As a professional sports advisor/handicapper I am very aware, as you should be, of the impact turnovers have in a typical NFL game from both a straight up, and ATS perspective. But how big? That is the question I will shed some light on in this article, as we breakdown the turnovers impact on SU team records.
Utilizing some data from studies that are already completed,
the average turnover is worth 4pts for/against any team. For ease of analysis we will use that figure,
but keep in mind, if performing a more detailed analysis, fumbles are typically
much more costly compared to interceptions because they happen closer to the
line of scrimmage, which obviously reduces the yardage the recovering team
needs to gain to score points. Our
second assumption is the pts scored / pts against margin, and how they relate
to final SU records: again using studies I have read, it is suggested the
following matrix represents approximate margins per game and their correlation to
wins and losses:
·
0: 8-8
·
+/- 1.5pts: 9-7/7-9
·
+/- 3pts: 10-6/6-10
·
+/- 5.5pts: 11-5/5-11
·
+/- 8pts: 12-4/4-12
·
+/- 10.5pts: 13-3/3-13
·
+/- 13pts: 14-2/2-14
·
+/- 16pts: 15-1/1-15
·
+/- 19pts: 16-0/0-16
For example, if a team averaged scoring 22pts per game, and
averaged allowing 19pts per game, you would expect their SU record to be 10-6.
Using those two assumptions we can complete an analysis and
attempt to project how team’s statistically performed on the field in the
absence of turnovers – we essentially are stripping out the advantage a team
with a high + turnover margin gained, while boosting up a team that had a –
margin [or for business folks, “normalizing” points by removing impact of
turnovers].
2010
|
TO
|
*Normalized
|
2010
|
New
Proj
|
Wins
|
|
Margin
|
Adv/(Dis)
|
Margin
|
Record
|
Record
|
Impact
|
|
ARI
|
(9.06)
|
(1.25)
|
(7.81)
|
5-11
|
4-12
|
(1)
|
ATL
|
7.69
|
3.50
|
4.19
|
13-3
|
10-6
|
(3)
|
BAL
|
5.50
|
1.75
|
3.75
|
12-4
|
10-6
|
(2)
|
BUF
|
(8.50)
|
(4.25)
|
(4.25)
|
4-12
|
6-10
|
2
|
CAR
|
(13.25)
|
(2.00)
|
(11.25)
|
2-14
|
3-13
|
1
|
CHI
|
3.00
|
1.00
|
2.00
|
11-5
|
9-7
|
(2)
|
CIN
|
(4.56)
|
(2.00)
|
(2.56)
|
4-12
|
6-10
|
2
|
CLE
|
(3.63)
|
(0.25)
|
(3.38)
|
5-11
|
6-10
|
1
|
DAL
|
(2.63)
|
0.00
|
(2.63)
|
6-10
|
6-10
|
|
DEN
|
(7.94)
|
(2.25)
|
(5.69)
|
4-12
|
5-11
|
1
|
DET
|
(0.44)
|
1.00
|
(1.44)
|
6-10
|
7-9
|
1
|
GB
|
9.25
|
1.50
|
7.75
|
10-6
|
12-4
|
2
|
HOU
|
(2.31)
|
0.00
|
(2.31)
|
6-10
|
6-10
|
|
IND
|
2.94
|
(1.00)
|
3.94
|
10-6
|
10-6
|
|
JAC
|
(4.13)
|
(3.75)
|
(0.38)
|
8-8
|
8-8
|
|
KC
|
2.50
|
2.25
|
0.25
|
10-6
|
8-8
|
(2)
|
MIA
|
(3.75)
|
(2.75)
|
(1.00)
|
7-9
|
7-9
|
|
MIN
|
(4.56)
|
(2.75)
|
(1.81)
|
6-10
|
7-9
|
1
|
NE
|
12.81
|
7.00
|
5.81
|
14-2
|
11-5
|
(3)
|
NO
|
4.81
|
(1.50)
|
6.31
|
10-6
|
11-5
|
1
|
NYG
|
2.94
|
(0.75)
|
3.69
|
10-6
|
10-6
|
|
NYJ
|
3.94
|
2.25
|
1.69
|
11-5
|
9-7
|
(2)
|
OAK
|
2.44
|
(0.50)
|
2.94
|
8-8
|
10-6
|
2
|
PHI
|
3.88
|
2.25
|
1.63
|
10-6
|
9-7
|
(1)
|
PIT
|
8.94
|
4.00
|
4.94
|
12-4
|
11-5
|
(1)
|
SD
|
3.56
|
(1.50)
|
5.06
|
9-7
|
11-5
|
2
|
SF
|
(2.56)
|
(0.25)
|
(2.31)
|
7-9
|
6-10
|
(1)
|
SEA
|
(6.06)
|
(2.25)
|
(3.81)
|
7-9
|
6-10
|
(1)
|
STL
|
(2.44)
|
1.25
|
(3.69)
|
7-9
|
6-10
|
(1)
|
TB
|
1.44
|
2.25
|
(0.81)
|
10-6
|
7-9
|
(3)
|
TEN
|
1.06
|
(1.00)
|
2.06
|
6-10
|
9-7
|
3
|
WAS
|
(4.69)
|
(1.50)
|
(3.19)
|
6-10
|
6-10
|
|
*Strips out TO's; assumes all teams
@ 0
|
||||||
Let’s walk through one team, number by number so you get an
understanding of the results, and what takeaways you can take home and use in
your own handicapping each week. Arizona
had a 2010 Margin per game of (9.06) as they scored 18.06/gm but allowed
27.13/gm. So right off the bat we know
