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

[JesterHawk]

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

And Indianapolis got slaughtered. Hangover effect, be glad we got past it with a win.

 

[RolandDeschain]

On another note, so to win, all we have to do is get better at TOP. How do we do that?

All we have to do is stay inbounds on all plays, and complete short quick passes behind the line of scrimmage so they are all completions that keep the clock running on offense, duh.

WE ARE GUARANTEED TO WIN IF WE DO THAT! Time of possession strategy guarantees it!

 

[Cartire]

On another note, so to win, all we have to do is get better at TOP. How do we do that?

All we have to do is stay inbounds on all plays, and complete short quick passes behind the line of scrimmage so they are all completions that keep the clock running on offense, duh.

WE ARE GUARANTEED TO WIN IF WE DO THAT! Time of possession strategy guarantees it!

Seems like KC's game plan right now. And it's working....

 

[HansGruber]

ToP on it's own is a totally useless stat, just like any other stat.

I have just proven factually that this is a false myth.

No, you haven't. You have looked at six weeks' worth of data. SSS.

On another note, so to win, all we have to do is get better at TOP. How do we do that?

Yours is a different question, unrelated to the topic at hand. It's a common strawman that I have read elsewhere. In fact, it seems to be the strongest argument of the anti-TOP folks. Rather than tackle factual evidence head-on, they attempt to twist the scope of the argument by throwing out an illogical unanswerable question and pointing at the lack of an answer as being an affirmative defense against evidence. This is not how reality works.

The question I responded to was "Is time of possession a valid indicator of who wins or loses a football game?" The answer to this question is a clear and strong yes, and that has been factually proven.

The only legitimate response to such proof is to question the validity of said evidence. Is the data pool tainted? Is the scope too wide/narrow? Have we extrapolated data to an unreasonable extent?

You mentioned that by asking what it would look like over a whole season. Which is a valid question. Perhaps I will compile all of 2012 statistics tonight, and we can analyze 1.5 years of NFL data. Will you then concede that factually, yes, time of possession is an extremely strong indicator of success?

 

[csjwilkinson]

Guys, remember that I'm a 49ers fan here when I say, in all seriousness, who the hell is doubting the Seahawks? You guys are rolling!

 

[MontanaHawk05]

You're just using an inflammatory soundbyte for effect, and it's a load of crap.

You cannot convince me that the tone around here would be just as optimistic if a team featuring an awful QB had walked into the Clink and beat us at home. You cannot convince me. Fitzpatrick wasn't supposed to be the guy who stayed out of the way while his defense won, not against our home defense. He was supposed to be the guy who threw the game away in true John Skelton fashion. Did I put things harshly? Maybe. I'm on the Tech Worlds part of the spectrum right now, brutally hard on the team. But I do it because I have Super Bowl expectations. 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.

I'm aware that Fitzpatrick didn't look like an all-star. But that would matter a lot less to people had we lost. Our home-field advantage is supposed to be a massive field-tilter. Our pass rush is supposed to be a lot more interesting than two sacks,e especially against guys like Fitzpatrick. Our secondary is the Legion of Boom. Our offense is known for consecutive fiftyburgers against teams like Tennessee. Thanks to a variety of individual mistakes, most notably the Maragos bumble, it all came close to not mattering. That's football. You cannot tell me that suddenly losing all our division ground to San Fran over two games because of dumb mistakes and lack of focus wouldn't have people questioning. And I think you're capable of envisioning that, John. Things are merely optimistic because we won. Because Lynch's fumble-for-six didn't quite become so.

Chalk this up to "Super Bowl paranoia" if you want, that phenomenon where fans graduate from "Just get this team to challenge for the division" to "OK, now mitigate every possible weakness because in the playoffs it's one loss and done". I know every Super Bowl team has bad games. So do a lot of failed Super Bowl teams who lose that one game for the same reason. Sunday was NOT a situation we ever should have faced. The last two weeks have been a bizarre step back, intensified by injury and the fact that the league has figured our offense out. It's a time of adaptation and injury-weathering, and with HFA on the line, every play counts.

So spare me your "troll" labels, John. If I merely wanted attention, I'd still be running my blog. I am genuinely furious. Worst win of the Carroll era.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Seems like KC's game plan right now. And it's working....

According to their ToP, their official record is 4-2. Better let the NFL know they have KC's record wrong.

 

[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.

 

[Cartire]

Seems like KC's game plan right now. And it's working....

According to their ToP, their official record is 4-2. Better let the NFL know they have KC's record wrong.

Ok, so every stat is meaningless from now on. That's the rule. Except for W-L. You won't find a single stat that can't be debunk by your logic.

Give me one stat. I'll show you a team that lost even though they were better in that stat. You can't. But hey, this is the Roland way. When ever you're wrong, turn to hyperbole.

 

[HansGruber]

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.

 

[pehawk]

Seems like KC's game plan right now. And it's working....

According to their ToP, their official record is 4-2. Better let the NFL know they have KC's record wrong.

Ok, so every stat is meaningless from now on. That's the rule. Except for W-L. You won't find a single stat that can't be debunk by your logic.

Give me one stat. I'll show you a team that lost even though they were better in that stat. You can't. But hey, this is the Roland way. When ever your wrong, turn to hyperbole.

Be careful, you'll end up causing him to tantrum and put you on ignore. Apparently arguing with him wasn't okay, I should've stuck with name calling (mental midget) like he does.

 

[12evanf]

Am I the only one that likes the idea of receiving actual Seahawks homework?

 

[Seeker]

two picks and no punts in 3 quarters = not good enough?

Some of you need to stop letting espn highlights of peyton manning be the basis for your assessment. manning was out round 1 last year as in most.

 

[HansGruber]

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).

 

[RolandDeschain]

No, not every stat is meaningless; it's just that ToP is REGULARLY more meaningless compared to other stats because interceptions and huge plays on offense completely and utterly skew it, and those are things you AIM for in games. Coaches say you need to control the clock; yet they sit there praying for their offense to break off huge plays that, by necessity, put them at a supposed disadvantage for time of possession.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Am I the only one that likes the idea of receiving actual Seahawks homework?

Fieldgulls searches it out for themselves. Career students, those guys.

 

[RolandDeschain]

HANS, IT'S NOT A PREDICTIVE STAT!

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

 

[Cartire]

HANS, IT'S NOT A PREDICTIVE STAT!

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

What is a predictive stat?

 

[hawkfannj]

How bout a glass full of STFU for all the sheep?

 

[Scottemojo]

Am I the only one that likes the idea of receiving actual Seahawks homework?

No, it set off my nerd alert too.