Putting Stats Aside, Are the Phins Really being Outplayed, Yet Finding Ways to Win?

[ATL_PHIN_FAN]

Are the Phins really being outplayed?

I think that depends on how one defines outplayed, since we certainly outplayed the Colts and the Falcons in the 2nd half of both games. Otherwise, we could not have won those games.

******* Football is a 3 phase game. I think a team that executes its plays best in all 3 phases (overall execution) has a much better chance of winning than a team which neglects one or two phases.

******* Football is a test of endurance and awareness. Philbin's practices are designed to simulate in-game situations accurately and perpetually, including endurance and the speed of the game. We may be in better shape and more aware than most teams because of this. Therefore, we may have an edge here. An intangible, yet very telling one.

******* Which team would you rather have? The team that plays great (moving the ball) much of the game yet has lulls in discipline, production or execution at certain points? Or, the team that can take control at critical points in the game, and WINS the game as a result? Moving the ball up and down the field doesn't do you much good unless you score touchdowns (redzone efficiency) and you score them when you really need them (usually at the end of halves).

******* On the other side of the ball, having a shut down defense doesn't do you much good if that shutdown defense tends to shatter as it gets gassed in the 4th quarter. I think our team prefers a bend-but-don't-break style of defense much of the time, judiciously pushing players and then resting them, using well thought-out personnel exchanges, plus alternating a press and sit back/cover strategy. Have you noticed how fresh our guys have looked in the 4th quarter of our games compared to the opposition?

******* As Dolphins fans, surely we have learned lessons from the Marino years and from our past 10 years of struggle to learn how to win again. Perhaps now we are witnessing Philbin's solutions to problems all teams have?

******* Does our staff really know how and when to utilize our players most effectively during the ebb and flow of a game? Maybe they really do. What a gift that would be, heh? Just maybe, this Philbin lead staff is more innovative than can easily be recognized?

******* Stats are awesome, but they don't tell the entire story of a game. We are consistently managing to dominate one stat, and that is points. I think our staff are achieving that by correctly managing our personnel and play calling in games. The way in which we are managing to be in an excellent position to win games seems to be a lot more than dumb luck to me.

 

[Atila]

...what?

 

[overworkedirish]

...what?

Nah dude. He's saying something interesting.

Basically, there's more going on than two drunk, overpaid, washed-up commentators can convey to your average football fan. As a result, the successes of our game plan and personnel packages are underplayed and unnoticed.

Heck, I like it better than using lucky as an excuse for 3-0

 

[Shouright]

It sounds like you're voicing a concern about the team but then talking yourself out of being concerned about it by pointing at the team's record exclusively?

 

[ATL_PHIN_FAN]

It sounds like you're voicing a concern about the team but then talking yourself out of being concerned about it by pointing at the team's record exclusively?

Nope, I'm really NOT concerned. I like our chances this year (11-5), but for reasons that were unexpected to begin the season. What I speculate about in my original post is what those reasons might be, despite the fact that our stats suck in a lot of areas as they are traditionally measured.

 

[Shouright]

Nope, I'm really NOT concerned. I like our chances this year (11-5), but for reasons that were unexpected to begin the season. What I speculate about in my original post is what those reasons might be, despite the fact that our stats suck in a lot of areas as they are traditionally measured.

Entirely possible that the reasons you mentioned are distinguishing the Dolphins systematically from other teams. Also entirely possible that the team is benefitting more than the teams it's played from random variance. Too early to tell from only three games IMO.

Now, if they finish 11-5 like you said, then it'll be far less likely that they're benefitting from random variance, since that kind of benefit is unlikely to be extended over 16 games. The kinds of systematic distinctions you mentioned will be far more likely candidates at that point.

 

[ATL_PHIN_FAN]

Entirely possible that the reasons you mentioned are distinguishing the Dolphins systematically from other teams. Also entirely possible that the team is benefitting more than the teams it's played from random variance. Too early to tell from only three games IMO.

Now, if they finish 11-5 like you said, then it'll be far less likely that they're benefitting from random variance, since that kind of benefit is unlikely to be extended over 16 games. The kinds of systematic distinctions you mentioned will be far more likely candidates at that point.

Yup, I agree. There isn't enough data to be sure yet.

Systemic Differentiation is a better way to put what I'm trying to say, though. Thanks :brewskis:

 

[MD]

When you win the turnover battle, are efficient in the redzone, on 3d and 4th down as well, only give up 16 points in the 2nd half with only 3 of those being in the 4th quarter, don't commit stupid penalties odds are you're going to win regardless of being outgained.

