View Single Post
Old 05-16-2004   #18
infantrycak
Lead Moderator
 
infantrycak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 46
Posts: 43,644
Rep Power: 222056 infantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respected
Send a message via AIM to infantrycak
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky
I'm a little confused about some of these numbers. Shouldn't some of these league average numbers, such as 3rd conversion %, be the same for both offense & defense? Did you subtract the numbers from the Texans games prior to calculating the averages?
Actually I should have said median rather than average. The numbers are those between the 16th and 17th teams in each category last year. If they were averages then the numbers should correlate on the two sides of the ball.

Quote:
Looking at these numbers, itís important to remember that the offense and defense results arenít independent of each other. The offense can help the defense by manufacturing long drives, avoiding turnovers, and just plain scoring points. The offense will hinder the defense by a lot of 3 & outs, costly interceptions or fumbles, and not converting opportunities. Conversely, the defense assists the offenseís production by causing turnovers and preventing long drives. If the defense improves, so should some of the offenseís statistics. And vice versa. Neither side exists in a vacuum nor are their numbers created in such.

Some smart guy could possibly derive a formula that relates what one sideís contribution to the others data is. Good luck with that. Again, itís easy to see from the numbers that the Texans need to improve, more difficult to pinpoint where the improvement is most needed.
That is in part what I was posting above about the missing offensive plays. As you say, if the offense gets more plays (about 7 per game to get to league median) then that is less plays the defense is on the field. Don't know that there is any 'formula' to relate the two, but it is simple to calculate the lost output due to lack of offensive plays and extra yardage given up by the D due to having to be on the field more. For the offense using the same performance for the other 896 plays, those 112 plays lost cost the Texans 57 passing plays for 32 receptions and 370 yards and 55 rushing plays for 214.5 yards. With those plays the totals would have been 3025 passing (slightly below mid-pack) and 1865 rushing (slightly above mid-pack). You could do the same calculation for the D but frankly right now I don't have a calculator handy--when I have one available I'll edit this to give the D improvement. FYI the median number of plays by defenses was 998 and the Texans defended 1054.
__________________
The Art of War
infantrycak is offline   Reply With Quote