What Makes Teams Win ... Post Mordem

So, as many may recall, I posted a thread about "What Makes Teams Win" that went through the correlations of specific factors within the game that have the largest impact upon the outcome of football games. I've also used this as a basis of many of my discussions on this board when it comes to separating truth from fiction - math from myth - fact from fallacy & basically debunking verbal diarrhea bull-crap.

So to recap. From Advanced Football Stats ... These are the strongest correlated factors in determining outcomes of football games.

Stat Win Correlation
Off Pass Yds/Att 0.61
Def Pass Yds/Att 0.47
Off Fumble Rate 0.46
Off Int Rate 0.45
Def FFumble Rate 0.41
Def Int Rate 0.39
Off Pen Rate. 0.37
Off Run Yds/Att 0.18
Def Run Yds/Att 0.04

To put this in a mathematical formula ... It would look like this.

Off Pass Yds/Att X 0.61 - Def Pass Yds/Att X 0.47 - Off Fumble Rate X 0.46 - Off Int Rate X 0.45 + Def FFumble Rate X 0.41 + Def Int Rate X 0.39 - Off Pen Rate X 0.37 + Off Run Yds/Att X 0.18 - Def Run Yds/Att X 0.04

So looking at last weekend's WDF ... Here's how it looked.

Calgary = 16 X .61 - 6 X .47 - 0 X .46 - 1 X .45 + 0 X .41 + 0 X .39 - 1 X .37 + 6 X .18 - 3 X .04 = 7.08

B.C. = 6 X .61 - 16 X .47 - 0 X .46 - 0 X .45 + 0 X .41 + 1 X .39 - 1 X .37 + 3 X .18 - 6 X .04 = -3.54

Differential = 3.54 in favour of Calgary. Final score 34 - 29 Calgary. Differential 5.

Main reasons Calgary won? Substantially longer yards per pass attempt than BC. Double yards per carry rushing. All else was statistically insignificant & basically equal. Longer pass per attempt that's your opponent is the key driver which it was for Calgary last Sunday.

Outside of that, it was that Calgary had 2 FG's & 4 TD's while BC had 5 FG's & 2 TD's. Converting in red zone.

Aren't stats and math fun?

Wow, pretty cool!

May I ask you break down the Vanier Cup?

Wondering if it might me anomaly considering how Laval won seemingly it on their run game

And as far as the EDF goes ...

Toronto's correlated factors total using same formula noted above = 2.98
Montreal's correlated factors total using same formula noted above = -0.10

So the math/stats held true in both the Eastern & Western Division Finals.

So in summary ...

Offensive Passing Yards Per Attempt is 30% more important than Defensive Passing Yards Per Attempt
Fumbling the ball on Offense is 12% more detrimental than it is advantageous to forcing fumbles on Defense.
Throwing Interceptions is 15% worse than making interceptions.
What you achieve in yards per carry in the rushing game is 350% more important than how much you limit your opponent.
The passing game overall is 238% more important than the running game.
Fumbling is marginally worse than throwing interceptions, 2%.
Same can be said that Forcing fumbles is marginally better than picking off passes, 5%.

So the formula for success and what it takes to win games held true in the two divisional finals last weekend. I fully expect it to hold true tomorrow in The 100th Grey Cup as well!

Sure ... I'll breakdown the Vanier ... Just gotta find reliable stats ...

At first glance, actually, the formula will hold true.
Laval had more yards per pass attempt than MAC. (9.4 to 8.4)
No interceptions thrown versus two takeaways.
Double the yards per rushing attempt versus yards per rush allowed. (8.1 to 4.2)
Half the penalties. (5 vs 10)
The real eye opening stat though ... Which is not part of the formula ... Is that Bede kid out-kicked MAC by 10 yards per punt & a whopping 23 yards per kick-off!

[url=http://english.cis-sic.ca/championships/fball/2012/champ-boxscores/20121123_96c6.xml]http://english.cis-sic.ca/championships ... 3_96c6.xml[/url]

And finally ... Lets take a look at The 100th Grey Cup and use our formula once again ...

Stat Win Correlation
Off Pass Yds/Att 0.61
Less
Def Pass Yds/Att 0.47
Less
Off Fumble Rate 0.46
Less
Off Int Rate 0.45
Plus
Def FFumble Rate 0.41
Plus
Def Int Rate 0.39
Less
Off Pen Rate. 0.37
Plus
Off Run Yds/Att 0.18
Less
Def Run Yds/Att 0.04
Equals
Correlated Factors Total

Toronto's correlated factors total using same formula noted above = 0.285
Calgary's correlated factors total using same formula noted above = -2.784

Looking at it by factor to get an idea where it is that Toronto won the game.

Stat Win Correlation
Off Pass Yds/Att Basically a draw. 7.9 to 7.3 in favour of CGY
Def Pass Yds/Att Same as above since this is just an inverse
Off Fumble Rate Advantage Toronto. No fumbles
Off Int Rate Draw statistically since 1 each. But the pick six I'm sure was a detrimental factor to CGY momentum
Def FFumble Rate Advantage Toronto. They recovered one
Def Int Rate Draw statistically since 1 each. But the pick six I'm sure was a beneficial factor to TOR momentum
Off Pen Rate. Advantage Toronto. 11 to 5. Calgary penalized more than twice as much
Off Run Yds/Att Advantage Toronto. 6.65 to 3.8 in favour of Toronto
Def Run Yds/Att Same as above since this is just an inverse

So, in the end, it was fumbles, interceptions, penalties, running the ball and stopping the run that won the game for Toronto. I realize interception differential was nil, but I gotta believe that the Pick 6 had an impact.

So which is it...the stats that say there was no impact...or your belief that the pick six had an impact....

On the surface, the interception differential was nil so no impact on an individual level. But when you account for points off turnovers which are always very impactful, then a definite impact.

So I'd say my belief which is backed up through empirical evidence that points off turnovers count.

Then why isn't it part of the formula...?

I know you didn't create the formula. But I don't think you can trot out a formula as 'separating truth from fiction -math from myth - fact from fallacy and basically debunking verbal diarrhea bull-crap'......and then add your own view in there that isn't part of the formula (especially when said view was the basis for your passionate dismissmal of the thought of Henry Burris' best season ever).
If points off turnovers play such an important role and is backed up through 'empirical evidence', why does Advanced Football Stats not give it much creedance?

Point well taken. I should have separated my view point aside from testing the formula. That being said, it still works without points off turnovers.

My passionate dismissal of Henry Burris's best season ever has nothing to do with this formula. I didn't offer this formula In that discussion. (Not to rehash that argument but I still do think that turnovers in total, timeliness, points off of them etc do detract from HB's so called best year ever. But since you brought it up ...)

I'll look into it why its not part of the formula and report back.

Question for you in the meantime ... Are points off turnovers not statistically relevant or impactful into the outcome of games.

Figured out why Points Off Turnovers are not included in the formula from Advanced NFL Stats.

Points of no kind are included in the formula. It includes all the other relevant stats that result in producing points. I'm assuming that in some way, the formula is trying to determine who scores the most points including them would double count I guess.

I thought they were until this forumla, which is stated to prove 'what makes teams win'...didn't include it.

...toss the formula out the door. The team that capitalized on the opponents errors & played to their game plan won....it IS that simple. I only needed 2 lines & a smiley face. :cowboy: