Defense Wins Championships?

[bobblehead]

OK, OK.

Everybody hold up.

This thread makes me feel like the dumb kid on College Jeopardy. I don't see how this statistical tool helps you predict shit. How can I predict that before a game?

How do you figure out which team will have the superior rating, Mr Wizard?

That was kind of my point that I poorly worded as I stumbled through understanding that their "stat" applied to THAT game only. Again, duh. The team that played better in that game won.

[bobblehead]

"past performance is no indicator of future success" - where did I hear that last other than from my wife?

Goldline?

[mraynrand]

Goldline?

Goldline!

[pbmax]

That was kind of my point that I poorly worded as I stumbled through understanding that their "stat" applied to THAT game only. Again, duh. The team that played better in that game won.

They aren't claiming it only covers "in game" numbers. That was just one point in demonstrating its explanatory power. The other article covers how they think it helps define several dynasties since the 1970s.

In answer to KYPack's earlier question about what it can tell you (and therefore help you) BEFORE a game, I suspect you would need to analyze whether increasing your pass D effectiveness is more likely to deliver wins than if you increase your Run D effectiveness. To do that, you would need a number for run game effectiveness and then calculate the differential, then regress that number and the passing eff. differential against scores and results from the recent past. And you might even run the numbers against the 1st and 3rd Quarters only to eliminate blowouts, kneeldowns, prevent defense and three straight dives to kill the clock.

My suspicion is that even though we know teams who win regularly pile on running yardage late in a game, that pass D contributes more to winning now than run D. This is not to say you can be terrible in either aspect. But if you were to make a move in a direction, the biggest benefit with the lowest cost for winning might be to play a metric ton of nickel and worry about the run game in short yardage and against the Jets.

[bobblehead]

They aren't claiming it only covers "in game" numbers. That was just one point in demonstrating its explanatory power. The other article covers how they think it helps define several dynasties since the 1970s.

In answer to KYPack's earlier question about what it can tell you (and therefore help you) BEFORE a game, I suspect you would need to analyze whether increasing your pass D effectiveness is more likely to deliver wins than if you increase your Run D effectiveness. To do that, you would need a number for run game effectiveness and then calculate the differential, then regress that number and the passing eff. differential against scores and results from the recent past. And you might even run the numbers against the 1st and 3rd Quarters only to eliminate blowouts, kneeldowns, prevent defense and three straight dives to kill the clock.

My suspicion is that even though we know teams who win regularly pile on running yardage late in a game, that pass D contributes more to winning now than run D. This is not to say you can be terrible in either aspect. But if you were to make a move in a direction, the biggest benefit with the lowest cost for winning might be to play a metric ton of nickel and worry about the run game in short yardage and against the Jets.

But my point regarding that is that the #3 and 5 teams in the NFL in that stat MISSED the playoffs and a team that was negative in that stat beat the #2 team and played in the AFC championship game....that alone makes this stat really hard to buy into in the data available so far. And again, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone defining the earlier packers dynasty as a pass first, defend the pass first team despite what a "differential" equation might say. It would be akin to using a running backs 5.0 avg. per carry with 8 carries to prove he is superior to Walter Payton.

Again, I am not dismissing it as irrelevent completly, but it is just one part of what I have been saying. Great balance makes great teams.

[vince]

But my point regarding that is that the #3 and 5 teams in the NFL in that stat MISSED the playoffs and a team that was negative in that stat beat the #2 team and played in the AFC championship game....that alone makes this stat really hard to buy into in the data available so far.

And again, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone defining the earlier packers dynasty as a pass first, defend the pass first team despite what a "differential" equation might say. It would be akin to using a running backs 5.0 avg. per carry with 8 carries to prove he is superior to Walter Payton.

Again, I am not dismissing it as irrelevent completly, but it is just one part of what I have been saying. Great balance makes great teams.

Bobble the facts are there and you're diminishing them because they don't fit your preconceived notion about winning football.

1. The game is way different than it was in the Taylor and Payton days. Few people would argue that the running game wasn't more important to winning then.

2. The game you cite as evidence of the irrelevance of the stat actually proves out the relevance of it. PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE SUCCESS. The Jets, a team with a worse passer rating differential for the year and a worse record than the Patriots, WON THE PASSER RATING DIFFERENTIAL THAT GAME AND THEY ALSO WON THE GAME.

3. Regarding the 3 and 5 teams missing the playoffs, of course the correlation isn't perfect, but it's extremely strong, as strong or stronger than any other stat CHFF and Dom Capers have seen. CHFF and The Dom are focusing on this stat because its correlation to winning is stronger than any rushing stat and any offensive or defensive balance stat. You can't ignore or diminish the overwhelming instances reinforcing the legitimacy of the stat and hand pick the two instances that support your argument and expect to be either persuasive or correct.

4. Not all great teams show great balance anymore. Go no further than this year's Packers to find a perfect case in point. The argument that great balance makes great teams has some validity, but there's a significant part of the truthism that you're continuing to leave out of today's game. Great balance MIGHT make a great team because being able to run the ball helps the passing game. The more real and relevant truth today is this: Great passing teams - and teams that can stop the pass - make great teams. Offensive balance might help you become a great passing team, but it's not necessarily required.

[Fritz]

Thee was a thread a few years ago in which a few Rats, myself included, went back and did some research that found that in fact the NFL was more of a passing league than we commonly believe it was back in the 60's. It was actually in the 70's that the game shifted for a time to more of a running game - and since that's when many of us grew up, that's what we remember.

With this new emphasis, it won't be long before teams are copycatting the use of the nickel as more of a standard formation. Which could mean an emphasis on more corners in the draft.

[swede]

I agree KY. I have no idea how it helps one predict anything. It strongly indicates what are the most important breakdown components to winning in the NFL. If you can predict who will produce the better passer rating differential, you're on to something, but the stat itself is just a measurement of past performance in this important area. Just like everything else in the world, that doesn't necessarily predict future performance.

What the stat has done is provide a guy like Dom Capers with some pretty darn good information to use in determining how to play defense and what to focus on and prioritize as a coach.

For example, you might play nickel D in 70% of your defensive snaps and let the three yards and a cloud of pelletized rubber boys win the battle for rushing yards while our team wins the war.

[pbmax]

For example, you might play nickel D in 70% of your defensive snaps and let the three yards and a cloud of pelletized rubber boys win the battle for rushing yards while our team wins the war.

And a new fantasy football team name is born. Good work.

I am torn between this and DD Grassmaster Flash

[ThunderDan]

With this new emphasis, it won't be long before teams are copycatting the use of the nickel as more of a standard formation. Which could mean an emphasis on more corners in the draft.

If teams do that you will see an increase in importance of TEs in the NFL.

I would put in my 12 package (1 RB, 2 TE) with Finley and Quarless. I would run at the D until they shift out of the nickle and then I am going to throw from that formation to Finley down the seam.

2 athletic TEs who can block can help neutralize using the nickle D in 1st and 2nd down situations.

[bobblehead]

2. The game you cite as evidence of the irrelevance of the stat actually proves out the relevance of it. PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE SUCCESS. The Jets, a team with a worse passer rating differential for the year and a worse record than the Patriots, WON THE PASSER RATING DIFFERENTIAL THAT GAME AND THEY ALSO WON THE GAME.

I just can't get behind that logic. Since it is VERY obvious that passing better and stopping the other team from passing better means you are playing the game better it stands to reason you have a better chance to win THAT game. If that is the only point you or the author is trying to make then I concede the argument. Its just like the turnover battle, the team that turns it over less in THAT game stands a MUCH better chance of winning. Same as protecting your QB, the team that isn't allowing their QB to get crushed is much more likely to win. This goes to any stat that shows effective play. Time of possession. Avg. yards on first down differential. Big plays allowed vs. created.

BUT....to say that this stat is any more relevent than any other stat showing good play is folly and the numbers don't back it up. As I said, SD played in a weak division and was the 3rd best in the entire NFL in this stat and missed the playoffs. If the Giants don't kick to whatshisname the Packers likely miss the playoffs and they led the league in it. Any stat worth its salt PREDICTS the winner ahead of time because they do it better on a regular basis. Yards per passing attempt seems to be a REALLY strong predictor. Any stat that can not PREDICT a damn thing is worthless (this is stats 101).

As far as my preconceived notion, I have come around as far as it being a pass FIRST league, but that does not mean you can suck running the ball (or anything else). How many times do I have to point out that MM's lack of commitment to running costs us games (and gets ARod hit). How many times does MM have to actually say we need to run the ball better. How many times do the best D coordinators in the NFL have to say "we must stop the run"? Because when you do that effectively a magical thing happens. The other team gets one dimensional and you magically effect their passer rating.

