Photo

Yahoo Sports previews Ravens


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#61 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,372 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 01:13 PM

We talked a lot about if extra rest helps a defense last year.  Anecdotally it makes perfect sense that it does.  But all the research we dug up indicated that there is no correlation to offensive time of possession - either on a per game level or for the following drive - and how many points per drive a defense gives up.

 

Fair to disagree and think Lamar was a major influence on the excellent finish to the defense in the offseason.  I just fall on the other side and think that the defense was excellent of it's own accord.  

 

I think there is a much stronger case that Lamar's presence made things way easier for the running backs and the offensive line than there is a case that Lamar (or the run-heavy offense in general) made things easier for the defense.  I'm not trying to argue that Lamar did not improve the offense when he came in. Just that even had the offense not improved, I think the team still finishes with a good record because of the weak schedule and the high level of the defense (and ST).

We also played a lot of bad offenses down the stretch.


I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?


#62 BSLGabeFerguson

BSLGabeFerguson

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,158 posts
  • LocationCity of Angels

Posted 17 July 2019 - 01:52 PM

We also played a lot of bad offenses down the stretch.

This is false...the only "bad" offenses the Ravens played after Lamar took over were Cinci and Oakland. 


@gabefergy

#63 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,372 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 01:58 PM

This is false...the only "bad" offenses the Ravens played after Lamar took over were Cinci and Oakland. 

I suppose you're right.


I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?


#64 Biggsy

Biggsy

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,883 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 01:59 PM

We talked a lot about if extra rest helps a defense last year. Anecdotally it makes perfect sense that it does. But all the research we dug up indicated that there is no correlation to offensive time of possession - either on a per game level or for the following drive - and how many points per drive a defense gives up.

Fair to disagree and think Lamar was a major influence on the excellent finish to the defense in the offseason. I just fall on the other side and think that the defense was excellent of it's own accord.

I think there is a much stronger case that Lamar's presence made things way easier for the running backs and the offensive line than there is a case that Lamar (or the run-heavy offense in general) made things easier for the defense. I'm not trying to argue that Lamar did not improve the offense when he came in. Just that even had the offense not improved, I think the team still finishes with a good record because of the weak schedule and the high level of the defense (and ST).



That argument is a perfect example of paralysis by analysis. Its common sense. If I give the ball to an offense and say score as much as you can in 20 mins, then give the another team the ball and say score as much as you can in 30 mins, every form of logic and math will lead you to the team having it for 30 mins scoring a higher average of points.

I don't understand how anyone could legitimately argue that you have a similar, or higher chance of scoring while holding the ball less. You can bring up any stat you want. If I get the ball 10 mins more than you, I have a higher probability of scoring more than you.

#65 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,426 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 02:21 PM

That argument is a perfect example of paralysis by analysis. Its common sense. If I give the ball to an offense and say score as much as you can in 20 mins, then give the another team the ball and say score as much as you can in 30 mins, every form of logic and math will lead you to the team having it for 30 mins scoring a higher average of points.

I don't understand how anyone could legitimately argue that you have a similar, or higher chance of scoring while holding the ball less. You can bring up any stat you want. If I get the ball 10 mins more than you, I have a higher probability of scoring more than you.

 

There are plenty of examples, particularly in football that would make you think this isn't the case, though. 

 

If you're defense gives up 30 yards per play, you give up a TD every 3 plays. Your offense gains 10 yards per play, scores every 10 plays. Team A scores 1 once very minute and a half. Team B scores every 30 minutes based on a play clock of 30 seconds for both on each play. 

 

One team has scored a lot more and had the ball a lot less. 


Granted, there is a lot of correlation here but I think less causation than is trying to be attributed. 



#66 cprenegade

cprenegade

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 704 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 02:27 PM

That argument is a perfect example of paralysis by analysis. Its common sense. If I give the ball to an offense and say score as much as you can in 20 mins, then give the another team the ball and say score as much as you can in 30 mins, every form of logic and math will lead you to the team having it for 30 mins scoring a higher average of points.

I don't understand how anyone could legitimately argue that you have a similar, or higher chance of scoring while holding the ball less. You can bring up any stat you want. If I get the ball 10 mins more than you, I have a higher probability of scoring more than you.

 

In order for that to true you have to assume both offenses are equal, and both defenses they are up against are equal.  If you give KC the ball and say score as much as you can against the 32nd ranked defense in 20 minutes, and then give the Ravens the ball and say score as much as you can against the top ranked defense in 30 minutes my money is on KC putting up more points.  



#67 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 02:27 PM

That argument is a perfect example of paralysis by analysis. Its common sense. If I give the ball to an offense and say score as much as you can in 20 mins, then give the another team the ball and say score as much as you can in 30 mins, every form of logic and math will lead you to the team having it for 30 mins scoring a higher average of points.

I don't understand how anyone could legitimately argue that you have a similar, or higher chance of scoring while holding the ball less. You can bring up any stat you want. If I get the ball 10 mins more than you, I have a higher probability of scoring more than you.

 

It's not talking about raw points.  Points per drive.  Of course total scoring is going to be lower if each team only gets 8 drives as opposed to 11.  

 

The studies argued that a defense being rested (as defined by some amount of time the offense controlled the ball on the previous drive or has had the ball cumulatively for the entire game) does not lead to it allowing fewer points on the next drive.  It also does not correlate to it allowing fewer points per drive over the entire game or the remainder of the game.


  • jkough1 likes this

#68 Biggsy

Biggsy

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,883 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 04:32 PM

It's not talking about raw points. Points per drive. Of course total scoring is going to be lower if each team only gets 8 drives as opposed to 11.

The studies argued that a defense being rested (as defined by some amount of time the offense controlled the ball on the previous drive or has had the ball cumulatively for the entire game) does not lead to it allowing fewer points on the next drive. It also does not correlate to it allowing fewer points per drive over the entire game or the remainder of the game.


You can't use that analytic though. It includes different ranked offenses and defenses that skew numbers. As noted above in the hypothetical, KC vs the worst defense would skew that number.

We're talking about a singular defense. I would bet my truck that if you take the healthy, Ravens defense, against any offense. Then give the offense 20 mins. Then give them 35 mins. I would guarantee you that you'd see a significant difference in points scored. Adding a ton of variable that have nothing to do with the talented Ravens defense isn't an argument. It's a bunch of arrogant people thinking they're smarter than they are. It's simple, you have the ball less, you have less of a chance of scoring. Just ask John Madden
  • bmore_ken likes this

#69 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 05:09 PM

You can't use that analytic though. It includes different ranked offenses and defenses that skew numbers. As noted above in the hypothetical, KC vs the worst defense would skew that number.

We're talking about a singular defense. I would bet my truck that if you take the healthy, Ravens defense, against any offense. Then give the offense 20 mins. Then give them 35 mins. I would guarantee you that you'd see a significant difference in points scored. Adding a ton of variable that have nothing to do with the talented Ravens defense isn't an argument. It's a bunch of arrogant people thinking they're smarter than they are. It's simple, you have the ball less, you have less of a chance of scoring. Just ask John Madden

It was a study done over several seasons and they accounted for level of offenses and defenses to determine expected points.

It seemed like a pretty good study and I like to think that I have a decent eye for when things are cutting corners. Doesn't make it a fact, but I think it's at least worth considering rather than rudely dismissing it.

This of course was a collective study. So there will be teams in it that had a positive correlation between rest and effectiveness, and also some that had a negative correlation. The group overall showed a common trend of there being no consistent correlation.

If you think the Ravens of 2018 are an outlier and they were uniquely benefitting from the time of possession advantage, that's a fine opinion. Maybe they were. I don't think so, I think they played so we'll of their own accord rather than having taken advantage of extra time on the sidelines.

#70 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 05:58 PM

And again...points per drive. Not points per game.

#71 Biggsy

Biggsy

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,883 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 07:56 PM

It was a study done over several seasons and they accounted for level of offenses and defenses to determine expected points.

It seemed like a pretty good study and I like to think that I have a decent eye for when things are cutting corners. Doesn't make it a fact, but I think it's at least worth considering rather than rudely dismissing it.

This of course was a collective study. So there will be teams in it that had a positive correlation between rest and effectiveness, and also some that had a negative correlation. The group overall showed a common trend of there being no consistent correlation.

If you think the Ravens of 2018 are an outlier and they were uniquely benefitting from the time of possession advantage, that's a fine opinion. Maybe they were. I don't think so, I think they played so we'll of their own accord rather than having taken advantage of extra time on the sidelines.



So, are you saying having the ball 10 mins longer doesn't give you a higher probability of scoring more?

#72 Biggsy

Biggsy

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,883 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 07:57 PM

And again...points per drive. Not points per game.


And again, that helps my argument. Having 10 more minutes of possession means 1 or 2 more drives minimal, which by your own stats, means more points, right?

#73 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:34 PM

And again, that helps my argument. Having 10 more minutes of possession means 1 or 2 more drives minimal, which by your own stats, means more points, right?

Tempo leads to the number of possessions for each team. Drives. How many points a team allows is the number of drives times points per drive.

The point for the third or fourth time is that defenses do not seem to allow fewer points per drive when they are more rested. You would that be they do, it makes sense, but the numbers don't back it up.

So if your offense isn't scoring more points per drive when you're running the clock trying to own TOP, then it's no advantage overall (no disadvantage either). If your offense is scoring more when they are able to have longer drives, then it would be a net improvement overall for your team.

Winning time of possession is different than having your offense have long drives. Winning time of possession is a combo of offense having long drives and then defense getting off the field (hopefully without having given up points). If you do that, you are of course more likely to win. But winning time of possession is the whole job, the offense running the clock is only half the job and half the equation.

So it's not accurate to simply say that if the offense runs out the clock and has long drives, that the defense will have an easier time preventing points on the next drive or on all the drives for the game. Two independent factors. Lamar and the heavy run offense that had long drives even when they weren't successful drives did not help the defense prevent points on their drives.
  • Ricker Says likes this

#74 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:46 PM


The point for the third or fourth time is that defenses do not seem to allow fewer points per drive when they are more rested. You would that be they do, it makes sense, but the numbers don't back it up.

 

Biggsy can correct me if I'm reading his point wrong, but I don't think his main point is rest. I think his main point is the more you have the ball, the more likely are your scoring chances. The less you have the ball, the less likely are your scoring chances.Of course you can throw out outliers , i.e the Ravens offense runs a 7 minute drive and turns the ball over, then the defense gives up a 60 yard bomb for a TD, but that like the Chiefs example is an extreme case that rarely happens. You can't score if you don't have the ball.



#75 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:52 PM

Biggsy can correct me if I'm reading his point wrong, but I don't think his main point is rest. I think his main point is the more you have the ball, the more likely are your scoring chances. The less you have the ball, the less likely are your scoring chances.Of course you can throw out outliers , i.e the Ravens offense runs a 7 minute drive and turns the ball over, then the defense gives up a 60 yard bomb for a TD, but that like the Chiefs example is an extreme case that rarely happens. You can't score if you don't have the ball.

Right. What you are talking about here is winning time of possession.

Doing that helps you win. But it takes two things to do that, offense keeping the ball and defense getting off the field.

If your offense keeps the ball for 7 minutes that is good. If the defense then allows an 8 minute drive, you aren't winning time of possession. Your offense keeping the ball for 7 minutes doesn't make your defense more likely to get a stop on the next drive than it would be had your offense only held the ball for 2 minutes.

Field position matters. Time of rest doesn't. If you are able to move the ball and flip field position on offense, that does help the defense. But the time it takes to do that is irrelevant. It doesn't help more to take 4 minutes before punting down to the 10 than to take 30 seconds before punting down to the 10.

#76 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:10 PM

Also I need to double check but I think the average starting field position for the defense was very similar for the 9 Flacco games as for the 7 Lamar games. I know I at least tried to look that up at some point last year but don't exactly recall the results.

#77 85Knight

85Knight
  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 01:34 AM

I'm sticking with the old school. Keep the ball more and keep the other team off of the field. We had this argument earlier this year and I read that guy's analytics. If he's right then every coach in the history of football is wrong. There are too many variables to lay this out empirically but I'm gonna side with the longer you possess the ball the better it is for your offense and defense. I've never heard an offense say they want the ball less because they score better that way or a defense that says they play better tired because they've been on the field longer. I don't think his data proves that so I'll stay with the old adages.

#78 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 01:54 AM

Nobody has said it is not better to possess the ball longer than the other team.

The entire article and all of my recent posting was about whether a "rested" defense performs better (allowing fewer points on average per drive) than a "tired" defense. While it would seem that this would be the case, the numbers which represent the actual results seen during hundreds or thousands of games did not bear that out.

The belief that a defense plays better because the offense held the ball does not appear to be true based on actually looking at all the numbers from all the drives. That's the entirety of the claim. Nothing beyond that.

There is no argument being made that there are not other benefits to a team for the offense being able to control the clock. Just don't say that running the ball and Lamar's offense gave the defense tons of rest and that rest is why the defense played better when he was out there. The added rest very likely was a nonfactor in the defensive performance.

#79 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 83,663 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 July 2019 - 06:31 AM

The team also had a lot of injuries and were drained from the later bye week.

Getting healthy and fresh also happened when Lamar took over. Did he make the team healthier and fresher too?

For example, they don’t likely lose to the Saints if Humphrey plays. I know him getting hurt is Joes fault and him being healthy is Lamar’s greatness though, right?
@BSLRobShields

#80 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 112,117 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 07:09 AM

The team also had a lot of injuries and were drained from the later bye week.

Getting healthy and fresh also happened when Lamar took over. Did he make the team healthier and fresher too?

For example, they don’t likely lose to the Saints if Humphrey plays. I know him getting hurt is Joes fault and him being healthy is Lamar’s greatness though, right?

Overall health obviously huge.

Defense staying off the field for longer stretches would logically help keep them fresher (as well as reduce their snap count and thus chances of injury).

Know if Im going to argue that, the inverse is true for the offense.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners