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

Statistics show, that when a team plays on Thanksgiving. They are less likely to win the Superbowl if 3/5 offensive linemen order a second helping of mashed potatoes.

wow, who in the world looks up info like that? is it a niner fan? if soo cash in your fan card for a miami dolphins fan card. numbers lie! alex smith has lame numbers according to this era of the nfl, however you cannot argue with the 9-1 start. there have been many a team to have slack stats but at the end of the day, what matters is who has the most points. and have you considered that we do not allow anymore than 2 tds a game? and we avg 3 tds a game? and usually the tds come late or early , which means we shut down offenses early, and we finish late to seal the win! are some of you fans or doubters? come on people get real!

Dumb stat. I'll give you a better stat: 9-1

Originally posted by danimal:
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?

Don't remember seeing this specifically, but it's an excellent point. It's well-established in football statistical circles that consistency in forcing turnovers is a myth - turnovers are in large part the result of luck. People may scoff at this, but it's been borne out consistently in many many analyses. The teams that do it well for any one period are simply not more likely to keep doing it over the successive ones. When you're looking for teams that are due for a big regression, those with very positive turnover differentials are good places to start.

But before anyone freaks on me, take heart in this: what this guy Cole neglects to mention is that the best predictor of whether a team's success is real or lucky is the ratio of points scored to points conceded. (This is actually true is just about every point scoring sport.) And our ratio is #2 in the league (+111) and corresponds to a season of just over 13 wins. So we're actually right in line with what the statistical predictors say we about us.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Fantasy football strikes again, whoever invented it deserves to be castrated with a rusty spoon.

I've got a spork with dried crusty enchirito sauce on it, will that do?

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:

Originally posted by danimal:
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?

Don't remember seeing this specifically, but it's an excellent point. It's well-established in football statistical circles that consistency in forcing turnovers is a myth - turnovers are in large part the result of luck. People may scoff at this, but it's been borne out consistently in many many analyses. The teams that do it well for any one period are simply not more likely to keep doing it over the successive ones. When you're looking for teams that are due for a big regression, those with very positive turnover differentials are good places to start.

But before anyone freaks on me, take heart in this: what this guy Cole neglects to mention is that the best predictor of whether a team's success is real or lucky is the ratio of points scored to points conceded. (This is actually true is just about every point scoring sport.) And our ratio is #2 in the league (+111) and corresponds to a season of just over 13 wins. So we're actually right in line with what the statistical predictors say we about us.

this sounds reasonable, but, then again, I wonder where the Steelers and Ravens rank year by year in TO ratio? I'd bet both those teams are in the top 5 to top 10 in defensive TO's in the last 5-10 years. And some teams, offensively, just don't turn it over very often, no?

I guess what I'm getting at is if TOs are completely luck, then there would be some baseline that all teams would average out to eventually. Right? But I think some teams don't reach that "average." The teams that are successful year in and year out are consistently good in TO ratio. That's my assumption, too lazy to look it up right now.

Dan Marino put up a lot, I mean a lot of yards the year the 9ers BLEW THEM OUT in the Superbowl.

Lets see what other reason they come up with. There will be others. Many others.

Too much talk about stats and ratios. The 2007 Patriots went undefeated then got beat by the Giants in the superbowl. The patriots probably had all the stats in the world riding on their side but at the end of the day, its which team made the plays. Some games are played efficient like the TB game and some games are ugly like the AZ game. What matters is we make enough plays to win. Stats just highlight the big picture and don't always paint it.

Originally posted by Baldie:
Too much talk about stats and ratios. The 2007 Patriots went undefeated then got beat by the Giants in the superbowl. The patriots probably had all the stats in the world riding on their side but at the end of the day, its which team made the plays. Some games are played efficient like the TB game and some games are ugly like the AZ game. What matters is we make enough plays to win. Stats just highlight the big picture and don't always paint it.

Don't forget when the Patriots beat the Greatest Show on Turf for their first Superbowl.

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by Baldie:
Too much talk about stats and ratios. The 2007 Patriots went undefeated then got beat by the Giants in the superbowl. The patriots probably had all the stats in the world riding on their side but at the end of the day, its which team made the plays. Some games are played efficient like the TB game and some games are ugly like the AZ game. What matters is we make enough plays to win. Stats just highlight the big picture and don't always paint it.

Don't forget when the Patriots beat the Greatest Show on Turf for their first Superbowl.

The bottom line, especially in the playoffs, is that any team beating any other team is never really shocking. Every team has tons of talent. Calling a team talented, or saying a particular team has talent on their squad means absolutely nothing. The Colts might go winless. But Wayne, Clark, Freeney, Mathis are extremely talented guys that CAN take over a game. It just comes down to who plays better on Sundays. The Giants had less overall talent than NE, their talent just happened to play better on that particular Sunday.

Originally posted by valrod33:
Yards dont matter, its all about points
END THREAD.

if yards mattered than the PATS, COWBOYS and EAGLES would have won the last 5 super bowls.

Originally posted by corona55569:

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 ?

Could be a number factors, first thing that jumps into my head is lack of execution by personnel on third downs. Another factor could be conservative play calling on third down. Does anyone have numbers to show the volume of third down plays we actually run as compared to the league standard? I am pretty sure with more repetition and better rapport between Smith and the wideouts the percentage will improve.

statistics gonna stat

Last time I checked yards don't count as points. Also, for every statistical observation that is made there is always an anomaly or the exception to the rule and that is where the Niners come in. We have a great defense, our special team is one of the best in the NFL and we create turnovers all of which creates field position advantage. This, my friend, is the exception to the rule.

A stat that shows this guy needs to get off fantasy football and watch some real games...