2009 Regular Season - Week 1 - Bears vs Pack - 9/13 7pm NBC

[Banedon]

well, part of that is that the defense couldn't get off the field after 3rd downs. they were terrible at it, for whatever reason. it's possible that this "stick 'em between the sticks" tampa-2 philosophy is less effective now that the players are older. we need more pressure on the qb so that the linebackers don't have so much pressure on them to make difficult tackles on 3rd down.

 

But was it later in the game that it became hard for them get off on 3rd downs? After they'd been on the field for a while? I don't know the answer for sure, and I'm not sure how to check that out without going through 16 game logs.

[hawkeyecub]

well, part of that is that the defense couldn't get off the field after 3rd downs. they were terrible at it, for whatever reason. it's possible that this "stick 'em between the sticks" tampa-2 philosophy is less effective now that the players are older. we need more pressure on the qb so that the linebackers don't have so much pressure on them to make difficult tackles on 3rd down.

 

What was their rate on 3rd downs?

 

You're right though, this is one of the problems I have with some of the Football Outsiders stuff. It's harder to do "rate" stats in football than baseball because of situations. I understand yards per play is trying to evaluate a defense independent of that team's own offense that forces them to be on the field too much. But you can have a relatively low ypp but not get off the field because you can't get a stop on 3rd down or force turnovers.

Not saying either of those were the case with the Bears though, haven't looked at the numbers and compared.

[Magnetic Curses]

i know that they were 3rd worst in the league on 3rd downs. don't have the actual numbers, but i'll look.

[Magnetic Curses]

actually, i take back what i said, i was misled. the bears were actually 6th in the NFL last year in preventing 3rd down conversions. they were at 34.9%, pittsburgh led at 31.5%.

 

i stand corrected.

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-3rd-down-conversion-pct

[David]

well, part of that is that the defense couldn't get off the field after 3rd downs. they were terrible at it, for whatever reason. it's possible that this "stick 'em between the sticks" tampa-2 philosophy is less effective now that the players are older. we need more pressure on the qb so that the linebackers don't have so much pressure on them to make difficult tackles on 3rd down.

 

 

I'm pretty sure DVOA takes situational things like down, distance, etc. into account, and they were 7th.

[David]

actually, i take back what i said, i was misled. the bears were actually 6th in the NFL last year in preventing 3rd down conversions. they were at 34.9%, pittsburgh led at 31.5%.

 

i stand corrected.

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-3rd-down-conversion-pct

 

 

I probably should've kept reading before posting.

[David]

well, part of that is that the defense couldn't get off the field after 3rd downs. they were terrible at it, for whatever reason. it's possible that this "stick 'em between the sticks" tampa-2 philosophy is less effective now that the players are older. we need more pressure on the qb so that the linebackers don't have so much pressure on them to make difficult tackles on 3rd down.

 

What was their rate on 3rd downs?

 

You're right though, this is one of the problems I have with some of the Football Outsiders stuff. It's harder to do "rate" stats in football than baseball because of situations. I understand yards per play is trying to evaluate a defense independent of that team's own offense that forces them to be on the field too much. But you can have a relatively low ypp but not get off the field because you can't get a stop on 3rd down or force turnovers.

Not saying either of those were the case with the Bears though, haven't looked at the numbers and compared.

 

 

Actually, I think that's the beauty of the Football Outsiders stuff. As I just mentioned, DVOA takes situations into account. It incorporates things like time left in the game, down, distance, field position, etc. and attempts to put a value on those things. That's the type of thing you don't get with your standard run of the mill metrics.

 

DVOA

 

DVOA is the acronym for Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. The original Football Outsiders statistic, it was created by Aaron Schatz, and has since seen several updates. The statistic measures the success of a given play, then compares it to the league-average level of success for that play given the situation at the time (score, time remaining, down and distance to go, location on the field, caliber of opponent, and so on). The system is applied to every play of the season, to provide DVOA rankings both for individual players and teams as a whole.

 

In all cases, a DVOA rating of 0% is equivalent to league-average performance. Positive DVOA numbers represent above-average performance by the offense and below-average performance by the defense, while negative numbers represent the opposite.

[Magnetic Curses]

actually, i take back what i said, i was misled. the bears were actually 6th in the NFL last year in preventing 3rd down conversions. they were at 34.9%, pittsburgh led at 31.5%.

 

i stand corrected.

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-3rd-down-conversion-pct

 

 

I probably should've kept reading before posting.

 

no worries. but it appears that the bears defense WAS pretty bad in the 4th quarter last year. i can't find 4th quarter 3rd down conversion %, but in terms of time of possession and scoring, they either tired at the end or their play-calling was totally chicken [expletive]. but probably both. i though lovie and turner made some really gutless decisions last year late in games.

[David]

actually, i take back what i said, i was misled. the bears were actually 6th in the NFL last year in preventing 3rd down conversions. they were at 34.9%, pittsburgh led at 31.5%.

 

i stand corrected.

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-3rd-down-conversion-pct

 

 

I probably should've kept reading before posting.

