SBLIII Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 DVOA told us the Packers and Titans were weak #1 seeds. Them getting upset is not a surprise according to DVOA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guy Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 1 minute ago, SkippyX said: No, you do that. I already know it to be true through observation and review. I don't care if others pretend its not reality. I just bring it up every time a fly gets off a big pile in Jerrah World and buzzes by my face on random threads. There is no human (myself included) who knows anything reliably over the long haul "through observation and review." This is why statistics exist -- because humans can't perform that number and complexity of mental/numerical operations. If you insist you can, we can immediately discount your perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DontTazeMeBro Posted January 23, 2022 Author Share Posted January 23, 2022 6 minutes ago, SBLIII said: DVOA told us the Packers and Titans were weak #1 seeds. Them getting upset is not a surprise according to DVOA. It also has Dallas #1. And I overrated Dallas too so if you want to look past that. Seattle at #7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, The Guy said: There is no human (myself included) who knows anything reliably over the long haul "through observation and review." This is why statistics exist -- because humans can't perform that number and complexity of mental/numerical operations. If you insist you can, we can immediately discount your perspective. Sorry, you can look at 89 starts from a player and see how he thrives behind a steamroller 120+ or 140+ rushing offense and falls apart when they don't dominate on the ground. Its right there on pro football reference and I've watched probably 40% of those games and seen highlights for almost all of them. You owe nothing to Matts so don't become his disciple on this. Its not your fight. Its pathetic that he's still coming at me over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBLIII Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 Just now, DontTazeMeBro said: It also has Dallas #1. And I overrated Dallas too so if you want to look past that. Seattle at #7. It doesn't tell the whole story obviously and Dallas DVOA was propped up the same way the Patriots was by beating several terrible teams but for the Packers and Titans it was a good indicator. The Packers played too many close games to be a reliable SB favorite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guy Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 11 minutes ago, SkippyX said: Sorry, you can look at 89 starts from a player and see how he thrives behind a steamroller 120+ or 140+ rushing offense and falls apart when they don't dominate on the ground. Its right there on pro football reference and I've watched probably 40% of those games and seen highlights for almost all of them. You owe nothing to Matts so don't become his disciple on this. Its not your fight. Its pathetic that he's still coming at me over it. The correlation between Dallas's passer rating and their number of rushing yards, game-by-game between 2016 and 2021 (including the playoffs), is 0.33. So, 11% of the variance in Prescott's passer rating is explained by Dallas's number of rushing yards. 89% of the variance in his passer rating is unexplained by it. Here are the data: Rate Yds 140.9 108 151.6 171 149.2 164 120.2 51 158.3 89 138 223 112.9 85 130.3 245 117.4 191 140.3 168 127.2 118 103.2 138 93.8 189 105.2 163 128 265 137.1 122 104.9 142 123.5 213 101.7 172 99.3 50 116.6 75 93.6 61 104 180 134.7 151 101.4 60 143.3 160 118.7 201 108.7 122 108.6 45 114.7 194 77.8 187 121.7 127 68.6 40 141.7 99 106.8 131 93.4 182 118.6 183 107.5 206 96.2 72 121.6 146 91.4 235 83.8 122 91.8 103 123.8 263 85.9 111 122.6 101 97.8 87 95.6 78 73.9 78 123.5 114 106.2 64 123.6 199 117.9 180 108.9 163 108.3 140 45.4 108 52.5 69 90.5 129 85.3 129 95.4 138 54.5 166 66.5 98 96.5 73 102.8 171 115.6 99 106.8 80 83.6 164 99.2 50 100.5 189 83.2 82 92.5 136 105 125 96.5 126 65.8 97 72.6 144 84.8 60 79 146 58.8 122 98.6 125 71.2 77 69.4 101 103.7 102 99 185 82.2 169 82.1 107 28.8 112 60.6 79 59.5 126 51.2 128 81.1 94 86.5 132 64.7 112 73.2 45 89.4 129 64.2 109 74.5 54 46.4 83 64.6 133 66.3 108 87.8 198 57.9 82 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guy Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 3 minutes ago, The Guy said: The correlation between Dallas's passer rating and their number of rushing yards, game-by-game between 2016 and 2021 (including the playoffs), is 0.33. So, 11% of the variance in Prescott's passer rating is explained by Dallas's number of rushing yards. 89% of the variance in his passer rating is unexplained by it. Here are the data: Rate Yds 140.9 108 151.6 171 149.2 164 120.2 51 158.3 89 138 223 112.9 85 130.3 245 117.4 191 140.3 168 127.2 118 103.2 138 93.8 189 105.2 163 128 265 137.1 122 104.9 142 123.5 213 101.7 172 99.3 50 116.6 75 93.6 61 104 180 134.7 151 101.4 60 143.3 160 118.7 201 108.7 122 108.6 45 114.7 194 77.8 187 121.7 127 68.6 40 141.7 99 106.8 131 93.4 182 118.6 183 107.5 206 96.2 72 121.6 146 91.4 235 83.8 122 91.8 103 123.8 263 85.9 111 122.6 101 97.8 87 95.6 78 73.9 78 123.5 114 106.2 64 123.6 199 117.9 180 108.9 163 108.3 140 45.4 108 52.5 69 90.5 129 85.3 129 95.4 138 54.5 166 66.5 98 96.5 73 102.8 171 115.6 99 106.8 80 83.6 164 99.2 50 100.5 189 83.2 82 92.5 136 105 125 96.5 126 65.8 97 72.6 144 84.8 60 79 146 58.8 122 98.6 125 71.2 77 69.4 101 103.7 102 99 185 82.2 169 82.1 107 28.8 112 60.6 79 59.5 126 51.2 128 81.1 94 86.5 132 64.7 112 73.2 45 89.4 129 64.2 109 74.5 54 46.4 83 64.6 133 66.3 108 87.8 198 57.9 82 If we remove the games Prescott didn't play due to injury in 2020, the correlation changes to 0.32. No difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11sanchez11 Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 18 minutes ago, DontTazeMeBro said: It also has Dallas #1. And I overrated Dallas too so if you want to look past that. Seattle at #7. I'm pretty sure the 49ers were #1 in weighted DVOA tho (or at least above Dallas). Obvi the Boys played better over the course of the year but I think the 49ers were playing better at the end of the szn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 The 2016 Cowboys were 10-0 when running for 140+ and 3-4 when not. The 2017 Cowboys were 3-2 when running for 140+ and 6-5 when not. The 2018 Cowboys were 6-1 when running for 140+ and 4-6 when not. The 2019 Cowboys were 6-0 when running for 140+ and 2-8 when not. The 2020 Cowboys did not run for 140+ in Dak's 5 starts. They were 2-3 The 2021 Cowboys were 5-0 with Dak when running for 140+. They were 5-5 when not. * Cooper Rush was 1-0 when the Cowboys only ran for 78. I see 28-3 with 140+ on the ground and 22-31 when not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guy Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 1 minute ago, SkippyX said: The 2016 Cowboys were 10-0 when running for 140+ and 3-4 when not. The 2017 Cowboys were 3-2 when running for 140+ and 6-5 when not. The 2018 Cowboys were 6-1 when running for 140+ and 4-6 when not. The 2019 Cowboys were 6-0 when running for 140+ and 2-8 when not. The 2020 Cowboys did not run for 140+ in Dak's 5 starts. They were 2-3 The 2021 Cowboys were 5-0 with Dak when running for 140+. They were 5-5 when not. * Cooper Rush was 1-0 when the Cowboys only ran for 78. I see 28-3 with 140+ on the ground and 22-31 when not. Now you're talking about the relationship between the Cowboys' rushing yardage and winning, and not the relationship between their rushing yardage and Prescott's performance. Again, any assessment of the relationship between run game variables and winning has to control for late-game, ball-control, clock-killing running, as that's a confound with winning. You can't argue that running the ball causes winning if in fact winning causes running the ball. If you've already won the game with other variables and are using the run game to control the ball and run out the clock late in the game, the run game hardly caused the win. Rather the run game was an effect of the win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 Dak is 23-14 when he throws for 250+ Zeke is 26-4 when he runs for 100 yards. I'm not interested in the 3rd level nuances of Dak's passer rating. I am just pointing out that the Cowboys running game is how they win football games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guy Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 Just now, SkippyX said: Dak is 23-14 when he throws for 250+ Zeke is 26-4 when he runs for 100 yards. I'm not interested in the 3rd level nuances of Dak's passer rating. I am just pointing out that the Cowboys running game is how they win football games. Control for late-game clock-killing rushing yardage and see what you come up with, and use passing efficiency instead of an arbitrary cutoff of 250+ passing yards. A QB can pass for 250+ yards with 20 attempts or with 50 attempts -- he's a whole lot more efficient with 20 attempts. The league wins with passing efficiency and pass defense. If you're trying to say a team runs counter to that you have to control for confounding variables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.