[mraynrand]

I did a Fisher's exact test on this thread and it says with 99% confidence that this thread blows.

[swede]

7:00 central
Packerrats Network (6789)

Top Ten Threads That Blow Curds

Cleft Crusty hosts the ongoing series.

[vince]

BUT....to say that this stat is any more relevent than any other stat showing good play is folly and the numbers don't back it up. As I said, SD played in a weak division and was the 3rd best in the entire NFL in this stat and missed the playoffs. If the Giants don't kick to whatshisname the Packers likely miss the playoffs and they led the league in it. Any stat worth its salt PREDICTS the winner ahead of time because they do it better on a regular basis. Yards per passing attempt seems to be a REALLY strong predictor. Any stat that can not PREDICT a damn thing is worthless (this is stats 101).

Wrong. Passer Rating Differential has a higher correlation to wins than any stat you've cited here. YPA has a relatively poor correlation to winning, worse than rushing defense.

Here are the stats ranked by team and how each correlates to wins by team. To the extent that any statistic of past performance can accurately predicts future wins, Passer Rating Differential will do a far better job than any other that has been mentioned here.

	Wins	PRD	TO Diff	Rush D	YPA	Forced TO	Rush O
Green Bay	1	1	4	18	3	5	24
Pittsburgh	2	4	2	1	2	3	11
New England	3	2	1	11	4	12	9
New York Jets	4	14	6	3	24	9	4
Atlanta	5	9	3	10	22	6	12
Baltimore	6	6	9	5	7	15	14
Chicago	7	11	12	2	10	2	22
New Orleans	8	10	24	16	16	21	28
Philadelphia	9	8	5	15	6	4	5
Indianapolis	10	13	19	25	18	28	29
Kansas City	11	7	7	14	22	23	1
Tampa Bay	12	5	8	28	14	14	8
New York Giants	13	12	18	8	8	1	6
San Diego	14	3	23	4	1	24	15
Seattle	15	29	28	21	25	26	31
Oakland	16	21	17	29	15	22	2
Jacksonville	17	27	31	22	12	31	3
Miami	18	23	30	7	23	29	21
St. Louis	19	17	10	17	27	18	25
Detroit	20	20	11	24	26	11	23
Minnesota	21	30	29	9	24	20	10
Houston	22	22	13	13	5	30	7
Washington	23	26	21	26	17	16	30
Dallas	24	15	14	12	11	7	16
Tennessee	25	18	20	20	19	19	17
San Francisco	26	25	15	6	13	25	19
Cleveland	27	24	16	27	21	13	20
Arizona	28	31	22	30	31	8	32
Cincinnati	29	16	25	19	20	17	27
Buffalo	30	28	32	32	23	27	18
Denver	31	19	27	31	7	32	26
Carolina	32	32	26	23	32	10	13
							
Correlation		0.77	0.66	0.54	0.44	0.38	0.30

Not sure how to get the columns to line up properly, but Wins Rank is the first column, followed by Passer Rating Differential, Turnover Differential, etc. The first correlation calculation (.77) is the correlation of Passer Rating Differential to wins. The next is TO Diff. correlation, etc.

[packerbacker1234]

Bottom line: You can win with a run game and great defense all around. Ravens did it in the 2000's and the jets are sort of built on the same principal and are good enough to possibly win a SB in the next few years.

In addition to the pass first mentality of the entire league, one must remember that it was MM's commitment to the run game that helped make ALL THE DIFFERENCE in the playoffs. Just the willingness to give that one back 20+ carries changed how defenses approached us. We ahdn't really done that sort of commitment all year so it had to throw a big wrench in the initial game planning. There is a reason Starks had the most rushing yards in the playoffs - because rushing is still relevant - so stopping the run is still relevant.

However, it's clear pass defense is more important than naything else. It doesn't mean you can be bad at rush defense (aka, may be #1 pass, but if your 25+ in rush defense they'll just shoive down your throat all game). GB was not horrible at rush defense, but they weren't great either.They were about average, which is good. ALso the fact they lost so many LB's moist likely contributed to the rush defense rating being worse this season - while the stellar secondary play and the emergence of shields is clearly why the pass defense stepped up.