Carroll said "doubting fans need to “do their homework”

[MOCHawk]

It would be a strawman if I offered it as an argument that you are wrong that TOP is an indicator, which, you know, I didn't. What I have said in the thread is that it is an indicator rather than a direct reason that teams.

I'm glad that you admit that you took a SSS and have not yet proven factually that TOP is not an indicator. Yes, if you get enough data, I am more than happy to agree that TOP is an indicator even though I already agree anyway. I just disagree that you have factually proven anything at this point, that's all.

Again, remember scope.

No matter your viewpoint, I most definitely HAVE proven that time of possession is a valid indicator of success in 71% of all games played in 2013.

I'm enjoying the research today. Had a particularly difficult case this morning, where one of my patients has passed and I am struggling with that, so to keep my mind off things, I think I will compile statistics for the last few seasons. It would be interesting and fun.

No harm intended. My curt dealing with findings once evidence is established is a particularly onerous trait of mine. I mean no disrespect to anyone in the thread. Just find the topic interesting, because it is one in which we really can prove or disprove something, and I have always wondered myself. (I wonder no more, though).

You have proven that teams that have the greater ToP have won their games more times than not. What you have not proven is that they won their games DUE TO ToP, which would make it important. They have accomplished a ToP advantage because they won, they did not win because they had a ToP advantage.

 

[RolandDeschain]

What is a predictive stat?

Trends in turnover differential, for starters. If the Seahawks took the ball away twice as much as the other team did for four weeks in a row, you definitely have a considerably increased chance of doing it again in the 5th week. Having ball hawking players is a chartable thing.

If you win time of possession 4 weeks in a row, that has no correlation towards a week 5 prediction. Look at how we started last year. We won ToP in week 1 @ Arizona, but lost the game. We then won ToP and beat Dallas at home, then lost ToP but won over Green Bay at home, then lost ToP by a mere 8 seconds @ St. Louis, but lost that game, then won ToP by a large margin @ Carolina, and win but it was close despite a big ToP differential, then lost ToP by 4 minutes to New England at home, but won that game.

It's just all over the place. Having a large ToP doesn't mean you won by a lot, having a close ToP advantage doesn't mean you barely won, and losing ToP by a lot doesn't mean you got blown out.

Other stats don't work this way.

They have accomplished a ToP advantage because they won, they did not win because they had a ToP advantage.

Correlation and causation confuse way too many people.

 

[Chapow]

HANS, IT'S NOT A PREDICTIVE STAT!

Good Lord. I don't understand how you can't get it.

Here, maybe I can help.

There's a correlation nowhere near as easy to see between large positive plays on offense as well, Hans.

However, I think you're drastically overstating the case. Flipping a coin will predict the correct winner 50% of the time. ToP does it 71% of the time you charted it, that's hardly a "great majority". Majority, certainly, but "great"? Not even close. It's also not a stat that has any predictive power at all. You can win the ToP battle 10 games in a row while having gone 5-5 over that stretch and still not make any accurate predictive correlation based on it for the next game that team has to play. Other stats like turnover differential, QB rating, TD-int ratio, yards per carry in the running game, etc. are all different from time of possession in that sense.

Indicator, not predictor. I do not believe it possible to predict the outcome of football games with any level of repeatable success. We do not live in a deterministic universe. What has happened in the past is not a reliable predictor of what will happen in the future, just as your stockbroker has told you.

Further, I was not concerned with any other questions. In order to develop any accurate theory, one must isolate a specific question and define a specific scope of how to answer said question. That question was "Is time of possession an indicator of success in football games?" The scope of this answer was defined as evaluating the outcome of 93 football games (all games played in 2013) and determining the percentage of games in which time of possession was a valid indicator of success. The answer to this question was 71%.

In any field of science/engineering, 71% would be considered an extremely strong indicator of any causal mechanism. There are always outliers in every aspect of our universe. Remember, we do not live in a deterministic vacuum.

He's made it quite clear more than once that it's an indicator not a predictive stat. I don't understand how you can't get it.

 

[hawker84]

My homework says we almost lost at home to Ryan Fitzpatrick.

If you actually did your homework you'd see we dominated in almost every catagory. minus a fluke play and costly fumble, this game was not even close.

 

[hawker84]

My homework says we almost lost at home to Ryan Fitzpatrick.

Ah, good to see the 2011 Montana back.

Am I wrong?

Yes

 

[RolandDeschain]

He's made it quite clear more than once that it's an indicator not a predictive stat. I don't understand how you can't get it.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding of what "indicator" means.

An indicator is something you use to make a prediction off of. Like when some guy goes nuts and kills his whole family, and the neighbors say they just can't believe it, but looking back, they should have seen the indicators.

An indicator is used to come to a conclusion about something. You use it as a basis to calculate, or figure something out. That makes it something in the future, that you have not calculated or done yet. A predictive thing. Time of possession is a result of things, INDICATORS even, that have already happened.

Another example would be the gas indicator on your car's dashboard. You use it to figure out when in the future you need to stop and get gas so you don't run out of it.