that is terrible as only Carolina was worse in that department. Next column entitled “TO Adv/(Dis)” represents
the advantage or disadvantage their TO margin provided. Using Arizona we see (1.25)/gm which states
that of the (9.06)/gm they were outscored, (1.25) of that amount was driven by
turnovers. How did we get the (1.25)/gm
you ask? First we take their season long
TO Margin number and divide that by 16 so we get a “per game” figure. Then, back to our first assumption mentioned
above, we multiply that number by 4pts as each turnover is worth that much:
(5)/16 = (0.3125) x 4 = (1.25pts)/gm.
The next column is 2010 Margin minus TO Adv/(Dis) to get to a
“normalized margin” which essentially provides a level TO margin to all teams
of zero. Notice anything obvious about
this stat? Look at the team that has the
highest mark - GREEN BAY, the Super Bowl Champs! Look for the team with the lowest mark - CAROLINA,
the team that had the #1 Overall Pick in the Draft! Now that we have the normalized margin we can
move to the record portion of the exercise, utilizing the matrix from page 1,
and see where that would put team’s record wise.
The 2010 Record column is actual W/L record from 2010 season,
while the New Proj. Record column takes the Normalized Margin column and
applies it to said matrix. The final
column, which is key to this analysis, shows an estimated impact of turnovers
on their wins from last season [or put another way, is actual record minus our
new projected record].
What’s important to keep in mind is TO margin is NOT THE
ONLY variable that is driving wins and losses higher – sometimes teams just
have a better record than their points scored / points against metric would
suggest – this could be driven by some blow-out wins or some blow-out losses,
depending on which way the numbers are trending. But we can certainly identify some nice
trends on this data and see a clear turnover impact.
Teams with red coloring: impacted favorably from TO
margin. When we take a look at these
teams, first thing that jumps right off the page is 6 of the 7 made the
playoffs – TB being the only team that missed, yet they still won 10
games! That right there confirms what we
already know, turnovers are incredibly critical to success in the NFL as the
teams that performed best, and were helped out by favorable turnover margins
had successful seasons.
Teams with green coloring: most of these teams it is a story
of poor play on the field, combined with the impact of an unfavorable TO margin. BUF stands out in the sense they played poorly
from a margin perspective last season with
only two teams checking in lower than them – but take a look at the impact poor
ball security had on them…half of their margin was because they couldn’t hold
onto the rock! Amazing! BUF is clearly a team to watch this season
that could be a nice sleeper if they can cut back on their TO margin – which we
expect them to be able to do. We also
can look at GB – just really focus on how well they played last season, even
after stripping out the impact of turnovers!
Sometimes it’s hard to believe they almost missed the playoffs all
together were it not for some nice things breaking right for them in the last
few weeks.
To summarize we can use this data as a starting point or
indicator on projected team success in 2011. Keep in mind, most statistics
revert back to the mean: if you got lucky last season and had a better record
than your points margin suggested you should, it’s likely to flip in the coming
season – and the same can be said for turnover margin.
Based on this analysis here are some bullish teams for 2011:
BUF, CIN, GB, OAK, SD, TEN
Based on this analysis here are some bearish teams for 2011:
ATL, BAL, CHI, KC, NE, NYJ, TB
No comments:
Post a Comment