There are 169 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Cole: A stat that indicates the 49ers wont win the SB

Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by NoOffseason:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Last 5 super bowl champions

Green Bay (O)5.7 (D)6.2
NO(O) 6.2 (D)5.6
Pitt(O)4.9 (D)4.7
Giants(O)5.1 (D)4.9
Colts(O)5.8(D)5.4




Are you sure about those?

I just checked them on NFL.com and they say the Packers last season in the regular season had 5.7 on offense and 5.1 on defense, which would barely qualify. But those would be different numbers from yours. Also, the Steelers had 4.9 on offense in that year, but an incredibly good 3.9 on defense according to my check. That would also mesh with my memory of the Steelers having a ridiculously good defense that year and all the hype accompanying with it.

So something is odd here: I believe the numbers I checked are correct, but maybe there is an error somewhere I have not considered? How did you find yours?

But regardless, even with my numbers, Cole barely had a weak trend. If yours hold up, it gets even more ridiculously wrong. So in any way you slice it, he talks out of his ass
I used this site and I was wrong on the packers and steelers stats. I have no idea how i got my original numbers. checked again and it should be
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/yards-per-play

Green Bay 5.7 and 5.1
No 6.2 and 5.6
Pitt 4.9 and 4.1
Giants 5.1 and 4.9
Colts 5.8 and 5.4


I was wrong

No big deal, as I said before, if you look at the last ten Super Bowls, the stat holds up for only six of them, so the trend is kinda weak anyway.

Interestingly, NFL.com still says the Giants had a yards-per-play average on defense of exactly 5.0, so something is still off

But anyway, I still think Cole is wrong in trying to use this stat to predict anything, the correlation seems too weak to really draw any conclusions from it.
[ Edited by NoOffseason on Nov 22, 2011 at 3:30 PM ]
I agree. This trend seems weak. However, if it were a more persistent trend, I don't agree with those who just shrug it off as meaningless. I think a .3 thru .5 trend is pretty strong. And I still think we WANT to get closer to that number by the end of the regular season.
Originally posted by danimal:
I agree. This trend seems weak. However, if it were a more persistent trend, I don't agree with those who just shrug it off as meaningless. I think a .3 thru .5 trend is pretty strong. And I still think we WANT to get closer to that number by the end of the regular season.

I would agree with you that we should not completely dismiss it as meaningless, as there could be some potential value in the stat and I think with a few games against the NFC West still looming (especially the Rams ones) and our passing game slowly opening up, we have an opportunity to pad our stats a little bit in that regard until the end of the regular season.

But I have two big problems with the stat: The first is the obvious one, Jason Cole implying that this stat explains everything in regards to postseason success. I think that is a false and lazy narrative and our number-crunching should have shown by now that it definitely is not as easy as that.

The second one actually came to me just now: We would need to check the numbers, but couldn´t it be that a positive and somewhat substantial yards-per-play differential is simply correlating, with, you know winning teams? I mean, you would usually need to outgain your opponents in order to outscore them and only if you outscore them you can win games and you kinda need wins to get into the postseason in the first place (no, do not get me started on last years Seahawks anomaly for the ages…) So maybe if we would simply check playoff teams, they would all have a positive differential, simply because you need that one to get into the playoffs anyway? And thus naturally every Super Bowl winner would have it in extension to that? We would kinda need to check on that I think, because then the stat would be sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy…
Originally posted by NoOffseason:
Originally posted by danimal:
I agree. This trend seems weak. However, if it were a more persistent trend, I don't agree with those who just shrug it off as meaningless. I think a .3 thru .5 trend is pretty strong. And I still think we WANT to get closer to that number by the end of the regular season.

I would agree with you that we should not completely dismiss it as meaningless, as there could be some potential value in the stat and I think with a few games against the NFC West still looming (especially the Rams ones) and our passing game slowly opening up, we have an opportunity to pad our stats a little bit in that regard until the end of the regular season.

But I have two big problems with the stat: The first is the obvious one, Jason Cole implying that this stat explains everything in regards to postseason success. I think that is a false and lazy narrative and our number-crunching should have shown by now that it definitely is not as easy as that.

The second one actually came to me just now: We would need to check the numbers, but couldn´t it be that a positive and somewhat substantial yards-per-play differential is simply correlating, with, you know winning teams? I mean, you would usually need to outgain your opponents in order to outscore them and only if you outscore them you can win games and you kinda need wins to get into the postseason in the first place (no, do not get me started on last years Seahawks anomaly for the ages…) So maybe if we would simply check playoff teams, they would all have a positive differential, simply because you need that one to get into the playoffs anyway? And thus naturally every Super Bowl winner would have it in extension to that? We would kinda need to check on that I think, because then the stat would be sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy…

I think at the end of the day that stat shows which teams can win a game with no turnovers and each kick or punt resulting in a touchback. I think any team heading into the playoffs would like a claim to that ability....but ultimately I think you are right, generally yards is a bread and butter way to get through a regular season, and becomes kind of a circular stat in the playoffs where all teams generally have a positive stat in that category.

