Something to keep an eye on: Point differential?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, mannc said:

In a lot of the early games, we were up big, took our foot off the gas and allowed the other teams to move up and down the field, resulting in a fairly slim margin of vicotry, but where we badly outplayed the opponents. 

 

Question:

 

How do you tell the difference between "took our foot off the gas" on Offense vs. stalled out/couldn't move the ball against defensive adjustments?

(3Q syndrome)

 

How do you tell the difference between "allowed the other teams to move up and down the field" and "couldn't stop them, resulting in a comeback where we had to re-take the lead"?

[Malazan]

It's one data point and a very misleading one (like plus/minus in Hockey). It should be considered and weighed with a number of other factors. For example, one thing I don't see talked about is some of those 'bad' games were when Allen was injured and wearing some sort of body brace or something. I'm guessing in a similar situation this season with Trubisky behind him that Allen may not have played in a couple of those games. 

[Coach Tuesday]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Question:

 

How do you tell the difference between "took our foot off the gas" on Offense vs. stalled out/couldn't move the ball against defensive adjustments?

(3Q syndrome)

 

How do you tell the difference between "allowed the other teams to move up and down the field" and "couldn't stop them, resulting in a comeback where we had to re-take the lead"?

You look at offensive and defensive DVOA, for one, which I believe exists on a per-quarter basis at Football Outsiders (but I’m not certain).

 

EDIT: the FO Almanac, which I purchased and highly recommend, is illuminative.  
 

The Bills’ 2020 offensive DVOA in the first half of games ranked 3rd in the league; in the second half of games it ranked 9th.  Red zone DVOA on offense ranked 9th. In “late and close” situations it ranked 5th.

 

By contrast, the defensive DVOA in the first half ranked 12th and in the second half ranked 11th; red zone defensive DVOA ranked 11th, in “late and close” situations the defense ranked 6th.

 

This tells me the offense mostly did it’s job, the defense let teams hang around until “late and close” situations and then tightened up.  This is consistent with what we all saw with our own eyes last season and to me explains the relatives close point differential.  Elite offense, average defense except in pressure situations it stepped up.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Coach Tuesday

[billsfan1959]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Difference between points scored and points allowed.

 

The Bills finished at +126, which is respectable at 7.9 ppg and higher than the Chiefs at 6.9 ppg

 

But that's largely driven by 3 games at the end of the season (Denver, NE, and Mia) where we kicked butt and took names.

In a lot of the early games, we barely squeaked by and of course, we got embarrassed in Tenn and by KC.

 

I seem to recall a bunch of regulars here sounding a warning note early in the season because our point differential was so slender, hovering close to 0 for 4 weeks before the bye.

 

Jim Kubiak has an article up on TBN about it (I value his QB analysis every week, if you're unfamliar, and they have a Deal)

 

On the one hand, I see the point (haha): differential is a straightforward metric that asks if both offense and defense are Doing Their Job.  And it would be less nail-biting to see it be more consistent

 

On the other hand, I fall into the category that "a win is a win", no style points.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

I tend to fall in the camp that a win is a win and I will take them in whatever form in which they come. However, point differential over the course of a season is still a pretty good metric in regard to which teams make the playoffs. In most seasons, it is rare to find teams with positive point differentials not make the playoffs in the NFL (only 2 teams with +PD did not make the playoffs), NBA (last year every team with +PD made the playoffs), and MLB (only 1 team with +PD did not make the playoffs). 

 

Of course, by virtue of winning most of its games, any given team would have a greater likelihood of having a +PD. So, there's that...

Edited September 7, 2021 by billsfan1959

[GunnerBill]

It can also be skewered be schedule.... the Bills eeked some games out early, sure, but they played some decent teams. Miami (wk 2) were a 10 win team, LA Rams (wk 3) were a 10 win team, Vegas (wk 4) were an 8 win team and then obviously the two losses to KC and Tennessee. That was, by any stretch, a hard start. Okay we were then pretty unimpressive in weeks 7 and 8 with 8 point and 3 point wins vs the Jets and Pats, I get that, but thereafter our point differential was decent to end up where it did. I think it does tell you a lot about a team after 16 games. I am less convinced it tells you that much halfway through the year. Take the Colts this year, their early schedule is brutal. They could be 2-3 or 1-4 and negative differential and it doesn't necessarily mean they suck. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by GunnerBill

[mannc]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Question:

 

How do you tell the difference between "took our foot off the gas" on Offense vs. stalled out/couldn't move the ball against defensive adjustments?

(3Q syndrome)

 

How do you tell the difference between "allowed the other teams to move up and down the field" and "couldn't stop them, resulting in a comeback where we had to re-take the lead"?

Not always easy, but when it happens the same way in 5 or 6 games, which it did, it's fair to conclude that it's a result of more conservative play-calling on offense and prevent defense.

[RyanC883]

43 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I agree that a win is a win.

 

I doubt I'm alone with this opinion:  I'd much prefer a comfortable win than to allow an opponent to stay in the game.

 

I'm sure we all remember the 3rd Quarter Anemia trend that existed into last season.  But it also began trending differently prior to mid-season and continued to completely buck the original trend.  

 

For last year's wins, the point differential was as follows (in date order):

 

10

3

3

7

8

3

10

10

10

11

29

29

30

 

 

I'm guessing that, as the Bills began playing 4 quarters of offense instead of 3, this helped with the differentials.

 

I'd like to see more of a "go for the jugular," attitude from McDermott.  I don't believe in running a score up.  Go out there and kick every team's ass, I say.

 

 

 

 

Agree.  Go for the jugular as you stated.  Also, I'm fine running the score up.  Get a huge lead, then let the backups PLAY to get experience.  No putting a backup QB in to hand off the ball.  Put him in there to score.  

 

 

[Scott7975]

I think point differential has its place but like everything needs context.  Its an indicator on how well or not a team is doing but its not something I am ever worried about just as I wasn't worried about it last season.

[mbs]

Apart from the fact that McDermott mentioned he would make a change toward aggressiveness in the wake of hail murray, there were a couple dolphins games in earlier seasons which came down to the wire. One ended with a Hyde onside kick recovery and one with a Tre White interception. In both of those games it was absolutely clear that McDermott was playing the clock with a huge lead. There were others which weren't so obvious. 

 

I have a haunch the analytics informed a lot of this and truth be told it was wildly improbable that the dolphins even got to the point where a big play was needed, but after AZ, they stopped relying so much on the calculated odds thing (until the AFC Championship.)

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

I'm not sure what the stat is really doing for you the fan. Using last year's Bills as an example, a couple on here were nervous as hell about our MOV. What did that do? It may be something to look at and begin an analysis for fun. Again using last year, our schedule may have been tougher earlier, the areas of concern that existed, weren't there yet, but were improving. Under that eye test, it certainly appeared to me like what happened at years end (blowouts) was always possible. How do we know that by playoff time our improvements in finishing off games didn't show up against Balt and Indy? And, if those wins hadn't happened would that mean the reverse? I don't know if its that easy.

[CuseBill]

As the Kubiak article points out, 3 of the 10 last SB winners had a point differential of less than 100 and only one, the Giants, had a negative point differential.  So while it is a somewhat interesting stat, it can obviously be overcome under the right circumstances.

[YattaOkasan]

20 minutes ago, mbs said:

Apart from the fact that McDermott mentioned he would make a change toward aggressiveness in the wake of hail murray, there were a couple dolphins games in earlier seasons which came down to the wire. One ended with a Hyde onside kick recovery and one with a Tre White interception. In both of those games it was absolutely clear that McDermott was playing the clock with a huge lead. There were others which weren't so obvious. 

 

I have a haunch the analytics informed a lot of this and truth be told it was wildly improbable that the dolphins even got to the point where a big play was needed, but after AZ, they stopped relying so much on the calculated odds thing (until the AFC Championship.)

?  we played the dolphins early last year but it was more of us beating FitzMagic (White interception and Hyde return were 2019); the other dolphins game was the last game of the season and that didnt come down to the wire.  

 

I am in general disagreement about McD getting less aggressive with a lead.  We had this discussion a lot last year with the 3rd quarter woes.  But it was less coaching as we continued to call pass plays at the same rate.  Just some bad luck in execution that we turned around later in the season. 

[mykidsdad]

i think point differential isn't very useful because the numbers are impacted more than they should be by 1. losing an occasional game by a lot which happens 2. winning a game by a lot which happens and may mean very little and 3. winning a game that maybe you could've scored more points in, but took the foot off the gas. a win is a win.

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, YattaOkasan said:

 Im not a point differential stan but i do think it adds value.  I thought the steelers were a paper tiger and point differential was indicative there. Cleveland was worse in Point differential than us and left the playoffs earlier (is that what youre saying)?  doesnt that support point differential at predicting playoff success?

 

For Miami, there were some other metrics like FG, TO, and Defensive TDs that indicated a regression to me.  Overall though I i think point differential has done better than most.  What were the many more important metrics for predicting future success?

 

The Steelers point differential was +5.5 right there with KC - not sure what that was indicative of.  
 

They got blown out in the playoffs by at team that had a point Differential of -0.3.

 

The team with a -0.3 point differential went just as far in the playoffs as the AFC team with the top point differential of + 8.8 in Baltimore.

 

To me it does not indicate anything other than the fact that Cleveland won games close and Baltimore blew people out.  They both made the playoffs as wildcards.  They both won in the first round and lost the following week and yet had a difference of 9.1 between their point differentials.

 

Miami at +4.1 for the season with a 30 point loss to close it out - missed out on the playoffs all together - yet 2 teams with fairly significantly worse point differentials in the AFC made it in.

 

The point differential means almost nothing - the fact that teams that win by definition must score more points impacts that.  
 

A team like Baltimore dominated teams in wins and lost close games, but that had no impact on where they were seeded or how far they went.  They went just as far as Cleveland a team that got absolutely hammered several times during the season and when they won - they would squeak it out.

 

Point differential is also greatly impacted by garbage time play.  NFL by its rules and nature tend to produce games that get tighter near the end.  If you are a team with a HC that plays a conservative keep the play in front of you - you might give up late meaningless drives when you are up by multiple scores.  It impacts point differential, but not you record or seeding.

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

You look at offensive and defensive DVOA, for one, which I believe exists on a per-quarter basis at Football Outsiders (but I’m not certain).

 

EDIT: the FO Almanac, which I purchased and highly recommend, is illuminative.  
 

The Bills’ 2020 offensive DVOA in the first half of games ranked 3rd in the league; in the second half of games it ranked 9th.  Red zone DVOA on offense ranked 9th. In “late and close” situations it ranked 5th.

 

By contrast, the defensive DVOA in the first half ranked 12th and in the second half ranked 11th; red zone defensive DVOA ranked 11th, in “late and close” situations the defense ranked 6th.

 

This tells me the offense mostly did it’s job, the defense let teams hang around until “late and close” situations and then tightened up.  This is consistent with what we all saw with our own eyes last season and to me explains the relatives close point differential.  Elite offense, average defense except in pressure situations it stepped up.

 

 

This is excellent and much more meaningful information in my mind.  
 

👍

[mbs]

24 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

?  we played the dolphins early last year but it was more of us beating FitzMagic (White interception and Hyde return were 2019); the other dolphins game was the last game of the season and that didnt come down to the wire.  

 

I am in general disagreement about McD getting less aggressive with a lead.  We had this discussion a lot last year with the 3rd quarter woes.  But it was less coaching as we continued to call pass plays at the same rate.  Just some bad luck in execution that we turned around later in the season. 

I said earlier seasons, but yes, earlier season.

 

They weren't the only games where they seemed to chew clock with two score leads. It was more apparent to me on defense than offense. The priority seemed to be keep it in bounds and under ten yards. This could have been a perception based on an opposing team throwing more, but it was more noticeable under McDermott than ever before.

 

I'm not speaking of halftime adjustments I'm talking about what looked like a soft-prevent that started mid to late fourth quarter in two score games. It drove me nuts, but every time it seemed to work out. I considered it praiseworthy at the time that they played the odds even though it led to nail biters.

 

[LABILLBACKER]

2 hours ago, fergie's ire said:

I think that people talk about point differential because in sports like basketball and baseball it is extremely predictive.  If a team is leading the division at the all star game, but has a narrow or even negative point differential, they are probably going to regress in the second half.  It seems there was a team that bucked the odds a few years ago and continued with a strong record despite a poor run differential, but it's really rare.  However, at the mid-point of the season those sports have 40 or 80 games on which to base an avg.  The NFL has 8.  The problem is, as you pointed out with the Bills, a few games can complete skew the average...There just isn't a large enough sample size.

Look at the Blue Jay's and Mariners. Both are 12 games over 500 but Toronto has a +136 and Seattle has a -55. Go figure?

[Rochesterfan]

Let’s look at point differential and the impact of a single game and once again why I think it is somewhat meaningless.

 

Going into week 17 (16th game) - both Buffalo and Miami had a point differential of 96 points +6.4 per game.  Yet at that point Buffalo had locked in a top 3 seed and a home game and Miami was still out of the playoffs.  The Miami point differential of +6.4 had them better than the eventual AFC champs in point differential, but they were 4 games worse in the record column.

 

The Bills won that game by 30 causing a 60 point shift in point differential between the 2 teams.  The Bills went from +96 to +126 and the Dolphins dropped from +96 to +66.  Going into the game it was a net 0 between the 2 and coming out the Bills are +60.  How can something be real meaningful if 1 game can have that kind of impact. The sample size is just to small to be meaningful.
 

For point differential to be truly meaningful- we need trending over 70-100 or even 162 games - then these single game anomalies start to smooth out.  The issue is teams change to much season to season - so it is meaningless over a long term and can be overwhelmed in the short term by one game or even 1-2 late game plays.

 

The Dolphins going into the last game were +6.4 point per game and were tied with the Bills as the 2nd best AFC team in point differential.  They came out of the game at a season average of +4.1 per game.  Still very impressive and top 5 in the AFC worthy, but that last game cost them the playoffs and 2.3 points per game in point differential for the season.  One game knocked nearly a field goal off their per game win margin.  That is a small sample size impact.

 

All NFL metrics have some of that sample size issue - part of what makes it great.  Things like DVOA really begin to give nice metrics as the season wears on and provides some meaningful data.  Sometimes that data along with Win/Loss data mirrors point differential- see TB and sometimes it doesn’t- see Miami.

 

 

[eball]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Difference between points scored and points allowed.

 

The Bills finished at +126, which is respectable at 7.9 ppg and higher than the Chiefs at 6.9 ppg

 

But that's largely driven by 3 games at the end of the season (Denver, NE, and Mia) where we kicked butt and took names.

In a lot of the early games, we barely squeaked by and of course, we got embarrassed in Tenn and by KC.

 

I seem to recall a bunch of regulars here sounding a warning note early in the season because our point differential was so slender, hovering close to 0 for 4 weeks before the bye.

 

Jim Kubiak has an article up on TBN about it (I value his QB analysis every week, if you're unfamliar, and they have a Deal)

 

On the one hand, I see the point (haha): differential is a straightforward metric that asks if both offense and defense are Doing Their Job.  And it would be less nail-biting to see it be more consistent

 

On the other hand, I fall into the category that "a win is a win", no style points.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

There were only three "squeaker" wins...at Miami (but they scored late to make it a 3 pt game), vs. Rams, and vs. Pats at home.  The closest other win was 7 pts at the Raiders.  The Tennessee and KC games skewed the early season numbers, but particularly after Arizona the Bills were wiping the floor with everyone.

[YattaOkasan]

43 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The Steelers point differential was +5.5 right there with KC - not sure what that was indicative of.  
 

They got blown out in the playoffs by at team that had a point Differential of -0.3.

 

The team with a -0.3 point differential went just as far in the playoffs as the AFC team with the top point differential of + 8.8 in Baltimore.

 

To me it does not indicate anything other than the fact that Cleveland won games close and Baltimore blew people out.  They both made the playoffs as wildcards.  They both won in the first round and lost the following week and yet had a difference of 9.1 between their point differentials.

 

Miami at +4.1 for the season with a 30 point loss to close it out - missed out on the playoffs all together - yet 2 teams with fairly significantly worse point differentials in the AFC made it in.

 

The point differential means almost nothing - the fact that teams that win by definition must score more points impacts that.  
 

A team like Baltimore dominated teams in wins and lost close games, but that had no impact on where they were seeded or how far they went.  They went just as far as Cleveland a team that got absolutely hammered several times during the season and when they won - they would squeak it out.

 

Point differential is also greatly impacted by garbage time play.  NFL by its rules and nature tend to produce games that get tighter near the end.  If you are a team with a HC that plays a conservative keep the play in front of you - you might give up late meaningless drives when you are up by multiple scores.  It impacts point differential, but not you record or seeding.

Thanks for the response.  Another good discussion with you.

 

Above I mentioned context and I think point diff offers a good starting point for the discussion of what you expect from a team. 

 

The DVOA discussion you responded to is a good metric but is also has some challenges (many of the same you highlighted with point diff).  Tenn is 28th in defensive DVOA should they have made the playoffs.  KC is bottom half in defensive as well should they have made the super bowl.  Seattle has a weighted DVOA of 5th and that didnt help that at all in the postseason (losing to #8 LAR).  Heck Cleveland presents challenges to using DVOA as well as weighted DVOA has them at 18 and they beat Pitt (10th).

 

All of these items need some context around them, but I disagree that point differential means almost nothing (means about as much as DVOA from above analysis).  Below is the link to how point diff is used by pro football reference and 538.  Is it only DVOA that you think is better. 

 

I think you previously mentioned many better metrics (which makes sense if you think point diff is essentially meaningless).

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/indexf6a9.html?p=337