 

no worries. but it appears that the bears defense WAS pretty bad in the 4th quarter last year. i can't find 4th quarter 3rd down conversion %, but in terms of time of possession and scoring, they either tired at the end or their play-calling was totally chicken [expletive]. but probably both. i though lovie and turner made some really gutless decisions last year late in games.

 

 

Yea, I was noticing on that link you posted that they were significantly worse in "Last 3." I'm assuming that's the last 3 games, which might (but doesn't necessarily have to - could just have been better opposing offenses... I'm too lazy to look that closely at it but we DID face Houston in that stretch) also suggest that they tired and were worse as a result of it at the end of the year.

[Magnetic Curses]

well, part of that is that the defense couldn't get off the field after 3rd downs. they were terrible at it, for whatever reason. it's possible that this "stick 'em between the sticks" tampa-2 philosophy is less effective now that the players are older. we need more pressure on the qb so that the linebackers don't have so much pressure on them to make difficult tackles on 3rd down.

 

What was their rate on 3rd downs?

 

You're right though, this is one of the problems I have with some of the Football Outsiders stuff. It's harder to do "rate" stats in football than baseball because of situations. I understand yards per play is trying to evaluate a defense independent of that team's own offense that forces them to be on the field too much. But you can have a relatively low ypp but not get off the field because you can't get a stop on 3rd down or force turnovers.

Not saying either of those were the case with the Bears though, haven't looked at the numbers and compared.

 

 

Actually, I think that's the beauty of the Football Outsiders stuff. As I just mentioned, DVOA takes situations into account. It incorporates things like time left in the game, down, distance, field position, etc. and attempts to put a value on those things. That's the type of thing you don't get with your standard run of the mill metrics.

 

DVOA

 

DVOA is the acronym for Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. The original Football Outsiders statistic, it was created by Aaron Schatz, and has since seen several updates. The statistic measures the success of a given play, then compares it to the league-average level of success for that play given the situation at the time (score, time remaining, down and distance to go, location on the field, caliber of opponent, and so on). The system is applied to every play of the season, to provide DVOA rankings both for individual players and teams as a whole.

 

In all cases, a DVOA rating of 0% is equivalent to league-average performance. Positive DVOA numbers represent above-average performance by the offense and below-average performance by the defense, while negative numbers represent the opposite.

 

i don't know all that much about dvoa, but how does it weight important situations in tight games as opposed to frivolous situations in blowouts? and isn't the mere fact that a weighting system exists suggest a human pollution in all of it?

[David]

Definitely, and as a result of that I guess you have to put a certain level of trust in the hope that they're doing a decent job in weighing it. They've been working on it for a few years. It's similar to what we deal with with some of the baseball metrics, too, especially defensive. Even things like LD%age have a human element in them. The way I figure it, at least they're trying.

 

I don't know DVOA well enough myself to attempt to explain it, but there's a pretty in depth description of it here... http://footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

 

 

The FO stuff may not be perfect, but I think it's still far superior to any numbers you're going to come up with at NFL.com, FWIW, and I think that just based on the results and the numbers and rankings they come up with, it tends to produce results that, at the very least, logically seem to make sense. Unless you really have a good grasp of the numbers and how they're calculating them (and I can't say that I do), though, I think there's definitely a lot of blind faith that goes into it.

Edited September 9, 2009 by David

[Banedon]

Yeah, FO is a great read...and they certainly break things down with a lot more though and accuracy than Mark Schlereth or Trent Dilfer or Keyshawn Johnson or whatever schlubs ESPN is employing this week.

 

Nothing is ever perfect, but it's closer than anything else right now.

[Magnetic Curses]

Definitely, and as a result of that I guess you have to put a certain level of trust in the hope that they're doing a decent job in weighing it. They've been working on it for a few years. It's similar to what we deal with with some of the baseball metrics, too, especially defensive. Even things like LD%age have a human element in them. The way I figure it, at least they're trying.

 

I don't know DVOA well enough myself to attempt to explain it, but there's a pretty in depth description of it here... http://footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

 

 

The FO stuff may not be perfect, but I think it's still far superior to any numbers you're going to come up with at NFL.com, FWIW, and I think that just based on the results and the numbers and rankings they come up with, it tends to produce results that, at the very least, logically seem to make sense. Unless you really have a good grasp of the numbers and how they're calculating them (and I can't say that I do), though, I think there's definitely a lot of blind faith that goes into it.

 

i'd rather put trust in FO than in the usual suspects when putting everything together and in context. i like personal testimones of ex-players regarding what it's like to be in an NFL locker room or to learn a new playbook or defense, but insomuch as putting it all together to understand results, you have to go with statisticians.

[David]

Exactly. Football is the one sport I have a lot of interest in what the players have to say because they really have to have a great understanding of what's going on on the field (especially certain positions, like QB, safety, etc.) in order to play the sport well. In that sense, they can have a lot of insight into what is actually going on, which I think is a lot different from baseball. I think lots of baseball players really don't have much of a clue of what is going on and what makes for successful baseball (in lots of cases, what they think and what is true is in direct opposition) and they don't really have to. There isn't a ton of strategy that goes into it, especially compared to football, but I digress.

[Magnetic Curses]

yeah, football is an extremely complicated sport, and it's pretty cool listening to the people who played it trying to put the experience into layman's terms.

[bukie]

Exactly. Football is the one sport I have a lot of interest in what the players have to say because they really have to have a great understanding of what's going on on the field (especially certain positions, like QB, safety, etc.) in order to play the sport well. In that sense, they can have a lot of insight into what is actually going on, which I think is a lot different from baseball. I think lots of baseball players really don't have much of a clue of what is going on and what makes for successful baseball (in lots of cases, what they think and what is true is in direct opposition) and they don't really have to. There isn't a ton of strategy that goes into it, especially compared to football, but I digress.

To me, baseball is a series of one-on-one efforts masquerading as a team sport. Pitcher to batter. Batter to fielder. Pitcher to catcher. Fielder to first baseman. As such, it involves very simple interactions that are difficult for managers and other teammates to affect. Really, the only thing a manager can do is limit a player's options. Call for a sacrifice or hit and run? Batter is limited to a single option: bunt/swing. Call for a steal? Runner is limited to a single option: run. Call for a pitchout? Limits the pitcher to a single option.

 

As such, statistics in baseball show much more about an individual's impact on the game as a whole, as it's fairly simple to independently analyze an individual's efforts.

 

Football, though? Every play is dependent on all 11 players out on the field. Even something as simple as a QB sneak is dependent on blocking efforts of 10 other players. A run up the middle could call for 3 receivers to run distraction routes, one guard to pull around the line and lead the hole, two linemen to run block left, two linemen to run block right, assign the QB to offer a trailing block, and so forth. One player missing an assignment (such as a WR taking the play off) can key the defense to the play call and ruin the whole play. It looks like the RB gained -1 yard, but in reality, it was a team failure.

[jersey cubs fan]

Even something as simple as a QB sneak is dependent on blocking efforts of 10 other players.

 

No it isn't. At most it depends on 2 other guys, but more often than not it just depends on the QB getting the ball and falling forward before the lineman react.

[bukie]

Even something as simple as a QB sneak is dependent on blocking efforts of 10 other players.

 

No it isn't. At most it depends on 2 other guys, but more often than not it just depends on the QB getting the ball and falling forward before the lineman react.

Yeah, in hindsight, I probably oversimplified my example a bit too much. Should've just stuck with a run play up the middle with the pull block.

[hawkeyecub]

I got into the FO stuff a couple years ago and was a big believer. I still like to read the articles and analysis but haven't been able to fully buy in to the numbers. There are just so many things that go completely against what I see with my own eyes and I know that probably sounds like a baseball fan in the '80s replying to Bill James stuff.

[Soul]

The thing I'm worried about: if we lose at GB, then there's Pitt and a road game in Seattle.

 

An 0-3 start would put a damper on the excitement, most certainly.

 

We got a tough draw to open the season, while the Vikings get to pound the league's dregs to almost certainly shoot out of the gate, and the Packers get the Bungles and the Rams after they play us.

[Banedon]

I got into the FO stuff a couple years ago and was a big believer. I still like to read the articles and analysis but haven't been able to fully buy in to the numbers. There are just so many things that go completely against what I see with my own eyes and I know that probably sounds like a baseball fan in the '80s replying to Bill James stuff.

 

If the numbers agreed with all of your perceptions, there'd be no need for the numbers! ;)

[jersey cubs fan]

The thing I'm worried about: if we lose at GB, then there's Pitt and a road game in Seattle.

 

An 0-3 start would put a damper on the excitement, most certainly.

 

We got a tough draw to open the season, while the Vikings get to pound the league's dregs to almost certainly shoot out of the gate, and the Packers get the Bungles and the Rams after they play us.

 

The excitement would dwindle, but the opportunity for success would not disappear.

[hawkeyecub]

I got into the FO stuff a couple years ago and was a big believer. I still like to read the articles and analysis but haven't been able to fully buy in to the numbers. There are just so many things that go completely against what I see with my own eyes and I know that probably sounds like a baseball fan in the '80s replying to Bill James stuff.

 

If the numbers agreed with all of your perceptions, there'd be no need for the numbers! ;)

 

Right. I just don't trust their formulas for determining value yet.

 

Case in point, running back performance last year: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

[Banedon]

I got into the FO stuff a couple years ago and was a big believer. I still like to read the articles and analysis but haven't been able to fully buy in to the numbers. There are just so many things that go completely against what I see with my own eyes and I know that probably sounds like a baseball fan in the '80s replying to Bill James stuff.

 

If the numbers agreed with all of your perceptions, there'd be no need for the numbers! ;)

 

Right. I just don't trust their formulas for determining value yet.

 

Case in point, running back performance last year: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

 

Heh...fair enough. I like their defensive stats better than the their offensive ones generally.

[ELCABALLO45]

Is it Sunday yet?