Now, I have no stats to back this up, but in my general recollection, I seem to remember a trend of regular season teams with great turnover ratios who lose that result come the playoffs, they no longer get the turnovers anymore. Our turnover ratio actually kind of scares me right now, without the turnovers what are we going to do?
The stat is thrown off a bit by our early season struggles on offense. That's the biggest problem with the stat, as we have improved drastically since the 1st 3 weeks of the season. Many people would point to the Eagles game as our breakout game. Here is how the yards per play comparison is since then:

SF - 7.2 PHI - 7.5 (- .3)
SF - 7.2 TB - 4.5 (+2.7)
SF - 5.0 DET - 4.2 (+.8)
SF - 5.4 CLE - 4.8 (+.6)
SF - 5.6 WAS - 4.8 (+.8)
SF - 5.9 NYG - 5.6 (+.3)
SF - 5.0 ARI - 4.8 (+.2)

During this stretch, we reached Cole's coveted .6 mark 4 times in 7 games, including outgaining TB by a whopping 2.7 yards per play. We won the yards per play battle in 6 out of these 7 games. Our recent success since the offense has hit it's stride is a much better indicator of who this team is right now, and how competitive they will be in the playoffs. Cole failed to account for the fact that we have greatly improved since the season started.
Originally posted by SofaKing:
The stat is thrown off a bit by our early season struggles on offense. That's the biggest problem with the stat, as we have improved drastically since the 1st 3 weeks of the season. Many people would point to the Eagles game as our breakout game. Here is how the yards per play comparison is since then:

SF - 7.2 PHI - 7.5 (- .3)
SF - 7.2 TB - 4.5 (+2.7)
SF - 5.0 DET - 4.2 (+.8)
SF - 5.4 CLE - 4.8 (+.6)
SF - 5.6 WAS - 4.8 (+.8)
SF - 5.9 NYG - 5.6 (+.3)
SF - 5.0 ARI - 4.8 (+.2)

During this stretch, we reached Cole's coveted .6 mark 4 times in 7 games, including outgaining TB by a whopping 2.7 yards per play. We won the yards per play battle in 6 out of these 7 games. Our recent success since the offense has hit it's stride is a much better indicator of who this team is right now, and how competitive they will be in the playoffs. Cole failed to account for the fact that we have greatly improved since the season started.

Great stats and great idea to research this!

I think danimal alluded to this in saying the stat will be more meaningful at the end of the regular season. I would agree and I think your research shows that there is merit in that.

The Arizona game confuses me, though. I understand all the other game differentials and Philly does not surprise me, as that has been kind of their story all season long (can move the ball up and down the field which pads the yards-per-play, but kill themselves with turnovers, bad red-zone performance performance etc. which do not directly show up in that stat), as does the Giants game (which was pretty evenly matched if you think of the "eyeball test", which that stat reflects). But why is the Arizona differential so low? Was it because of our offense, which was sloppy in the first half? Or might the huge time-of-possesion difference play into this as well?
Originally posted by valrod33:
Yards dont matter, its all about points
END THREAD.

Yards do matter. If your defense takes the field with the opposing offense at their own 20 and you force a 3 and out, you're gonna get the ball back at around your own 40 and you only need to drive 60 or so yards to score a TD. If you give up a couple first downs and THEN tighten up and force a punt, you likely need to go 80+ yards to score a TD. Both defensive possessions result in the same thing points wise. But in terms of setting up your offense, the scenario where you allow no first downs (and hence minimal yardage) is obviously more advantageous.
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
silly stat. we score ten more points per game than we give up.

championship.
Yards dont matter, its all about points
END THREAD.

This
soooo that stat goes against you even if the other team marches 90 yards then coughs the ball up? Points Allowed/Achieved > Yards Allowed/Achieved
One thing is all I need to say: Special teams and field position.
I like the stat that show our team scores more point than our opponents
I wonder what about being up late in games and getting tons of turnovers Cole doesn't understand about why teams having to pass a whole lot to try to stay in the game, unsuccessfully.
Well that settles it for me. I think we should lose out the rest of our games so we can get a better draft pick.
Yeahh thats right we do suck.. soooo bad we are. worst D I've seen in years.. once we get .4 more production were all good though ..right??
As with any stat there are exceptions so perhaps the niners are just the exception ...I'm more concerned with the third down conversion rate,
Niners are 27 in the league , NO, GB, Pitt, hou and SD are in the top 5 ... Elway alluded to it in a interview that Mr. Tim tebow needed to get
Better on third down and said 3 out of 13 week in and week out won't cut it.... Niners are leading the league in turnover margin which is a critical stat
but what does the lack of third down efficiency suggest ?
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home