Time of possession is not an INDICATOR of anything, it's a RESULT of other things, or other indicators, that already happened, and even then it still steers you the wrong way a 3rd of the time or more.

Hell the very first example use of the word indicator in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is: "Economic indicators suggest that prices will go up."

You can't use past ToP to predict future results. It's not an INDICATOR of anything.

 

[Dtowers]

My homework says we almost lost at home to Ryan Fitzpatrick.

If you actually did your homework you'd see we dominated in almost every catagory. minus a fluke play and costly fumble, this game was not even close.

Don't even bother dudes like him don't get the big picture.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

My homework says we almost lost at home to Ryan Fitzpatrick.

If you actually did your homework you'd see we dominated in almost every catagory. minus a fluke play and costly fumble, this game was not even close.

Funny, last I checked the gap was only a touchdown.

I'm aware of what the stats were. What I'm saying is that winning the stats battle doesn't equate to winning the points battle.

 

[Scottemojo]

The last time we played a game like Sunday's, we won 58-0. We should have dominated. Instead, we looked like idiots at halftime and trailed against a good defense. AT HOME.

Our pass rush is supposed to be a lot more interesting than two sacks,e especially against guys like Fitzpatrick.

I am genuinely furious. Worst win of the Carroll era.

That you use a 58-0 drubbing of a team whose quarterbacks were so bad the coach was asking reporters if one of them could play, their best defensive player benched for insubordination, and Whisenhunt playing out the string as your benchmark is nuts, B.

Two sacks. Did you track the hits and hurries? The pass rush was pretty good. Do you figure into your rant that Carroll was shuttling D-line players in and out so he would have fresh players 4 days later in Arizona? Did you factor in that most of this defensive line has little time together?

If you were rational about this, you would understand how silly it is to complain about trailing to a good defense. Your words, not mine. What is so difficult to understand about trailing to a good defense?

I don't understand any of this reaction. Unless the looking like idiots thing is what it's really all about.

 

[Seeker]

My homework says we almost lost at home to Ryan Fitzpatrick.

If you actually did your homework you'd see we dominated in almost every catagory. minus a fluke play and costly fumble, this game was not even close.

Funny, last I checked the gap was only a touchdown.

I'm aware of what the stats were. What I'm saying is that winning the stats battle doesn't equate to winning the points battle.

it was a 23 - 6 game minus that fumble/touchdown
points battle won right there.

 

[Dtowers]

That you use a 58-0 drubbing of a team whose quarterbacks were so bad the coach was asking reporters if one of them could play, their best defensive player benched for insubordination, and Whisenhunt playing out the string as your benchmark is nuts, B.

Two sacks. Did you track the hits and hurries? The pass rush was pretty good. Do you figure into your rant that Carroll was shuttling D-line players in and out so he would have fresh players 4 days later in Arizona? Did you factor in that most of this defensive line has little time together?

If you were rational about this, you would understand how silly it is to complain about trailing to a good defense. Your words, not mine. What is so difficult to understand about trailing to a good defense?

I don't understand any of this reaction. Unless the looking like idiots thing is what it's really all about.

Thank you for putting him in his place. I think you hit the nail on the head with the looking like idiots thing. Some people are so caught up in this stuff they live vicariously through the team because that is the only thing they have in their lives. Like the guy in the smack shack crying because the FG return was on a top 10 segment. I don't get these type of people.

 

[hawker84]

My homework says we almost lost at home to Ryan Fitzpatrick.

If you actually did your homework you'd see we dominated in almost every catagory. minus a fluke play and costly fumble, this game was not even close.

Funny, last I checked the gap was only a touchdown.

I'm aware of what the stats were. What I'm saying is that winning the stats battle doesn't equate to winning the points battle.

and the score board does not always accurately reflect the actual game that was played on the field. Seattle dominated on both sides of the ball... forget the stats then, again i state, without the fluke play, the score would have better reflected how much Seattle dominated this game. They scored 6 pts, and 3 of those was off a fumble if i'm not mistaken?

 

[themunn]

It would be a strawman if I offered it as an argument that you are wrong that TOP is an indicator, which, you know, I didn't. What I have said in the thread is that it is an indicator rather than a direct reason that teams.

I'm glad that you admit that you took a SSS and have not yet proven factually that TOP is not an indicator. Yes, if you get enough data, I am more than happy to agree that TOP is an indicator even though I already agree anyway. I just disagree that you have factually proven anything at this point, that's all.

Again, remember scope.

No matter your viewpoint, I most definitely HAVE proven that time of possession is a valid indicator of success in 71% of all games played in 2013.

I'm enjoying the research today. Had a particularly difficult case this morning, where one of my patients has passed and I am struggling with that, so to keep my mind off things, I think I will compile statistics for the last few seasons. It would be interesting and fun.

No harm intended. My curt dealing with findings once evidence is established is a particularly onerous trait of mine. I mean no disrespect to anyone in the thread. Just find the topic interesting, because it is one in which we really can prove or disprove something, and I have always wondered myself. (I wonder no more, though).

Sure, it's an "indicator" of victory, just as point differential is. Did you know that 100% of the time teams win the point differential they win the game? So what's your point?

I looked through every game this year and compiled a result of victories versus number of "knee" plays. Did you know that the more times a team take a knee, the more likely it is they won the game? Funnily enough, those knee plays also helped them win the ToP battle, why don't teams take knees more often?

 

[RolandDeschain]

LOL, excellent work, Munn.

 

[Scottemojo]

That you use a 58-0 drubbing of a team whose quarterbacks were so bad the coach was asking reporters if one of them could play, their best defensive player benched for insubordination, and Whisenhunt playing out the string as your benchmark is nuts, B.

Two sacks. Did you track the hits and hurries? The pass rush was pretty good. Do you figure into your rant that Carroll was shuttling D-line players in and out so he would have fresh players 4 days later in Arizona? Did you factor in that most of this defensive line has little time together?

If you were rational about this, you would understand how silly it is to complain about trailing to a good defense. Your words, not mine. What is so difficult to understand about trailing to a good defense?

I don't understand any of this reaction. Unless the looking like idiots thing is what it's really all about.

Thank you for putting him in his place. I think you hit the nail on the head with the looking like idiots thing. Some people are so caught up in this stuff they live vicariously through the team because that is the only thing they have in their lives. Like the guy in the smack shack crying because the FG return was on a top 10 segment. I don't get these type of people.

I'm not trying to put anyone anyplace. I respect the hell out of Montana. I just don't understand being furious about this game.

 

[Dtowers]

Sorry relatively new here so don't know all the relationships or reps. But your post was a very accurate statement that refuted everything he was saying and kinda summed up my feelings on it as well. Wasn't trying to speak out of turn just describing your post not your intentions.

 

[BleedGreenNblue]

So Pete says red zone and 3rd down haven't been as good as they need to be, but anyone on this board who express concerns about the offense needs to shut up?

I don't understand why some of you guys get so bent out of shape when someone is worried about part of the team.

Because being a new member of this board most of what I've seen is negativity. Everyone complains alot. Sure its not a problem to talk about issues the team is having but its something new everyday nonstop..i mean give it a rest and enjoy the good stuff we have going on, WE HAVE BEAST MODE AND RUSSELL WILSON. We are lucky

 

[Seeker]

Houston wishes it had our problems right now.

 

[HansGruber]

HANS, IT'S NOT A PREDICTIVE STAT!

Good Lord. I don't understand how you can't get it.

I never made that argument.

Again, I do not believe it is possible to reliably/repeatably predict the outcome of any football game. If it were, some mobster would have figured it out by now and driven Las Vegas into bankruptcy. Las Vegas is doing pretty well the last time I checked.

Again, we do not live in a deterministic vacuum. There is no such thing as predictive statistics. Every statistic generated in a football game is the result of unpredictable circumstances, some of which are outside the control of even the teams playing (injuries and power outages for instance).

If you wish to make the argument that time of possession is a result rather than a causality, you will find me fully in agreement. However, the same argument must be applied to literally every other statistic generated in a football game. All football statistics are the result of fairly random events. If it were deterministic, it would be called WWE, not NFL. LOL.

:les:

 

[Ad Hawk]

I'd be curious how PC would approach thie ToP subject.

Would he say that ToP is the prime metric for success? No, he wouldn't.

Would he argue that he'd like to see us win ToP? He would; he's said as much on pressers. If it's a rather meaningless stat to some of you, it isn't to him because winning it more often than not (what ever %) suggests he's doing something he wants to do. It's a byproduct of an entire offensive philosophy that includes running the ball more than passing the ball, wearing out defenses through a smash-mouth ground game rather than via hurry-up offense or passing plays. PC wants to run the ball, and we're doing it. He wants to end the game taking knees because he's ahead (whatever the score), and we're doing it.

Would he want a more efficient passing offense? Sure, he'd probably love every drop-back with intent to pass to result in a reception, as would every Hawk fan here., I'd reckon Unfortunately, that's an impossible expectation to meet. So at what level would people be satisfied? 80%? 65%?

It's the passing metrics that seem to be the biggest issue here. I don't hear much complaining about our rushing, and even the patch-work O-line in general is being given a pass on this subject. Many on here seem to want the passing offense to keep RW in the pocket, throwing darts or sexy deep balls at a 75-80% completion rate with no ints. I'd love to see that too, but since it isn't a reality, we're winning in other ways.

I wonder if some here are getting frustrated because they sense we should have a higher completion rate on intended pass plays... so when RW scrambles for good chunks of yardage, but as an escape--even when well-executed--it seems like a failure, and the conclusion is that we aren't "clicking." Bevell, RW, WRs, O-line, etc., all end up with their share of the blame and criticism and there's no hope to beat playoff-bound teams.

And yet, we're winning!

We're doing it because we have a complete team, even when it isn't all working perfectly. That's a sign of a deep, talented roster, more than adequate coaching, and playing to our strengths. We're even overcoming bone-headed plays and FG's returned for TDs.

I don't get the pessimism; I see the deficiencies clearly, but also see us working around them to win. That's a good sign and keeps me encouraged.