Turnover Differential

[Om]

More grist for the Monday morning mill ...

The Redskins are currently -1 on turnover differential for the season. That places them tied with the Bengals (2-6) and Eagles (3-5) at 19th in the league.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/sortableStatsTeam?div=NFL&stype=offense&stable=turnovers&stat=turnDif&dir=descending

The Redskins and Browns (5-3; -2) are the only teams with negative turnover ratios in the NFL with a winning record.

I don't think it's any secret that of all the myriad stats out there, turnover differential is widely considered among people in the game (Gibbs preaches it almost weekly) to have as direct a relationship to wins and losses as any other.

Be interesting to see what this 2007 Redskins team might be capable of down the stretch if they could win the turnover battle a bit more consistently.

[Neophyte]

Of course, if you take out the very odd Patriots game we have a positive turnover diff...

[Pourdanesh]

i'm not happy about the stat, but the flip-side is that we're winning despite losing the turnover battle. says good things about our defense limiting other teams' opportunities, and our offense overcoming its mistakes.

silver-lining? we fix this problem and we'll win more, and we've got a winning record at the moment.

[Om]

Of course, if you take out the very odd Patriots game we have a positive turnover diff...
A fair point. I haven't been monitoring this stat as much this year as I usually do, so I'll go get the actual per-game differentials to put the total in context.

[One Shot]

This team has usually been good with fumbles and INTs....I'm surprised that they've fumbled it as many times as they have. It was minimized this past game thankfully. We only got one TO though, I hope we can get at least 3 a game from now on....it would really help.

[Om]

The Skins per-game turnover stats:

vs. Miami - lost turnover battle 2-1 (W)
vs. Philly - lost turnover battle 1-0 (W)
vs. NYG - won turnover battle 3-1 (L)
vs. Detroit - won turnover battle 2-1 (W)
vs. GB - lost turnover battle 3-2 (L)
vs. Ariz - lost turnover battle 3-1 (W)
vs. NE - lost turnover battle 4-1 (L)
vs. NYJ - tied turnover battle 1-1 (W)

Meaning ...

In games where they've lost the turnover battle, the Skins are 3-2.

In games they've won it, they're 1-1.

In games they've tied it, they're 1-0.

The 3-2 in games they've lost the turnover battle is actually WAY out of whack with the norm. I'll go dig up the study I've cited a couple times that shows the usual W-L ratios for teams that lose the turnover battle.

BRB.

[Maximus71]

We gave up 4 turn overs vs the Pats alone, the bottom line is this team can open up the O and let it fly we can win most of our games. This has become a pass happy league and for some odd reason we are way behind some other teams. not one of our WR's have caught a pass for a TD and we are 5-3, just imagine what our record might have been... who knows maybe they will come alive for the 2nd half the season, I really doubt it but there is always hope.

[Om]

As promised (threatened):

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121885


In these days of statistical overload, it is understandable if some are skeptical that turnover differential is the single most reliable major statistical barometer of NFL success. Fair enough. I’m something of a skeptic myself. Happily, in 2002-03, the NFL did a study, over an 18-game stretch, on just how big a factor it really was.

Here is what they found:

With turnover differential in a game even, the cumulative won/lost record was 58-58. Seems symmetrical enough.

When teams were +1, their record was 77-31-1.

At +2, it was 75-13, and at +3 or better, 70-5.

Hard to miss the significance.

[Om]

We gave up 4 turn overs vs the Pats alone, the bottom line is this team can open up the O and let it fly we can win most of our games. This has become a pass happy league and for some odd reason we are way behind some other teams. not one of our WR's have caught a pass for a TD and we are 5-3, just imagine what our record might have been... who knows maybe they will come alive for the 2nd half the season, I really doubt it but there is always hope.
Not really what the thread was supposed to be about, brother. There are many threads available to bust on the team's lack of production from the WR's and/or the perception they're too conservative. Can we maybe have this one to talk about the turnover differential? :)

[FanboyOf91]

In these days of statistical overload, it is understandable if some are skeptical that turnover differential is the single most reliable major statistical barometer of NFL success. Fair enough. I’m something of a skeptic myself. Happily, in 2002-03, the NFL did a study, over an 18-game stretch, on just how big a factor it really was.

Here is what they found:

With turnover differential in a game even, the cumulative won/lost record was 58-58. Seems symmetrical enough.

When teams were +1, their record was 77-31-1.

At +2, it was 75-13, and at +3 or better, 70-5.

Hard to miss the significance.

Yikes. JC should see this when the coaches tell him to hold onto the ball when being sacked.

[zoony]

This doesn't bode well for our rematch with the Giants. What will the score be if the turnover battle is even? :doh:


Nevermind. Don't answer that question.



Anyways, this team has some eery similarities to the 2005 squad. Not much of an identity midway thru the season, lots of divisional games coming up (having stole one on the road in week 2), and not winning the turnover battle consistently.

It will be interesting to see which way the team goes in the back half. 7-9? or 10-6?

Both are a very real possibility.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

The good news is, we've already equaled the number of takeaways that we had for all of last season.

[Maximus71]

Not really what the thread was supposed to be about, brother. There are many threads available to bust on the team's lack of production from the WR's and/or the perception they're too conservative. Can we maybe have this one to talk about the turnover differential? :)

You are the boss OM, whatever you want ;) I am moving on to bashing the WRs and the O thread :D

[Dan T.]

The good news is, we've already equaled the number of takeaways that we had for all of last season.

Yeah, last season was astounding for the lack of turnovers produced by the defense. At least that's been turned around this season.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Yeah, last season was astounding for the lack of turnovers produced by the defense. At least that's been turned around this season.

The flip side is, last season we only turned the ball over 17 times, compared to 13 already this season. The difference is, when we turn it over now, we actually have a defense that can stop the other team. Unless we're sitting on a lead in the 2nd half, in a Cover 2 shell.

Most painful to me is still the Giants game. We easily won the turnover battle, at home, 2 TD lead at the half, even had the ball 1st & goal near the goal line at the end. Oops, I forgot, I'm over that game. :doh:

[Dan T.]

Most painful to me is still the Giants game. We easily won the turnover battle, at home, 2 TD lead at the half, even had the ball 1st & goal near the goal line at the end. Oops, I forgot, I'm over that game. :doh:

Thanks for picking at that scab and making it bleed. :mad: :doh: :laugh:

[LD0506]

I think the worst part of this is that while the D has improved markedly in TOs (although we remain snakebit on all the "Oh so close-almost had it" ones) it is completely overshadowed by the ones we lose on offense- especially JC's fumbles. Even with the injuries to the line these are very hard to accept. I would expect that knowing the condition of the line would make Campbell more aware and cautious but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Om]

I think the worst part of this is that while the D has improved markedly in TOs (although we remain snakebit on all the "Oh so close-almost had it" ones) it is completely overshadowed by the ones we lose on offense- especially JC's fumbles. Even with the injuries to the line these are very hard to accept. I would expect that knowing the condition of the line would make Campbell more aware and cautious but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Agreed ... while also noting a double-edged sword.

