Have the Dolphins Really Improved this Year? | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Have the Dolphins Really Improved this Year?

shouright said:
This post is a spin-off from the following thread:

http://www.finheaven.com/showthread...ames-Associated-with-11-4-Regular-Season-Wins

...where I took a look at the Dolphins' performance during the last three games as a function of the equation on this page:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

What we have below are the same stats for every game this season. The "estimated wins" statistic (the bottom row of the table below) I believe gives an indication of the kind of level at which the team was playing in each game. Obviously an estimated wins statistic typically associated with a playoff berth (usually 10 wins or better) would be indicative of playoff-caliber football.

BROWNS
COLTS
FALCONS
SAINTS
RAVENS
BILLS
PATRIOTS
BENGALS
BUCS
CHARGERS
PANTHERS
JETS
STEELERS
PATRIOTS
SEASON
OFF PASS ATT
38
34
35
35
40
37
42
28
42
35
42
43
33
37
521
OFF PASS YARDS
255
297
195
216
272
173
145
188
211
239
280
328
179
289
3267
DEF PASS ATT
53
43
38
39
32
32
22
53
21
34
38
28
39
55
527
DEF PASS YARDS
244
315
231
397
251
178
100
302
124
281
159
78
328
357
3345
OFF SACKS
4
5
5
4
6
2
6
3
2
4
3
1
2
4
51
DEF SACKS
6
3
0
2
2
4
3
5
2
3
2
4
3
1
40
OFF INTs
1
0
1
3
0
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
14
DEF INTs
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
0
1
17
OFF PLAYS
65
66
55
58
57
64
79
61
58
58
62
80
60
64
887
DEF PLAYS
72
72
68
65
74
66
62
93
60
63
69
54
63
78
959
OFF FUMB
0
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
14
DEF FORCED FUMB
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
11
OFF RUSHES
23
27
15
19
11
25
31
30
14
19
17
36
25
23
315
OFF RUSH YARDS
20
101
90
115
22
120
156
157
2
104
52
125
181
89
1334
DEF RUSHES
13
26
30
24
40
30
37
35
37
26
28
22
21
22
391
DEF RUSH YARDS
47
133
146
68
133
90
152
163
140
154
136
99
84
96
1641
PENALTY YARDS
77
0
13
25
65
32
61
25
70
15
55
28
36
21
523
OFF NET YPA
6.0714
7.6154
4.8750
5.5385
5.9130
4.4359
3.0208
6.0645
4.7955
6.1282
6.2222
7.4545
5.1143
7.0488
5.7115
DEF NET YPA
4.1356
6.8478
6.0789
9.6829
7.3824
4.9444
4.0000
5.2069
5.3913
7.5946
3.9750
2.4375
7.8095
6.3750
5.8995
OFF INT RATE
2.6316
0.0000
2.8571
8.5714
0.0000
5.4054
4.7619
0.0000
2.3810
2.8571
2.3810
2.3256
3.0303
0.0000
2.6871
DEF INT RATE
5.6604
2.3256
2.6316
0.0000
3.1250
3.1250
4.5455
5.6604
4.7619
2.9412
2.6316
7.1429
0.0000
1.8182
3.2258
OFF FUM RATE
0.0000
4.5455
3.6364
1.7241
1.7544
1.5625
1.2658
1.6393
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.3333
3.1250
1.5784
DEF FF RATE
0.0278
0.0139
0.0147
0.0154
0.0135
0.0303
0.0000
0.0108
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0185
0.0159
0.0000
0.0115
OFF YPC
0.8696
3.7407
6.0000
6.0526
2.0000
4.8000
5.0323
5.2333
0.1429
5.4737
3.0588
3.4722
7.2400
3.8696
4.2349
DEF YPC
3.6154
5.1154
4.8667
2.8333
3.3250
3.0000
4.1081
4.6571
3.7838
5.9231
4.8571
4.5000
4.0000
4.3636
4.1969
PENALTY YDS RATE
0.5620
0.0000
0.1057
0.2033
0.4962
0.2462
0.4326
0.1623
0.5932
0.1240
0.4198
0.2090
0.2927
0.1479
0.2833
ESTIMATED WINS
7.55
11.72
8.99
3.93
4.88
9.39
3.91
11.29
0.35
6.13
8.43
14.78
8.58
10.12
7.95
Click to expand...

8 wins vs 7 last year. So yes.
 
Finfan in Buffalo, the OP for some insane reason hates Tannehill. That's his agenda on every post. Maybe he loves Cleo Lemon!

---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------

And what's with the Teddy Bear!
 
BSQ said:
Finfan in Buffalo, the OP for some insane reason hates Tannehill. That's his agenda on every post. Maybe he loves Cleo Lemon!

---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------

And what's with the Teddy Bear!
Click to expand...


That was a good movie, you should check it out.
 
PhinzN703 said:
8 wins vs 7 last year. So yes.
Click to expand...
How would you know the increase in wins wasn't due to the variables that tend to fluctuate randomly, rather than more stable attributes of teams?

Of course you could call any increase in wins an "improvement" by that measure alone (i.e., the team's record), but if that improvement is being accomplished via variables that tend to fluctuate randomly, rather than via those that tend to reflect more stable attributes, then it can be said the "improvement" is being done with "smoke and mirrors" if you will, and isn't likely to be sustained.

This is I think what we saw during the first three games of the season, when the team was 3-0, yet its average number of estimated wins for a 16-game season during that period -- based on the more stable variables that strongly correlate with winning -- was merely 9.4.

