Putting Stats Aside, Are the Phins Really being Outplayed, Yet Finding Ways to Win? | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

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

Walrus, your tennis analogy is a very good one. Whether or not we are being outplayed really depends on what our goal is in the first place. Even though we can assume each team has the same ultimate goal (winning), they may not agree on how to achieve the goal most consistently and most certainly. I wonder if Philbin's philosophy may be to stress a constant improvement of our position to win over an exclusive quest for more points? The slight difference in goal may allow his philosophy to disrupt the other.

Hehe, now I'm starting to sound nutty. I need to go to bed.
 
Any way to determine where the top teams were last year after three games?

I'm sure there is. I'm not sure it makes a difference which three games are analyzed though versus the whole. And the site does provide a link to last year's data with a sample of the last three games of 2012, which can be compared against the totals for the year. A cursory look at that data tells me there's a strong correlation to how teams performed in the last three games of the year versus how they performed overall.

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: ;)

Of the seven touchdowns the Dolphins have scored in the red zone, four have been by running backs. Of the three touchdown passes, two were from 18 yards out -- just barely in the red zone, in other words -- to Wallace and Hartline. The last was the fade route to the big tight end in Sims -- a traditional type of red zone guy if there ever was one.
 
It's an analysis of the sample size, essentially.

With all due respect, pointing out we've only played three games is an observation, not an analysis. If you want to argue the number will move one way or another, then you might be making an analysis.
 
I'm sure there is. I'm not sure it makes a difference which three games are analyzed though versus the whole. And the site does provide a link to last year's data with a sample of the last three games of 2012, which can be compared against the totals for the year. A cursory look at that data tells me there's a strong correlation to how teams performed in the last three games of the year versus how they performed overall.
I'm wondering if there was a similar spike early and then the regression you mentioned the Dolphins might have later this year.
 
With all due respect, pointing out we've only played three games is an observation, not an analysis. If you want to argue the number will move one way or another, then you might be making an analysis.
What I'm saying is that systematic explanations (like the ones in the OP) are more likely to be correct over the long haul, not after three games. After only three games, luck (i.e., random explanations) is still very much in play.
 
I'm wondering if there was a similar spike early and then the regression you mentioned the Dolphins might have later this year.

If you want to make the argument that the beginning of the year is somwhow different from the end of the year then go ahead. Sounds like a waste of time to me though. If you just look at the "last three games" chart from last year you'll see that several of the teams ended the year well over their season average while some were below it. As you would expect. In general however the teams that ended the year with good overall scores also did well at the end of the year.
 
What I'm saying is that systematic explanations (like the ones in the OP) are more likely to be correct over the long haul, not after three games. After only three games, luck (i.e., random explanations) is still very much in play.

Three games is not a lot of games but there are also only 16 games. One more game and we're a quarter of the way through the season. Anyway I think the OP makes reasonable points and isn't overreacting to any one thing. He's making an analysis of what he sees and I think in a roundabout way trying to say he doesn't think we'll sustain our success.

I mean, if he waits too much longer we'll know the answer and then they'll be no room for an analysis.
 
If you want to make the argument that the beginning of the year is somwhow different from the end of the year then go ahead. Sounds like a waste of time to me though. If you just look at the "last three games" chart from last year you'll see that several of the teams ended the year well over their season average while some were below it. As you would expect. In general however the teams that ended the year with good overall scores also did well at the end of the year.
I don't know if it is or isn't. I would let the data tell me what to think on that.
 
Three games is not a lot of games but there are also only 16 games. One more game and we're a quarter of the way through the season. Anyway I think the OP makes reasonable points and isn't overreacting to any one thing. He's making an analysis of what he sees and I think in a roundabout way trying to say he doesn't think we'll sustain our success.

I mean, if he waits too much longer we'll know the answer and then they'll be no room for an analysis.
Right, and I suspect that in some cases, probably the minority, teams benefit from luck all year. I suspect those teams are unlikely to make it all the way through the playoffs, however, when systematic differences in talent and other variables are likely to overwhelm luck.

