Sacks Have Little to Nothing to Do with NFL Quarterback Play and Winning

[nyashfan]

Man, that was like Cam Wake against the Bengals. Ballgame over.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

This is all great information, as is, in my opinion, the information that sacks experienced by a team's quarterback have little to do with winning in their own right, since that has lots of relevance to the 2013 Miami Dolphins.

It shouldn't be said that the 2013 Dolphins were prevented from winning exclusively by the sacks they took. That belief has been refuted.

 

[Shouright]

This should end the discussion once and for all:

Over the last three seasons there were 768 regular season NFL games played. In 139 of those games, teams had the same number of sacks. In one the score was tied. In the other 628, the team that registered more sacks won 434 times, for a 69.11% winning percentage.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/quarterback-attack-the-impact-sacks-nfl-games/23501/

There is a lot of analysis on such a meaningless stat

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/11/value-of-sack.html

This is all great information, as is, in my opinion, the information that sacks experienced by a team's quarterback have little to do with winning in their own right, since that has lots of relevance to the 2013 Miami Dolphins.

It shouldn't be said that the 2013 Dolphins were prevented from winning exclusively by the sacks they took, or that Ryan Tannehill played the way he did because of the sacks he took. Those beliefs have been refuted.

 

[cltchperf]

This is all great information, as is, in my opinion, the information that sacks experienced by a team's quarterback have little to do with winning in their own right, since that has lots of relevance to the 2013 Miami Dolphins.

It shouldn't be said that the 2013 Dolphins were prevented from winning exclusively by the sacks they took, or that Ryan Tannehill played the way he did because of the sacks he took. Those beliefs have been refuted.

Dude I don;t know what you're reading, but that means the teams getting sacked a bunch lost 69% of their games out of the number he gave. This means sacks to effect the qb and effect the chances of a team winning in a negative way.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

This is all great information, as is, in my opinion, the information that sacks experienced by a team's quarterback have little to do with winning in their own right, since that has lots of relevance to the 2013 Miami Dolphins.

It shouldn't be said that the 2013 Dolphins were prevented from winning exclusively by the sacks they took, or that Ryan Tannehill played the way he did because of the sacks he took. Those beliefs have been refuted.

You have zero credibility.

Sacks Have Little to Nothing to Do with Winning

Vs

Over the last three seasons, the team that registered more sacks won 434 times, for a 69.11% winning percentage.

WTF.....

 

[Shouright]

Dude I don;t know what you're reading, but that means the teams getting sacked a bunch lost 69% of their games out of the number he gave. This means sacks to effect the qb and effect the chances of a team winning in a negative way.

And note that that information centers on sack differential, which involves sacks experienced by a team's offense, as well as their sacks of the opposing team's quarterback. Clearly my point in the original post here focused on the impact of sacks on quarterback play, and on quarterbacks' teams' win percentage, since the actual data (see the link in the original post) was grouped by QB season totals.

There are lots of folks here who are reading what I've written here and hearing their own thoughts better than they're hearing me. In order to understand someone accurately, you have to listen to them better than you're listening to yourself.

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

You have zero credibility.

Vs

WTF.....

See above.

From the original post:

In other words, the way quarterbacks play in the NFL has nothing significant to do with how often they're sacked, and whether NFL teams win or lose has little to do with how often their quarterbacks are sacked.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

And note that that information centers on sack differential, which involves sacks experienced by a team's offense, as well as their sacks of the opposing team's quarterback. Clearly my point in the original post here focused on the impact of sacks on quarterback play, and on quarterbacks' teams' win percentage, since the actual data (see the link in the original post) was grouped by QB season totals.

There are lots of folks here who are reading what I've written here and hearing their own thoughts better than they're hearing me. In order to understand someone accurately, you have to listen to them better than you're listening to yourself.

You people can't HEAR Shouright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HauMNRzhyJQ

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

And note that that information centers on sack differential, which involves sacks experienced by a team's offense, as well as their sacks of the opposing team's quarterback. Clearly my point in the original post here focused on the impact of sacks on quarterback play, and on quarterbacks' teams' win percentage, since the actual data (see the link in the original post) was grouped by QB season totals.

There are lots of folks here who are reading what I've written here and hearing their own thoughts better than they're hearing me. In order to understand someone accurately, you have to listen to them better than you're listening to yourself.

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

See above.

Keep typing. The more words you type, the dumber you look.

 

[cltchperf]

And note that that information centers on sack differential, which involves sacks experienced by a team's offense, as well as their sacks of the opposing team's quarterback. Clearly my point in the original post here focused on the impact of sacks on quarterback play, and on quarterbacks' teams' win percentage, since the actual data (see the link in the original post) was grouped by QB season totals.

There are lots of folks here who are reading what I've written here and hearing their own thoughts better than they're hearing me. In order to understand someone accurately, you have to listen to them better than you're listening to yourself.

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

See above.

It really isn't the differential part, but that's what you are seeing into it. A team whose qb is getting beat up a lot loses more games and is effected. That is why the defense sacking the other teams qb is effective because it gives them a good chance of winning if they can sack the qb, especially numerous times during the game. The team able to get pressure more so on the other team's qb is more likely to win, because one team's qb is not getting beat up and sacked whereas the other one is and therefore the less sacked qb is having a better chance to perform better and drives not stalled unlike the beat up qb. If sacks didn't have an impact on qb play and winning, then the team who is able to sack the other teams qb efficiently would not be winning 69% of the time as it would not make a difference, but the stats there show it does. Sack differential between teams would mean nothing on team's winning versus each other, if sacks didn't have an impact on the qb and their chances of winning.

 

[Shouright]

Keep typing. The more words you type, the dumber you look.

Well then I'd sure encourage you to move on to a smarter crowd, for your own benefit.

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

It really isn't the differential part, but that's what you are seeing into it. A team whose qb is getting beat up a lot loses more games and is effected. That is why the defense sacking the other teams qb is effective because it gives them a good chance of winning if they can sack the qb, especially numerous times during the game. The team able to get pressure more so on the other team's qb is more likely to win, because one team's qb is not getting beat up and sacked whereas the other one is and therefore the less sacked qb is having a better chance to perform better and drives not stalled unlike the beat up qb. If sacks didn't have an impact on qb play and winning, then the team who is able to sack the other teams qb efficiently would not be winning 69% of the time as it would not make a difference, but the stats there show it does. Sack differential between teams would mean nothing on team's winning versus each other, if sacks didn't have an impact on the qb and their chances of winning.

I have no qualms at all with the idea that sack differential has a significant impact on winning.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

It really isn't the differential part, but that's what you are seeing into it. A team whose qb is getting beat up a lot loses more games and is effected. That is why the defense sacking the other teams qb is effective because it gives them a good chance of winning if they can sack the qb, especially numerous times during the game. The team able to get pressure more so on the other team's qb is more likely to win, because one team's qb is not getting beat up and sacked whereas the other one is and therefore the less sacked qb is having a better chance to perform better and drives not stalled unlike the beat up qb. If sacks didn't have an impact on qb play and winning, then the team who is able to sack the other teams qb efficiently would not be winning 69% of the time as it would not make a difference, but the stats there show it does. Sack differential between teams would mean nothing on team's winning versus each other, if sacks didn't have an impact on the qb and their chances of winning.

We should just end it here. He is obviously floundering. Let him flop. Don't give him a tangent to drag his thread on.

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

Well then I'd sure encourage you to move on to a smarter crowd, for your own benefit.

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

I have no qualms at all with the idea that sack differential has a significant impact on winning.

So then sacks allowed have no impact on sack differential?

 

[Shouright]

So then sacks allowed have no impact on sack differential?

Sure, but of course that's mediated by a team's sacks of the opposing quarterback.

I'm sure you're aware that you can present information about the effect of sacks on the game that serves to add to the information in the original post, without nullifying or refuting it?

There is a correlation between sack differential and winning, and there is also a correlation between offensive sacks and winning. One correlation doesn't refute or nullify the other. They're two distinct pieces of information with their own meanings.

 

[Nawledge]

And note that that information centers on sack differential, which involves sacks experienced by a team's offense, as well as their sacks of the opposing team's quarterback. Clearly my point in the original post here focused on the impact of sacks on quarterback play, and on quarterbacks' teams' win percentage, since the actual data (see the link in the original post) was grouped by QB season totals.

There are lots of folks here who are reading what I've written here and hearing their own thoughts better than they're hearing me. In order to understand someone accurately, you have to listen to them better than you're listening to yourself.

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

See above.

From the original post:

dude...just give it a rest already, you've been out-statted. A 30 page thread on something that can be concluded with common sense.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Sure, but of course that's mediated by a team's sacks of the opposing quarterback.

I'm sure you're aware that you can present information about the effect of sacks on the game that serves to add to the information in the original post, without nullifying or refuting it?

There is a correlation between sack differential and winning, and there is also a correlation between offensive sacks and winning. One correlation doesn't refute or nullify the other. They're two distinct pieces of information with their own meanings.

Okay sure..... :rolleyes2:

 

[Shouright]

dude...just give it a rest already, you've been out-statted. A 30 page thread on something that can be concluded with common sense.

Like I said, the provision of additional statistics in no way refutes or nullifies the ones presented in the original post.

Once again, you're hearing yourself better than you're hearing me. I'm making a circumscribed point, and the one you're hearing in your own mind is much broader, which then leads you to believe that sacks differential is relevant to what I was saying originally, when it really isn't.

Once again, from the original post -- note the bolded portion:

In other words, the way quarterbacks play in the NFL has nothing significant to do with how often they're sacked, and whether NFL teams win or lose has little to do with how often their quarterbacks are sacked.