Relying on statistical data solely determine the outcome of a football game is foolish.

 

[Shouright]

When you win the turnover battle, are efficient in the redzone, on 3d and 4th down as well, only give up 16 points in the 2nd half with only 3 of those being in the 4th quarter, don't commit stupid penalties odds are you're going to win regardless of being outgained.

You'd have no idea for certain that those things were going on unless you measured them statistically and compared them statistically to the teams the Dolphins have played.

Relying on statistical data to solely determine the outcome of a football game is foolish.

 

[TheWalrus]

It depends on whether you consider our success in the Red Zone as a feature of the team or a statistical aberration that's likely to correct itself. For what it's worth, I think it's the latter. Consider that right now we're converting in the red zone 87.5% of the time. Last year no team converted more than 68.52% of the time (Packers). If we want to keep scoring (we're like 8th or 9th in the league in scoring, I think, and that's without a defensive or special teams touchdown) we'll have to move the ball more consistently. It's just a statistical reality.

In fact, of the seven undefeated teams in the league right now, the Dolphins are last in yards per game (and 26th overall). It needs to be better.

The positive of course is that we've won three games and the team has shown moxie in clutch situations. It hasn't been a series of flukes or unrepeatable circumstances or the windfall from an easy schedule. It's more like a tennis player who's not creating many break point chances but is converting most of them versus a player who's creating tons of chances but not converting. In the short run the former player might steal wins or even a tournament or two. But over the long run the second player is likely to be more successful.

 

[Shouright]

It depends on whether you consider our success in the Red Zone as a feature of the team or a statistical aberration that's likely to correct itself. For what it's worth, I think it's the latter. Consider that right now we're converting in the red zone 87.5% of the time. Last year no team converted more than 68.52% of the time (Packers). If we want to keep scoring (we're like 8th or 9th in the league in scoring, I think, and that's without a defensive or special teams touchdown) we'll have to move the ball more consistently. It's just a statistical reality.

In fact, of the seven undefeated teams in the league right now, the Dolphins are last in yards per game (and 26th overall). It needs to be better.

The positive of course is that we've won three games and the team has shown moxie in clutch situations. It hasn't been a series of flukes or unrepeatable circumstances or the windfall from an easy schedule. It's more like a tennis player who's not creating many break point chances but is converting most of them versus a player who's creating tons of chances but not converting. In the short run the former player might steal wins or even a tournament or two. But over the long run the second player is likely to be more successful.

This is why the "random variance" point I made above is entirely possible. Luck (and not Andrew) does happen.

 

[TheWalrus]

A follow on to the red zone statistics. As I said, the league leader last year in red zone % was the Green Bay Packers, at 68.25%.

This year there are eight teams who are currently doing better than that %. Here they are in order:

1. Miami 87.50%
2. Cincinnati 85.71%
3. Houston 77.78%
4. San Diego 72.73%
5. Denver 72.73%
6. Chicago 72.73%
7. Carolina 71.43%
8. Indianapolis 70.00%

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct

Taken as a whole, this group is 17-7, with only two teams having losing records (Carolina and San Diego).

 

[Shouright]

A follow on to the red zone statistics. As I said, the league leader last year in red zone % was the Green Bay Packers, at 68.25%.

This year there are eight teams who are currently doing better than that %. Here they are in order:

1. Miami 87.50%
2. Cincinnati 85.71%
3. Houston 77.78%
4. San Diego 72.73%
5. Denver 72.73%
6. Chicago 72.73%
7. Carolina 71.43%
8. Indianapolis 70.00%

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct

Taken as a whole, this group is 17-7, with only two teams having losing records (Carolina and San Diego).

Any way to determine where the top teams were last year after three games?

Also, how in the world are the Dolphins doing that without the famed "red zone target"? Don't you need one of those to do that well? :unsure:

 

[TheWalrus]

This is why the "random variance" point I made above is entirely possible. Luck (and not Andrew) does happen.

Of course. But without identifying what those factors might be it doesn't do much use to bring to it up. "Hey, maybe we're just getting lucky" isn't an analysis in and of itself.

 

[Shouright]

Of course. But without identifying what those factors might be it doesn't do much use to bring to it up. "Hey, maybe we're just getting lucky" isn't an analysis in and of itself.

It's an analysis of the sample size, essentially.