And what a surprise -- we're set to win about "9.4" games this year (in quotes because it'll likely be either 9 or 10).
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
I didn't really have a problem with the original post. The numbers are what the numbers are... The attempt to draw conclusions from a tiny sample is misguided but harmless.

It was the (for the millionth time) attempt to pin the losses on Tannehill via the YPA stat that bugs me. YPA is a team stat, no matter what this knucklehead thinks. To consider it a Tannehill-only stat, you have to believe the following:

1. All sacks are Tannehill's fault
2. All Dropped passes are Tannehill's fault
3. All other incomplete passes are Tannehill's fault (throw aways, defended passes, tipped at the LOS, and missed by the QB)
4. All INTs are Tannehill's fault
5. All YAC are due solely to Tannehill
6. All down and distance situations (e.g. passes from the 1 yard line) are the sole responsibility of Tannehill
7. All play calling is by Tannehill
8. Offensive philosophy is Tannehill's decision

All of these (and probably more) impact the YPA of the TEAM. Pinning the number on Tannehill in a lame attempt to brand him "average" (either in previous games or current games) in thousands of posts is F'n irritating.
Click to expand...
What I find confusing is that on the one hand, people tend to call Tannehill a "developmental" quarterback, or they caution us that patience is required while he develops, yet on the other hand, Tannehill's performance -- during the same "developmental" period, no less -- with regard to the statistical measures of quarterback play that distinguish the all-time greats from the rest of the pack, are attributed by those same people to other parts of the team.

Worst of all is the blatant ignoring of reality. Many tried to explain the causes for the offense's struggles early in the season as largely due to the OL. He argued that the OL was no worse than average. The team makes changes on the OL (some forced, some by choice) and the offense improves. You'd think that would be conclusive evidence to anyone who doubted that the OL was causing the bulk of the issues....
Click to expand...
And it would, if you were comfortable deeming correlation to equal causation, without supporting it with anything objective.

Once again, we have an inconsistency: Tannehill is supposedly developing and needs time to perform well, but at about the time the experts believe the light comes on for developmental quarterbacks (about a thousand pass attempts), the improvement in his performance is attributed to the offensive line, despite the fact that it can't be supported objectively.
 
shouright said:
This is I think what we saw during the first three games of the season, when the team was 3-0, yet its average number of estimated wins for a 16-game season during that period -- based on the more stable variables that strongly correlate with winning -- was merely 9.4.

And what a surprise -- we're set to win about "9.4" games this year (in quotes because it'll likely be either 9 or 10).
Click to expand...

What was the average number of estimated wins based off games 4-8?
 
FinHopeful said:
Correct. Just watch the games. Statistics are not required to prove this case.
Click to expand...
Once again, how do you know the wins weren't accomplished via variables that tend to fluctuate randomly, versus those that are strongly correlated with winning and tend to reflect more stable attributes of teams?

In other words, how do you know the team has improved with regard to "winning" team attributes, versus those that can and do make teams win via "smoke and mirrors"?

Now, if you can do all that in your head, I'm impressed, and I'd sure like to see your work. If not, then statistics are required to, as you said, "prove this case." :)
 
WVDolphan said:
I think a large part of the issue is most of the people who have a problem with his posts simply do not understand the math involved or how to interpret it.
Click to expand...

You need to give Finheaven posters more credit. There are plenty of smart people here who can understand these methods and analysis. I know of at least one college professor, two financial analysts, and one CPA on this very board that have questioned the sampling and exclusion of data in this guys posts. His unscientific approach has discredited any point he has tried to make. I could counter-point your argument and say that if you actually enjoy his data, its probably because you don't understand it. And why is this guy being protected by the Finheaven gestapo? he gets to opt-out of having a "No Thanks" button on his post?

Untitled.jpg
 
Zounds said:
You need to give Finheaven posters more credit. There are plenty of smart people here who can understand these methods and analysis. I know of at least one college professor, two financial analysts, and one CPA on this very board that have questioned the sampling and exclusion of data in this guys posts. His unscientific approach has discredited any point he has tried to make. I could counter-point your argument and say that if you actually enjoy his data, its probably because you don't understand it. And why is this guy being protected by the Finheaven gestapo? he gets to opt-out of having a "No Thanks" button on his post?

View attachment 11926
Click to expand...

yeah...how the hell is that possible...this dude is trolling the crap out of this board with his nonsense...daily...
 
WVDolphan said:
think a large part of the issue is most of the people who have a problem with his posts simply do not understand the math involved or how to interpret it.
Click to expand...

No. The problem is that he does not understand the math. As has been pointed out ad nauseum in a lot of different threads.
 
Zounds said:
You need to give Finheaven posters more credit. There are plenty of smart people here who can understand these methods and analysis. I know of at least one college professor, two financial analysts, and one CPA on this very board that have questioned the sampling and exclusion of data in this guys posts. His unscientific approach has discredited any point he has tried to make. I could counter-point your argument and say that if you actually enjoy his data, its probably because you don't understand it. And why is this guy being protected by the Finheaven gestapo? he gets to opt-out of having a "No Thanks" button on his post?
Click to expand...
If those people would like to discuss those issues, assuming they can do so without also engaging in a personal attack, I would certainly be happy to do so. :)
 
No you wouldn't. I've called you out on your shoddy methods repeatedly and you just dodge it -- you don't even respond. Because you're a fraud and you know it.
 
shouright said:
If those people would like to discuss those issues, assuming they can do so without also engaging in a personal attack, I would certainly be happy to do so. :)
Click to expand...

They did discuss those issues in your threads. You just plugged your ears and sang "lalalala...I cant hear you...lalalalala" and proceeded to block them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom