the most important NFL stat (1 Viewer)

[pecorino]

check out the top 4 turnover differentials in each conference:

SD +24, Indy +18, NE +16, Jax +9

TB +15, SEA +10, DAL +5, GB +4

pretty telling that the four best teams in turnover differential are the top teams in each conference. not earth-shattering info, i know, but i was surprised how clear cut these stats came out.

 

[Despyzer]

I think everyone I know is looking forward to that SD/TB matchup in Arizona.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

I think everyone I know is looking forward to that SD/TB matchup in Arizona.

Should be a good game both teams would be use to the heat.Key question would be does Norv have to win to keep His job?

 

[massraider]

I think everyone I know is looking forward to that SD/TB matchup in Arizona.

Should be a good game both teams would be use to the heat.Key question would be does Norv have to win to keep His job?

 

[Koya]

When you look at the stats of in game TO's, it is even more profound. If you have a -2 TO ratio in a game, you are likely gonna lose. If you have -3 or worse, we are talking 97% plus of the time you will loose or some ridiculous number like that.

 

[SSOG]

When you look at the stats of in game TO's, it is even more profound. If you have a -2 TO ratio in a game, you are likely gonna lose. If you have -3 or worse, we are talking 97% plus of the time you will loose or some ridiculous number like that.

Those numbers are slightly skewed because teams that are down big are more likely to turn the ball over because they're pressing.

 

[tombonneau]

When you look at the stats of in game TO's, it is even more profound. If you have a -2 TO ratio in a game, you are likely gonna lose. If you have -3 or worse, we are talking 97% plus of the time you will loose or some ridiculous number like that.

Those numbers are slightly skewed because teams that are down big are more likely to turn the ball over because they're pressing.

Yes, but that is all contributing to them losing.I think an even more accurate barometer is POTO - Points Off Turnovers.Getting turnovers isn't enough; it's what you do with them.

 

[SSOG]

When you look at the stats of in game TO's, it is even more profound. If you have a -2 TO ratio in a game, you are likely gonna lose. If you have -3 or worse, we are talking 97% plus of the time you will loose or some ridiculous number like that.

Those numbers are slightly skewed because teams that are down big are more likely to turn the ball over because they're pressing.

Yes, but that is all contributing to them losing.

If a team is down by 30 points and throws an interception on the traditional end-of-game hail mary, did that really contribute to them losing?In a lot of cases, the cause-effect relationship is backwards. Sometimes teams don't lose because they turned the ball over a lot, sometimes they turned the ball over a lot because they lost.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I think Points For/ Points Against Differential is 2nd criteria and then turnover differential as 3rd place. How many points your team can score each week and how few you can allow factors into the points scored off turnovers and points you allow off turnovers so it all really contributes highly to success.

Offensive yardage gained and defense yardage allowed is way down on the list of successful criteria. Defenses DO NOT win championships on yardage allowed criteria. Bend- but- don't- break defenses that force alot of turnovers are the ones that win championships.

 

[redman]

When you look at the stats of in game TO's, it is even more profound. If you have a -2 TO ratio in a game, you are likely gonna lose. If you have -3 or worse, we are talking 97% plus of the time you will loose or some ridiculous number like that.

Those numbers are slightly skewed because teams that are down big are more likely to turn the ball over because they're pressing.

Yes, but that is all contributing to them losing.

If a team is down by 30 points and throws an interception on the traditional end-of-game hail mary, did that really contribute to them losing?In a lot of cases, the cause-effect relationship is backwards. Sometimes teams don't lose because they turned the ball over a lot, sometimes they turned the ball over a lot because they lost.

Perhaps, but generally only after a certain tipping point. I think it's safe to say that teams that are down by 30 (to use your hypo) have generally speaking already turned the ball over once or twice.

 

[SSOG]

When you look at the stats of in game TO's, it is even more profound. If you have a -2 TO ratio in a game, you are likely gonna lose. If you have -3 or worse, we are talking 97% plus of the time you will loose or some ridiculous number like that.

Those numbers are slightly skewed because teams that are down big are more likely to turn the ball over because they're pressing.

Yes, but that is all contributing to them losing.

If a team is down by 30 points and throws an interception on the traditional end-of-game hail mary, did that really contribute to them losing?In a lot of cases, the cause-effect relationship is backwards. Sometimes teams don't lose because they turned the ball over a lot, sometimes they turned the ball over a lot because they lost.

Perhaps, but generally only after a certain tipping point. I think it's safe to say that teams that are down by 30 (to use your hypo) have generally speaking already turned the ball over once or twice.

I don't think it's safe to say that at all. I'm sure if I looked even casually I could provide dozens of teams who were even or better in turnover differential and trailing by 3+ scores.In fact, just to prove the point, I looked up scores from this past weekend. I pulled up the Arizona/St. Louis game, knowing absolutely nothing about the game other than that Arizona won in a huge blowout. You know what? With 9 minutes left in the ballgame, St. Louis was +1 in turnover margin... and trailed 34-19. In the final 9 minutes, they threw 2 interceptions, but it was a blowout long before they had a negative turnover differential.

The next game I looked at was Dallas/Washington. Dallas finished +1, but was blown out. Houston/Jax was even in turnover differential (Jax led the turnover margin until the score was 42-21). The fourth game I looked at, based on final score, was Detroit/Green Bay. This one finally fit the accepted wisdom that the team getting blown out was getting blown out because of turnover differential. Still, that's three of four blowouts last week that defied conventional wisdom (the team getting blown out led in turnover margin for most of the game), and one that was a prime example of a team "padding" its turnover totals after it was already getting taken behind the woodshed.

 

[Despyzer]

In fact, just to prove the point, I looked up scores from this past weekend. I pulled up the Arizona/St. Louis game, knowing absolutely nothing about the game other than that Arizona won in a huge blowout. You know what? With 9 minutes left in the ballgame, St. Louis was +1 in turnover margin... and trailed 34-19. In the final 9 minutes, they threw 2 interceptions, but it was a blowout long before they had a negative turnover differential.The next game I looked at was Dallas/Washington. Dallas finished +1, but was blown out. Houston/Jax was even in turnover differential (Jax led the turnover margin until the score was 42-21). The fourth game I looked at, based on final score, was Detroit/Green Bay. This one finally fit the accepted wisdom that the team getting blown out was getting blown out because of turnover differential. Still, that's three of four blowouts last week that defied conventional wisdom (the team getting blown out led in turnover margin for most of the game), and one that was a prime example of a team "padding" its turnover totals after it was already getting taken behind the woodshed.

I'm not sure I'd get to excited about results from this past weekend, where hardly a single game had a matchup that both teams were taking seriously. When you get a situation like that, there are bound to be serious aberrations. Nevertheless, I see where you are coming from: sometimes turnovers result in leads and sometimes leads result in turnovers.

 

[redman]

In fact, just to prove the point, I looked up scores from this past weekend. I pulled up the Arizona/St. Louis game, knowing absolutely nothing about the game other than that Arizona won in a huge blowout. You know what? With 9 minutes left in the ballgame, St. Louis was +1 in turnover margin... and trailed 34-19. In the final 9 minutes, they threw 2 interceptions, but it was a blowout long before they had a negative turnover differential.The next game I looked at was Dallas/Washington. Dallas finished +1, but was blown out. Houston/Jax was even in turnover differential (Jax led the turnover margin until the score was 42-21). The fourth game I looked at, based on final score, was Detroit/Green Bay. This one finally fit the accepted wisdom that the team getting blown out was getting blown out because of turnover differential. Still, that's three of four blowouts last week that defied conventional wisdom (the team getting blown out led in turnover margin for most of the game), and one that was a prime example of a team "padding" its turnover totals after it was already getting taken behind the woodshed.

I'm not sure I'd get to excited about results from this past weekend, where hardly a single game had a matchup that both teams were taking seriously. When you get a situation like that, there are bound to be serious aberrations. Nevertheless, I see where you are coming from: sometimes turnovers result in leads and sometimes leads result in turnovers.

Even setting aside week 17 considerations, taking any single week as some sort of exemplar seems specious.

 

[Tau837]

On Mike & Mike this morning, they said that a team that is +1 or better in turnovers in a game win the game 85% of the time.

 

[KyleBasa]

Exception to the rule: Capitol One Bowl between Mich and Fla. Michigan was -4 in turnover ratio and won.

... just sayin.

 

[LILB811]

The Bucs were #1 in differential in the NFC. Only the 49ers and Rams were worse than the Giants in the NFC. Many Giants fans seem to be elated with playing Tampa Bay and Jeff Garcia again.

 

[SSOG]

In fact, just to prove the point, I looked up scores from this past weekend. I pulled up the Arizona/St. Louis game, knowing absolutely nothing about the game other than that Arizona won in a huge blowout. You know what? With 9 minutes left in the ballgame, St. Louis was +1 in turnover margin... and trailed 34-19. In the final 9 minutes, they threw 2 interceptions, but it was a blowout long before they had a negative turnover differential.The next game I looked at was Dallas/Washington. Dallas finished +1, but was blown out. Houston/Jax was even in turnover differential (Jax led the turnover margin until the score was 42-21). The fourth game I looked at, based on final score, was Detroit/Green Bay. This one finally fit the accepted wisdom that the team getting blown out was getting blown out because of turnover differential. Still, that's three of four blowouts last week that defied conventional wisdom (the team getting blown out led in turnover margin for most of the game), and one that was a prime example of a team "padding" its turnover totals after it was already getting taken behind the woodshed.

I'm not sure I'd get to excited about results from this past weekend, where hardly a single game had a matchup that both teams were taking seriously. When you get a situation like that, there are bound to be serious aberrations. Nevertheless, I see where you are coming from: sometimes turnovers result in leads and sometimes leads result in turnovers.

Maybe the teams were giving uneven efforts, but you'd expect certain trends to hold true. If there's a causal relationship between first downs and points, or yards and points, or whatever and points, you'd expect the team with more first downs/yards/whatever to score more points whether they're playing their 3rd stringers against the opposing #1s, or whether they're playing their #1s against the opposing third stringers. You might not be able to draw any conclusions about the quality of the teams from that, but I can't think of any reason why the data would behave radically different than usual since it's still 10 yards to a first down and 4 downs to get it.I do acknowledge that my sample was brutally anecdotal and in no way a legit set to draw conclusions from, I was mostly just curious and looking at the data that I had most readily available. Think of it more as a "hmmm, this is interesting" and less of a "hah, this proves my point!"

Exception to the rule: Capitol One Bowl between Mich and Fla. Michigan was -4 in turnover ratio and won.... just sayin.

Converting 80+% of your third downs will hide all manner of ills.

 

[Andy Herron]

In fact, just to prove the point, I looked up scores from this past weekend. I pulled up the Arizona/St. Louis game, knowing absolutely nothing about the game other than that Arizona won in a huge blowout. You know what? With 9 minutes left in the ballgame, St. Louis was +1 in turnover margin... and trailed 34-19. In the final 9 minutes, they threw 2 interceptions, but it was a blowout long before they had a negative turnover differential.

The next game I looked at was Dallas/Washington. Dallas finished +1, but was blown out. Houston/Jax was even in turnover differential (Jax led the turnover margin until the score was 42-21). The fourth game I looked at, based on final score, was Detroit/Green Bay. This one finally fit the accepted wisdom that the team getting blown out was getting blown out because of turnover differential. Still, that's three of four blowouts last week that defied conventional wisdom (the team getting blown out led in turnover margin for most of the game), and one that was a prime example of a team "padding" its turnover totals after it was already getting taken behind the woodshed.

I'm not sure I'd get to excited about results from this past weekend, where hardly a single game had a matchup that both teams were taking seriously. When you get a situation like that, there are bound to be serious aberrations. Nevertheless, I see where you are coming from: sometimes turnovers result in leads and sometimes leads result in turnovers.

Maybe the teams were giving uneven efforts, but you'd expect certain trends to hold true. If there's a causal relationship between first downs and points, or yards and points, or whatever and points, you'd expect the team with more first downs/yards/whatever to score more points whether they're playing their 3rd stringers against the opposing #1s, or whether they're playing their #1s against the opposing third stringers. You might not be able to draw any conclusions about the quality of the teams from that, but I can't think of any reason why the data would behave radically different than usual since it's still 10 yards to a first down and 4 downs to get it.I do acknowledge that my sample was brutally anecdotal and in no way a legit set to draw conclusions from, I was mostly just curious and looking at the data that I had most readily available. Think of it more as a "hmmm, this is interesting" and less of a "hah, this proves my point!"

Exception to the rule: Capitol One Bowl between Mich and Fla. Michigan was -4 in turnover ratio and won.

... just sayin.

Converting 80+% of your third downs will hide all manner of ills.

There ya go. Just the stat I was going to point out. 3rd down conversions. One of the most important yet often overlooked stats in the box score. While this is "usually" more a reflection of QB play(and one of the most important), teams benefit greatly when they can convert 3rd downs in a high percentage range. Controlling the clock(time of possession), advancing field position, keeping your own defense off the field, maintaining momentum, etc. Second only to turnover ratio.