Stat question

[Facebookstalker]

I think all these stats are dumb. We hear about well, the vikes haven't beaten a team with a winning record.
On to the stats. AZ and the Hawks are the Rams sig wins right?
Who has Az beat? Saints, Bears, 49ers, lions, ravens and browns.
Who have the Hawks beat? Bears, (no Cutler) lions, 49ers, Cowboys (no Romo)
What is the record of those teams?
AZ beat teams: 13/34
Sea beat teams 7/23

So stats aside, what are those teams doing that makes them a sig win for the Rams?
Nothing, you beat teams that are beating other bad teams.
To be fair the Rams are doing what they should do as are the Vikings, beating bad teams that beat bad teams..
I just think stats are a joke, it's the NFL, you play who you play, and the team that passes 75% of the time you play the pass regardless of how it affects your stats. If they run, you play the run.
Bottom line, I'd throw all the stats out with the baby and the bathwater. The Stat game could go on and on. A good example are Div games. Teams know each other they always play tough. ESPN stats don't show that.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

I'd be careful generalizing stats in that way. They are very valuable tools that can give you a lot of information. Projections off of those stats are what make them dangerous. The stats ESPN gives are not given in context and the audience isn't trained to know how to apply those stats. But stats are useful for things like you example about passing 75%. If you face that opponent, you would like to put an emphasis on pass defense. That is a useful stat that, when applied correctly, shouldn't be thrown out the window.

You asked what makes the Hawks and Cards our sig wins, it isn't their record. It is that they are thought of as quality opponents and were also division rivals. The Cards game specifically was a game against the division leader, at their house, that we beat. What makes that specific game more impressive is how we gave the cardinals offense the finger every single time they got in the red zone. Our defense was on display in that game. The Cardinals haven't barely beaten those teams in the NFL, they have set fire to some of those teams. Any time you do that in the NFL it is impressive, no matter what team it is. That offense has proven to be legit. And they only scored one TD.

The Seahawks game was a big game because they were Superbowl runner ups that were thought to be in the upper echelon of teams in the NFL. This was also a rivalry game. It challenged our grit, similar to the Cardinals. For us, it was more about starting out strong, since so many times our Rams have laid an egg while coming out the gate. I strong start was desired. This, to me, was more of a moral victory than a signature win against a top tier team.

That being said, don't just look at our wins, look at our losses as well. We picked Rodgers twice in Lambeau Field. Our offense lost that game for us, throwing 4 interceptions. You can't give the ball back to Aaron Rodgers four extra times and win that game.

Even against what was arguable the most prolific offense in the Steelers, we shut Ben down. We lost that game because our bonehead TEs can't catch the damn ball.

I guess what I am trying to say is that this defense is in my opinion the best or 2nd best defense in the league. For all the attention our D-line gets, our DBs are playing damn good football. We will win this game. And if we don't, it won't be because your offense bested our defense, or AP proving he is still better than TG30. If we lose it will be because we made mistakes and gave the game away. And that is very much possible and something every Vikings fan should hope for. Hope our offense screws up enough to let you win.

 

[Legatron4]

The NFL doesn't have any power house teams anymore. Patriots will basically run away with the league this year unless someone can step up during their schedule. I wouldn't doubt if they go undefeated.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I think all these stats are dumb. We hear about well, the vikes haven't beaten a team with a winning record.
On to the stats. AZ and the Hawks are the Rams sig wins right?
Who has Az beat? Saints, Bears, 49ers, lions, ravens and browns.
Who have the Hawks beat? Bears, (no Cutler) lions, 49ers, Cowboys (no Romo)
What is the record of those teams?
AZ beat teams: 13/34
Sea beat teams 7/23

So stats aside, what are those teams doing that makes them a sig win for the Rams?
Nothing, you beat teams that are beating other bad teams.
To be fair the Rams are doing what they should do as are the Vikings, beating bad teams that beat bad teams..
I just think stats are a joke, it's the NFL, you play who you play, and the team that passes 75% of the time you play the pass regardless of how it affects your stats. If they run, you play the run.
Bottom line, I'd throw all the stats out with the baby and the bathwater. The Stat game could go on and on. A good example are Div games. Teams know each other they always play tough. ESPN stats don't show that.

The comparison is in what the teams have done last year. The Seahawks and Cardinals are still very good teams. One was a play away from being Superbowl Champs. The other was the first team to defeat the Seahawks at home in years, and if not for a fluke knee injury to Palmer were looking like they would make some noise in the playoffs. Plus both teams are still good ( except for Seattles Oline) and a very tough out. The Ram win in Arizona was a road win too.

The Lions are playing terrible football for whatever reason and Stafford looks about as bad as Kaepernick this year. The Bears are continuing their decline of two years ago.

 

[jjab360]

So stats aside, what are those teams doing that makes them a sig win for the Rams?
Nothing, you beat teams that are beating other bad teams.

Better than beating teams that are getting beat by bad teams...:boxing:

 

[Faceplant]

Fair enough @Facebookstalker . But what @Jorgeh0605 said captured my thoughts as well. AZ put blisters on the teams they beat. Their average margin of victory has to be near the Putriots at this point. We beat them...physically...in their house. As for the others, the Rams had no business letting Seattle back in that game, but once they did, they muscled up and got the job done. Cleveland is no trophy bang...as we all know, but the Rams didn't just squeak by in that game. They beat them.....physically. Badly. Whiners? Same type of game. Didn't look like much to watch until you realize that after their first drive of the game....it was over. Another physically outmatched team. Throw away game for the Vikes aside, the whiners are our only common opponent thus far. As far as the Rams losses? Foreskins beat us like a rented mule. GREAT scheme and even better execution by them. Hats off. still can;t believe that one. Pittsburgh: Wow. One of the most frustrating losses I can remember (and I am a Rams fan!!). If we make just ONE play on offense we win that game. Sadly, we did not. Gurley's first game and only 6(?) carries I think. Green Bay: Another head scratcher. Honestly, I do not think GB looked better than us as a total team in that game. Foles just got clobbered by Matthews and looked like the second coming of Heath Shuler when our OL couldn't stop a nose bleed all day. Still can't believe he got up after THIS BLATANT spear. Anyone else gets a suspension. Yikes.

 

[Stel]

The one thing I learned in statistics class is that you can make statistics say about anything you want if you know how. That said, considered these two stats:

1. St. Louis' opponents have averaged .58 yards less per attempt against St. Louis than they average against all of their other opponents.
Minnesota's opponents have averaged .54 yards more per attempt against Minnesota than they have against all of their other opponents.

If Sunday's game follows that pattern, we would expect St. Louis to gain 5.54 yards per attempt against Minnesota and Minnesota would gain 3.92 yards per attempt against St. Louis.

2. St. Louis' wins have come against opponents with a combined record of 14-18.
Minnesota's wins have come against opponents with a combined record of 9-30.

But, on any given Sunday . . . .

Should be a good, close game.

 

[Angry Ram]

I think all these stats are dumb. We hear about well, the vikes haven't beaten a team with a winning record.
On to the stats. AZ and the Hawks are the Rams sig wins right?
Who has Az beat? Saints, Bears, 49ers, lions, ravens and browns.
Who have the Hawks beat? Bears, (no Cutler) lions, 49ers, Cowboys (no Romo)
What is the record of those teams?
AZ beat teams: 13/34
Sea beat teams 7/23

So stats aside, what are those teams doing that makes them a sig win for the Rams?
Nothing, you beat teams that are beating other bad teams.
To be fair the Rams are doing what they should do as are the Vikings, beating bad teams that beat bad teams..
I just think stats are a joke, it's the NFL, you play who you play, and the team that passes 75% of the time you play the pass regardless of how it affects your stats. If they run, you play the run.
Bottom line, I'd throw all the stats out with the baby and the bathwater. The Stat game could go on and on. A good example are Div games. Teams know each other they always play tough. ESPN stats don't show that.

Yup. Stats are ruining the game.

Everyone in the media has a hard on for the Patriots and their opponents hardly ever get winning records. Same with Denver lately, Green Bay, etc. Just win the games.

 

[jrry32]

I think all these stats are dumb. We hear about well, the vikes haven't beaten a team with a winning record.
On to the stats. AZ and the Hawks are the Rams sig wins right?
Who has Az beat? Saints, Bears, 49ers, lions, ravens and browns.
Who have the Hawks beat? Bears, (no Cutler) lions, 49ers, Cowboys (no Romo)
What is the record of those teams?
AZ beat teams: 13/34
Sea beat teams 7/23

So stats aside, what are those teams doing that makes them a sig win for the Rams?
Nothing, you beat teams that are beating other bad teams.
To be fair the Rams are doing what they should do as are the Vikings, beating bad teams that beat bad teams..
I just think stats are a joke, it's the NFL, you play who you play, and the team that passes 75% of the time you play the pass regardless of how it affects your stats. If they run, you play the run.
Bottom line, I'd throw all the stats out with the baby and the bathwater. The Stat game could go on and on. A good example are Div games. Teams know each other they always play tough. ESPN stats don't show that.

There's a difference between beating bad teams and beating teams that beat bad teams. I'd consider Minnesota a quality win if the Rams win. Yet, we know who Minnesota beat. Why? Because Minnesota still won games. They're not 2-5 or 2-6.

 

[Raptorman]

You play who you play. Stats are all to often used to justify one team as being better than another. But people never look at the one or two things that can change stats dramatically. Now, just for point of reference I am going to use the Vikings of this year because I know their stats. Not saying they are better than anyone here, just using the numbers for making a point. If you take the Vikings rushing defense stats they state that they gave up 733 yards on 167 attempts for a 4.4 average. However, what you don't see is how one game can screw with stats like that.

Take their San Fran game. Now, if you take that game out, the numbers look like this 128 attempts, 503 yards, 3.9 average. So one bad game moves the average half a yard for the year. Now, anyone who watched that first game and watched the next 6 Vikings games would tell you that the fist game they were totally off for some reason. Now, if they put up another game like the San Fran game then we have something to think about. But one bad game, or one good run can mess with the stats. Take the 128/503/3.9. One run in there by Hillman went for 72 yards. Now, was it a missed tackle, player slipping on the turf? Doesn't matter. But that one run changes those number to 127/431/3.4. So the question is this, are the Vikings the 4.4, 3.9 or 3.4 team? Do you judge them by one bad game? One bad run? Most stats bantered around forums are averages and there is danger in using them. I am guilty of it myself. I over use them some times.

Now, that's all fine an good and if I went back and looked at just about any team in the league I could find one game, or one run or one pass, that totally leans the stats one way. Just the way it is. If you really want to look at stats, do it on a game by game basis and look for trends. Like Gurley's current trend. I expect him to put up at least 120 on the Vikings. If he doesn't, then I know my team has it together.

But there is one stat that matter more than any. And it's defensive points per game. A while back I was looking at how defense's effect the W/L record of QB's. And I found something interesting, but not surprising. If a team can hold their opponent to a score of 17 points or less, they have a 70% chance of winning the game. So all the rushing stats, all the passing stats, they all lead up to one thing. Can you stop the other team from scoring. BTW, ever wonder how the Patriots do it? Simple. The Patriots defense since hoody became coach averages in the top 10 of scoring defense almost every year. The Patriots defense since Belicheat took over has held their opponents to an average of 18.9 points per game. And you all thought it was Brady.

 

[Merlin]

I think all these stats are dumb. We hear about well, the vikes haven't beaten a team with a winning record.
On to the stats. AZ and the Hawks are the Rams sig wins right?
Who has Az beat? Saints, Bears, 49ers, lions, ravens and browns.
Who have the Hawks beat? Bears, (no Cutler) lions, 49ers, Cowboys (no Romo)
What is the record of those teams?
AZ beat teams: 13/34
Sea beat teams 7/23

So stats aside, what are those teams doing that makes them a sig win for the Rams?
Nothing, you beat teams that are beating other bad teams.
To be fair the Rams are doing what they should do as are the Vikings, beating bad teams that beat bad teams..
I just think stats are a joke, it's the NFL, you play who you play, and the team that passes 75% of the time you play the pass regardless of how it affects your stats. If they run, you play the run.
Bottom line, I'd throw all the stats out with the baby and the bathwater. The Stat game could go on and on. A good example are Div games. Teams know each other they always play tough. ESPN stats don't show that.

Both teams clearly have good defenses. Both teams have big play RBs. It's gonna be a defensive battle decided by a random play or two, might even be special teams.

Stats can be nuked for any desired answer. Trying to defuse the fact that the Rams have had a tougher sched is madness my friend. Is it worth all that analysis? Their opponents have won more than your opponents, who cares? We're gonna know soon, let's stick to smack talk because you're makin my effin head hurt.

 

[Mikey Ram]

Fair enough @Facebookstalker . But what @Jorgeh0605 said captured my thoughts as well. AZ put blisters on the teams they beat. Their average margin of victory has to be near the Putriots at this point. We beat them...physically...in their house. As for the others, the Rams had no business letting Seattle back in that game, but once they did, they muscled up and got the job done. Cleveland is no trophy bang...as we all know, but the Rams didn't just squeak by in that game. They beat them.....physically. Badly. Whiners? Same type of game. Didn't look like much to watch until you realize that after their first drive of the game....it was over. Another physically outmatched team. Throw away game for the Vikes aside, the whiners are our only common opponent thus far. As far as the Rams losses? Foreskins beat us like a rented mule. GREAT scheme and even better execution by them. Hats off. still can;t believe that one. Pittsburgh: Wow. One of the most frustrating losses I can remember (and I am a Rams fan!!). If we make just ONE play on offense we win that game. Sadly, we did not. Gurley's first game and only 6(?) carries I think. Green Bay: Another head scratcher. Honestly, I do not think GB looked better than us as a total team in that game. Foles just got clobbered by Matthews and looked like the second coming of Heath Shuler when our OL couldn't stop a nose bleed all day. Still can't believe he got up after THIS BLATANT spear. Anyone else gets a suspension. Yikes.

That non-call was one of the worst calls I can remember...Just brutal...Call Foles anything you like, but never call him soft...

 

[Rabid Ram]

Nothing, you beat teams that are beating other bad teams.
To be fair the Rams are doing what they should do as are the Vikings, beating bad teams that beat bad teams..

No the Rams aren't doing the same

The Rams are beating teams who beat bad teams

The vikes are beating teams who can't find a way to win even against bad teams.

 

[jrry32]

You play who you play. Stats are all to often used to justify one team as being better than another. But people never look at the one or two things that can change stats dramatically. Now, just for point of reference I am going to use the Vikings of this year because I know their stats. Not saying they are better than anyone here, just using the numbers for making a point. If you take the Vikings rushing defense stats they state that they gave up 733 yards on 167 attempts for a 4.4 average. However, what you don't see is how one game can screw with stats like that.

Take their San Fran game. Now, if you take that game out, the numbers look like this 128 attempts, 503 yards, 3.9 average. So one bad game moves the average half a yard for the year. Now, anyone who watched that first game and watched the next 6 Vikings games would tell you that the fist game they were totally off for some reason. Now, if they put up another game like the San Fran game then we have something to think about. But one bad game, or one good run can mess with the stats. Take the 128/503/3.9. One run in there by Hillman went for 72 yards. Now, was it a missed tackle, player slipping on the turf? Doesn't matter. But that one run changes those number to 127/431/3.4. So the question is this, are the Vikings the 4.4, 3.9 or 3.4 team? Do you judge them by one bad game? One bad run? Most stats bantered around forums are averages and there is danger in using them. I am guilty of it myself. I over use them some times.

The only relevance of yards per carry is your relative rating. Every team has bad plays and even a bad game (or more than one). So the 4.4, 3.9, and 3.4 stats are ultimately irrelevant if you're not going to make the comparisons relative. Stats, as a whole, are relied upon too much by football fans to try and make themselves sound knowledgeable.

Now, that's all fine an good and if I went back and looked at just about any team in the league I could find one game, or one run or one pass, that totally leans the stats one way. Just the way it is. If you really want to look at stats, do it on a game by game basis and look for trends. Like Gurley's current trend. I expect him to put up at least 120 on the Vikings. If he doesn't, then I know my team has it together.

But there is one stat that matter more than any. And it's defensive points per game. A while back I was looking at how defense's effect the W/L record of QB's. And I found something interesting, but not surprising. If a team can hold their opponent to a score of 17 points or less, they have a 70% chance of winning the game. So all the rushing stats, all the passing stats, they all lead up to one thing. Can you stop the other team from scoring. BTW, ever wonder how the Patriots do it? Simple. The Patriots defense since hoody became coach averages in the top 10 of scoring defense almost every year. The Patriots defense since Belicheat took over has held their opponents to an average of 18.9 points per game. And you all thought it was Brady.

That's not really true. The Rams were #5 last year in DPPG Allowed. Still ended up 6-10. Why? A bad offense that didn't just fail to score points but also gave the opponents points.

If were choosing one stat, point differential would probably be it. Regardless, I'm not a big stat guy. I like seeing what's happening on the field. Stats only tell you the results. They don't tell you what actually happened.

 

[Zaphod]

You play who you play. Stats are all to often used to justify one team as being better than another. But people never look at the one or two things that can change stats dramatically. Now, just for point of reference I am going to use the Vikings of this year because I know their stats. Not saying they are better than anyone here, just using the numbers for making a point. If you take the Vikings rushing defense stats they state that they gave up 733 yards on 167 attempts for a 4.4 average. However, what you don't see is how one game can screw with stats like that.

Take their San Fran game. Now, if you take that game out, the numbers look like this 128 attempts, 503 yards, 3.9 average. So one bad game moves the average half a yard for the year. Now, anyone who watched that first game and watched the next 6 Vikings games would tell you that the fist game they were totally off for some reason. Now, if they put up another game like the San Fran game then we have something to think about. But one bad game, or one good run can mess with the stats. Take the 128/503/3.9. One run in there by Hillman went for 72 yards. Now, was it a missed tackle, player slipping on the turf? Doesn't matter. But that one run changes those number to 127/431/3.4. So the question is this, are the Vikings the 4.4, 3.9 or 3.4 team? Do you judge them by one bad game? One bad run? Most stats bantered around forums are averages and there is danger in using them. I am guilty of it myself. I over use them some times.

Now, that's all fine an good and if I went back and looked at just about any team in the league I could find one game, or one run or one pass, that totally leans the stats one way. Just the way it is. If you really want to look at stats, do it on a game by game basis and look for trends. Like Gurley's current trend. I expect him to put up at least 120 on the Vikings. If he doesn't, then I know my team has it together.

But there is one stat that matter more than any. And it's defensive points per game. A while back I was looking at how defense's effect the W/L record of QB's. And I found something interesting, but not surprising. If a team can hold their opponent to a score of 17 points or less, they have a 70% chance of winning the game. So all the rushing stats, all the passing stats, they all lead up to one thing. Can you stop the other team from scoring. BTW, ever wonder how the Patriots do it? Simple. The Patriots defense since hoody became coach averages in the top 10 of scoring defense almost every year. The Patriots defense since Belicheat took over has held their opponents to an average of 18.9 points per game. And you all thought it was Brady.

That's exactly why the line is so fine in this sport. To me, record has less to do with it than how teams match up.

 

[PARAM]

Stats, as a whole, are relied upon too much by football fans to try and make themselves sound knowledgeable.

That sounds cynical. I think stats are misused too much by fans but I think they rely upon them to back up their opinion. The most important stat going into this weekend is the Vikings are 5-2, 3-0 at home and we're 4-3, 1-2 on the road. If one wanted to make an argument the Vikings are much better than the Rams ( and misuse a stat), they might say 'the Vikings are 3 games over .500, the Rams are just 1 game over'. I think the stat I'd refer to is our defense has allowed 12.6 PPG over the last 5, including games against Arizona (22), Green Bay (17) and Pittsburgh (12), while allowing an average of 75 rushing yards per game. Or in 7 games our defense has allowed 8 offensive touchdowns. I don't think that's misusing statistics nor am I'm trying to 'sound' knowledgeable.

 

[jrry32]

That sounds cynical. I think stats are misused too much by fans but I think they rely upon them to back up their opinion. The most important stat going into this weekend is the Vikings are 5-2, 3-0 at home and we're 4-3, 1-2 on the road. If one wanted to make an argument the Vikings are much better than the Rams ( and misuse a stat), they might say 'the Vikings are 3 games over .500, the Rams are just 1 game over'. I think the stat I'd refer to is our defense has allowed 12.6 PPG over the last 5, including games against Arizona (22), Green Bay (17) and Pittsburgh (12), while allowing an average of 75 rushing yards per game. Or in 7 games our defense has allowed 8 offensive touchdowns. I don't think that's misusing statistics nor am I'm trying to 'sound' knowledgeable.

Not really what I'm talking about. But stats aren't necessary to make that point either. I'd also say there's a large distinction between points and wins/losses and the other stats that people typically use.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Fair enough @Facebookstalker . But what @Jorgeh0605 said captured my thoughts as well. AZ put blisters on the teams they beat. Their average margin of victory has to be near the Putriots at this point. We beat them...physically...in their house. As for the others, the Rams had no business letting Seattle back in that game, but once they did, they muscled up and got the job done. Cleveland is no trophy bang...as we all know, but the Rams didn't just squeak by in that game. They beat them.....physically. Badly. Whiners? Same type of game. Didn't look like much to watch until you realize that after their first drive of the game....it was over. Another physically outmatched team. Throw away game for the Vikes aside, the whiners are our only common opponent thus far. As far as the Rams losses? Foreskins beat us like a rented mule. GREAT scheme and even better execution by them. Hats off. still can;t believe that one. Pittsburgh: Wow. One of the most frustrating losses I can remember (and I am a Rams fan!!). If we make just ONE play on offense we win that game. Sadly, we did not. Gurley's first game and only 6(?) carries I think. Green Bay: Another head scratcher. Honestly, I do not think GB looked better than us as a total team in that game. Foles just got clobbered by Matthews and looked like the second coming of Heath Shuler when our OL couldn't stop a nose bleed all day. Still can't believe he got up after THIS BLATANT spear. Anyone else gets a suspension. Yikes.

This alludes to my earlier post, which states that despite other teams being aware of how physical the Rams are...they really aren't prepared for it.

 

[DR RAM]

Schedules do matter, and it's exactly why we need to take advantage of the easier teams, not by their record, but by how good they play.

 

[Raptorman]

The only relevance of yards per carry is your relative rating. Every team has bad plays and even a bad game (or more than one). So the 4.4, 3.9, and 3.4 stats are ultimately irrelevant if you're not going to make the comparisons relative. Stats, as a whole, are relied upon too much by football fans to try and make themselves sound knowledgeable.



That's not really true. The Rams were #5 last year in DPPG Allowed. Still ended up 6-10. Why? A bad offense that didn't just fail to score points but also gave the opponents points.

If were choosing one stat, point differential would probably be it. Regardless, I'm not a big stat guy. I like seeing what's happening on the field. Stats only tell you the results. They don't tell you what actually happened.

#5? Not sure were you got that. The Rams gave up 22.1 points per game last year. Tied for 16th with the Bronco's.