You might be able to "luck" your way to a 10-6 record and the playoffs, losing perhaps to the systematically better teams along the way, but when you're playing only the systematically better teams (i.e., the playoffs), your luck is likely to run out.
 
I don't know if it is or isn't. I would let the data tell me what to think on that.

You're free to pursue whatever variables you think are relevant. I would be concerned about getting too far into the weeds. What about the home/away variable? What about injury variables? What about weather variables? Etc etc etc. You could come back with the first three games and then I could tell you you have to include those factors as well.

The data on the whole year versus the last three games of the year is readily available. As a system wide trend it speaks to me.
 
Right, and I suspect that in some cases, probably the minority, teams benefit from luck all year. I suspect those teams are unlikely to make it all the way through the playoffs, however, when systematic differences in talent and other variables are likely to overwhelm luck.

You might be able to "luck" your way to a 10-6 record and the playoffs, losing perhaps to the systematically better teams along the way, but when you're playing only the systematically better teams (i.e., the playoffs), your luck is likely to run out.

And you're defining luck as what?
 
You're free to pursue whatever variables you think are relevant. I would be concerned about getting too far into the weeds. What about the home/away variable? What about injury variables? What about weather variables? Etc etc etc. You could come back with the first three games and then I could tell you you have to include those factors as well.

The data on the whole year versus the last three games of the year is readily available. As a system wide trend it speaks to me.
You'd have to find a similar spike over many years to conclude anything about how teams in general start the year with better red zone performance and then tail off.

The number of teams currently better than last year's top team is what's compelling in this regard, IMO. A quarter of the league is currently doing better than the top team did over the course of the whole year last year. I think you have to wonder if teams in general start the season better in that regard and then tail off.

---------- Post added at 02:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 AM ----------

And you're defining luck as what?
Benefitting from variables that don't predict their own future occurrence.
 
You'd have to find a similar spike over many years to conclude anything about how teams in general start the year with better red zone performance and then tail off.

The number of teams currently better than last year's top team is what's compelling in this regard, IMO. A quarter of the league is currently doing better than the top team did over the course of the whole year last year. I think you have to wonder if teams in general start the season better in that regard and then tail off.

---------- Post added at 02:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 AM ----------

Benefitting from variables that don't predict their own future occurrence.

Last year 11 teams were over the league best # in red zone % over their last three games. Four of the overall top five were represented.

In 2011, the league best red zone % was 66.13%. That year, six teams finished the year with better percentages than that in their last three games. Three of the top four overall teams were represented in that grouping.

This year 8 teams have started the year better than last year's best percentage. What does it mean? It doesn't mean anything adamantine. However, it is suggestive.

The question is why do you think the part of the schedule might be a relevant variable rather than an irrelevant one?
 
Last year 11 teams were over the league best # in red zone % over their last three games. Four of the overall top five were represented.

In 2011, the league best red zone % was 66.13%. That year, six teams finished the year with better percentages than that in their last three games. Three of the top four overall teams were represented in that grouping.

This year 8 teams have started the year better than last year's best percentage. What does it mean? It doesn't mean adamantine. However, it is suggestive.

The question is why do you think the part of the schedule might be a relevant variable rather than an irrelevant one?
It's possible that having just started the season has an effect that diminishes as the season progresses, although with there being similar numbers of teams that finish seasons as much above the overall season leader, that downward slope likely isn't there.
 
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. Philbin's practices are designed to simulate in-game situations accurately and constantly, including endurance and 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 1 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 always managing to be in an excellent position to win games seems to be a lot more than just luck to me.

Sounds a bit like the X-Files to me. Sorry but I don't think I agree with you. We are not the first team to start the season 3-0 having been out gained in all three games. The Cardinals did it the other year, they finished with a not so good record. I can tell you this, we will not continue to win if we continue to get out gained. It is nice to get our yards when we need them and score late in both halves, but if that is what we are planning to do for the rest of the year, it won't end pretty.

Bottom line is we are going to have to start gaining more yards and or giving up less, or we are going to have to go back to feeling comfortable losing more than we win. I for one love the feeling of being undefeated but I have no doubt that if we continue to gain fewer yards than the teams we play our winning streak will soon be a distant memory.
 
Back
Top Bottom