I couldn't help but read this post with a John Madden voice in my head. That is EXACTLY how he talks all the time!

Speaking of Madden, Frank Caliendo does a better Madden than Madden does Madden. Have you seen Frank TV?

FrankCaliendo.com - Video of Frank Caliendo, comedian & impressionist

The first time I heard Caliendo was on Stoney & Wojo. I was driving to the Post Office. I had to pull over on the side of the road because I was laughing so hard.

__________________
They are the archetype for dominance. They are the gatekeepers of the conference. They are the Detroit Pistons.

Is there any relationship between this John Madden who plays for the New Jersey Devlis and the American football analyst on TV.



ESPN - New Jersey Devils News, Schedule, Players, Scores, Stats, Photos, Rumors - NHL Hockey

Time of possession in football and winning.

Not cause-effect.

Ta, can you elaborate why you single out this particular stat? I mean, it seems to me that no single statistical average has a one to one cause effect relation with winning and that only single stat that has a one to one cause effect relation with winning in the course of a particular contest is points scored. Or do you mean that time of possession has absolutely no correlation with winning. Just looking for a clarification because i like to learn about how statistically adept individuals (i.e. not me) think through these issues. thanks

It is definitely correlated, but not as strongly as other stats.

A big reason why it is correlated is that turnovers tend to take away from your TOP. And of course, turnovers also make you lose. So in this case, 'A' causes both 'B' and 'C'.

The general perception is that if you have a high time of possession, it leaves less time for the other team to use, which therefore benefits you. That sounds right, until you really think about it.

Would it really be any better for the Lions if they took 10 plays to score and chewed up 6:00 on the clock than if they just ran back the kickoff? Sure, you'd leave the other team with more time on the clock, but when they are done, the Lions would also have more time on the clock... and so on.

Basically, as long as you get the same number of possessions as the other team, you will have an equal chance of winning... provided that the other team is equal to you in ability.


The only time that I think chewing up the clock would be beneficial is if you are an inferior team. In that case, you want to minimize the # of possessions in the game to increase your odds of getting lucky. The examples would be that tons of guys beat Tiger Woods over the course of 18 holes, but not many over the course of 72 holes. This is why some crappy high school teams used the stall tactic.

The other argument that I've heard is that the defensive line gets tired. I guess my problem with that is that I would think that offensive line would as well.

__________________
"I’ll just say this: We’re not talking to teams about their second- or third-best players." Joe Dumars talking about his plan to get other teams' 4th best players.

Lifetime team records vs another team. Like saying "Oh the ____ haven't won in/against ____ for __ years." Why the freak should I care how well the guys who were on the team 20 years ago played? Does that remotely have any effect whatsoever on this particular matchup? Now, if you're talking about the last few seasons and you take into account who was on the team then vs now, then you're making a good point. But I want to blow my brains out everytime I hear things like "the Packers are 0-10 lifetime at Dallas" Who freaking cares? How many of those game were even played in this decade? And how many of the players are still in the league, let alone still playing for the same team? (besides Old Man Favre, of course)

I guess here is what I would change about the time of possession stat.

Take the total time of possession for each team and divide by the number of plays that they had.

So, in the Lions vs. Vikings game for example,

The Lions took up 32 seconds per play.

The Vikings took up 34 seconds per play.


They killed us in total time of possession, but it wasn't because they were running the ball and milking the clock, it was because they were getting first downs and not turning the ball over.

this isn't a stat, but i hate this trend when a player is being interviewed:

'if i would have told you that ____ and that you guys were winning by 10, what would you have said?' or some variation