Why Turnovers don't kill the Bills(or Chiefs) like they do normal teams

[Big Turk]

So there is a lot being made across the media about how much the Bills turn the ball over and why they "can't keep winning" if they don't stop doing it.

 

I believe they are wrong and the reason they are wrong is the Bills and Chiefs are simply not like other teams. 

 

Firstly, the Bills get a lot of takeaways, so in most games even if they have 3 turnovers, they likely are at least getting 2 of their own. They are a net 0 on turnover differential for the season. The important stat isn't how many turnovwrs you have, it's what is the net turnover differential (ie, how many times you get takeaways - how many times the other teams get takeaways). 

 

Bills rank tied for 13th with 0, KC is -3 on the year. 23 giveaways versus 20 takeaways.

 

Secondly, the Bills rarely punt, so in the drives they are not turning the ball over, they score at the 2nd highest points per drive rate in the NFL, next to of course, Kansas City. 

 

The league average for punts is somewhere around 65 for the year. Bills came in at 45, fewest in the NFL in both total and punts/game. That's 20 extra possessions where we either scored points, went for it on 4th down or turned the ball over versus a normal team. If you take our 2.64 points per drive stat and multiply it by 20, that led to an extra 53ish points for the Bills versus a normal team.

 

The Bills have turned the ball over 3+ times on 5 occasions this year(including last week). They are 4-1 in those games. The only game they lost was to the Vikings in OT where they were -2 in TOs instead of the -1 or 0 in the other 4 wins. And that extra TO came on a game ending INT in the RZ in OT.

 

All of their losses have come when they have lost the TO battle in a game, but they are also 6-3 in the 9 games that has happened, so they still win twice as often as they lose, it just makes it a little tougher.

 

I think fans and the media need to start viewing turnovers differently with the Bills and Chiefs. It still matters, but it matters far less than it does for most teams.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Big Turk

[US Egg]

Didn’t someone graph this out very recently?

 

If not, you got one? They help those like me.

Edited January 18, 2023 by I am the egg man

[BeastMaster]

I generally agree with this sentiment 

 

 

 

I also think that when and where the turnovers take place, as well as what the result of the turnover is makes a huge difference.

 

It's lazy analysis to say turnovers will lose you the game without dissecting if it costs you points, or if it's early in the game when you are ahead, etc

[Fleezoid]

Kinda like the lights on a drag racing tree. Bills gotta handicap a light or two to even out the race. 

[GunnerBill]

You know when they matter most for Buffalo and KC? When they play one another. Because in the 5 meetings in the last two seasons the 3 times that the turnover battle was even the Chiefs won. The two occasions when the Bills won the turnover battle, they won the game. 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

25 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

So there is a lot being made across the media about how much the Bills turn the ball over and why they "can't keep winning" if they don't stop doing it.

 

I believe they are wrong and the reason they are wrong is the Bills and Chiefs are simply not like other teams. 

 

Firstly, the Bills get a lot of takeaways, so in most games even if they have 3 turnovers, they likely are at least getting 2 of their own. They are a net 0 on turnover differential for the season. The important stat isn't how many turnovwrs you have, it's what is the net turnover differential (ie, how many times you get takeaways - how many times the other teams get takeaways). 

 

Bills rank tied for 13th with 0, KC is -3 on the year. 23 giveaways versus 20 takeaways.

 

Secondly, the Bills rarely punt, so in the drives they are not turning the ball over, they score at the 2nd highest points per drive rate in the NFL, next to of course, Kansas City. 

 

The league average for punts is somewhere around 65 for the year. Bills came in at 45, fewest in the NFL in both total and punts/game. That's 20 extra possessions where we either scored points, went for it on 4th down or turned the ball over versus a normal team. If you take our 2.64 points per drive stat and multiply it by 20, that led to an extra 53ish points for the Bills versus a normal team.

 

The Bills have turned the ball over 3+ times on 5 occasions this year(including last week). They are 4-1 in those games. The only game they lost was to the Vikings in OT where they were -2 in TOs instead of the -1 or 0 in the other 4 wins. And that extra TO came on a game ending INT in the RZ in OT.

