KevinRome Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I like how it combines an attribute of a team's offense and defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Weren't the Vikes up +2 turnovers and 2 plays over 20 yards when we beat them? You got me - what I meant was, I'll open another beer and watch as we cruise to victory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 You got me - what I meant was, I'll open another beer and watch as we cruise to victory! That's better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Love TBD, only here can a Super Bowl winning coach say "You'd be hard-pressed to find any controllable statistical combination that has quite the same rate of predictive success." and the retort is "Not really sold on this". Super Bowl coaches aren't exactly known for their mathematical acumen. Plus, there's a reason Billick is in the booth and Marvin Lewis is on the sidelines, but that's going off topic. First of all, is this metric actually predicting anything, or is it just telling you what happened? Let's say I told you, "Teams that score more than 40 points and commit no turnovers have a 99% chance of winning -- you'd be hard-pressed to find any controllable statistical combination that has quite the same rate of predictive success." You would probably sarcastically laugh, "No kidding." I haven't really predicted anything, I've simply told you teams that score a lot of points and don't turn the ball over win games. We all know that. Billick is essentially saying the same thing - get turnovers and then score (explosive plays). In the end it's not telling us anything that we don't already know. The key word here is "controllable." Can you really control and predict turnovers for a game? For a month? For half a season? Seattle led the league in turnovers last year, this year they are struggling to stay in the black. Our 2011 Bills stormed to a 5-2 start primarily based on turnovers. When the turnovers dried up, well...you know the rest. I think you can win the turnover battle consistently if you have the elitest of the elite QBs - a Rogers, Manning, or Brady. Is that really telling us anything? Get a top 5 QB and you will have success? Not exactly a revelation. For the record I predict we will have a negative toxic differential for the month of December. Any guesses why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meark Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Ok side note but does everyone agree that old spice robot is the creepiest commercial ever? Is this seat taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 While I'm a proud member of the Hacketts Critics Club, I've been wondering about this all year. What I want to see as a fan is an offense that can move the ball - by ground or air - consistently all game long. Think early 90s Bills. We obviously don't have the talent for that yet. But maybe what Hackett is going for instead is an offense that produces big plays and doesn't turn the ball over. I've also been a sometime critic of Jim Schwartz. I'd like to see more blitzes from him and more creative defenses, a la Rex Ryan or Mike Pettine. What he gives instead is a no frills Steady Eddy D. I doubt if it's coincidental that the Bills excel at the Toxic Differential. Billick says the Toxic Differential is widely used because it has high predictive success so I'm sure Marrone et al. use some version of it. In highly competitive environments, people don't excel by accident. They excel because they have a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The Bills were helped out tremendously in this ranking by Geno and Vick becoming North Jersey bakers in the Jet game last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Super Bowl coaches aren't exactly known for their mathematical acumen. Plus, there's a reason Billick is in the booth and Marvin Lewis is on the sidelines, but that's going off topic. First of all, is this metric actually predicting anything, or is it just telling you what happened? Let's say I told you, "Teams that score more than 40 points and commit no turnovers have a 99% chance of winning -- you'd be hard-pressed to find any controllable statistical combination that has quite the same rate of predictive success." You would probably sarcastically laugh, "No kidding." I haven't really predicted anything, I've simply told you teams that score a lot of points and don't turn the ball over win games. We all know that. Billick is essentially saying the same thing - get turnovers and then score (explosive plays). In the end it's not telling us anything that we don't already know. The key word here is "controllable." Can you really control and predict turnovers for a game? For a month? For half a season? Seattle led the league in turnovers last year, this year they are struggling to stay in the black. Our 2011 Bills stormed to a 5-2 start primarily based on turnovers. When the turnovers dried up, well...you know the rest. I think you can win the turnover battle consistently if you have the elitest of the elite QBs - a Rogers, Manning, or Brady. Is that really telling us anything? Get a top 5 QB and you will have success? Not exactly a revelation. For the record I predict we will have a negative toxic differential for the month of December. Any guesses why? I really doubt a Super Bowl winning coach, even an unemployed one, is quite as unintelligent as you seem to think. I think what Billick is arguing is that a team with a good Toxic Differential is likely to beat a team with a bad Toxic Differential. The bigger the differential, the more probable the result. So Toxic Differential is predictive. There are so many metrics in football, football coaches have long been trying to find out which ones matter most. While some posters on this board love QBR and PFF ratings, I doubt if these are used much by coaches. According to Billick, and he would know, coaches do look at turnovers and big plays because they are meaningful - more meaningful than many other stats. You make an interesting point about turnovers because they have a rather random nature. You can't control them but as a coach you can influence turnover numbers in a number of ways. Given their importance, you need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Sorry if this is shown elsewhere but I found this article particularly interesting and worthy of it's own thread. This bills sit ranked at #1 with a toxic differential of +20. http://www.nfl.com/n...the-second-half Discuss... Uh-Oh. We might be coming onto the radar of some people who know something about football :(. I think we play better when we "don't get no respect" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Uh-Oh. We might be coming onto the radar of some people who know something about football :(. I think we play better when we "don't get no respect" Worry not, because I have a feeling that the majority in the "football expert" community will pick KC to beat the Bills in week 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luap22 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Bills plus 20 Chiefs plus 1 Chiefs 34 Miami 15 Chiefs 41 NE 14 Chiefs 23 SD 20 Chiefs 17 Den 24 Chiefs 17 SanF 22 Yikes, each game on turnovers is different Reality on Chiefs game, watch out, start to worry. We will need a perfect game on both sides of the ball. Go Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Can someone clear something up for me (I didn't read the whole thing)? What does the JJ Watt play count as? Is it a turnover & a negative explosive play (and subsequently the reverse for Houston) or does it only count once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Super Bowl coaches aren't exactly known for their mathematical acumen. Plus, there's a reason Billick is in the booth and Marvin Lewis is on the sidelines, but that's going off topic. First of all, is this metric actually predicting anything, or is it just telling you what happened? Let's say I told you, "Teams that score more than 40 points and commit no turnovers have a 99% chance of winning -- you'd be hard-pressed to find any controllable statistical combination that has quite the same rate of predictive success." You would probably sarcastically laugh, "No kidding." I haven't really predicted anything, I've simply told you teams that score a lot of points and don't turn the ball over win games. We all know that. Billick is essentially saying the same thing - get turnovers and then score (explosive plays). In the end it's not telling us anything that we don't already know. The key word here is "controllable." Can you really control and predict turnovers for a game? For a month? For half a season? Seattle led the league in turnovers last year, this year they are struggling to stay in the black. Our 2011 Bills stormed to a 5-2 start primarily based on turnovers. When the turnovers dried up, well...you know the rest. I think you can win the turnover battle consistently if you have the elitest of the elite QBs - a Rogers, Manning, or Brady. Is that really telling us anything? Get a top 5 QB and you will have success? Not exactly a revelation. For the record I predict we will have a negative toxic differential for the month of December. Any guesses why? QCity, you raise some interesting points. One can make the same point about any statistic. Statistics, by their nature, only measure what's already happened. The fundamental premise of statistical analysis is that "past performance is predictive of future success" to borrow a phrase from financial product fine print. If you are right and turnovers are totally random, then it's useless. I think most football mavens believe that turnovers are not random, that both offensive and defensive players influence them. Offensive players must meticulously build habits to protect the ball. Defensive players must drill to strip the ball to the point where it's instinctive in real time, and also try to pick up play patterns and QB habits through film study to put themselves in the right position to intercept. I don't think it's random that Seattle has more turnovers this year. They are not as dominant defensively. They were a bit too aggressive (early) on pass D last year IMO, which allowed them to strip tip and ballhawk. The NFL has cracked down a bit and taken some of those away. Wilson is playing from behind more often, less able to rely on the running game, and sometimes forcing passes trying to make things happen, as all QB do when playing from behind. I also don't think it's random that the Bills turnovers dried up. Film got out and word got around, "these guys are ball hawks, watch it". Plus as I recall, good QB play had something to do with the wins and plummeting QB effectiveness had a lot to do with the losses. I also don't think you should under rate the intelligence and/or mathematical acumen of Super Bowl coaches - do you have examples showing us that they're NOT mathematically able? I can't claim to know any Superbowl coaches, but one of my former bosses knew Mike Martz very well socially (invited to children's weddings both ways well) and had met Dick Vermeil during the Rams Superbowl years. My former boss is one smart cookie and knows one when he sees one - he said Vermeil was a very smart man and also a great gentleman and an obvious "people person", very gracious and personable. He said Martz was an arrogant a** (they were family friends because their wives hit it off), but smart to back it up. Edited October 30, 2014 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I thought "toxic differential" referred to how appealing a garbage plate is as it enters, as opposed to how it exits, the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I really doubt a Super Bowl winning coach, even an unemployed one, is quite as unintelligent as you seem to think. I also don't think you should under rate the intelligence and/or mathematical acumen of Super Bowl coaches I really wasn't trying to paint Billick as unintelligent, I was just trying to say his grasp on statistics probably isn't as strong as he thinks (I could be wrong). I've worked with many accomplished people that I consider to be intelligent (physicians, engineers, even CFOs paid to analyze numbers) and I am always a bit taken aback when I discover they don't fully grasp basic probability. Is there a correlation between successful people and aptitude with probability? In my experience, not a strong one (I'd estimate an r-squared of .3 ) do you have examples showing us that they're NOT mathematically able? I don't, however I can give you an example of a guy talking out of both sides of his mouth. Yesterday Billick told us the Bills were atop his toxic differential list (predicting success) and today he predicts us to miss the playoffs. Maybe I'm missing something? Edited October 30, 2014 by QCity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Worry not, because I have a feeling that the majority in the "football expert" community will pick KC to beat the Bills in week 10. +1 ans we know what usually happens when they do that!! Can someone clear something up for me (I didn't read the whole thing)? What does the JJ Watt play count as? Is it a turnover & a negative explosive play (and subsequently the reverse for Houston) or does it only count once? pick 1 JJ Watt was in the right place at the right time or JJ Watt was in the wrong place at the wrong time I would classify that as both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Interesting. We have a tough schedule ahead of us but our defense is about as good as it gets, Sammy is blossoming, and Hogan and Woods are looking good. Chandler is effective and hopefully Jackson will be back in a few weeks. Orton is looking very good and can only improve as he gets more experience with this offense. I am optimistic about our chances this year. Beating the Patriots and taking the division? Priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 +1 ans we know what usually happens when they do that!! pick 1 JJ Watt was in the right place at the right time or JJ Watt was in the wrong place at the wrong time I would classify that as both I must not have explained it clearly. Does it count in both columns (explosive play and turnover) or just a turnover? I am just trying to figure out how big defense plays may or may not skew the number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Can someone clear something up for me (I didn't read the whole thing)? What does the JJ Watt play count as? Is it a turnover & a negative explosive play (and subsequently the reverse for Houston) or does it only count once? It seems that the explosive play statistic is based upon actual yards gained by an offense on a particular play, so I'd presume the Watt pick-6 is only a +1 for Houston and -1 for Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 It seems that the explosive play statistic is based upon actual yards gained by an offense on a particular play, so I'd presume the Watt pick-6 is only a +1 for Houston and -1 for Buffalo. thanks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts