FiveThirtyEight: This Bills Team Worse Than Most Bills Teams this Century

[bmur66]

And yet here we stand. 

Nothing is over until we say it's over.

 

[hondo in seattle]

The statistics tell a bad story.  Our offense isn't very good.  Our defense isn't very good.  Yet, here we are in the playoffs after 17 years.  

 

To evaluate statistics, there's got to be a way to include turnovers.  Maybe Billick's "toxic differential" is the key.  I don't know.  But cumulative yardage and point totals just don't tell the whole story.

I think there's something about grit and resiliency, too, that doesn't show up in the stats.  Other teams may outgain us because they have more talent.  But at critical times, the Bills will fight a little bit harder, give just a little more.  And sometimes, that extra effort transforms a loss into a win.  

Edited January 4, 2018 by hondo in seattle

[BarleyNY]

3 hours ago, boater said:

538 also predicted HRC for President.

 

I follow 538 quite a bit.  As Election Day neared they only had HRC as a very slight favorite - and that was with the caveat that there was a very real possibility of Trump winning due to the potential of high turnout among many people typically considered unlikely to vote.  They were the only unbiased outlet that I saw give Trump a real chance to win.

[Punt75]

3 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

This year’s Bills team finished 9-7, but based on Football Outsiders’ estimated wins and Pythagorean wins metrics,¹ it only earned 6.8 and 6.3 wins, respectively. Put another way, an NFL team that gets outscored by 57 points on the year (as the Bills did) mathematically ought to win about six or seven games.

 

But it’s not just about wins. Pick a metric of team strength, and the Bills are typically at or below the median: 21st in scoring differential, 15th in FiveThirtyEight’s Elo ratings, 23rd in Simple Rating System,² 21st in Defense-adjusted Value Over Average.³

 

These Bills don’t stack up well against the 17 iterations that came before them, either:

 

Is their a metric for HEART, MOTIVATION and GREAT COACHING???

[NoSaint]

7 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

The statistics tell a bad story.  Our offense isn't very good.  Our defense isn't very good.  Yet, here we are in the playoffs after 17 years.  

 

To evaluate statistics, there's got to be a way to include turnovers.  Maybe Billick's "toxic differential" is the key.  I don't know.  But cumulative yardage and point totals just don't tell the whole story.

I think there's something about grit and resiliency, too, that doesn't show up in the stats.  Other teams may outgain us because they have more talent.  But at critical times, the Bills will fight a little bit harder, give just a little more.  And sometimes, that extra effort transforms a loss into a win.  

 

 

Theres just not a huuuuge gap between the 10the and 20th team. You get a few bounces and some luck in tie breakers and you are in. We were probably more like 20 but got a lot of those bounces and snuck in with a weak conference.

 

I think several of the rosters from years past would be favored against this year.

 

thats what was so remarkable about being a middle of the road team most of the stretch and never getting in- statistically we should’ve gotten in on dumb luck a couple times. 

 

No shame in that- several teams a year do the same and they sometimes make a little noise.

7 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

I follow 538 quite a bit.  As Election Day neared they only had HRC as a very slight favorite - and that was with the caveat that there was a very real possibility of Trump winning due to the potential of high turnout among many people typically considered unlikely to vote.  They were the only unbiased outlet that I saw give Trump a real chance to win.

 

Mans people seem to really struggle with the difference between “more or less likely” and “bet your child’s life guarantee”

 

we we can be a statistical long shot and still get in without ruining models. In fact, that happening sometimes helps support the model. If you project a 30% chance and it NEVER happens, that’s strange.

[LABILLBACKER]

3 hours ago, teef said:

absolutely.  i don't think this roster is anywhere near where the staff wants it to be.  it will certainly be closer next year, but i still don't think it will be the final product.

It won't be where they want it until the end of year 3. But this is a wonderful start by a team and coaches that flat out compete. Next on the wish list is a franchise QB and begin overhauling the trenches. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

The 2017 Bills are a terrible football team that snuck in. That's why the drought was so unreal. The Bills should have snuck in at some point over the drought. 

 

 

[hondo in seattle]

People were probably telling McD that he'd be able to compete for the playoffs in his 2nd  or 3rd year.  But he went after it this year, despite obvious holes in the roster.

