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

[HansGruber]

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?

You should have ended with the comic. That was actually humorous and relevant.

Nobody was discussing point differentials or victory formations.

Have you ever run into a fire station and demanded a pizza? Why start now?

 

[RolandDeschain]

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.

This just goes to show that you don't understand how Vegas makes odds. Vegas makes odds to keep betting even. If everyone thinks Team A will win and is betting on them a lot, they keep making the odds more drastic to attract bettors to bet on Team B. Vegas is all about keeping betting even so they can't lose regardless of the outcome. Someone could bet on every NFL game every week for an entire year, win 80% of the time, and still potentially lose money on the year.

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:

Sigh. You can determine trends with other major stats. You can't determine trends with time of possession. You'll never understand it, so I'll just stop arguing the point. I will leave with one last example, though.

Let me explain ToP another way. It's ONLY a result of prior actions.

It's like saying 5 + 5 = 10. 10 is the result, it's the time of possession. You can't look at 10, and go well gee, that was a result of 5 + 5. It could be a result of 7 + 3, 2 * 5, or adding -17 to 27, or adding 6.882 to 3.118. You can't use 10 to indicate anything, it's merely a RESULT of other things that happened, and those things can and do vary wildly.

Whereas you can look at Denver scoring a TD on more than 70% of their possessions and make a very accurate statement of "If Denver scores on more than 70% of their possessions, they win the game." That is likely to be true 100% of the time, or close to it. you can't do that with time of possession. There are way too many factors that happen on a regular basis to throw off ToP in a big way. Look at when the Patriots played the Colts last year. Colts had a ToP of 32:55, but lost the game 59-24. Similarly, last year they also had a 22:22 ToP against Detroit, but won that game 35-33. These aren't anomalies, they are regular happenings with ToP.

Respond how you want to to this, but I am done discussing ToP.

 

[themunn]

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?

You should have ended with the comic. That was actually humorous and relevant.

Nobody was discussing point differentials or victory formations.

Have you ever run into a fire station and demanded a pizza? Why start now?

No, I'm pointing them out as "indicators of victory" that are actually MORE useful than time of possession in "indicating" victory
That doesn't make them useful

 

[HansGruber]

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.

I'm sorry but your definition of an indicator is simply false.

in·di·ca·tor
ˈindiˌkātər/Submit
noun
1.
a thing, esp. a trend or fact, that indicates the state or level of something.
"car ownership is frequently used as an indicator of affluence"
synonyms: measure, gauge, barometer, guide, index, mark, sign, signal, symptom; More
2.
a device providing specific information on the state or condition of something, in particular.

An indicator is not a predictor of anything. An indicator is the result of something (expressed as a given state), not the cause of it.

Your example of someone saying they "should have been able to see the indicators" merely exposes the poor vocabulary common to the majority of our society. The proper word in this sentence would be "signs".

sign (sn)
n.
1. Something that suggests the presence or existence of a fact, condition, or quality.

For instance: "I should have been able to see the signs."

Another example would be a kidney cancer diagnosis, for instance. A specific high count of red blood cells would be considered an indicator of kidney cancer. If the count is high enough, the indicator can be said to support a diagnosis. This indicator has little to no relevance to the prognosis, which is the predictive aspect of your diagnosis. Diagnostic indicators are, in general, a very poor prognostic tool.

And with that, I'm done trying to define indicators. This topic has been beaten to death.

And it simply does not change the fact that in 71% of all games played in 2013, the team with the greatest time of possession won the game. Your original argument was that it would be no higher than 40-50% and that a coin flip would be as relevant. This is factually untrue. Time of possession appears to be a very strong indicator of success in NFL games.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Hans' stats were compiled to show that it wasn't a "meaningless" statistic, not that it was the most important. Nobody suggested other metrics weren't more valuable or reliable. It was only to show correlation. Which so far this year, it does.