One of Jason's best qualities in my view is his willingness to keep his eyes downfield when the pass rush is buzzing around him. It's a quality that, as he and his receivers develop together, could end up being a huge asset to the offense.

It is also, unfortunately, given that he and his receivers are clearly NOT synced up yet and his OL is diminished by injury, causing problems in that he sometimes loses track of his inner clock and takes hits he shouldn't with the ball unprotected.

Hopefully, he'll develop a more consistent feel for that fine line of when it's better to simply throw it away, or even cover up and take the sack, than stand in and try to make a play.

[eljeasel]

Just shows how different this team could be without the fumbles and such

[Veretax]

What will help is if we keep hammering to JC to HOLD onto the ball when he knows pressure is coming.

[DieselPwr44]

What will help is if we keep hammering to JC to HOLD onto the ball when he knows pressure is coming.
Or roll him out a few times in the game. Heck, the 4 wr shotgun spread seemed pretty successful when used yesterday. It gave JC time to see the field and helped with the pressure he was getting.

I still don't understand how it gets drilled in your head every week "no turnovers/ball security" yet we still suck at it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm beginning to wonder that as the NFL evolves into even more of a passing league if the turnover differential is going to matter less and less.

Right now, the trendy stat is Yards Per Attempt. As the Run-Pass differential continues to move in the favor of passing, the turnover might start to be seen as innocuous as the punt.

That might take a few years though.

[SkinsFanMania]

The turnover differential up until last week was positive as it became a little scewed do to being -3 vs. the Pats.

Yes, the turnover differential has proven to be extremely important, especially to low scoring teams such as the Skins, but it is a bit scewed occasionally.

[LD0506]

I have been watching a lot of other games this season and trying to get some sense of how they might differ from us. I regularly see other QBs that take the snap and have both hands on the ball until they throw, maybe just a question of technique but it seems like a much safer way to hold the ball. JC very conspicuously doesn't always do this. He also has a long windup before his release that leaves a wider window of vulnerability. I think it is something that could be coached a la the change in Tiki Barber's fumbling when he changed his grip.

Do we run drills for the D with the ball on the ground? It may sound like a stupid question, you'd figure we must, right? I see other teams, teams that don't even have highly regarded defenses, that absolutely swarm to the ball when it gets popped out. It looks like our guys are less prepared when the opportunity arises.

I don't even know what to say about INTs, we have chances but it almost looks like our backs are completely unable to catch a damn ball at times. The giveaway/takeaway ratio could be skewed drastically in our favor if we did a better job of holding onto balls that came our way. Blindingly obvious, I know, but it plays into the stats.

[Neophyte]

Right now, the trendy stat is Yards Per Attempt. As the Run-Pass differential continues to move in the favor of passing, the turnover might start to be seen as innocuous as the punt.

That might take a few years though.

Actually, I believe I have heard at least one or two announcers treat it that way already. I don't remember which game it was (NE maybe?) but after a long pass of Campbell's was intercepted deep it was suggested that the Skins took a great deep shot and even with the worst happening were really no worse off then if they had been forced to punt.

I, for one, don't really agree but the stats don't seem to support me this year in the Skins games. We lose as often as win with a positive TO ratio and win more than lose with a negative one. I don't think it can continue like this but then I would have thought it could last this long either so what do I know?

[Oldfan]

The turnover differential is an overvalued statistic. Yes, there's a correlation between winning and the turnover differential, but the axiom "correlation does not imply causation" applies.

The simplest way to understand this is to put a point value on the average turnover. Several studies have estimated the value at about four points. The value of a turnover is lowest at the 50 yard line and gets higher in both directions the closer it gets to either goal line. However, to demonstrate my point, we can use four points as an average.

Let's assume the extra point is automatic, so a touchdown is worth seven points. Now, let's compare the touchdown-to-interception ratios of two QBs over the same number of games with the interception deduction valued at four points each.

Gunslinger: 32 TDs, 31 INTs (224 - 124 = +100)

Game Manager: 20 TDs, 10 INTs (140 -40 = +100)

I made these two QBs come out exactly equal in points differential on the scoreboard (+100), and yet, you can see that the gunslinger's team is much more likely to lose the turnover battle than the game manager's.

Now, here are two equal cornerbacks:

The Gambler (often jumps routes): Seven INTs, but burned for four TDs as a result (28 -28 = 0)

The Non - Gambler: zero INTs, but never burned (0 - 0 = 0)

The gambling corner in my example will help you win the turnover battle, but does no better than the non-gambler on the scoreboard.

Another point to consider is that many turnovers happen when a team is behind on the scoreboard and is taking risks to catch up. Since teams that are behind on the scoreboard lose more often than they win, there is a correlation between higher turnovers and losing in these cases; but the losing was not caused by the turnovers.

[Om]

Or, one can look at the statistic the NFL compiled and conclude that as a general rule, the team that turns the ball over less or takes it away more tends to win the game.

[Oldfan]

Or, one can look at the statistic the NFL compiled and conclude that as a general rule, the team that turns the ball over less or takes it away more tends to win the game.


Actually, that's very much like saying that the team that scores more touchdowns is likely to win. It isn't guaranteed that the other team might score more with field goals but the odds are they won't.

[Om]

Yeah, you're probably right. What do those silly NFL guys like Gibbs know about it, anyway? Good job setting us all straight.

*

Anticipating your likely response, here is the thread from the first time I noted this stat, wherein we discussed the matter quite thoroughly. It's actually quite an illuminating read, considering the context when it was written and what ended up happening as that season wound down.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121885&page=1&pp=40

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Or, one can look at the statistic the NFL compiled and conclude that as a general rule, the team that turns the ball over less or takes it away more tends to win the game.

All things being equal, yes.

In a large study, this applies.

In a direct analysis between two teams, the variables take over.

If your defense stinks and your offense turns it over to a team with a good offense, you're toast. That's pretty apparent.

If your defense is stout, and your offense turns it over, you might be alright. (I think this is the '07 Skins)

If your offense is decent, but your defense can't force takeaways, you're not getting extra opportunities. (I think this is the '06 Skins toward the end of the season, when the running game was clicking).

If your offense is poor but doesn't turn the ball over, and your defense is poor, you have a chance to keep games close but will probably lose more than you win (the 2006 Skins in general).

If your defense can take away the ball repeatedly, but your offense is inept, you will still lose the game (Bills v. Cowboys).

[Om]

All things being equal, yes.

In a large study, this applies.

In a direct analysis between two teams, the variables take over.

If your defense stinks and your offense turns it over to a team with a good offense, you're toast. That's pretty apparent.

If your defense is stout, and your offense turns it over, you might be alright. (I think this is the '07 Skins)

If your offense is decent, but your defense can't force takeaways, you're not getting extra opportunities. (I think this is the '06 Skins toward the end of the season, when the running game was clicking).

If your offense is poor but doesn't turn the ball over, and your defense is poor, you have a chance to keep games close but will probably lose more than you win (the 2006 Skins in general).

If your defense can take away the ball repeatedly, but your offense is inept, you will still lose the game (Bills v. Cowboys).
As I've said many times in many discussion where stats play in, there is NO stat that can be looked at in isolation. As I also said when this particular one first came up (linked above), as NFL stats go, this one not only jumps off the page more than almost any other, it's also THE one that NFL people, Gibbs among them, have said for years is the one THEY preach and stress to their players more than any other.

We can parse the damn thing 'til the yaks come home if we want to, just seems to me this one is a no-brainer, and worth keeping an eye on as the season winds down.

[skinsfan07]

Of course, if you take out the very odd Patriots game we have a positive turnover diff...

Wouldn't it be +3 minus the Pats game?

[Tastes Like Chicken]

As I've said many times in many discussion where stats play in, there is NO stat that can be looked at in isolation. As I also said when this particular one first came up (linked above), as NFL stats go, this one not only jumps off the page more than almost any other, it's also THE one that NFL people, Gibbs among them, have said for years is the one THEY preach and stress to their players more than any other.

We can parse the damn thing 'til the yaks come home if we want to, just seems to me this one is a no-brainer, and worth keeping an eye on as the season winds down.

Agreed. I'm also keeping an eye on my own version of 1/2 of this theory, that being the takeaways aspect. I feel that our defense is solid this year and therefore we'll continue to stay in games, despite losing the ratio. But I think that the magic # is 30 takeaways. We get 30+ takeaways, and we're playing lots of cold weather games. Less than 30, not so much happenin' in January.

[Oldfan]

Yeah, you're probably right. What do those silly NFL guys like Gibbs know about it, anyway? Good job setting us all straight.

My explanation employed logical concepts. I'm guessing that you could not fault the logic and that sarcastic comment was the best you could manage.

As for NFL coaches, if you are implying that they all value and use the same statistics, you're surely wrong.

Like the rest of us, some coaches have a higher math aptitude than others.

Gibbs was a Phys Ed major. I'll betcha Belichick, an Economics major, doesn't hum the devil's in the turnover mantra.

According to its author, Belichick and Walsh were apparently the only football coaches who read and understood economist David Romer's It's Fourth Down: What Does the Bellman Equation Say? which supports a very agressive approach in playcalling.

Bill Belichick is the most aggressive coach in the NFL in going for it on fourth down in plus territory according to the stats guys at Football Outsiders. In last season's playoff game against the Colts, he gambled sucessfully twice on fourth down (worth 14 points) and still lost to Manning & Co.

[sens11]

The Skins per-game turnover stats:

vs. Miami - lost turnover battle 2-1 (W)
vs. Philly - lost turnover battle 1-0 (W)
vs. NYG - won turnover battle 3-1 (L)
vs. Detroit - won turnover battle 2-1 (W)
vs. GB - lost turnover battle 3-2 (L)
vs. Ariz - lost turnover battle 3-1 (W)
vs. NE - lost turnover battle 4-1 (L)
vs. NYJ - tied turnover battle 1-1 (W)

Meaning ...

In games where they've lost the turnover battle, the Skins are 3-2.

In games they've won it, they're 1-1.

In games they've tied it, they're 1-0.

The 3-2 in games they've lost the turnover battle is actually WAY out of whack with the norm. I'll go dig up the study I've cited a couple times that shows the usual W-L ratios for teams that lose the turnover battle.

BRB.

10 turnovers in the three losses! OUCH!

The stat doesn't lie!

[Oldfan]

If cutting down on turnovers was the most important factor in winning football games, then punting on first down would be the ultimate strategy on offense. Obviously, that's ridiculous. It's less obvious that a turnover phobia, leading a football coach to adopt an ultra-conservative offensive strategy, is unwise.

On defense, if getting turnovers was the most important factor in winning football games then all-out aggression -- blitzing on almost every down and jumping pass routes -- should be the strategy. But, we know that trying to produce more turnovers like that runs the risk of giving up more touchdowns. If we estimate that the average turnover is worth four points, we see easily that if we give up a touchdown for an extra turnover, it's a lousy trade

"We need to win the turnover battle" -- so, let's bench Tiki Barber because he fumbles too much. Win the battle, lose the war in this case.

Would turnover phobic Joe Gibbs start a young Tiki Barber? How about a young Elway, Favre, or Jim Kelly? Turnovers and production go together like risk and reward in investing. It's meaningless to discuss one without the other.

[Chief skin]

Good teams take the ball away consistentlyand set there offwnse up on a short field, we don't do that. Actually -1 is not that bad, it could be a helluva lot worse

[Oldfan]

Good teams take the ball away consistentlyand set there offwnse up on a short field, we don't do that.

IMO, Gregg Williams is doing the best he can with the hand dealt. I don't think we're talented enough on the defense to be more aggressive without getting burnt.

[Om]

Thought I’d take a look at how this week’s turnover differential winner W-L record compared to the stats the NFL did in their study. Might do this the rest of this year and next to see if, over a similar 18-game period, there is any noticeable variance from the numbers the NFL found in 2002-03.

Week 9 – 2007

14 games played:

Teams that won the turnover battle went 8-1:

PIT / BALT +3
DET / DEN +3
ATL / SF +3
DAL / PHI +2
HOU / OAK +2
TB / CAR +2
NO / JAX +2
CLE / SEA +1

TEN / CAR -2

(5 games ended with even turnover differential.)

[Oldfan]

Thought I’d take a look at how this week’s turnover differential winner W-L record compared to the stats the NFL did in their study. Might do this the rest of this year and next to see if, over a similar 18-game period, there is any noticeable variance from the numbers the NFL found in 2002-03.

Week 9 – 2007

14 games played:

Teams that won the turnover battle went 8-1:

PIT / BALT +3
DET / DEN +3
ATL / SF +3
DAL / PHI +2
HOU / OAK +2
TB / CAR +2
NO / JAX +2
CLE / SEA +1

TEN / CAR -2

(5 games ended with even turnover differential.)

Let's assume that the above sample is sufficient evidence. Will you state precisely -- without hedging and vagueness -- what you think this stat proves?

[Tastes Like Chicken]

If cutting down on turnovers was the most important factor in winning football games, then punting on first down would be the ultimate strategy on offense. Obviously, that's ridiculous. It's less obvious that a turnover phobia, leading a football coach to adopt an ultra-conservative offensive strategy, is unwise.

It's ridiculous because you take out the basic purpose of the offense, which is to try and score points. Let's make the basic assumption that offenses try to score, and defenses try to prevent scoring.




On defense, if getting turnovers was the most important factor in winning football games then all-out aggression -- blitzing on almost every down and jumping pass routes -- should be the strategy. But, we know that trying to produce more turnovers like that runs the risk of giving up more touchdowns. If we estimate that the average turnover is worth four points, we see easily that if we give up a touchdown for an extra turnover, it's a lousy trade



No Super Bowl winning team in the last 5 years had fewer than 30+ or so takeaways in the regular season. If you look back further, it's probably the same story. The all-out blitz and ultra-aggressive secondary are not the entire story of takeaways. A successful rush by the D-line, ball hawking safeties, good LB play, and let's not forget about those things called 'fumbles', etc.

[Om]

Let's assume that the above sample is sufficient evidence. Will you state precisely -- without hedging and vagueness -- what you think this stat proves?
Certainly.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121885&page=1&pp=40

[SonnyJ]

IMO, Gregg Williams is doing the best he can with the hand dealt. I don't think we're talented enough on the defense to be more aggressive without getting burnt.

Where do you believe talent to be lacking on defense?

[zoony]

Again, we see the fundamental difference in Oldfan's thinking applied here...

That SCHEME trumps all. That you can take any 53 man roster, implement said scheme, and success will follow.


In this case, a blitzing, pass-happy, aggressive offense and defense that goes for it 50% of the time on 4th down, and implements the Shotgun Spread on offense, etc.... will win games. Oldfan's evidence? Bill Bellicheck, Tom Brady, Bill Walsh, and Joe Montana and their respective W-L records in the NFL.


For the most of the rest of us, something jumps out at us in that paragraph. For Oldfan, it doesn't.

Could it be that aggressive play calling is a function of having the best QB's to ever play in the NFL? For Oldfan, absolutely not. Patrick Ramsey is more than capable. Because it's all about the coaching.

Now here's the part where Oldfan will deny that players are a function of scheme, or try and move the cheese, or try and turn the argument into whether Brady is the best all time.... ANYTHING other than meet head-on the ridiculousness of his argument.

But deny it as he might, most of us have simply read too much from him. That success in the NFL is a function of scheme. And you could take any QB in the NFL, plug them into Bill Bellichecks' offense, and continue to enjoy the same 4th down conversion percentage :rolleyes: (hey... Bellicheck's an econ major. He knows things)

.....

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Certainly.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121885&page=1&pp=40

Thanks for that link. I remember that from my days as a lurker, but couldn't quite place the deja vu feeling. Satisfying to know that we can have the same conversations over and over. Or maybe disturbing. Have I said this before? :doh: :laugh:

[Oldfan]

It's ridiculous because you take out the basic purpose of the offense, which is to try and score points. Let's make the basic assumption that offenses try to score, and defenses try to prevent scoring.

I used the punt on first down notion to set up my main point -- that a turnover phobic coach is led to unwise conservatism. Any comment on that?


No Super Bowl winning team in the last 5 years had fewer than 30+ or so takeaways in the regular season. If you look back further, it's probably the same story. The all-out blitz and ultra-aggressive secondary are not the entire story of takeaways. A successful rush by the D-line, ball hawking safeties, good LB play, and let's not forget about those things called 'fumbles', etc.

Over the course of a season, the better teams are going to score more touchdowns, kick more field goals, and win more turnover battles. These are the effects caused when a team outplays their opponents.

A touchdown is an effect not a cause. A turnover is an effect not a cause.

To say that we need to create more turnovers is as meaningless as saying that we need to score more touchdowns.

To say that we need to prevent turnovers is as meaningless as saying that we need to give up fewer touchdowns.

The turnover differential statistic is much less interesting, and no more insightful, than the points for and against differential.

Obviously we should try for more takeaways if we can do it without getting burnt. Obviously we should try to reduce turnovers if we can do it without sacrificing production. We don't need a dumb statistic to tell us that.

[CalSkinsFan]

Hopefully, he'll develop a more consistent feel for that fine line of when it's better to simply throw it away, or even cover up and take the sack, than stand in and try to make a play.

I hope so, too. All the great QB's had that feel.

But that feel can only be learned by live game experience. What we sometimes forget is that JC still has only started 15 games, not even a full season yet.

I'm certainly no QB expert, but I'm encouraged by JC's progress so far in other areas, and think he will get it ... hopefully it's sooner rather than later.

[SkinsNumberOne]

This doesn't bode well for our rematch with the Giants. What will the score be if the turnover battle is even? :doh:


Nevermind. Don't answer that question.



Anyways, this team has some eery similarities to the 2005 squad. Not much of an identity midway thru the season, lots of divisional games coming up (having stole one on the road in week 2), and not winning the turnover battle consistently.

It will be interesting to see which way the team goes in the back half. 7-9? or 10-6?

Both are a very real possibility.
Down the stretch, two things happened in that game as I recall. They didn't happen quite as significantly in the same game (except for maybe the outlier we agree on, the Patriots).

3rd down defense. And the ability of the offense to get first downs.

Both of these things failed down the stretch. That's almost like a turnover, but of course, minus the field position gain (key for a struggling offense like ours). I think our 3rd down defense this year has been fairly horrific in some key times. They made big stops in the Jets game, but in general, it was bad there. The Giants game, of course, was another. Those weren't the only two though. And right now I have actual work to do, so I can't dig up the stats.

[jamesbondman]

Of course, if you take out the very odd Patriots game we have a positive turnover diff...

Of course if you take out al the TD's scored against us our defense is the best in the league.

[Oldfan]

Certainly.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121885&page=1&pp=40

I read the first post again. This is all I found:


In these days of statistical overload, it is understandable if some are skeptical that turnover differential is the single most reliable major statistical barometer of NFL success. Fair enough. I’m something of a skeptic myself. Happily, in 2002-03, the NFL did a study, over an 18-game stretch, on just how big a factor it really was.

Here is what they found:

With turnover differential in a game even, the cumulative won/lost record was 58-58. Seems symmetrical enough.

When teams were +1, their record was 77-31-1.

I understand that you think that this NFL study establishes the turnover differential as a significant statistic. I am asking for you to explain WHY you have reached that conclusion.

I also understand that you think the 8-1 stat has significance and I'm trying to understand WHY you think that.

So, are you going to send me off chasing more wild gooses, or are you going to answer the question? I don't believe you CAN answer the question. I don't think you have a clue.

[SonnyJ]

Over the course of a season, the better teams are going to score more touchdowns, kick more field goals, and win more turnover battles. These are the effects caused when a team outplays their opponents.

A touchdown is an effect not a cause. A turnover is an effect not a cause.

To say that we need to create more turnovers is as meaningless as saying that we need to score more touchdowns.

To say that we need to prevent turnovers is as meaningless as saying that we need to give up fewer touchdowns.

The turnover differential statistic is much less interesting, and no more insightful, than the points for and against differential.

Obviously we should try for more takeaways if we can do it without getting burnt. Obviously we should try to reduce turnovers if we can do it without sacrificing production. We don't need a dumb statistic to tell us that.

Well, I see your point here and it's an accurate one - teams that predominately win the turnover battle are probably just flat-out better teams than teams that don't.

But I think you're missing the point - which is that, knowing the net turnover differential of a game is an excellent predictor of who won the game. Obviously, knowing who scored more TDs would be, too, but that's pretty direct scoring information.

Still, the goal is to score more points than the other guy. If your hypothesis is that Gibbs seems to be playing to win the turnover battle, rather than to win the scoring battle, I don't totally disagree with it. It sometimes does appear that Gibbs' overriding concern on offense is to avoid the crushing negative play. The old turning a virtue into a vice sort of thing.

Edit: I also want to re-iterate Zoony's point. It's a heck of a lot easier and sensical for Belichick to be balls-out aggressive with Brady pulling the trigger than it is for Gibbs to do it with Campbell. To suggest otherwise is incredibly foolish and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of game management. Some players, given their experience and natural skills, are more trustworthy than others. Hell, at this point, I'm shocked that Belichick ever punts with less than 10 yards to go on fourth down. I don't care where the ball is on the field. That's the kind of zone that Brady is in right now.

[redskinss]

The Skins per-game turnover stats:

vs. Miami - lost turnover battle 2-1 (W)
vs. Philly - lost turnover battle 1-0 (W)
vs. NYG - won turnover battle 3-1 (L)
vs. Detroit - won turnover battle 2-1 (W)
vs. GB - lost turnover battle 3-2 (L)
vs. Ariz - lost turnover battle 3-1 (W)
vs. NE - lost turnover battle 4-1 (L)
vs. NYJ - tied turnover battle 1-1 (W)

Meaning ...

In games where they've lost the turnover battle, the Skins are 3-2.

In games they've won it, they're 1-1.

In games they've tied it, they're 1-0.

The 3-2 in games they've lost the turnover battle is actually WAY out of whack with the norm. I'll go dig up the study I've cited a couple times that shows the usual W-L ratios for teams that lose the turnover battle.

BRB.

in your original post it says we are currently -1 in the turnover ratio but according to these statistics we are -5.

[Oldfan]

zoony -- Again, we see the fundamental difference in Oldfan's thinking applied here...That SCHEME trumps all. That you can take any 53 man roster, implement said scheme, and success will follow.

But, you didn't quote me in this thread to prove your point to readers. Why is that?

[zoony]

But, you didn't quote me in this thread to prove your point to readers. Why is that?


ummm... no need? :whoknows:

I didn't forecast the back-pedaling. Sigh. Always something.

[zoony]

Hell, at this point, I'm shocked that Belichick ever punts with less than 10 yards to go on fourth down. I don't care where the ball is on the field. That's the kind of zone that Brady is in right now.


Me too.

[Oldfan]

But I think you're missing the point - which is that, knowing the net turnover differential of a game is an excellent predictor of who won the game. Obviously, knowing who scored more TDs would be, too, but that's pretty direct scoring information.

Yes, I am missing your point here. You don't know who won the turnover battle until after the game, so why do we need it to predict who won? Why not just look at the score?

There is an unstated premise that the turnover differential is significant in support of strategic decisions on the field. I'm calling that a false premise.


Still, the goal is to score more points than the other guy. If your hypothesis is that Gibbs seems to be playing to win the turnover battle, rather than to win the scoring battle, I don't totally disagree with it. It sometimes does appear that Gibbs' overriding concern on offense is to avoid the crushing negative play. The old turning a virtue into a vice sort of thing.

You're reading me right here. It's my position that coaches who concern themselves with turnovers tend to be too conservative on the offense and sometime too aggressive on defense. Coaches who understand that the turnover factor cannot be separated from production, just as risk cannot be separated from reward, have it right.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

I used the punt on first down notion to set up my main point -- that a turnover phobic coach is led to unwise conservatism. Any comment on that?

There's a big difference between conservative play-calling and punting on 1st down, don't you think? Would the converse be true, that you think turnovers are so inconsequential that defenders should knock INT's to the ground, and not accept fumbles by kicking them out of bounds? Just as absurd. :)




Over the course of a season, the better teams are going to score more touchdowns, kick more field goals, and win more turnover battles. These are the effects caused when a team outplays their opponents.

A touchdown is an effect not a cause. A turnover is an effect not a cause.

To say that we need to create more turnovers is as meaningless as saying that we need to score more touchdowns.

To say that we need to prevent turnovers is as meaningless as saying that we need to give up fewer touchdowns.

The turnover differential statistic is much less interesting, and no more insightful, than the points for and against differential.

Obviously we should try for more takeaways if we can do it without getting burnt. Obviously we should try to reduce turnovers if we can do it without sacrificing production. We don't need a dumb statistic to tell us that.

You've lost me now. I think now this is devolving into a semantic battle. You say that, for instance, an INT is an effect, not a cause. An effect of what? Catching the ball? So now there's a difference between catching the ball thrown from the opposing team's QB, and an interception?

For the Redskins, it seems to me that it's the 2000 Ravens formula. Rely on the defense, a clock-killing running game, and a game managing QB. If we turn the ball over once or twice, our D can still keep us in it (up to a point). The more we take away the ball though, the more opportunities to pound the rock, tire out the other defense, and hope to escape with a close victory. It may not be what everyone wants, not the prettiest thing to watch, but I think it's the plan for now.

[Om]

I read the first post again ......

I don't think you have a clue.
Since you are unwiilling or unable to retain previous conversations on a subject, feel free to also read the subsequent conversation we had on this exact subject.

As to the last part, since you are unwilling or unable to accept that, for reasons I have stated repeatedly, I am no longer interested in debating with you, be advised that at some point my patience with your gratuitous sniping whenever I decline to engage you again will run out. Consider this my final civil request to find someone else to bait.

[Oldfan]

Where do you believe talent to be lacking on defense?

I don't want to take this thread off on a tangent. Overall, I think we have grade C talent and GW has done a good job of matching them up with one-dimensional teams. He's at a disadvantage against balanced offenses.

[Taylor 36]

Of course, if you take out the very odd Patriots game we have a positive turnover diff... Yeah, that game really did us in there.

[Dan T.]

Edit: I also want to re-iterate Zoony's point. It's a heck of a lot easier and sensical for Belichick to be balls-out aggressive with Brady pulling the trigger than it is for Gibbs to do it with Campbell. To suggest otherwise is incredibly foolish and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of game management. Some players, given their experience and natural skills, are more trustworthy than others. Hell, at this point, I'm shocked that Belichick ever punts with less than 10 yards to go on fourth down. I don't care where the ball is on the field. That's the kind of zone that Brady is in right now.

I don't really think this is the case. Old Fan cites a study suggesting it is statiscally more beneficial to go for it on fourth down much more often than NFL coaches ordinarily do.

What are you asking your quarterback to do on 4th and short? Hand the ball off. Not a very taxing assignment for a rookie any more than for a Hall of Fame vet.

[Oldfan]

SonnyJ -- Edit: I also want to re-iterate Zoony's point. It's a heck of a lot easier and sensical for Belichick to be balls-out aggressive with Brady pulling the trigger than it is for Gibbs to do it with Campbell. To suggest otherwise is incredibly foolish and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of game management. Some players, given their experience and natural skills, are more trustworthy than others. Hell, at this point, I'm shocked that Belichick ever punts with less than 10 yards to go on fourth down. I don't care where the ball is on the field. That's the kind of zone that Brady is in right now.

You and zoony have it backwards. The team with the upperhand is the one that should play the game more conservatively. It's the lesser team that ought to take gambles to win. The Redskins have more reason to gamble against the Patriots, than the reverse.

You are correct in saying that a Patriot gamble is more likely to succeed, but so what? If their gambles pay off they beat us worse than they would have if they hadn't taken them. If our gambles pay off, we might pull off an upset.

[zoony]

You and zoony have it backwards. The team with the upperhand is the one that should play the game more conservatively. It's the lesser team that ought to take gambles to win. The Redskins have more reason to gamble against the Patriots, than the reverse.

.


How'd that work out for Spurrier? :laugh:

[Oldfan]

I don't really think this is the case. Old Fan cites a study suggesting it is statiscally more beneficial to go for it on fourth down much more often than NFL coaches ordinarily do.

What are you asking your quarterback to do on 4th and short? Hand the ball off. Not a very taxing assignment for a rookie any more than for a Hall of Fame vet.

2006 data: The Patriots run the ball 82% of the time on fourth and short. The Redskins (oddly) run only 59% of the time. It is the only down and distance category where the Redskins are ranked low, not among the leaders, in running attempts in the NFL.

[SonnyJ]

You and zoony have it backwards. The team with the upperhand is the one that should play the game more conservatively. It's the lesser team that ought to take gambles to win. The Redskins have more reason to gamble against the Patriots, than the reverse.

You are correct in saying that a Patriot gamble is more likely to succeed, but so what? If their gambles pay off they beat us worse than they would have if they hadn't taken them. If our gambles pay off, we might pull off an upset.

We don't have it backwards at all. Our point is that, with Brady at QB, it is decidedly NOT a gamble to go for it. Gambling implies that there is a sense of recklessness in the decision. That doesn't exist with Brady at QB.

And I don't care whether they run or pass. With Brady in the game, other teams know that they have to defend the whole field, because Brady may very well go anywhere with it. If he sees the S cheating on something, Brady will audible to something to exploit it. It's much easier to run when defenses are concerned with not giving up the big play. The gamble is actually being transferred to the defense - they almost have to gamble in order to stop Brady on fourth and short.

Campbell does not pose this kind of threat, that's why it isn't much of a risk for the Patriots to go for it. Believe it or not, all other things are not equal.

[SonnyJ]

I don't want to take this thread off on a tangent.

Agreed.


Overall, I think we have grade C talent

I think this is correct for DL, but a poor evaluation for the rest of the defense.


GW has done a good job of matching them up with one-dimensional teams. He's at a disadvantage against balanced offenses.

GW is an excellent coach, but balanced offenses (presuming they execute well), by definition, give any defense fits. It's rare to find a defense so strong as to be able to stop whatever is thrown at it.

[Oldfan]

Since you are unwiilling or unable to retain previous conversations on a subject, feel free to also read the subsequent conversation we had on this exact subject.

As to the last part, since you are unwilling or unable to accept that, for reasons I have stated repeatedly, I am no longer interested in debating with you, be advised that at some point my patience with your gratuitous sniping whenever I decline to engage you again will run out. Consider this my final civil request to find someone else to bait.

When I post counter-arguments to the debateable theories you offer, feel free to ignore them. If you choose to respond, and we engage in debate, I'm going to try to corner you.
If you try to elude me, I'll persist until it's obvious to an impartial reader that you're ducking me. You call that "baiting." I call it debating.

That NFL study you offered drew no conclusions as far as I know.There was nothing to tell us what the data meant. Am I wrong?

I asked you what you thought it meant and you referred me to an old thread. Your OP in that thread offered nothing on what ought to be the most important premise supporting your position. What does the turnover differential tell us exactly?

So, there's a correlation. Teams that win the turnover battles usually win the games. Or, teams that win the games usually win the turnover battles. So what?

[Henry]

So ... anyone see the game last night? :)

[Oldfan]

SonnyJ--- We don't have it backwards at all. Our point is that, with Brady at QB, it is decidedly NOT a gamble to go for it. Gambling implies that there is a sense of recklessness in the decision. That doesn't exist with Brady at QB.

You're trying to play word games. There is risk involved in going for it on fourth down no matter how good or bad your offense is.

You are choosing to ignore the need for an undermanned squad to take some calculated gambles to overcome a superior opponent.

In a Redskins-Patriot game, the Skins have more reason to take the risk than the Patriots, even though their odds of success are lower than the Pats when they gamble.

[Oldfan]

So ... anyone see the game last night? :)

Stay out of this, Henry. Damn you.:)

[SonnyJ]

You're trying to play word games. There is risk involved in going for it on fourth down no matter how good or bad your offense is.

You are choosing to ignore the need for an undermanned squad to take some calculated gambles to overcome a superior opponent.

In a Redskins-Patriot game, the Skins have more reason to take the risk than the Patriots, even though their odds of success are lower than the Pats when they gamble.

No word games at all. You're just flat-out wrong if you think that going for it with a QB like Brady presents the same amount of risk as it does with lesser QBs (like Campbell). You CANNOT refute that. If you say the QB doesn't matter, then you are being...



wait for it...




intellectually dishonest. Or intellectually lazy. Probably both.

Yes, the Redskins need to take more risks than the Bradys do in order to beat them. I don't dispute that. I, too, also believe that going for it more often is a good strategy, given the correct circumstances. You'll come out ahead much more often than not. And, if you do it consistently, it's not a huge psychological blow for your team should it not get the first down, it's just the normal course of the game.

But don't tell me that the Patriots and Redskins face equal odds given the same fourth down situations. That is complete and utter fantasy. Belichick is not being some genius economist by doing this, he just knows that he has the guy that can deliver the goods.

[Om]

When I post counter-arguments to the debateable theories you offer, feel free to ignore them. If you choose to respond, and we engage in debate, I'm going to try to corner you.
If you try to elude me, I'll persist until it's obvious to an impartial reader that you're ducking me. You call that "baiting." I call it debating.

That NFL study you offered drew no conclusions as far as I know.There was nothing to tell us what the data meant. Am I wrong?

I asked you what you thought it meant and you referred me to an old thread. Your OP in that thread offered nothing on what ought to be the most important premise supporting your position. What does the turnover differential tell us exactly?

So, there's a correlation. Teams that win the turnover battles usually win the games. Or, teams that win the games usually win the turnover battles. So what?
One last time ... you and I have already played your little game on this particular subject, before I got a handle on your "debating" style. I've explained my position on it as fully as I intend to, with your one notable exception to the satisfaction of everyone else who's taken the time to give it an honest read.

If you're interested in what my position on this is rather than simply throwing spitballs and pretending we haven't discussed it already, read the thread I've now twice linked for your convenience. And since you seem unable or unwilling to grasp that concept, that means more than just the OP. Read the parts where you and I actually, you know, TALK about this.

As to future threads, if you persist in misrepresenting and/or ignoring what I write, for whatever purpose you seem unable to resist doing, my guess is at some point soon you and I will end up discussing the matter in private.

[Om]

So ... anyone see the game last night? :)
Sure did. Baltimore had no shot what with all those turnovers. :)

[Oldfan]

But don't tell me that the Patriots and Redskins face equal odds given the same fourth down situations. That is complete and utter fantasy. Belichick is not being some genius economist by doing this, he just knows that he has the guy that can deliver the goods.

Please provide a quote. Where did I say that the Redskins and Patriots face equal odds of making it in the same fourth down situation?

I've said just the opposite three or four times.

The Redskins, as the undermanned squad, have more reason than the Patriots to take calculated gambles. The Patriots, as the superior team, have a better chance of success if they decide to gamble.

[Oldfan]

If you're interested in what my position on this is rather than simply throwing spitballs and pretending we haven't discussed it already, read the thread I've now twice linked for your convenience. And since you seem unable or unwilling to grasp that concept, that means more than just the OP. Read the parts where you and I actually, you know, TALK about this.

Done. Other than the comments which I posted earlier from the OP, I found this:


Om -- My point was that, for whatever reason, teams at the bottom of the turnover differential scale lose games.

Now, if I said that "for whatever reason, teams at the bottom of the point differential scale lose games," you'd think me an idiot because it's perfectly obvious that the points on the scoreboard are an effect achieved by a superior team on that day and not a cause.

So, I've granted here that turnovers are an effect achieved by a superior team worth four points on the average. This explains the strong correlation in the NFL study. You would see a somewhat weaker correlation if they studied the value of the three-point field goal, but a stronger correlation if they studied the value of a touchdown.

Since you don't expand your explanation beyond "for whatever reason," I suspect you are allowing correlation to imply causation, a logical fallacy.

[Neophyte]

Good grief...

And this thread started out so well too...

[pjfootballer]

The good news is, we've already equaled the number of takeaways that we had for all of last season.

Actually we passed it. 1 more sack and 1 more TO forced. See my sig by the flags.

Skins 8 ints
Opp 7 Ints

Skins 5 Fum rec
Opp 7 Fum rec

-1

Game by game

Skins 0 Int 1 fm Mia 2 Int 0 fm
Skins 0 Int 0 fm Phi 1 Int 0 fm
Skins 2 Int 1 fm NYG 0 Int 1 fm
Skins 2 Int 0 fm Det 0 Int 1 fm
Skins 2 Int 0 fm GB 1 Int 2 fm
Skins 2 Int 1 fm Ari 1 Int 0 fm
Skins 0 Int 1 fm NE 1 Int 3 fm
Skins 0 Int 1 fm NYJ 1 Int 0 fm

We have 20 sacks to opponents 13.

[SonnyJ]

Please provide a quote. Where did I say that the Redskins and Patriots face equal odds of making it in the same fourth down situation?

I've said just the opposite three or four times.

The Redskins, as the undermanned squad, have more reason than the Patriots to take calculated gambles. The Patriots, as the superior team, have a better chance of success if they decide to gamble.

Yeah, I think you've conceded it and then moved the bar, as you are wont to do. Your original statement was that Belichick doesn't sweat turnovers and is uber-aggressive about going for it on fourth down. Because he was an Econ major and understands the percentages involved or something like that. And I say that is BS (get it, Econ major, ha!) - the only mathematics he has to worry about is the number 12. He has him and the other team doesn't. It's called playing to your team's strengths. If Brady isn't in there, the strength of his team probably swings over to his defense.

The strength of Gibbs' team is his defense. He might choose to kick it in a situation where Belichick goes for it. But both coaches are playing to his respective team's strengths.

You're saying that the Redskins should be going for it more often than the Patriots because they have to take greater risks in order to win. But that is insanity if Gibbs doesn't think he has the horses to do it. The fact of the matter is that, if you could boil it down to a mathematical equation, you would probably find that risk-taking by coaches is pretty similar, when adjusted for the given abilities of their teams.

Do you really think Belichick would be as blase about turnovers and would play as aggressively if Cassel, not Brady, were his QB for an extended period of time? Or do you think he would play it more like Gibbs, playing it closer to the vest and leaning more on his defense?

[pjfootballer]

The Skins per-game turnover stats:

vs. Miami - lost turnover battle 2-1 (W)
vs. Philly - lost turnover battle 1-0 (W)
vs. NYG - won turnover battle 3-1 (L)
vs. Detroit - won turnover battle 2-1 (W)
vs. GB - lost turnover battle 3-2 (L)
vs. Ariz - WON turnover battle 3-1 (W)
vs. NE - lost turnover battle 4-1 (L)
vs. NYJ - tied turnover battle 1-1 (W)

Meaning ...

In games where they've lost the turnover battle, the Skins are 3-2.

In games they've won it, they're 1-1.

In games they've tied it, they're 1-0.

The 3-2 in games they've lost the turnover battle is actually WAY out of whack with the norm. I'll go dig up the study I've cited a couple times that shows the usual W-L ratios for teams that lose the turnover battle.

BRB.

Fixed it. You had us at -5.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Actually we passed it. 1 more sack and 1 more TO forced. See my sig by the flags.

Skins 8 ints
Opp 7 Ints

Skins 5 Fum rec
Opp 7 Fum rec

-1

Game by game

Skins 0 Int 1 fm Mia 2 Int 0 fm
Skins 0 Int 0 fm Phi 1 Int 0 fm
Skins 2 Int 1 fm NYG 0 Int 1 fm
Skins 2 Int 0 fm Det 0 Int 1 fm
Skins 2 Int 0 fm GB 1 Int 2 fm
Skins 2 Int 1 fm Ari 1 Int 0 fm
Skins 0 Int 1 fm NE 1 Int 3 fm
Skins 0 Int 1 fm NYJ 1 Int 0 fm

We have 20 sacks to opponents 13.

PJ, thanks for the correction. You're right, we're already beyond what we achieved last year in terms of takeaways.

But I think we'll need to generate even more in the next 8 games, to be a real contender. One game at a time, one week at a time. But 2 takeaways per game would be outstanding.

London is due for another INT. Landry should get his first soon, or another fumble recovery.

[Shilsu]

This is why it's frustrating that our offense is sucking so bad. Last year, our offensive may not have been good enough to win games, but at least it didn't lose games for us.

But now our defense is creating turnovers at a good rate but..

Already, every single game we've lost has been due to dumb turnovers (New York with Portis fumbling it away, Green Bay with Moss and Portis fumbling, Patriots with Jason Campbell fumbling three times).

Why can't our defense and offense support each other for once. :(

[Om]

Fixed it. You had us at -5.
Good catch, thanks. :)

[Oldfan]

SonnyJ -- Yeah, I think you've conceded it and then moved the bar, as you are wont to do.

Statement like this would be effective in debate if you could quote me to prove your assertions, but of course you can't.


Your original statement was that Belichick doesn't sweat turnovers and is uber-aggressive about going for it on fourth down. Because he was an Econ major and understands the percentages involved or something like that. And I say that is BS (get it, Econ major, ha!) - the only mathematics he has to worry about is the number 12. He has him and the other team doesn't. It's called playing to your team's strengths. If Brady isn't in there, the strength of his team probably swings over to his defense.

In fewer words, you disagree with my opinion.


You're saying that the Redskins should be going for it more often than the Patriots because they have to take greater risks in order to win. But that is insanity if Gibbs doesn't think he has the horses to do it. The fact of the matter is that, if you could boil it down to a mathematical equation, you would probably find that risk-taking by coaches is pretty similar, when adjusted for the given abilities of their teams.

It has been studied. I cited the study earlier. From memory: based on probabilities, NFL coaches made the wrong decision on 900 out of 1100 first-quarter fourth-down decisions.


Do you really think Belichick would be as blase about turnovers and would play as aggressively if Cassel, not Brady, were his QB for an extended period of time? Or do you think he would play it more like Gibbs, playing it closer to the vest and leaning more on his defense?

Since he runs 82% of the time on fourth down (2006), nothing much would change on that with Brady not under center.

I don't think Bellichick is blase about turnovers. He is definitely not one of the Gibbs-Vermiel turnovers are death types. It's hard to imagine him trading for a veteran game manager like Brunell if Brady goes down.

Eliminate turnovers but not at the expense of putting a governor on your offense. Create turnovers on defense, but not at the expense of getting burnt often by the offense. We don't need a statistic to see the sense in that.

[redskinss]

this is similar to the chicken or the egg debate.
is it because turnovers create more scoring opportunities and therefore the team with the positive ratio is more likely to win.
Or is it as simple as, better teams dont turn the ball over and create turnovers on defense and bad teams vice versa.

[Om]

this is similar to the chicken or the egg debate.
is it because turnovers create more scoring opportunities and therefore the team with the positive ratio is more likely to win.
Or is it as simple as, better teams dont turn the ball over and create turnovers on defense and bad teams vice versa.
I don't think it's an either/or question ... in large part because not all turnovers are created equal.

There are turnovers that are clearly forced, i.e., defensive end sacks QB, ball pops loose and is recovered by defense.

There are turnovers that are clearly luck, i.e., punt returner set to make routine fair catch but lets ball slip between his hands, ball rolls directly to defensive player standing there watching.

There are turnovers that clearly do not affect the outcome game, i.e., in blowout situation, losing team has Hail Mary pass into end zone as time expires intercepted.

There are turnovers that clearly change the game and directly affect the outcomes, i.e., QB gets brainlock in tightly contested Super Bowl (**cough**Neil O'Donnell**cough**), throws ball directly to defender standing there minding his own business, who returns it for touchdown, gets MVP trophy and goes on to largely undeserved fortune.

Ahem. :)

Point being ... in any one game, simply looking at the turnover numbers don't tell the whole story. No one has ever claimed they do. To have real meaning, each turnover would have to be analyzed in terms of their impact on the game.

As a general rule though, it seems pretty clear that teams that turn the ball over more times than they take it away have a hard time winning games on any consistent basis. I'm surprised that basic, common sense observation is subject to much question.

[redskinss]

I don't think it's an either/or question ... in large part because not all turnovers are created equal.

There are turnovers that are clearly forced, i.e., defensive end sacks QB, ball pops loose and is recovered by defense.

There are turnovers that are clearly luck, i.e., punt returner set to make routine fair catch but lets ball slip between his hands, ball rolls directly to defensive player standing there watching.

There are turnovers that clearly do not affect the outcome game, i.e., in blowout situation, losing team has Hail Mary pass into end zone as time expires intercepted.

There are turnovers that clearly change the game and directly affect the outcomes, i.e., QB gets brainlock in tightly contested Super Bowl (**cough**Neil O'Donnell**cough**), throws ball directly to defender standing there minding his own business, who returns it for touchdown, gets MVP trophy and goes on to largely undeserved fortune.

Ahem. :)

Point being ... in any one game, simply looking at the turnover numbers don't tell the whole story. No one has ever claimed they do. To have real meaning, each turnover would have to be analyzed in terms of their impact on the game.

As a general rule though, it seems pretty clear that teams that turn the ball over more times than they take it away have a hard time winning games on any consistent basis. I'm surprised that basic, common sense observation is subject to much question.

I am not arguing that the teams with a positive turnover ratio usually come out victorious. that is a statistical fact.
The point i was trying to make is it is widely believed that turnovers take away scoring oppurtunities from you and give them to the opponent thus making it dificult to outscore them, and that is the reason for the lopsided win loss due to turnovers statistic.
all i was saying is that although increased scoring opportunities play a huge part maybe the more likely reason for that statistic is because the better team doesnt turn the ball over and the better team usually comes out victorious regardless of a negative turnover ratio.
one statistic that might lend favor to the argument is to find out how many times the team with a better record had a negative turnover ratio and still came out victorious. for example the cowboys ludacris negative turnover ratio against the bills in a winning effort.

[pjfootballer]

PJ, thanks for the correction. You're right, we're already beyond what we achieved last year in terms of takeaways.

But I think we'll need to generate even more in the next 8 games, to be a real contender. One game at a time, one week at a time. But 2 takeaways per game would be outstanding.

London is due for another INT. Landry should get his first soon, or another fumble recovery.

Just think. We've passed what we did in 16 games in only 8. Either we'e truly better, we were really that bad last year or both.


Good catch, thanks. :)

I aim to please.

[SkinsFan48]

Well said. Despite that were still finding ways to win.
i'm not happy about the stat, but the flip-side is that we're winning despite losing the turnover battle. says good things about our defense limiting other teams' opportunities, and our offense overcoming its mistakes.

silver-lining? we fix this problem and we'll win more, and we've got a winning record at the moment.