 

This is not a great team.  But they have heart.  I don't expect them to make a lot of noise but I wouldn't be shocked if they upset the Jags.  

[Buffalo_Stampede]

4 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

People were probably telling McD that he'd be able to compete for the playoffs in his 2nd  or 3rd year.  But he went after it this year, despite obvious holes in the roster.

 

This is not a great team.  But they have heart.  I don't expect them to make a lot of noise but I wouldn't be shocked if they upset the Jags.  

They do have a pretty good secondary when healthy, and they are healthy. If they force turnovers they can beat nearly anyone. 

 

They just don't have the pass rush and lbs to really pressure an offense. 

 

Our offense  lacks the explosive plays they lived on for the past couple years. Without those plays its a terrible offense. 

[vincec]

Probably true. This team is certainly not better that Marrone’s 9-7 team or Mularkey’s 9-7 team that choked to Pittsburgh. But this year 9-7 gets in so they have a chance to prove everyone wrong.

[hondo in seattle]

4 minutes ago, TheTruthHurts said:

They do have a pretty good secondary when healthy, and they are healthy. If they force turnovers they can beat nearly anyone. 

 

They just don't have the pass rush and lbs to really pressure an offense. 

 

Our offense  lacks the explosive plays they lived on for the past couple years. Without those plays its a terrible offense. 

 

Agree with all of this.  The secondary is, in fact, pretty good.  When they produce turnovers, it can change the complexion of a game.  The problem, though, is that Marrone is probably going to run 60+% of the time given the matchups.  

 

I'm really hoping Shady's healthy because we don't have a lot of weapons on offense.  

[Mat68]

None of those teams beats Atlanta in Atlanta or out plays a hot Broncos team.  

[Big Turk]

4 hours ago, CuddyDark said:

Coaching has been better for the most part. Coaching is better than stats or talent.

 

Yeah those 3 games where the Bills played like a high school team really skewed the stats pretty badly 

[BarleyNY]

58 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

Mans people seem to really struggle with the difference between “more or less likely” and “bet your child’s life guarantee”

 

we we can be a statistical long shot and still get in without ruining models. In fact, that happening sometimes helps support the model. If you project a 30% chance and it NEVER happens, that’s strange.

 

 

Yup.  Not a lot of people understand statistics or modeling. 

[Young34]

Feels good to be the underdog. Typical Bills fashion.

5 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

This year’s Bills team finished 9-7, but based on Football Outsiders’ estimated wins and Pythagorean wins metrics,¹ it only earned 6.8 and 6.3 wins, respectively. Put another way, an NFL team that gets outscored by 57 points on the year (as the Bills did) mathematically ought to win about six or seven games.

 

But it’s not just about wins. Pick a metric of team strength, and the Bills are typically at or below the median: 21st in scoring differential, 15th in FiveThirtyEight’s Elo ratings, 23rd in Simple Rating System,² 21st in Defense-adjusted Value Over Average.³

 

These Bills don’t stack up well against the 17 iterations that came before them, either:

As far as the scoring differential goes, if we don't start Peterman that game the 30 point loss likely would have been reduced without an extra five turnovers. That would bring the math up significantly.

 

Seems wrong to assign a "mathematically ought to win X games" when one specific loss this season was half of the overall total. Total outlier imo.

[26CornerBlitz]

1-4: Aaron Schatz, ESPN and Football Outsiders, with Schopp and the Bulldog (16:43)

[Pbomb]

On 1/3/2018 at 3:39 PM, John in Jax said:

Umm, no. How was the coaching for the Jets game, AFTER 10 DAYS TO GET READY? And then the next two after that!?

Umm , the jets game was a thursday game, only 3 days to get ready

[Pirate Angel]

We didn't kill ourselves with penalties and the AFC is relatively weak this year

[MTBill]

This is fascinating to an analytics guy...  but only one example.  To make a case for the analytics, what are the numbers for other teams in the same period?  What about for the successful teams in the period?

Most analytic engines would have probably said the 18-0 Patriots should have cakewalked the Giants...  but that didn't happen.  Paper wins and paper losses are just that...  on paper.  It's what happens on the field that matters.

Even more interesting is - despite all the analytics, they made it.  Why?  What is missing in the analytics - and can that be quantified?  If so, Vegas has a job for you.

[RaoulDuke79]