Winning Sustainability? What Are the Essential Attributes of a Team That Has It?

[NBP81]

I've already posted data showing only 5 times in 20 years has a team won the SB without a top 10 D

I think there's a sample size issue when analyzing just SB games. 5 times in 20 years sounds nice but it really just means 5 times out of 20 games. So not only do you have a small sample size, it spans across 20 years, in which the game has been constantly changing.

I just flipped a coin(I **** you not, I really did ) 20 times. Got heads 14 times. What conclusion would you draw from that experiment?

 

[fansinceGWilson]

I think there's a sample size issue when analyzing just SB games. 5 times in 20 years sounds nice but it really just means 5 times out of 20 games. So not only do you have a small sample size, it spans across 20 years, in which the game has been constantly changing.

I just flipped a coin(I **** you not, I really did ) 20 times. Got heads 14 times. What conclusion would you draw from that experiment?

By itself, nothing can be locked in. The problem is the sample size. With only 1 game a year, the sample size is actually counting all data in the data universe this century. Secondly, the data shows a number of variables (D ranking, OL ranking, Scoring ranking) and the data appears consistent, seemingly reducing randomness. Thirdly, the data is consistent if I break the data in to 10 year periods (e.g., 1998 to 2008 and 2009 to 1999), so while I see your point of the game changing, the data shows consistency. Lastly, since you're a stats guy, if I used the universe of playoff teams since 1998, it's still a universe statisticians seem to consider too small for definitive conclusions, since the sample size has excluded those data points that may disprove the data (e.g., seasonal losing teams)..
I concede the data is limited. It's not my point to 'prove' anything. That said, if you flipped a coin for each data argument (OL, D, scoring), I doubt you'd get 14 out of 20 three times and 50/50 2 times. BTW, I also investigated top rush teams and number of All Pros per team. No consistency.

 

[NBP81]

With only 1 game a year, the sample size is actually counting all data in the data universe this century

It does not... You have 20 data points. W or L. Unless you believe the better football team ALWAYS wins. Which is far from reality. 20 data points is what gets you in "Fooled by randomness" territory. 7-10 points underdogs still win the game outright around 25% of the time. 10-14 points underdogs win outright 20% of the time. The better team doesnt win 100% of the time in the NFL. Implying that any statistic from a W(wich is filled by variance to begin with) is any kind of relevant over 20 trials is.... Not valid.

Secondly, the data shows a number of variables (D ranking, OL ranking, Scoring ranking) and the data appears consistent, seemingly reducing randomness.

Nope, I actually had a streak of 9 heads in a row during my little experiment. Thats as consistent as you're going to get, still doesnt mean anything.

That said, if you flipped a coin for each data argument (OL, D, scoring), I doubt you'd get 14 out of 20 three times and 50/50 2 times.

Now you're talking, but thats not what you did. You simply need more data points to account for the fact that a win or a loss involves alot of randomness. In other words, Your argument is built around the attributes of the winning team, which involves a decent amount of randomness.

If you had say 200 games, then you could draw some conclusions, just as if I flipped the coin 200 times, I'd be alot less likely to flip heads 70% of the time. Sample size gets you closer to the truth.

There are a couple of things you could do to adress this problem.

• Split your data: Instead of just getting the winning team, split the dataset by quarters and account for winning quarters instead of winning games. This gives you 4x data points but doesnt account for game state that was influenced by bad luck. Its still an improvement.
• Split your data further: Just flat out go to PBP data and account winning plays. Depending on what you view as luck, just filter out plays where luck is involved. This would give you a big ass sample size to work with. ie. fumbles lost is mostly about luck, I have never seen a team thats better than anyone at recovering fumbles.
• Do a final four analysis: Instead of just going with super bowl winners, go with divisionnal participants, this will also 4X your sample size while including much more different game states to work with.

I think the last option is the most reasonable one and most likely to yield interesting results.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

It does not... You have 20 data points. W or L. Unless you believe the better football team ALWAYS wins. Which is far from reality. 20 data points is what gets you in "Fooled by randomness" territory. 7-10 points underdogs still win the game outright around 25% of the time. 10-14 points underdogs win outright 20% of the time. The better team doesnt win 100% of the time in the NFL. Implying that any statistic from a W(wich is filled by variance to begin with) is any kind of relevant over 20 trials is.... Not valid.

Nope, I actually had a streak of 9 heads in a row during my little experiment. Thats as consistent as you're going to get, still doesnt mean anything.

Now you're talking, but thats not what you did. You simply need more data points to account for the fact that a win or a loss involves alot of randomness. In other words, Your argument is built around the attributes of the winning team, which involves a decent amount of randomness.

If you had say 200 games, then you could draw some conclusions, just as if I flipped the coin 200 times, I'd be alot less likely to flip heads 70% of the time. Sample size gets you closer to the truth.

There are a couple of things you could do to adress this problem.

• Split your data: Instead of just getting the winning team, split the dataset by quarters and account for winning quarters instead of winning games. This gives you 4x data points but doesnt account for game state that was influenced by bad luck. Its still an improvement.
• Split your data further: Just flat out go to PBP data and account winning plays. Depending on what you view as luck, just filter out plays where luck is involved. This would give you a big *** sample size to work with. ie. fumbles lost is mostly about luck, I have never seen a team thats better than anyone at recovering fumbles.
• Do a final four analysis: Instead of just going with super bowl winners, go with divisionnal participants, this will also 4X your sample size while including much more different game states to work with.

I think the last option is the most reasonable one and most likely to yield interesting results.

Actually, we seem to agree. 20 data points, as I noted, is insufficient to make confident judgments. And the fact none of my data shows an absolute also indicates the best team doesn't always win. I've read "fooled by Randomness which is why I made all the qualifications. I know the I'm using a small data set. That said, if you flip a coin 20 times - one data set - and complete 5 data sets - the randomness of 14 out of 20 will be reduced.
As you know, splitting to quarters or plays is fraught with it's own dangers. For example, 4-5 big plays can overcome 3 good quarters.
I initially started to take the top 4 teams and bottom 4 teams in the NFL (W/L), but didn't have the time or inclination. Showing losing teams have the bottom 10 D/OL/scoring would give more confirmation.

 

[russianbear]

1. I was replying *directly* to your post, so OP said doesn't enter into this conversation
2. Your argument in that post is you *have to have* a great coach and QB to be successful. Yet with one of the best coaches and QB's in the history of the game we won on average less than 2 games over .500%. That doesn't seem to support your argument or at the very learn, it isn't terribly compelling.
3. Your argument seems to ignore there were a couple of other players during the Marino years that weren't half bad and might think they had a small part in some of those 9.8 wins a year.
4. The goal of a football team IS to win the super bowl. Coaches don't keep their jobs for years of 9.8 wins, or at least, they shouldn't.

In conclusion, your conclusion is the one pushing an agenda.

what are you even trying to say?

we won almost 10 games a year over 17 years. That’s sustained success, and now you’re saying Shula shouldn’t have kept his job for doing so? Just stop man...

please find me an example of long term sustained success without a great QB over such a length of time.

My conclusion is that QB and coach are the most important part of a football teams success....what’s your conclusion? Can’t even tell from your ramble of a post.

 

[fin415]

what are you even trying to say?

we won almost 10 games a year over 17 years. That’s sustained success, and now you’re saying Shula shouldn’t have kept his job for doing so? Just stop man...

please find me an example of long term sustained success without a great QB over such a length of time.

My conclusion is that QB and coach are the most important part of a football teams success....what’s your conclusion? Can’t even tell from your ramble of a post.

Guess you can’t read then.

60% success rate during the regular season is nice, but isn’t the goal (other than for you). If you don’t win the conference or super bowl, it’s the participation prize.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

Guess you can’t read then.

60% success rate during the regular season is nice, but isn’t the goal (other than for you). If you don’t win the conference or super bowl, it’s the participation prize.

The original question was "Winning Sustainability? What Are the Essential Attributes of a Team That Has It?"
Not a question of the goal.

 

[NBP81]

Actually, we seem to agree. 20 data points, as I noted, is insufficient to make confident judgments. And the fact none of my data shows an absolute also indicates the best team doesn't always win. I've read "fooled by Randomness which is why I made all the qualifications. I know the I'm using a small data set. That said, if you flip a coin 20 times - one data set - and complete 5 data sets - the randomness of 14 out of 20 will be reduced.
As you know, splitting to quarters or plays is fraught with it's own dangers. For example, 4-5 big plays can overcome 3 good quarters.
I initially started to take the top 4 teams and bottom 4 teams in the NFL (W/L), but didn't have the time or inclination. Showing losing teams have the bottom 10 D/OL/scoring would give more confirmation.

We dont agree... the Super Bowl is a football game, with the same rules as any other NFL regular or playoff games, why would you limit your sample size to 1 particular game a year to make a point about what wins in football?

Im sorry but analyzing the attributes of the winner of one single game a year for 20 years simply doesnt mean anything.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

I think there's a sample size issue when analyzing just SB games. 5 times in 20 years sounds nice but it really just means 5 times out of 20 games. So not only do you have a small sample size, it spans across 20 years, in which the game has been constantly changing.

I just flipped a coin(I **** you not, I really did) 20 times. Got heads 14 times. What conclusion would you draw from that experiment?

Would also say that when you prioritize offense, you're not saying defense doesn't matter - just that you can't count on it to be sustainable and that it's not as important as offense.

The year Indianapolis won the SB, the D was pretty bad most of the year, but it got hot during the playoffs. Without the offense, it would have never had the opportunity to get hot. Similar thing happened with NE last year. D was just OK for most of the year but then smashed in the playoffs.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

We dont agree... the Super Bowl is a football game, with the same rules as any other NFL regular or playoff games, why would you limit your sample size to 1 particular game a year to make a point about what wins in football?

Im sorry but analyzing the attributes of the winner of one single game a year for 20 years simply doesnt mean anything.

And I agree. The topic was what attributes contribute to success. I took the ultimate sample (SB) as my standard. I've consistently said those 40 (not 20) data points have limits. I'm using data from both teams in the SB. And I've said a more accurate assessment would be comparing the bottom teams.
I'm sure you realize I'm not taking data from one game. The data I'm using for SB teams is the stats for those two teams over 16 games. What attributes do those teams have. I'm NOT taking one game a year.

 

[fin415]

The original question was "Winning Sustainability? What Are the Essential Attributes of a Team That Has It?"
Not a question of the goal.

For all the pedants running around today...

I was perfectly aware of to whom and why I was replying. That is because under each post there is a reply link, which it seams allows one to reply to any post in a thread.

But thanks for the help in in mentioning the original question that I wasn't interested in responding to because, as I clearly stated in my initial post, I agree that having a great QB and coach helps, I just don't believe it's everything as was being claimed.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

For all the pedants running around today...

I was perfectly aware of to whom and why I was replying. That is because under each post there is a reply link, which it seams allows one to reply to any post in a thread.

But thanks for the help in in mentioning the original question that I wasn't interested in responding to because, as I clearly stated in my initial post, I agree that having a great QB and coach helps, I just don't believe it's everything as was being claimed.

Not saying you can't reply. I just don't see what your desire to win a SB has to do with winning attributes.

 

[DolfanDuBbZ~]

It all begins with a identity and culture.

As for pieces on the field, QB. Want to have a chance yearly? QB, especially in the modern era, has every opportunity to succeed.

 

[Lionstone]

I like the description of a championship caliber team mentioned on Move the Sticks by DJ and Bucky Brooks. It is simple, straightforward, and flexible.

• 1 effective QB
• 3 good OL
• 3 effective skill position play makers
• 2 top pass rushers
• 3 play makers on defense.

The Dolphins have

• Davante Parker, Williams (maybe), Gesicki (maybe)
• McMillian (1/2), X (if healthy and not in jail)

We need every single pick.

 

[djphinfan]

a Great head coach, and some good talented evaluators