Grantland: Arizona has a Numbers Problem

[kerouac9]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/arizona-has-a-numbers-problem/

Submitted without having read. I'll present my thoughts once I have some.

Also, Bill Barnwell is a longtime AZCardinals skeptic, but he loves Keim and Arians.

In other news, the new Football Outsiders Almanac came out today. Highly recommend shelling out the $25 (or whatever) for.

 

[crisper57]

Basically we are in for a backslide this season, based on historical trends. I'd say that is more likely for a team that stood pat on its roster for the most part. With this revamped OL and a new DC, I think we may see two units that are vastly different from last year's versions.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Interesting numbers... IMHO, all it does it underscore just how great BASK, with the support of Michael, really are.

Yes, history strongly suggests that the Cards will fall back to the "mean" and fall closer in line with historical performances. However, you can't deny the facts that Palmer is back, Badger is 100%, PP is 110%, Ellington (maybe?) will be healthier, our o-line will be better, we should be better at TE, John Brown will have another year of experience under his belt, Floyd can't be any worse than he was last season, etc, etc, etc...
Yes, we were 4 &1 in once score games last season and so the odds would suggest that we won't duplicate that performance in close games again... However, we had so many close games in part, because we had so many key players hurt and out.

We'll see... If the team drops to 9 & 7 would I be surprised? If Palmer, or Ellington, or Cooper don't finish the season would I be surprised? No...

 

[crisper57]

The 2014 Cardinals were an 11-5 team that outscored their opposition by a mere 11 points.

The 11-point differential suggests the Cardinals were basically about average.

If you read the Buccaneers article on Monday, you will not be surprised to hear that teams that grossly outperform their point differential do not often repeat their feat the following year.

Okay. I get the logic. But the point differential for the first 10 games of the season was 53. After Carson went down, the differential for the remaining 6 games was -42. This tells me they weren't a consistently average team over the course of the season. Instead, we were a great team the first half of the season and an abysmal one after Palmer got hurt.

That is a direct result of the shift at QB.

If Carson can stay healthy, I think the Cardinals point differential will reflect that they are better than just an average team.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

A win is a win.

Wonder what the point differential can be effected by things like, you know, starting your 2nd and 3rd string quarterbacks for half the season, and playing in defensively heavy divisions.

 

[BullheadCardFan]

Okay. I get the logic. But the point differential for the first 10 games of the season was 53. After Carson went down, the differential for the remaining 6 games was -42. This tells me they weren't a consistently average team over the course of the season. Instead, we were a great team the first half of the season and an abysmal one after Palmer got hurt.

That is a direct result of the shift at QB.

If Carson can stay healthy, I think the Cardinals point differential will reflect that they are better than just an average team.

+1

 

[Russ Smith]

Okay. I get the logic. But the point differential for the first 10 games of the season was 53. After Carson went down, the differential for the remaining 6 games was -42. This tells me they weren't a consistently average team over the course of the season. Instead, we were a great team the first half of the season and an abysmal one after Palmer got hurt.

That is a direct result of the shift at QB.

If Carson can stay healthy, I think the Cardinals point differential will reflect that they are better than just an average team.

I was going to post that too, the differential really depends on who was the QB.

We were not an explosive offense so we didn't blow people out, but we were MUCH better with Palmer than with other QB's especially the guys after Stanton got hurt.

 

[ajcardfan]

We had so many games that were nailbiters at the end. But, we got the breaks and plays we needed to squeak out wins. It's unrealistic to think any team, even the Pats, could continue to win so many close games at such a high rate.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

We had so many games that were nailbiters at the end. But, we got the breaks and plays we needed to squeak out wins. It's unrealistic to think any team, even the Pats, could continue to win so many close games at such a high rate.

I disagree. I give the credit to Arians and what he drills into his players' heads.

http://archive.azcentral.com/sports...ach-bruce-arians-wants-more-eyes-details.html

“There are no ‘little things.’ You hear a lot of coaches say, ‘It’s the little things.’ There are no little things. Everything is a big thing.

That's how you consistently win close games.

 

[kerouac9]

Basically we are in for a backslide this season, based on historical trends. I'd say that is more likely for a team that stood pat on its roster for the most part. With this revamped OL and a new DC, I think we may see two units that are vastly different from last year's versions.

I dunno — the OL is revamped, but the new C was either not good enough to beat out a guy we cut in the offseason or a guy who was benched by a terrible OL for the Colts. So... yeah.

And there's no reason to be assured that Bettcher will somehow be better than Bolwes, and we lost some good players on the defense as well.

I was going to post that too, the differential really depends on who was the QB.

We were not an explosive offense so we didn't blow people out, but we were MUCH better with Palmer than with other QB's especially the guys after Stanton got hurt.

As they say, read the whole article:

If the Lindley era hadn’t happened and the season ended after 14 games, the Cardinals would have been an 11-3 team that we would have expected to win … 8.3 games. Instead, they ended up as an 11-5 team that we would have expected to win 8.3 games. We would be thinking of them as an even bigger outlier if it weren’t for the Lindley-led crash landing to the end of the season.

In Palmer's six starts, the Cards outperformed their point differential by 1.6 games; prorated to 16 games, they outperformed by 4.3 games.

 

[crisper57]

I dunno — the OL is revamped, but the new C was either not good enough to beat out a guy we cut in the offseason or a guy who was benched by a terrible OL for the Colts. So... yeah.

And there's no reason to be assured that Bettcher will somehow be better than Bolwes, and we lost some good players on the defense as well.

That's why I was careful to say "different". My point wasn't necessarily that the team had improved, just that major pieces of the offense (OL) and defense (DC) were overhauled/replaced and therefore last year may not be that great of an indicator of this year's success.

For other 11-win teams with more consistency between seasons, his analysis might have more validity.

 

[82CardsGrad]

That's why I was careful to say "different". My point wasn't necessarily that the team had improved, just that major piece of the offense (OL) and defense (DC) were overhauled/replaced and therefore last year may not be that great of an indicator of this year's success.

For other 11-win teams with more consistency between seasons, his analysis might have more validity.

Yes... they certainly are Wild Cards!!

 

[kerouac9]

That's why I was careful to say "different". My point wasn't necessarily that the team had improved, just that major pieces of the offense (OL) and defense (DC) were overhauled/replaced and therefore last year may not be that great of an indicator of this year's success.

For other 11-win teams with more consistency between seasons, his analysis might have more validity.

I don't think we have had more or less consistent turnover than most successful teams.

 

[crisper57]

I don't think we have had more or less consistent turnover than most successful teams.

You might be right. Losing a Coordinator after a successful season is not all that unusual. A rookie coordinator replacing them? Slightly less normal.

80% turnover on the OL is probably a bit more unusual for a team coming off 11 wins, I suspect. But I don't know for sure.

 

[BigRedRage]

Okay. I get the logic. But the point differential for the first 10 games of the season was 53. After Carson went down, the differential for the remaining 6 games was -42. This tells me they weren't a consistently average team over the course of the season. Instead, we were a great team the first half of the season and an abysmal one after Palmer got hurt.

That is a direct result of the shift at QB.

If Carson can stay healthy, I think the Cardinals point differential will reflect that they are better than just an average team.

Bravo. Stats and analytics are good but you have to see the forest through the trees at the same time.

One of the best parts about our team is we are closers, as long as we keep it close until the fourth quarter, the odds are in our favor.

 

[kerouac9]

Bravo. Stats and analytics are good but you have to see the forest through the trees at the same time.

One of the best parts about our team is we are closers, as long as we keep it close until the fourth quarter, the odds are in our favor.

I think that's part of the argument — there isn't much evidence to support that a team is "a winner", or that there are teams that can consistently win close games year after year. EDIT: Take the Whis team that started out bad, then won like 7 of 8 to end the year, all of them by a TD or less. How well did that carry over to the future?

Overall, performance in close games (decided by 7 points or less) reverts to the mean. Obviously, part of Barnwell's point is that Arians might be more successful than most coaches, and that is sustainable.

It's unlikely, but possible. It's the Wyatt Earp Effect.

 

[b8rtm8nn]

I think that's part of the argument — there isn't much evidence to support that a team is "a winner", or that there are teams that can consistently win close games year after year. EDIT: Take the Whis team that started out bad, then won like 7 of 8 to end the year, all of them by a TD or less. How well did that carry over to the future?

Overall, performance in close games (decided by 7 points or less) reverts to the mean. Obviously, part of Barnwell's point is that Arians might be more successful than most coaches, and that is sustainable.

It's unlikely, but possible. It's the Wyatt Earp Effect.

Yep - I don't know enough about systems dynamics and statistics to have proper verbiage - but it is entirely possible to have a single variable or entity that pulls the system off of the mean consistently. It is also possible that Arians is the 'wild card' in this equation and the next 2-3 years should bring this to light, if true. Of course, anyone can throw out other statistics that point to Kulabafi as the reason for our success, and I would be hard pressed to disagree.

 

[CardsFan88]

Each season is it's own universe. People cited statistics that the Cardinals couldn't repeat as a 10 win club, and despite everything, we even surpassed it.

Grantland can follow trends and history to come up with a guess, but this season has yet to be played, so they don't know squat.

I'm not concerned, because they don't know the future.

Personally I like looking at the guys we have that are hungry, motivated, and talented. Maybe we take a step back, maybe not, but I don't think their 'statistics' foretell anything. Maybe we aren't an 'outlier', it's their method that *shockingly* doesn't capture reality.

Still nice to know though, so thanks for the post k9.

 

[oaken1]

strange.... for years we have been hearing sports bubble heads praising dullas or green bay or the pats for winning the close games....."because that's what good teams do".....but now all of a sudden it is a bad thing that our team could buckle down at the end and pull out a win??

we will be a better team this season...may not hit 11 wins, but we will be a better team. The guy writing the article completely failed to factor in leadership. great QB's and great Head Coaches always bring heavy doses of great leadership....IMO that is the main reason we won the close ones last year....and having Palmer back in the huddle puts leadership right in the huddle again,...which we lost when he went down last season....when you add in o-line improvements.....including TE's,....a fresh young RB,...and more experience for the Brown's......I believe our offense will be superior to what it was last season.

Defense may suffer...we have better team speed on defense than we have had in a long time...but experience within the system is weaker than it was. We have lost some ability at corner...however, PP and Badger being at full strength may make up for losing Cromartie....Cro really carried our secondary last season. My biggest concern with the defense is the loss of our big guys,...but DD didn't play last season anyway...and maybe a youngster can step in for Dumpster Dan...........I think Okafor is going to emerge this season as a rusher...and will need to be accounted for...if Spoon stays healthy,...
it looks like we will be running a high risk/high reward defense again this season.

it is pretty easy to say that an 11-5 team is going to slip...but is 10-6 really a slip?? Once again, the biggest threat to the Cardinals is the Cardinals and their own division. Seattle is weaker in the middle of their offense and will be trying to keep Graham in the game plan...both things we should be able to exploit...our added speed on the edge combined with their interior softness should make it easier for us to force Wilson to improvise...he is good at it,...but perhaps not after a few good hits? He is not a very big fella.
The niners?? I would love to just be able to say,..."They're toast"....but you never know with those guys.
I am just grateful the Rams do not have an o-line...but their defense will win them a few.

all in all, the NFCW is still the best division in football until proven otherwise....and I believe we will be in the fight to be the best in our division.

outside the division who are the threats??
New England
Green Bay
Indy
Denver
maybe Minnesota??

with both sides fully healthy I would give us even odds against any of them.

 

[football karma]

I come at this in a number of ways, kind of agreeing, but not totally agreeing with the Grantland stuff:


If Carson Palmer only plays in 6 games this year, the odds of the Cards being a 10+ win team are not good. I dont think thats a statement anyone here would object to. While he gives nod to the Lindley factor, the Stanton factor is also baked into last year's figures as well.

Said differently: The "lift" from Palmer playing 16 games offsets reversion to mean and results in another 11-5 season --- but with far better post-season prospects

on the other hand -- i am skeptical of anything derived from a sample size of 16. Standard dev has to be pretty large ( 3.5 games maybe)

 

[Catfish]

What all these theories and crunched numbers did not, (and could not), account for is BA
s ability to teach, (and play), football while being situationally aware at all time, and then taking advantage of those situations at precise points in games. That is borne out by the fact that the only two teams to have been able to overcome the odds with this degree of success just happen to be the Colts, and the Cardinals, BOTH of which were coached by BA at the time of their unique success. His success with ensuring that his best play makers are on the field in such critical instances, and are able to influence the game's outcome often enough to defy those odds, is testament to the efforts that he, his staff, and his roster have actually achieved despite the odds against their doing so. Simply proclaiming all the odds and percentages in mathematical terms cannot possibly influence games as greatly as BA has shown that his attention to this situational awareness has been able to do, and he has now done it with two different teams, winning coach of the year awards with each of them.

Even more promising, it would appear that three of his most prolific play makers are on the verge of returning to their full abilities after missing significant time and performance ability due to injury or illness. They are Carson Palmer of offense, and Patrick Peterson and Tyran Matthieu on the defense. I will not at all be surprised if those three don't kick in some game changing plays this season, which may put us once again into the the lofty W/L record groupings.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

The Cardinals never played the Seahawks with Palmer is 2014.

They lost those games a combined 9-54 or -45

That is the vast majority of the point differential issues.

In 2013 with Palmer they split the series and were 39-44 or -5

It's a dumb article to be honest

 

[cardncubfan]

The Cardinals never played the Seahawks with Palmer is 2014.

They lost those games a combined 9-54 or -45

That is the vast majority of the point differential issues.

In 2013 with Palmer they split the series and were 39-44 or -5

It's a dumb article to be honest

+1

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

So, the team was 6-0 in Palmer games and out scored opponents by 50 total pts in those games, yet they lump his performance in with Stantly.

Bottom line: Healthy Palmer made them Super Bowl contenders.

 

[oaken1]

So, the team was 6-0 in Palmer games and out scored opponents by 50 total pts in those games, yet they lump his performance in with Stantly.

Bottom line: Healthy Palmer made them Super Bowl contenders.

Truth.