If I had been forced to put money on ToP winner or loser this year, I'd make more taking the winner. Will that correlation hold over the season? I'll suggest now that it will, and with a PC team that intends to win the ToP battle via running the ball and forcing turnovers (though some commentators have suggested this cannot be controlled), it may be more pronounced than the league average. I'll be interested to see if this is the case.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Except that that's an impossible bet to make, Ad Hawk. Try walking into a sports book and saying you want to place money on whoever ends up winning the ToP, lol. Also, Hans, I don't think you really understand the ways indicator can be used based on its definitions.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Except that that's an impossible bet to make, Ad Hawk. Try walking into a sports book and saying you want to place money on whoever ends up winning the ToP, lol.

Impossible to make in Vegas, perhaps; but if it does correlate to game winning %? That's all I think has been asked; and those saying it's "meaningless" aren't accepting that it's not entirely meaningless. The most important stat? Nobody said so. But if PC wants to win it, it must have value to him, and maybe to the team as a metric of their larger philosophy.

It's just strange how small, insignificant stuff can get so important. It's like my kids arguing over... well, just about anything! :lol:

 

[RolandDeschain]

As has been pointed out by someone already, the team that kneels down more wins 100% of the time, so why not just go for kneel downs?....

 

[Cartire]

You can bet on TOP in Vegas. Along with a plethora of other stats. Learn something.

 

[USChawk]

I'm so mad at myself that I just looked through this entire thread.

A win is a win, I never thought I would see the day when Seahawk fans would complain so much about a win.

I'll take all of these that we can get. Fact is the team isn't going to be perfect or even good every week.

However winning when you aren't even playing that well is the mark of a really good possibly great team and that is what we have.

Enjoy it for fu__s sake. I've been a fan of way too many losers to not enjoy every win.

 

[Ad Hawk]

As has been pointed out by someone already, the team that kneels down more wins 100% of the time, so why not just go for kneel downs?....

They will, in the right context, and it will work. They will take time off the clock, and W by doing so rather than by running or passing which subjects them to potential for losing the turnover battle.

Come on, RD. Your trolling now, because you know better. You know why PC is interested in this metric as a component of his offensive strategy.

They will also run the ball more than pass because that controls the clock, wears down the D, and has a better chance at keeping opponents off the field.

The strategy is sound; but much like we aren't always winning the WR/passing battle, we're still finding ways to win. Even if ToP isn't won, we may still find a way to win.

 

[Sac]

 

[HansGruber]

Sigh. You can determine trends with other major stats. You can't determine trends with time of possession.

:shock:

I did exactly that. Not only did I determine a clear trend with time of possession, I even supplied you with the exact values. If you wanted, you could easily plot those values along a graph and get a visual representation of the trend. The trend is right there staring you in the face, whether you choose to accept it or not.

71% of all games played in 2013 were won by the team with the greatest time of possession.

The trend amazingly stayed pretty static all season, which is highly unusual of organic systems. At no point in the season did the trend drop below 66%, nor did it go over 81%. It's just incredible, really.

And from now on, when I hear someone argue that time of possession is a worthless stat, I'll know that factually they are wrong. Time of possession might not always be an indicator of success, but it is about 70% of the time. Which is nowhere close to your estimate of 40%.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

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).

I should have put some smiley faces. I didn't mean to come off harshly. Apologies.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Jeebus guys, it works like this: If we had a Mike Holmgren offense that scores quickly and often, the defense spends more time on the field and gets worn out. Pete's philosophy is defense wins championships. So build a great defense that will hold the opponent, then grind out the clock on offense and let THEIR defense get worn out. By the second half, you'll be in the game guaranteed and the defense that's tired will lose and the defense that's not tired will hold onto the win.

That's the philosophy. That's the team he's built. It has a great deal of advantages. If the games close, you tend to wear them down and win it in the fourth. If we fall behind early, we can still come back. If we take an early lead, it's hard to come back on us. We've all seen this to be true. Not sure why anyone would doubt Petes philosophy.

