3-1, are the Fins just Overacheiving ? Look at Stats.

Dolphins are 3-0 against teams that are 7-3 vs other opponents. We gave Indy their only loss, 1 of two losses for the first place Browns and beat a 1-3 Atlanta team who are better then their record.

 

Saw the Bills and Browns game and have no doubt we will beat the Bills.

 

Spiller is lethal and Mario Williams is ballin this year, but their offense leaves much to be desired outside of spiller.

Manual, if he's not hurt badly that is, doesn't scare me.

 

Reconciling the numbers with the record is easy. The key is looking at the right numbers. Going into the Saint's game the Dolphins were the most efficient redzone offense and one of the most efficient redzone defenses. RT was excelling on 3rd down and in the 4th quarter and our TO ratio was positive. Efficiency and TO ratio have always been the key statistics. Volume stats are meaningless. So if you have three games where you were efficient and one game where you weren't, the most likely outcome is 3-1.

 

This doesn't account for the predictive value of the statistics, unless you are theorizing that the issues presented in every single game are completely self-contained and the magnitude of those issues carry no weight going forward. I would not agree with that theory. I think common sense tells us that in a copycat league where the film study and advance scouting processes are evolving week to week, issues displayed in one week do have an effect going forward, and the worse the issue was the more likely it is to affect the team's future performance.

 

Manuel doesn't "scare" me, but he's capable of having a good enough game and using his feet to escape if necessary (similar to Jake Locker last year). Their defense seems like it could give our OL some fits though.

If Tuel is QB, I would not be worried at all.

 

I think there are some things that carry forward and somethings that don't. When I use stats as a predictor, I tend to look at 4 game blocks rather than a single game. I find there's more predictive value in looking at the last four games. I think that those that focus too much on a single game tend to end up prisoners of the moment. They exaggerate every error that occurred in the one game as season ending cripplers.

 

And as far as looking at individual games for efficiency and turnovers, why did we win the Falcons game?

Turnover differential was 0 in the game as both teams had 2 turnovers.

The Falcons had a net yards per attempt of 6.1 to the Dolphins net yards per attempt of 4.9.

The Falcons had a higher yards per play as well.

 

It's called a real serious home field advantage..it's real...and not everyone can sustain under it until they've at least felt it.

Section is right..

 

I agree with this completely. But you don't seem to agree with yourself in your other post as it seems your instinct is to completely wall off the Saints game as if it didn't happen, or as if it did happen but it's just one-fourth of the data and the efficiency seen in the other three-fourths are more important, that in-game magnitude of advantage doesn't play into it at all.

As I said before right now the Dolphins are 22nd in the league in net yards per play differential. They have a negative turnover ratio, which includes one game where they won the turnover ratio massively, two games with a tied turnover ratio, and one game where they lost the turnover ratio a bit more massively than the game they won it.

As for the red zone efficiency, the Dolphins are currently 9 out of 11 in the red zone and I think there's some fair question whether that's sustainable. The absolute highest percentages in 2012 were about 68%, and in 2010 to 2011 more like 64 to 66%. If the Dolphins regress simply to the very tipsy-top levels seen over full seasons the last few years, if they appear in the red zone at the same rate they've been appearing then they'll score touchdonwns on about 20 of the next 33 (60.6%) red zone possessions. Meanwhile the defense has given up touchdowns on 8 of 14 red zone trips. Will that go up, or down? We don't know. It's certainly a reasonable full season percentage so there's no reason to assume either way so let's assume the next 24 of 42 red zone trips are successful at producing touchdowns.

At that point, your red zone differential has basically dried up to into negligibility.

 

To further explain myself with respect to the red zone statistics...

The Dolphins are currently 2nd in NFL red zone efficiency with 9 TDs on 11 trips (81.8%).

The team in 1st place is the Denver Broncos, whose red zone efficiency is probably also going to revert to the mean, but who have the talent that makes me doubt the sustainability f their red zone success significantly less.

The last 10 years, the team that finished 2nd in red zone efficiency had the following full year percentages:

68.4%
65.4%
64.4%
64.8%
64.2%
70.2%
60.0%
67.6%
67.8%
62.7%

The average there is 65.6%. If the Dolphins keep appearing in the red zone at the same rate they'll have 33 more trips the rest of the year. If they're to finish at the average of 2nd place finishers in red zone efficiency over the last 10 years, that means scoring TDs on 20 of those trips. That's a 60.6% percentage. On defense they're giving up 8 of 14 (57.1%). Therefore, going forward I don't really expect red zone differential to play the part it did in the first four games.

 

I never really focused on net yards per attempt as much as YPA. I understand the reasoning behind using net yards, but I haven't noticed an increased predictive value from using net yards. I looked at it a few years back and actually saw a decreased predictive impact going from passing YPA to net YPA, although I have no idea why. Miami did have a slightly higher YPA. Overall , when looking at one game you tend to have more variation than looking at four games. Efficiency stats in one game, while far more predictive than volume stats, are more prone to timing factors (like scoring at the end of games or halves). So if I were to guess, I would say that Miami won b/c they were more efficient at critical times than Atlanta was.

 

Pretty much the whole of Las Vegas disagrees with disregarding net YPPA in favor of just straight YPPA.

I just disagree with your application of the statistics here. For example you mention that Miami had a positive turnover ratio over the first three games and that turned negative against the Saints and this is part of why it doesn't surprise you to see a 3-1 record. Except that as I pointed out, the turnover ratio was actually even in both the Colts and Falcons games. The Dolphins were 43% on third down against the Colts, which isn't all that good. So they weren't necessarily strong on third downs during the three games either.

It just seemed like having your cake and eating it too. You're arguing against the amalgamation of statistics over the four-game period because the individual games went different ways, but then you amalgamate the statistics during a three-game period and generalize based on that, even though the individual games went different ways.

 

This leaves no accounting for the quality of the opponent. Or weather. Or injuries.

 

I think that at this point it makes sense to consider the NO game as an outlier. We were playing a superior team in a situation where they had a strong home field advantage. I expected Miami to lose this game so I'm not going to suddenly shift to predicting gloom and doom when every game this year has turned out about how I expected. Going forward we'll see if that continues to bear out or not. My prediction before the season was 9 or 10 wins. I never do a game by game win/loss before the season b/c I think you need the season to start to get a more accurate gauge on what teams are good and which aren't.

As for the predictive stats, my main focus has always been on YPA (offense and defense) and TO ratio. I do think that redone efficiency, a QB's 3rd down success and 4th qtr rating and success at the end of halves and games are also important. I don't think they're perfect, but more elaborate measures don't tend to increase predictability much or at all. So I tend to focus on those four areas. I don't really have a stat for success at end of games and halves. The 4th qtr QB rating is part of that, but most mostly I just rely on my eyes.

 

Here is some good stuff on predictive passing stats:

http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

 

Nobody's asking anyone to be doom and gloom based on one game.

But it's aslo conveniently done to drop the one loss the team has into the outlier bucket.

I don't believe in that, especially since the Saints won that game by taking advantage of issues that had been festering behind the W's for the entire month. The Dolphins' margin of victory had been receding ever since the Browns game.

They beat the Browns pretty soundly. They hung in with them and started to pull away in the third quarter, then broke the game open in the fourth quarter. It was a sound, two-touchdown victory.

They won solidly against the Colts but it came down to a final drive situation where they had to hold Andrew Luck from doing what he's already done many times in his young career. They won, and they deserved it, but it was close.

The margin of victory against the Falcons looks the same on the scoreboard but I think those of us who watched the game can appreciate that it was less than the Colts game, as Miami were straight up outplayed for much of the game and then collected on a 4th quarter punt return fumble and a missed 35 yard field goal to end up kind of stealing the game.

The margin of victory against the Saints disappeared entirely and we lost, by quite a bit.

I see a diminishing team with weaknesses that have persisted for a month and were broken open by the Saints. The Dolphins need to reinvent the way they play in order to get back out front of their margin of victory. Not saying they can't or won't do it. Just saying that's what they're going to have to do. They're no longer the team that won 3 games and lost only 1 game. They're going to have to become a different team.

 

I should have been more specific. I've just been repeating the same things for so long that I some times get lazy. For years I have been arguing that there are certain things that win in the NFL. They are the things that you must do. Specifically, you have to pass more efficiently than your opponent and you can't have a negative TO ratio. I said "positive" on the TO ratio, but that was a misstatement. When I looked at the championship teams all the way back to the 60s, I only found one exception where a team didn't win the YPA battle and have at least a neutral TO ratio in either the regular season or as part of a playoff run. Other things are nice and they certainly help, like a strong running game for example, but in the end those two things are critical.

So looking at the four games you see that Miami did not have a negative TO ratio and had a better YPA than their opponents in three of them. If you try to switch it to net YPA suddenly it doesn't work anymore. That's the same thing that happened when I tried to apply net YPA vs. just YPA a few seasons ago. The net YPA turned out to correspond less often to who won.

 

As I read his analysis, he does a fine job of explaining why YPA is more correlated than passer rating, but then he just jumps using net YPA w/o making a comparison. Maybe I've just been lucky or unlucky, but everytime I've done a comparison between YPA and net YPA, I've found that YPA was more correlated. Everybody just seems to want to use net YPA b/c it seems like it should be better, but I haven't found that to be true.

 

That's exactly what your doing. You're saying this last game matters more b/c it indicates the team is diminishing. I'm saying that's a jump. This team is 3-1 b/c it has certain strengths and it managed their weaknesses in 3 of those games. They made adjustments and they found ways to win. IMO the difference in game four was the quality of the opponent and the situation (extreme home field advantage). I don't see those same factors repeating. I think that going forward our opponent's talent level will be closer to what we faced in those first three games and I don't expect another situation with such an extreme home field advantage. Therefore, I see the first three games and the majority of those outcomes as more predictive. Obviously, the team could go into a major funk where they don't generate TOs and RT throws a ton of INTs, but I think it's more likely that he'll be the careful QB he was in those other games.

 

That's actually not what I'm doing at all. Did you read the post? I'm pretty certain I made clear that the four-game pattern is what matters here, not one particular game.

 

You're saying that the weaknesses were there all along but now that NO broke them open that we should expect other teams to be able to do the same. At least that's my read. I'm saying that there's little reason to believe this team is diminishing. That NO was a better team than any other regular season opponent and that I think it's more likely that our remaining opponent's success at exploiting our weaknesses (and dealing with our strengths) will more closely correspond to what we saw in the first three games.

 

You must buy some really soft printer paper. Or have a really calloused ***.

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2

 

That must have sounded so funny in your head.

 

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2

 

Category - Correlation
ANY/A 0.55
Passer Rating 0.51
NY/A 0.50
Touchdown/Attempt 0.44
Yards/Att 0.43
Comp % 0.32
Interceptions/Att -0.31
Sack Rate -0.28
Passing Yards 0.16
Attempts -0.14

Net-YPA is more correlated than YPA.

 

That must have made sense in your head

 

IIRC the year I did it YPA (several years ago) had a correlation of .57 and when combined with a neutral or better TO ratio had a .81 correlation.

 

The offense is too conservative. The defense is good, but needs a better secondary.

 

it really pisses me of that tannehill is looking so "bad" at passing statistics again when it comes to TD's and INT's..you could make a case for 3 of those INT's of bad luck....that pass against atlanta that clay should have caught...picked...the pass against the browns tipped by defender over the middle...that pass against the saints...hit as he threw..and then thigpen after running for 50 yards gets shoe string tackled 10 yards short, although he clearly was looking on the scoreboard and must have seen the defender and he cuts to the inside instead of staying at the sideline more...lamar miller scored on that play..mike wallace going down at the 1 yard line against the colts

 

I have bad feeling that Dumervil's going to single-handedly ruin a few of our drives. He has looked very good for Baltimore and is probably salivating at the idea of whipping Tyson Clabo in obvious passing downs. We have to stay out of 3rd-long against him, not to mention Suggs on the other side against Martin. The OLine has not been playing 3-1 ball, and I have a feeling that could really catch up with us against this front 7.

 

Matchup wise this is one ugly game for our oline, the only hope I have is that I think they got a wake up call and we at least will get their best..

 

Right..but are you taking into account the quality of the oppostion. If we were 3-1 against inferior teams..and we were getting worse every game..fine. But if you look at it..every game we have played teams are getting better...so I would expect the difficulty of victory to progess in this same manner. I think if you plotted quality of opponent..vs quality of our play..as quality of opponent goes up..quality of our play goes down is not unrealistic..and for a young team where three of those games have been on the road..its actually expexted

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

It's not only conservative but you have Wallace and Hartline, both are track stars. Lamar is pretty damn fast as well. Yet, we're running one of the slower offenses in the league. We should be picking up the tempo, take advantage of the speed we have.

 

The quality of competition matters but I think people are judging it based on what they want to see.

The Browns were a terrible team when we played them and they gave us our most significant win. The Colts were and are actually better than the Falcons. The Saints are the best team we've faced but they also destroyed us. There's still a declining margin story happening right now as teams begin to hone in on our weaknesses. Miami has to shut that down by clamping off the weaknesses. They may open up new weaknesses by doing so, but it may take future opponents time to figure them out and you can keep adapting to stay ahead of them.

 

Oh I dont disagree..but I think it swings both ways. What I look at is..we have faced 3 elite Qbs ..and some very high quality TEs. I think we start to get back to more middle of the road teams maybe that dont present the same matchup issues. I do think there are some here that are very quick to point out flaws ..or where our team is bad...and much more patient when it comes to looking at what we have done well. I mean people are trying to equate Tannehill with Chad Henne...and thats just absurd

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

When you say "also" who are you referring to?

 

All the more reason to not care about how Tannehill's "stats" look, no?