Good teams/Bad teams and Points

[freddyjj]

Concise, analytical and logical.  Hapless how did you get this on the board?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

But the counter to this is the Bills (and NE) have both played a very easy schedule so should be scoring more points and maybe even a larger differential than they are in these games.  When playing better teams they will need to score more points to win.  If they had a differential  of around 60, I'd feel much better.

 

See, I don't follow this logic at all. 

 

Let me try to walk through it as I see it, and maybe you'll see the gap in my thinking and put me straight.  Fundamentally, I don't think "scoring more points on a bad team" makes a team intrinsically better.  Consider the following two scenarios:

Team A plays a bad team.  They get out to a lead.  They then pummel the snot out of that bad team, because they can.

Team B plays a bad team.  They get out to a lead, then they turn conservative and grind off the clock.

How does the fact that Team A has a "kick sand in the face of the weakling" mentality manifestly make them a superior team when facing a good team?

How does the fact that Team B has a "go conservative" mentality manifestly make them a worse team when facing a good team?

 

Now the Bills, most of the season, have neither been Team A nor Team B.  We've been Team T.  Team T plays a team, good or bad, and makes stupid mistakes or miscues leading to turnovers or stalling them out.  This puts them behind, but they hang tough and keep scrapping and end the game with more points on the board.  So to me, what that points to isn't "well we need to score more points".  It's "we need to avoid dumb mistakes that put us down in a hole or stall us".

 

Quote

Not saying the team is terrible, but do agree with some of the headlines that state the Bills are the worst 5-1 team.

 

Why?  What's your logic or justification?  I think it's B.S. even for this season, much less for all time.   I showed my work here.  What's yours?

 

58 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

Better maybe was a bad choice of words.  I'll try to  make it clearer.  If they had a differential of around 60, there's a much better chance they will continue to win games.  What's ridiculous to me is if you think the Bills can continue  winning say go 11-5 for the seaosn averaging 20 points a game.

 

I'm not sure what this means.  If the Bills had a differential of around 60 points over 6 games, they'd be at 10 points/game differential - which is 5 points per game more then they're at now.  That would put them up with the Vikings, Cowboys, and Ravens and ahead of the Chiefs, Packers, and Panthers.

 

Do you think the Vikings and Cowboys are more likely to keep winning games than the Chiefs and Packers?  Show your reasoning.

For that matter, do you think the Vikings and Cowboys are more likely to keep winning games than the Rams, Texans and NO Saints?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

If the Bills clean up the untimely penalties, turnovers and drops, then the point differential will take care of itself.

 

Either way, a 3-2 win is the same as a 33-0 win.  I'll take a notch in the "W" column any way we can get it.

 

..damn right...majority of the urinalists chalked this up to a Bflo "L" at home........then they can go into their feeding frenzy drool about "told you they weren't that good".......paste the "W" on their collective foreheads......post the "L" and this place will be "Meltdown Monday" for some....and unbearable......

[DuckyBoys]

also keep in mind the Bills are the only team with a negative turnover differential with a winning record  We've shot ourselves in the foot a lot and the defense has just been average at taking the ball away.  Hopefully that slowly flips to getting into the positive on turnovers. 

[Chandler#81]

40 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Concise, analytical and logical.  Hapless how did you get this on the board?

It’s an unfair advantage. Mods can bypass the ‘Nope, only stupid posts allowed’ barrier.

We don’t make much $$, but the perks are cool.?

[fansince88]

9 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

It’s an unfair advantage. Mods can bypass the ‘Nope, only stupid posts allowed’ barrier.

We don’t make much $$, but the perks are cool.?

This and getting to be mean....got to be a tossup huh?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

23 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

It’s an unfair advantage. Mods can bypass the ‘Nope, only stupid posts allowed’ barrier.

We don’t make much $$, but the perks are cool.?

 

...huh?...according to unpublished reports, starting MOD salary is $250K PLUS benefits.....the IRS told me so.........

[Chandler#81]

6 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...huh?...according to unpublished reports, starting MOD salary is $250K PLUS benefits.....the IRS told me so.........

Like I said, not much.. Supplements my Social Security though, so I get by..

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

Like I said, not much.. Supplements my Social Security though, so I get by..

...Social Security at 21??...WTF???....

[inthebuff]

Using the famous Bill James Phythagorean formula modified for football...

 

 

Given the current point differential, the expectation would be for the Bills to win 10.6 games...rounding up, that would be 11 because in the  immortal words of Nigel Tufnel, it goes to 11.

 

Here's the formula -- =ROUND(POWER(121,2.37) / (POWER(121,2.37) +POWER(91,2.37)) *16,1)

 

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by inthebuff

[dubs]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

OK, we're hearing all kinds of press pundits predicting Iggles win, including our own Joe Buscaglia.  Some are really going over the top and around the bend with claims like "Bills are the Worst 5-1 team ever.  Then there's all the analytics sites with their "special sauce" secret formulas proving Josh Allen sux.

 

With 26 hrs until game time I thought I'd interject a few facts, and when I say facts, I mean actual facts not the suppositions and inferences sometimes described as such.  Some say "Football is a simple game", and Hapless is a Simple Fan, so let's go there.

 

What matters at the end of the day isn't how many points your offense scores, or how many passing yards your QB racks up.  It's whether your team has more points on the scoreboard than the other team when the 4Q clock winds to 0.  That's a W: Our team points > Their team points at the end of the game.  Simple, right?  Doesn't matter how many points you score or don't score - just whether you got more than the other guy after 60 minutes.

 

So let's look at something simple - the point differential.  This is just [points a team scores - points a team gives up].

To normalize for bye weeks and Thurs nite, let's divide by the number of games a team has played, to get point differential per game.    The table below is derived from pro-football-reference and sorted by Point diff/game.  Wins are listed to the right, for comparison. 

 

Here we go:

 

In a development shocking no one, we see that this statistic, averaged over 6 or 7 games, is in fact pretty correlated to the number of W a team has.  But one can look at this, and flag certain teams that may be a bit better or worse than their record implies.  Now at this point in the season, there's a lot of football left, and +/- 1 game likely doesn't mean too much-a little bit of luck or a single blowout for or against.  But +/- 2 games should twitch an eyebrow at this point in the season, in other words, if a team's "neighbors" lined up by point differential are all 3-4 win teams, a 6 win team stands out.  If one's neighbors are 2-3 win teams, a 5 win team stands out.

 

One would think, if a team is indeed "the worst 5-1 team in the history of the NFL", they would stand out by having a worse point differential/game than their record would indicate.  And there is indeed a 5-win team that stands out as having a lower point differential per game than the other 5 win teams - but it's not the Bills.  It's the Seahawks.  There is even a 6-win team that stands out as not being where we expect the 6 win teams to be - that would be the New Orleans Saints.

 

In contrast, if a team is better than its record suggests, one might expect to find them out-of-place, having a better point differential than their record would indicate - and there is, but it's not the 3-4 Iggles.  It's the 4-3 Cowboys.  The Iggles are down in the 2 win neighborhood on point diff/game, which is probably not a big deal.  But it implies they are NOT better than their record suggests.

 

Now let's look at our Bills.  We're trailing 2 of the 4 5 win teams, in the 4-win team neighborhood.  One 5 win team is significantly below us, as are 3/5 4 win teams.  That suggests to me that we are, in fact, what our record says we are at this point.  With a different bounce one way or the other, we might be a 4 win team or we might even be a 6 win team.  We're not up with the "Big Dogs" yet.  But nothing out of the ordinary.

Last point.  It keeps being said that "good teams blow other teams out".  I think one can see by this metric, that can't be true.  There is one team that, much as I hate to say it, is blowing teams out.  They're a great team.  SF is also doing very well, winning by just >2 TD on average.  But for most of the top-10 teams in the NFL, the average margin of victory is just over a TD.

 

So that's my contribution: the Bills aren't a Big Dog yet.  We aren't leading the league.  But we're either at, or where we should be, for a 5 win team.  We aren't even the worst 5 win team this season, let alone ever, by a simple metric directly tied to what wins: the difference between the points you score, and the points you give up, at the end of the game.

 

 

 

very cool analysis and well written post. TY

[Hapless Bills Fan]

11 minutes ago, inthebuff said:

Using the famous Bill James Phythagorean formula modified for football...

 

 

Given the current point differential, the expectation would be for the Bills to win 10.6 games...rounding up, that would be 11 because in the  immortal words of Nigel Tufnel, it goes to 11.

 

Here's the formula -- =ROUND(POWER(121,2.37) / (POWER(121,2.37) +POWER(91,2.37)) *16,1)

 

Barring sudden improvement or catastrophic injury, I wonder what most of us would predict for the Bills win total?  I'm thinking 11 or 12 wins would be typical?

So another piece of evidence that the Bills aren't the "worst 5-1 team in the history of the NFL", their point differential is pretty much consistent.  Of course, if we're expecting 15-1 then we ain't there.

 

Another way to look at it.

I averaged the point differential of 6,5 and 4 win teams.  Average differential is 9 points for the 6-x teams, 5 points for the 5-x teams, and 4 points for the 4-x teams.  So again...pretty much where one would expect, neither over- nor under- performing on point differential for our W-L record.

 

Of course, what I'd LIKE to see is improvement.  Figure out how to compensate for Milano, if he's still out, on D.  Less miscues on O.  Clean game, no turnovers.  I believe less miscues on O plus clean game = more points  soon, if not now.

 

33 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...huh?...according to unpublished reports, starting MOD salary is $250K PLUS benefits.....the IRS told me so.........

 

I think you missed the part where it pays out in MeadCoins

[WhoTom]

2 hours ago, freddyjj said:

Concise, analytical and logical.  Hapless how did you get this on the board?

 

That's why he's pullin' down the big coin as a mod.

 

 

 

[Rock'em Sock'em]

Kudos for the detailed post, but this does not logically counter the argument that the Bills are 5-1, have not won convincingly, and faced many of the bottom teams.

 

 

NYJ: Bills +1, rest of NFL per game +15.

NYG: Bills +14, others +5.

CIN: Bills +4, others +13

NEP: Bills -6, others -28

TEN: Bills +7, others +3

MIA: Bills +10, others +27

 

TOTAL: Bills: +30, others: +35.

 

Summary: There are mitigating circumstances for sure, but other NFL teams are playing the Bills' competition about the same (slightly higher win marging) than the Bills played them. I'm hopeful the wins continue, and i expected playoffs this year, but I would not rank the Bills as a top "power team" based solely on their record.  What you can say is that they competed and beat the teams on their schedule and came out with W's.

 

[iinii]

4 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Excellent post! Sadly the target audience will quit in the 3rd paragraph and call the facts fake news.

Target audience? Is this a crusade?

[GunnerBill]

20 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Barring sudden improvement or catastrophic injury, I wonder what most of us would predict for the Bills win total?  I'm thinking 11 or 12 wins would be typical?

So another piece of evidence that the Bills aren't the "worst 5-1 team in the history of the NFL", their point differential is pretty much consistent.  Of course, if we're expecting 15-1 then we ain't there.

 

Another way to look at it.

I averaged the point differential of 6,5 and 4 win teams.  Average differential is 9 points for the 6-x teams, 5 points for the 5-x teams, and 4 points for the 4-x teams.  So again...pretty much where one would expect, neither over- nor under- performing on point differential for our W-L record.

 

Of course, what I'd LIKE to see is improvement.  Figure out how to compensate for Milano, if he's still out, on D.  Less miscues on O.  Clean game, no turnovers.  I believe less miscues on O plus clean game = more points  soon, if not now.

 

 

I think you missed the part where it pays out in MeadCoins

 

I was 10 wins before the season. I am 11 now. 12 is possible for sure. 

[Mike in Horseheads]

13 minutes ago, iinii said:

Target audience? Is this a crusade?

Yes and directed right at you lol

[Orlando Buffalo]

5 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

OK, we're hearing all kinds of press pundits predicting Iggles win, including our own Joe Buscaglia.  Some are really going over the top and around the bend with claims like "Bills are the Worst 5-1 team ever.  Then there's all the analytics sites with their "special sauce" secret formulas proving Josh Allen sux.

 

With 26 hrs until game time I thought I'd interject a few facts, and when I say facts, I mean actual facts not the suppositions and inferences sometimes described as such.  Some say "Football is a simple game", and Hapless is a Simple Fan, so let's go there.

 

What matters at the end of the day isn't how many points your offense scores, or how many passing yards your QB racks up.  It's whether your team has more points on the scoreboard than the other team when the 4Q clock winds to 0.  That's a W: Our team points > Their team points at the end of the game.  Simple, right?  Doesn't matter how many points you score or don't score - just whether you got more than the other guy after 60 minutes.

 

So let's look at something simple - the point differential.  This is just [points a team scores - points a team gives up].

To normalize for bye weeks and Thurs nite, let's divide by the number of games a team has played, to get point differential per game.    The table below is derived from pro-football-reference and sorted by Point diff/game.  Wins are listed to the right, for comparison. 

 

Here we go:

 

In a development shocking no one, we see that this statistic, averaged over 6 or 7 games, is in fact pretty correlated to the number of W a team has.  But one can look at this, and flag certain teams that may be a bit better or worse than their record implies.  Now at this point in the season, there's a lot of football left, and +/- 1 game likely doesn't mean too much-a little bit of luck or a single blowout for or against.  But +/- 2 games should twitch an eyebrow at this point in the season, in other words, if a team's "neighbors" lined up by point differential are all 3-4 win teams, a 6 win team stands out.  If one's neighbors are 2-3 win teams, a 5 win team stands out.

 

One would think, if a team is indeed "the worst 5-1 team in the history of the NFL", they would stand out by having a worse point differential/game than their record would indicate.  And there is indeed a 5-win team that stands out as having a lower point differential per game than the other 5 win teams - but it's not the Bills.  It's the Seahawks.  There is even a 6-win team that stands out as not being where we expect the 6 win teams to be - that would be the New Orleans Saints.

 

In contrast, if a team is better than its record suggests, one might expect to find them out-of-place, having a better point differential than their record would indicate - and there is, but it's not the 3-4 Iggles.  It's the 4-3 Cowboys.  The Iggles are down in the 2 win neighborhood on point diff/game, which is probably not a big deal.  But it implies they are NOT better than their record suggests.

 

Now let's look at our Bills.  We're trailing 2 of the 4 5 win teams, in the 4-win team neighborhood.  One 5 win team is significantly below us, as are 3/5 4 win teams.  That suggests to me that we are, in fact, what our record says we are at this point.  With a different bounce one way or the other, we might be a 4 win team or we might even be a 6 win team.  We're not up with the "Big Dogs" yet.  But nothing out of the ordinary.

Last point.  It keeps being said that "good teams blow other teams out".  I think one can see by this metric, that can't be true.  There is one team that, much as I hate to say it, is blowing teams out.  They're a great team.  SF is also doing very well, winning by just >2 TD on average.  But for most of the top-10 teams in the NFL, the average margin of victory is just over a TD.

 

So that's my contribution: the Bills aren't a Big Dog yet.  We aren't leading the league.  But we're either at, or where we should be, for a 5 win team.  We aren't even the worst 5 win team this season, let alone ever, by a simple metric directly tied to what wins: the difference between the points you score, and the points you give up, at the end of the game.

 

 

 

Hapless well said but why let idiots in the media bother you? I can manipulate numbers all over the place to make any argument I want so let them cherry pick what they want.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Hapless well said but why let idiots in the media bother you? I can manipulate numbers all over the place to make any argument I want so let them cherry pick what they want.

 

Well, ahem.  Let's just say I am addressing certain things I've heard on this board, and leave it at that. 

[WhoTom]

The funny thing about stats: you need a good sample size for them to be meaningful.

 

Hapless and Rock'Em presented good hypotheses, but the reality is that we're in week 7, so the statistical support for those hypotheses isn't there. The math is right, but the meaning behind the numbers may or may not support the arguments.