 

[pehawk]

Jeebus guys, it works like this: If we had a Mike Holmgren offense that scores quickly and often, the defense spends more time on the field and gets worn out. Pete's philosophy is defense wins championships. So build a great defense that will hold the opponent, then grind out the clock on offense and let THEIR defense get worn out. By the second half, you'll be in the game guaranteed and the defense that's tired will lose and the defense that's not tired will hold onto the win.

That's the philosophy. That's the team he's built. It has a great deal of advantages. If the games close, you tend to wear them down and win it in the fourth. If we fall behind early, we can still come back. If we take an early lead, it's hard to come back on us. We've all seen this to be true. Not sure why anyone would doubt Petes philosophy.

Word.

The Seahawks team is built to dominate in second half of games and seasons. Which is why I expect the offense to be getting more and more diverse as the season progresses.

 

[HansGruber]

Jeebus guys, it works like this: If we had a Mike Holmgren offense that scores quickly and often, the defense spends more time on the field and gets worn out. Pete's philosophy is defense wins championships. So build a great defense that will hold the opponent, then grind out the clock on offense and let THEIR defense get worn out. By the second half, you'll be in the game guaranteed and the defense that's tired will lose and the defense that's not tired will hold onto the win.

That's the philosophy. That's the team he's built. It has a great deal of advantages. If the games close, you tend to wear them down and win it in the fourth. If we fall behind early, we can still come back. If we take an early lead, it's hard to come back on us. We've all seen this to be true. Not sure why anyone would doubt Petes philosophy.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I also noticed last season the huge contrast between Holmgren and Carroll's philosophies. Those Holmgren teams were nerve-wracking because you'd have to pray for a 20 point lead and hope they held it. 2004 is a great example. Seems our defense was always getting beat up in the 4th. 2005 was a little better and I wonder how much of that was because we were just running the ball so well.

It's awesome how this team is built so differently.

Call me crazy, but this team over the last few weeks has proven that to me, and I'm more confident than ever. 3 starting offensive linemen out, a starting TE and WR out, veteran FB gone and replaced by rookie, etc. That would kill most teams. Yet here's Russell Wilson, driving down the field in overtime to beat the Texans.

People say we got stomped by the Colts. They were throwing the ball all over the place and just playing lights-out dominant football. And yet, there's Russell Wilson driving with 2 minutes left and down by 6. So he threw a pick. We lost one. Big whoop. This team is still in a game that it had no business being in. Every game we win you've got national analysts talking about the other guy giving the game away. That's when you know you have a championship team. When no matter how good your opponent plays, you still find a way to win.

Reminds me of the Steelers and Giants teams that won multiple Lombardi's. I'm excited. And the loss to Indy just got me more excited. This team is way better than any of these pessimists realize. And a huge part of that is due to Carroll's ball-control philosophy, keeping games close, giving Wilson a chance to win it late. Because you know he will.

 

[Hawkboi]

We still won after giving them a freebee right before the half. There have been many times the wind would have been gone out of our sail, but we fought back and got the win... The game wouldn't have been as close as it was, if it wasn't for the horrible fluke non-kick at the end... :180670:

 

[CortezKennedyfan]

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

I don't think we almost lost to Fitzpatrick, that mistake-filled game was one in which the Hawks almost beat themselves.

Plus...I really think people are understating how crucial the O-Line injuries have been.

Backup center, backup tight end, backup left tackle, backup right tackle, trying to replace pro bowlers, trying to get 2nd stringers and rookies to recognize blitzes like vets...yikes.

If Big Dog and Breno were there, it would be completely different. 4/5 guys were in positions they didn't start in and missing a tight end in this offense is massive.




Imagine if we were about to play the niners and they were missing their center, their two tackles and their tight end. We would be salivating!

 

[Jay-Dog]

yep! Organized chaos. Football at it's finest.

5-1 and we are just getting started...so stoked to see the Hawks soaring with each and every win.