 

All of their losses have come when they have lost the TO battle in a game, but they are also 6-3 in the 9 games that has happened, so they still win twice as often as they lose, it just makes it a little tougher.

 

I think fans and the media need to start viewing turnovers differently with the Bills and Chiefs. It still matters, but it matters far less than it does for most teams.

 

 

Interesting thought that I've has as well. There has to be a cost/benefit element to it. Old school Parcells thought process of don't be so aggressive as to make mistakes may not be as relevant to a game where the rules are skewed as they are.

[dorquemada]

I think I've mentioned before that years back i had done a game predicting algorithm in SAS then SPSS.  The first thing I did was to feed it data and look for correlations between specific stats (net turnovers, point differential, passing vs running,etc), and W/L record.  Long story short, at least in the early 90s, there was, in fact, a correlation between turnovers and W/L but it was weak

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

You know when they matter most for Buffalo and KC? When they play one another. Because in the 5 meetings in the last two seasons the 3 times that the turnover battle was even the Chiefs won. The two occasions when the Bills won the turnover battle, they won the game. 

Overall the Chiefs are 3-2 in those games but turned it over 8x to Bills 3x. All but one of the games, when Chiefs went -4 and Bills won 38-20, were either neutral or +/- 1 so not a big difference. As a matter of fact three of games were dead even 0/0 or 1/1, not  a huge difference. 

[mjt328]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

You know when they matter most for Buffalo and KC? When they play one another. Because in the 5 meetings in the last two seasons the 3 times that the turnover battle was even the Chiefs won. The two occasions when the Bills won the turnover battle, they won the game. 

 

Exactly.

Turnovers are important, because most of them result in either a lost score (3 or 7 points) or an easier score for the other team (3 or 7 points).  Bills turnovers on Saturday led to a Field Goal (only needed 18 yards), a Touchdown (only needed 18 yards) and a Defensive Touchdown.  A total of 17 points.  We got lucky, because the Dolphins also had two turnovers which lead to touchdowns for us.

 

Teams like Buffalo and Kansas City are generally good enough to overcome those point swings, because they are usually 10-14 points better than the opposing team.  That is not the case when they play each other.

[BillsVet]

Regular season statistical analysis projected for use in the playoffs is asinine because the majority of Buffalo's games (11) contributing to +/- came against non-playoff teams.  Sure, you can beat up on bad to mediocre teams turning the ball over a few times because Josh can make up for that against those defenses.    

 

No sane mind believes that turnovers aren't as big a deal in the playoffs where number of possessions matter against better competition.  And that is especially the case going up against strong offenses that score quickly.  A team like CIN or KC having one less possession and Buffalo getting another increases a favorable result.   

[SoCal Deek]

Not to get too into the weeds here but also matters where we turn the ball over. Sunday we turned it over on our side of 50 yard line. Those ones really hurt, and one of course was returned for a touchdown. While we all get upset when Josh turns it over in the opponent’s red zone, I’d be interested to see how often those resulted in the opponent scoring points. 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

6 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

Regular season statistical analysis projected for use in the playoffs is asinine because the majority of Buffalo's games (11) contributing to +/- came against non-playoff teams.  Sure, you can beat up on bad to mediocre teams turning the ball over a few times because Josh can make up for that against those defenses.    

 

No sane mind believes that turnovers aren't as big a deal in the playoffs where number of possessions matter against better competition.  And that is especially the case going up against strong offenses that score quickly.  A team like CIN or KC having one less possession and Buffalo getting another increases a favorable result.   

LOL. a little harsh but.....Of course no one believes in throwing caution to the wind. But, I think both teams play a certain style and much of it depends on the QB and playmakers making off schedule plays. The mindset of both is there can and will  be  some turnovers and they  let their guys be themselves. Correct and move on.

People have been getting their panties in knots because we had some turnovers but still won last week and if we do that this week we won't win. No kidding, I still want my guy to play his game this week and I bet he doesn't make the same mistakes this week.

Edited January 18, 2023 by D. L. Hot-Flamethrower

[strive_for_five_guy]

I get the point that we’re not punting, but I think we’ve gotten lucky in overcoming turnovers, and eventually could come back to bite us.  For instance, is a turnover in scoring position good?  We’re forgoing at least a potential FG in that instance (there wasn’t going to be a punt).  And if the Bills turn the ball over in non-scoring position, we are likely giving the opposing team better field position than if we had eventually punted.  

Luckily, we have been able to overcome turnovers in many games, because we have dominated other parts of the game.  That’s not necessarily going to be the case as the competition gets tighter.

[Big Turk]

3 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

I get the point that we’re not punting, but I think we’ve gotten lucky in overcoming turnovers, and eventually could come back to bite us.  For instance, is a turnover in scoring position good?  We’re forgoing at least a potential FG in that instance (there wasn’t going to be a punt).  And if the Bills turn the ball over in non-scoring position, we are likely giving the opposing team better field position than if we had eventually punted.  

Luckily, we have been able to overcome turnovers in many games, because we have dominated other parts of the game.  That’s not necessarily going to be the case as the competition gets tighter.

 

I don't think it's lucky as much as the Bills have the largest margin for error in games of any team in the NFL.

[papazoid]

bills have 3 losses.....they lost the turnover battle in all 3

 

 

[strive_for_five_guy]

15 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

I don't think it's lucky as much as the Bills have the largest margin for error in games of any team in the NFL.

I agree that we have the ability to dominate games, which isn’t luck.  Aside from turnovers, we dominated Miami the other day.  And yet Skylar Thompson had a chance to carry his team to victory in the last few minutes against us last week, with turnovers being a key factor.  I consider the Bills a little lucky to have survived the scare, largely caused by the turnovers in that game.  It will be harder to dominate games against the Bengals or Chiefs, and our margin for error will be less then.

 

[Drew21PA]

Ok look

 

if/when Allen wins a superbowl this while he throws too many picks thing is done

 

even going to a Super Bowl it becomes a moot point

 

jist like Mahomes - I feel he and Allen both are extremely careless and wreckless

 

magomes no look passes ?  Yeah have Allen try that one ….

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

So there is a lot being made across the media about how much the Bills turn the ball over and why they "can't keep winning" if they don't stop doing it.

 

I believe they are wrong and the reason they are wrong is the Bills and Chiefs are simply not like other teams. 

 

Firstly, the Bills get a lot of takeaways, so in most games even if they have 3 turnovers, they likely are at least getting 2 of their own. They are a net 0 on turnover differential for the season. The important stat isn't how many turnovwrs you have, it's what is the net turnover differential (ie, how many times you get takeaways - how many times the other teams get takeaways). 

 

Bills rank tied for 13th with 0, KC is -3 on the year. 23 giveaways versus 20 takeaways.

 

Secondly, the Bills rarely punt, so in the drives they are not turning the ball over, they score at the 2nd highest points per drive rate in the NFL, next to of course, Kansas City. 

 

The league average for punts is somewhere around 65 for the year. Bills came in at 45, fewest in the NFL in both total and punts/game. That's 20 extra possessions where we either scored points, went for it on 4th down or turned the ball over versus a normal team. If you take our 2.64 points per drive stat and multiply it by 20, that led to an extra 53ish points for the Bills versus a normal team.

 

The Bills have turned the ball over 3+ times on 5 occasions this year(including last week). They are 4-1 in those games. The only game they lost was to the Vikings in OT where they were -2 in TOs instead of the -1 or 0 in the other 4 wins. And that extra TO came on a game ending INT in the RZ in OT.

 

All of their losses have come when they have lost the TO battle in a game, but they are also 6-3 in the 9 games that has happened, so they still win twice as often as they lose, it just makes it a little tougher.

 

I think fans and the media need to start viewing turnovers differently with the Bills and Chiefs. It still matters, but it matters far less than it does for most teams.

 

 

 

You've done a very workmanlike job of laying out your arguments

 

In the end, though, I don't buy it.  I think we've mostly gotten away with a negative turnover differential against not-very-good teams like the Rams and Bears, or incomplete teams like the Dolphins we just faced.  Against a playoff team like the Vikings, it bit us in the ass to turn the ball over 4x vs 2 takeaways.  Against a top-tier D like the Jets, we couldn't generate enough points to overcome it.

 

I think it's something we need to address, particularly when we're in our own territory and a strip-sack can mean 6 points in a couple of plays.

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Beck Water

[jletha]

Allen is #1 or #2 (depending on model) for total EPA over the season even with the turnovers. EPA is really all that matters at the end of the day, since the goal is to score points.

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, jletha said:

Allen is #1 or #2 (depending on model) for total EPA over the season even with the turnovers. EPA is really all that matters at the end of the day, since the goal is to score points.

 

Can you explain EPA in detail, please?

 

How has it fared as a predictive model in the last, oh, 3-5 championships?  Has the team whose QB had the highest EPA won?

[Big Turk]

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

You've done a very workmanlike job of laying out your arguments

 

In the end, though, I don't buy it.  I think we've mostly gotten away with a negative turnover differential against not-very-good teams like the Rams and Bears, or incomplete teams like the Dolphins we just faced.  Against a playoff team like the Vikings, it bit us in the ass to turn the ball over 4x vs 2 takeaways.  Against a top-tier D like the Jets, we couldn't generate enough points to overcome it.

 

I think it's something we need to address, particularly when we're in our own territory and a strip-sack can mean 6 points in a couple of plays.

 

 

 

 

In general, the Bills don't turn the ball over much against better teams tho.  The Bills and Chiefs are a combined 28-6 with a -3 turnover differential between them. The main similarity?  They score a lot of points and don't punt much, which mitigates any turnovers they do have.  Common math.  How much worse is a turnover than a punt really? That's something I am interested in finding out.

[jletha]

12 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Can you explain EPA in detail, please?

 

How has it fared as a predictive model in the last, oh, 3-5 championships?  Has the team whose QB had the highest EPA won?

https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/

 

Expected points added "EPA" is explained very well here. It really boils down to the fact that in any down & distance scenario you have a chance of punting, FG or TD. The further away you are from the EZ the lower your probability of scoring are but those probabilities rise as you get closer to the EZ. They also will rise and fall based on down. So being in 1st and 10 from the opponent 30 is different than being in 3rd and 10, one will have a much higher probability of FG which is less points.

 

On any given play if you increase your teams chances of scoring then you have added to the "expected points" your team will score on a drive. So instead of looking at total yards on a play, it factors in situation. eg, getting 5 yards on 3rd and 4 means you got a first down and increase EPA while getting 5 yards on 3rd and 6 means your punting or settling for a FG so your EPA would drop.

 

Its not predictive of championships, its a QB stat mostly but also a team stat to an extent. But the QBs with high EPA and EPA/play are considered "good" and they generally win more games. But the playoffs, being one-and-done are much too volatile to be able to predict by any model.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr/_/season/2017/seasontype/2/sort/cwepaTotal/dir/desc

 

This page has total EPA by season if you want to take a look. Spoiler: Brady, Brees, Rogers, Manning are often at the top.

4 minutes ago, jletha said:

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by jletha

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, jletha said:

https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/

 

Expected points added "EPA" is explained very well here. It really boils down to the fact that in any down & distance scenario you have a chance of punting, FG or TD. The further away you are from the EZ the lower your probability of scoring are but those probabilities rise as you get closer to the EZ. They also will rise and fall based on down. So being in 1st and 10 from the opponent 30 is different than being in 3rd and 10, one will have a much higher probability of FG which is less points.

 

On any given play if you increase your teams chances of scoring then you have added to the "expected points" your team will score on a drive.

 

Its not predictive of championships, its a QB stat mostly but also a team stat to an extent. But the QBs with high EPA and EPA/play are considered "good" and they generally win more games. But the playoffs, being one-and-done are much too volatile to be able to predict by any model.

 

Thanks.  The principle seems very straightforward.

 

Here's what I don't get from that explanation: is it something that you (or they) could give me a database and a formula and I could calculate for myself, just based on down and distance and so forth?

 

Or is it a "Frankenstat" like DVOA where the previous record of the specific opponent we're facing, our previous record etc etc all play into it or worse yet, "total QBR" where it's calculated with so many lines of code no one can explain exactly what goes into it or what it means?

[GoBills808]

11 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Can you explain EPA in detail, please?

 

How has it fared as a predictive model in the last, oh, 3-5 championships?  Has the team whose QB had the highest EPA won?

It's the difference between how a team performs in a given situation and what their expected points would otherwise be. EPA stands for expected points added, so it's a measure of how your offense or defense performs above average.

 

The methodology is here https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/opre.19.2.541

 

As far as QB EPA (or offensive, defensive, etc you can adjust the filters) the 4th down bot has a good page you can play around with here https://rbsdm.com/stats/stats/

[jletha]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

 

Thanks.  The principle seems very straightforward.

 

Here's what I don't get from that explanation: is it something that you (or they) could give me a database and a formula and I could calculate for myself, just based on down and distance and so forth?

 

Or is it a "Frankenstat" like DVOA where the previous record of the specific opponent we're facing, our previous record etc etc all play into it or worse yet, "total QBR" where it's calculated with so many lines of code no one can explain exactly what goes into it or what it means?

Im not sure exactly. I know there are different calculations for EPA based on website. The key to calculating would be how you want to calculate the chances of a TD/FG/punt in any situation for any given team. If you take a league wide average you lose a lot of nuance but you have more data. If you want to try to break it out by team youd have a lot less data but also any teams chances of scoring a TD in each situation are unique to that team. For example the Ravens will have a higher chance of FG conversionn that other teams at any given distance because of Tucker. But I doubt they go to that level.

[Big Turk]

10 minutes ago, jletha said:

https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/

 

Expected points added "EPA" is explained very well here. It really boils down to the fact that in any down & distance scenario you have a chance of punting, FG or TD. The further away you are from the EZ the lower your probability of scoring are but those probabilities rise as you get closer to the EZ. They also will rise and fall based on down. So being in 1st and 10 from the opponent 30 is different than being in 3rd and 10, one will have a much higher probability of FG which is less points.

 

On any given play if you increase your teams chances of scoring then you have added to the "expected points" your team will score on a drive. So instead of looking at total yards on a play, it factors in situation. eg, getting 5 yards on 3rd and 4 means you got a first down and increase EPA while getting 5 yards on 3rd and 6 means your punting or settling for a FG so your EPA would drop.

 

Its not predictive of championships, its a QB stat mostly but also a team stat to an extent. But the QBs with high EPA and EPA/play are considered "good" and they generally win more games. But the playoffs, being one-and-done are much too volatile to be able to predict by any model.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr/_/season/2017/seasontype/2/sort/cwepaTotal/dir/desc

 

This page has total EPA by season if you want to take a look. Spoiler: Brady, Brees, Rogers, Manning are often at the top.

 

 

Allen has been top 3 in EPA every year since 2020. 2nd twice, 3rd once.

[Donuts and Doritos]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

So there is a lot being made across the media about how much the Bills turn the ball over and why they "can't keep winning" if they don't stop doing it.

 

I believe they are wrong and the reason they are wrong is the Bills and Chiefs are simply not like other teams. 

 

Firstly, the Bills get a lot of takeaways, so in most games even if they have 3 turnovers, they likely are at least getting 2 of their own. They are a net 0 on turnover differential for the season. The important stat isn't how many turnovwrs you have, it's what is the net turnover differential (ie, how many times you get takeaways - how many times the other teams get takeaways). 

 

Bills rank tied for 13th with 0, KC is -3 on the year. 23 giveaways versus 20 takeaways.

 

Secondly, the Bills rarely punt, so in the drives they are not turning the ball over, they score at the 2nd highest points per drive rate in the NFL, next to of course, Kansas City. 

 

The league average for punts is somewhere around 65 for the year. Bills came in at 45, fewest in the NFL in both total and punts/game. That's 20 extra possessions where we either scored points, went for it on 4th down or turned the ball over versus a normal team. If you take our 2.64 points per drive stat and multiply it by 20, that led to an extra 53ish points for the Bills versus a normal team.

 

The Bills have turned the ball over 3+ times on 5 occasions this year(including last week). They are 4-1 in those games. The only game they lost was to the Vikings in OT where they were -2 in TOs instead of the -1 or 0 in the other 4 wins. And that extra TO came on a game ending INT in the RZ in OT.

 

All of their losses have come when they have lost the TO battle in a game, but they are also 6-3 in the 9 games that has happened, so they still win twice as often as they lose, it just makes it a little tougher.

 

I think fans and the media need to start viewing turnovers differently with the Bills and Chiefs. It still matters, but it matters far less than it does for most teams.

 

 

 

Of we turn the ball over multiple times  against Cinci or KC (like we did against Miami) & they don't turn it over, do you still think it won't kill us? I think it's game over if we do that. I'm sorry, but against that competition, it's evenly matched & turnovers will kill them. They need to clean it up.

[Big Turk]

3 minutes ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

 

Of we turn the ball over multiple times  against Cinci or KC (like we did against Miami) & they don't turn it over, do you still think it won't kill us? I think it's game over if we do that. I'm sorry, but against that competition, it's evenly matched & turnovers will kill them. They need to clean it up.

 

Part of the reason I say us turning the ball over doesn't kill us is that we are a net 0 in TO differential.  Meaning we get as many turnovers as we give.  

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

The game is far more random than many choose to believe. Our brains try to assign it to something that explains what happened and thus understanding. Randomness especially in regard to fumbles lost, referee calls, weather etc. cause tons of noise and randomness. If the Bills gain the 2 reversed calls back because its another day/game and its a few inches one way or the other then that game is a blowout. I'm more inclined to believe the Dolphins were extremely fortunate in that game-it happens. The ball was bouncing to Seiler, Beasley miss etc. and it made the normal look much worse. Look you try to improve on things (don't hold the ball like a loaf of bread Josh), but at the end of the day some things are out of your control and he is who he is. He's not an old school QB like Burrow and Burrow can't be Josh.

[NewEra]

3 crap teams that don’t have Mahomes or Burrow.  If we turn the ball over 3+ times from here on out, there’s a very good chance it’ll be the offseason.  The one playoff team that we had 3+ turnovers against beat us. 

 

The 4 games that we won with 3+ turnovers

rams-  rams had 3 turnovers 

bears- worst team in the league and they had 2 TO’s

pats- also had 3 turnovers.

Miami- had 2 turnover and sage rosenfels @ QB.  
 

So the point of this is “turnovers have a greater negative impact on other teams when compared to KC and Buffalo.”  To me, this is just more proof that you can find stats to prove any point.  Turnovers are a major problem-  especially in the playoff….. vs future HoF QBs. 

 

I get the frustration with the media.  They’re on a man hunt for Allen due to his turnovers. They’ve gone overboard imo.  It’s the only thing we hear about him nowadays. Imo, that’s what this thread should be about.  
 

Every game is a new game and 17 has a chance to not turn the ball over.  If that happens every game over, the next month, I think we’ll for sure, win the SB.  That’s how important turnovers are.  Sure, we can still win while turning the ball over, but the chances decrease with each TO.  Each time you decrease your chance to win, it’s a big deal.  Especially vs Burrow and Mahomes-  not rosenfels, Macnchz, the worst team in the NFL and the 5th worst team in the league.  
 

from here on out, every turnover matters.  A lot.  

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by NewEra

[billieve420]

Josh internally needs to figure out when to ramp up or down depending on the situation. Up 17-0 in the 2nd and attempting low percentage throw on 1st down to Brown is not the smart move. Dorsey needs to help out with that with both play calling and reminding Josh it is OK to check down or throw it away in that situation. If it was 3rd and long and he threw that it is fine can live with turnover as it acts like a punt.

Edited January 18, 2023 by billieve420

[Billsflyer12]

1 hour ago, papazoid said:

bills have 3 losses.....they lost the turnover battle in all 3

 

 

The have won 6 also when losing turnover battle.  If Josh just takes that snap in Vikings game they are 7-2 when losing turnover battle.  I think this is the point some are making.

 

The can’t lose the “turnover battle” and win games take is just a lazy.  Turnovers are a undesired change of possession, as are punts, missed field goals, failed 4th down conversion, on sides kick and end of half’ and games.  It all has context.  When, where and how also matter.

 

The “you can make data say whatever you want” crowd also misses point.  Data and it’s analysis can and will be wrong.  The whole point isn’t to be 100% correct, it’s a tool to increase the probability of successful outcome.

 

Would we all prefer Josh and Bills to not turn ball over or at least less?  Of course.  But to say it’s then end all on success or failure is lazy and just not true.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Billsflyer12

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

I believe that what happened in the Miami game has about 1% chance of happening again in the near future. So stop worrying about it people. 

[NewEra]

18 minutes ago, Billsflyer12 said:

The have won 6 also when losing turnover battle.  If Josh just takes that snap in Vikings game they are 7-2 when losing turnover battle.  I think this is the point some are making.

That seems to be the point-  but at this point of the year we aren’t playing crap teams where the turnovers don’t matter “as much”.   We’ll be playing burrow, Mahomes and then the SB.  They matter a lot  

[Big Turk]

45 minutes ago, NewEra said:

That seems to be the point-  but at this point of the year we aren’t playing crap teams where the turnovers don’t matter “as much”.   We’ll be playing burrow, Mahomes and then the SB.  They matter a lot  

 

Those teams are not immune to turnovers either.  In fact, Allen throws less INT's against good teams while Burrow throws more. So does Mahomes.

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Big Turk

[NewEra]

4 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Those teams are not immune to turnovers either.  In fact, Allen throws less INT's against good teams while Burrow throws more. So does Mahomes.

 

I don’t see the relevance.  We’re talking about turnovers no mattering as much….  Each game  is its own animal.  Turnovers earlier in the year mean nothing now.  Just like Josh Allen’s turnovers earlier in the year mean nothing now.  We’re talking about every turnover from here on out…..they all matter……but according to this thread, they don’t matter “as much” for Buffalo

and KC.  Yet they do matter a lot.  
 

anywho, I don’t see how any of this matters.  1 game vs Cinci is it’s own animal and turnovers could lose us the game.  1 game vs KC is it’s own animal and turnovers could lose us the game.  Same for the SB.  Turnovers will always matter a lot.  Imo, this “turnovers don’t matter as much for Buffalo and Kc” stuff is just fluff to make things look better than they are.  
 

Every time we turn the ball over, it hurts our chances to win the game…..but it doesn’t hurt us “as much” as other teams.  If that’s true, cool.  It means nothing come Sunday. 

[Big Turk]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I don’t see the relevance.  We’re talking about turnovers no mattering as much….  Each game  is its own animal.  Turnovers earlier in the year mean nothing now.  Just like Josh Allen’s turnovers earlier in the year mean nothing now.  We’re talking about every turnover from here on out…..they all matter……but according to this thread, they don’t matter “as much” for Buffalo

and KC.  Yet they do matter a lot.  
 

anywho, I don’t see how any of this matters.  1 game vs Cinci is it’s own animal and turnovers could lose us the game.  1 game vs KC is it’s own animal and turnovers could lose us the game.  Same for the SB.  Turnovers will always matter a lot.  Imo, this “turnovers don’t matter as much for Buffalo and Kc” stuff is just fluff to make things look better than they are.  
 

Every time we turn the ball over, it hurts our chances to win the game…..but it doesn’t hurt us “as much” as other teams.  If that’s true, cool.  It means nothing come Sunday. 

 

It always means something. It means the Bills have the largest margin for error in the NFL. That is true in pretty much every game.

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

Overall the Chiefs are 3-2 in those games but turned it over 8x to Bills 3x. All but one of the games, when Chiefs went -4 and Bills won 38-20, were either neutral or +/- 1 so not a big difference. As a matter of fact three of games were dead even 0/0 or 1/1, not  a huge difference. 

 

Regardless. The fact is the Bills have won when they won the turnover battle and lost when it has been neutral

 

[Chaos]

5 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Can you explain EPA in detail, please?

 

How has it fared as a predictive model in the last, oh, 3-5 championships?  Has the team whose QB had the highest EPA won?

Google can be your friend

https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/

 

It is a very good predictor. 

[Augie]

So…….we are Abby Normal???  😱