In terms of Expected Points (EP), Barron's false starts were responsible for the loss of 24.4 potential points for the Rams, or about 5 points per season. In terms of Win Probability (WP), his false starts cost 0.62 wins, or about 0.12 wins per season.
about 2 years ago
Ryan Van Bibber
22 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Trust me...
We weren’t 5 points away from winning ANYTHING in the past few seasons. Give the man a break.
On this team, we are all united in a common goal: to keep my job.
-- Lou Holtz
Last season alone
we had 4 games that were decided by 5 points or less. Not sure which of those he killed drives in, trying to find that now.
THIS year's the year. I hope....
yeah...
But the stats said 5 points PER SEASON…so that’s less than a half point a game. So in other words, he didn’t lose us any games….
On this team, we are all united in a common goal: to keep my job.
-- Lou Holtz
Ah, fair enough.
I missed that. I would like to see all of his false starts and holds plotted out based on field location, and score at the time. I think that might be more telling.
THIS year's the year. I hope....
point one two
this is kind of amusing. I’m not sure how exactly they can determine he was responsible for costing them .12 wins last year, but ok.
I wonder if they count one blown pass for a DB as costing 1.0 wins? Because it certainly can, in the right situation. In real life anyway.
in short, yes, win probability takes context into account
Win probability is computed based on historical winning percentages given the state of the game. For example, a team with a 3 point lead and a first down at the 50 with 2 minutes to play might go on to win something like 90% of its games (no idea if that number is accurate, just an example). You can figure out those percentages for every state of the game (all point differential, times, downs, and distances). You can quantify each play by how much it changes those percentages. In the example above, imagine the team with that 3 point lead turns the ball over. That turnover would then reduce the odds of winning to something like 60% (again, just an example). That turnover is then considered to have cost the team 30% of a win, regardless of what happens next.
For your example, let’s say a defense has a 4 point lead and has the other team backed up on their own 20 with 3 seconds left in the game. Their winning probability is probably something like 95%. If a blown coverage goes for a touchdown, that reduces their win probability to zero (cause they just lost the game). So in this case, that blow coverage is costing close to the 1.0 wins you were asking about.
by brackenthebox on May 12, 2010 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
the .12 wins is actually quite small
But I don’t exactly buy into it being able to statistically predict probability of winning because psychology of the players has too much to do with that…..I mean, that is why they play the games.
Otherwise we’d all stay home and just let statistics decide who should’ve won.
by CoachConnors on May 12, 2010 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Win probabilities are entirely descriptive
they don’t try to predict anything (and they’re actually really bad at doing so because they are so context specific). That said, I do think it’s an interesting lens to view the relative importance of various plays. Put another way, win probabilities give you a historical context. It gives you an idea of how impressive that 2 TD comeback in the last 4 minutes was, compared to every team that’s been in a similar situation before.
Incidentally, it works a lot better in baseball because their are fewer states and a lot more samples.
by brackenthebox on May 12, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
all that said
interpreting win probability added as anything close to what one traditionally thinks of as a win is a bit sketchy. Among other things, players can still have positive win probabilities even if their team doesn’t lose a single game. Similarly, if a team does win a game, their net win probability is only 0.5 (they had a 50% chance of winning at the beginning of the game, and a 100% at the end).
by brackenthebox on May 12, 2010 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
sorry for the typo
players can still have positive win probabilities even if their team doesn’t win a single game
by brackenthebox on May 12, 2010 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Unlikely
I don’t buy these numbers. I’m a big believer in momentum and too many of his penalties were in heartbreaking times when you could just see the entire team go “not again” and just give up.
if the team lost momentum due to Barron's penalties
it’s as much a fault of the team and the coaching staff as it is of Barron. If a five yard dead ball penalty seems like some insurmountable hurdle, you’ve got bigger problems than a penalty-prone tackle.
by brackenthebox on May 12, 2010 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
lol....I'm with you on this one. Well said!
On this team, we are all united in a common goal: to keep my job.
-- Lou Holtz
this only takes into account false starts
Barron minimized (barely) his false starts in 09, but racked up the holding penalties.
Future Redbirds! www.futureredbirds.net
Rams Gab! www.ramsgab.com
I can agree that the penalties weren't the only problem, but
There’s a lot of difference in a third and two and a third and seven. Especially when your best player is your running back.
That said, I agree the Rams have had issues with staying fired up that are the “fault of the team.” They really haven’t had an on the field offensive leader since Faulk retired.
This whole process
means nothing to me. Barrons loss will be felt if someone goes down, or if Saffold doesn’t pan out as hoped for, or if Smith struggles in the move to LT. This process doesn’t remove or , in any way, reduce the real risk that we have. Once again we replaced the turf. I know it’s new and different turf but lets see what happens this year.
Historical context was insignificant enough before the miniscule numbers being computed and recorded in this way here. This just solidifies my belief that it means nothing. As AndyRose said, we can look forward to drafting first again in every round next year.
As I recall, back in the GSOT days
Adam Timmerman got lots of false start penalties, and Millier at RT was even worse (he had something like 5 or 7 in one game playing against Kearse), yet those teams won anyway. I don’t remember everyone calling for their heads, yet when we won’t win many games anyway because we have a bad team, everyone is very upset over Barron’s penalties. I think we need to keep a little perspective. Sure, Barron’s penalties were frustrating, but he wasn’t the guy keeping us from having a winning team. The Rams overcame a lot more penalties in their GSOT years. The fact is that our teams the last few years have been pitiful, and Barron was far from the worst player.
I sure hope we don’t have injuries on the offensive line this year, and the rookies learn fast, or the result will make last year’s team look like winners.
Those penalties didn't hurt as much
cause during the GSOT years we had a passing game. When you have regular plays going 50, 60, 70 yards starting 5 yards back doesn’t really hurt. when your only real way of moving the ball is in Jacksons hands those 5 yards become essentially a wasted down. Those that say Jackson aged 3 years this one year should attribute some of the blame (not all) to penalties moving him backwards.
by Stonedtodeath on May 13, 2010 4:51 AM CDT up reply actions
I recall
laughing every time we got to 3rd and 17, or 3rd and 20. It was a “got ’em right where we want ’em” mentality then. Kurt would complete a 30 yard pass, and we’d be at 1st and 10 again.
Barron’s penalties seemed to result in more of a “Well, this drive’s over” mentality. Sure, there were quite a few factors that went into all that, but his penalties seemed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
THIS year's the year. I hope....
The ton of cement that broke the camel's back
was the fact that we had a lousy offense. Our play calling was poor, our QBs were battered, our WRs couldn’t get open, we got stopped on 3rd and one almost every time we tried to run for that yard, and on and on. While Barron’s penalties didn’t help the situation, the camel’s back was broken long before that.
We'll see how much negative affect
starting 2 brand new tackles has on Jacksons’ well-being as well as how many points we score or don’t score. I’d rather have 5 false start penalties than 8-10 sacks given up. I think I’d rather have 10 false starts than 5 sacks given up. I won’t do the math, but I’m sure the affect is worse for a sack than for a false start or holding penalty. I’d rather have an occasional holding penalty than a sack of a fragile QB, which is what I consider Bradford to be this first year anyway.
I don’t predict doom without seeing how it could happen. If we can’t overcome the occasional penalties we don’t have a chance whether they occur or not.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Turf Show Times
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cover the web with Turf
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
