washington will be around an 8-8 team...

and you are right this is just on piece of stat that so far has made sense to me on every team I have checked on except the Redskins...
 
ckparrothead said:
I'm not so sure I see a problem. Historically speaking defensive scores usually represent a very small portion of PA or PF...so, while it would be BETTER if we eliminate those defensive and special teams scores, I can see the logic behind the assumption that teams that successfully shorten drives better than they allow other teams to shorten drives against them, are generally really good teams.
Click to expand...

If you're playing with a shorter field by winning the battle of field position, I agree. However, when you're talking the limited amount of first downs a team gets per game, you start throw 5-6 TDs in there, it will skew the results.

However, you can't argue that teams that sustain long drives and score points are the championship caliber teams, thereby pushing your points per down numbers lower and giving you a false stat of higher points per FD equals a better team.

It's an interesting stat and thats it.
 
Washington is an anomaly (I think). In the course of three to four games an average team can catch some breaks and win them all. The law of averages always catches up, so we'll see where they stand after the regular season. You're right though, the Dolphins have been doing pretty well. We'll face two excellent defenses next in Buffalo and Tampa Bay, so we'll see if we can keep it up.

By the way, is it just me or has the NFC East become the toughest division in the league???
 
Grumpy said:
If you're playing with a shorter field by winning the battle of field position, I agree. However, when you're talking the limited amount of first downs a team gets per game, you start throw 5-6 TDs in there, it will skew the results.

However, you can't argue that teams that sustain long drives and score points are the championship caliber teams, thereby pushing your points per down numbers lower and giving you a false stat of higher points per FD equals a better team.

It's an interesting stat and thats it.
Click to expand...
I understand, there are numerous ways to look at the stats, I can almost guarantee that they are better than mine, but looking at past teams and games, this is one that 9 times out of 10 has shown me consistency with team wins and production (execution)...

Sometimes in 80-90 yds drives there maybe 4-5 FDs, its rarely the exeption that a team will muster 7-8 FD on the drive...

Here is a random sample of games this year for FG/TDs:

MIA Drives: 69 yds (3 FD), 61 yds (4 FD), 68 yds (3 FD)...

Phili and the WC Drives: 72 yds (0 FD), 70 yds (3 FD), 60 yds (2 FD), 80 yds (3 FD), 90 yds (6 FD)...

Indi Drives: 63 yds (3FD), 71 yds (3 FD)...

Pit Drives: 77 yds (4 FD), 63 yds (0 FD ), 80 yds (3 FD), 74 yds (3 FD), 80 yds (3 FD)...

By looking at these samples, I would say that this formula has more consistency in showing execution by the point method (PS against PA)...
 
AZfinfan said:
now maybe if you could calculate the statistical probability of a team covering or not covering the spread I could greatly benifit from all of this. Nonetheless, it is interesting.
Click to expand...

Just always take the underdog, every week no matter how strongly you feel and you will have a winning record likely 60% -64%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom