Chiefs Advanced NFL Stats: Chiefs-Giants closer than you'd think

**DaFace** · 09-26-2013, 07:07 PM

Not that this is surprising, but interesting to see a statistical analysis of this week's game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/sp...or-giants.html

Week 4 Game Probabilities: Better Outlook for Giants
By BRIAN BURKE

Weekly game probabilities return for 2013. In this space, we will reveal the outcome probabilities for each week’s N.F.L. games while examining interesting aspects of game prediction and football analytics.

This Sunday, the 0-3 Giants visit the 3-0 Chiefs. On the basis of each team’s record, the game looks one-sided, but a closer look reveals a much more even matchup.

Both the Chiefs and the Giants have turnovers to thank and to blame for their records through Week 3. The Chiefs haven’t turned the ball over once this season. They haven’t even fumbled, much less lost a fumble. On defense, the Chiefs have intercepted 3.5 percent of opponent pass attempts, significantly higher than the league average of 2.5 percent.

The Giants are at the other end of the spectrum. Quarterback Eli Manning has been intercepted on an amazingly frequent 7.6 percent of his pass attempts. And the Giant defense has a below-average 1.7 percent interception rate.

In retrospect, turnovers explain a great deal of a team’s fortunes. But prospectively, team turnover statistics don’t predict game outcomes as much as you might think. The reason behind this distinction is something called auto-correlation. Put simply, turnovers are very random. Only a small portion of a team’s past turnover rate carries forward to be predictive.

Consider offensive interception rate. In a sample of several recent seasons, interception rate correlates with a team’s win total at -0.46. Correlations are a measure of how connected two variables appear to be, calculated on a scale of -1 to 1. A correlation of 1 is perfect lock-step connection, and a correlation of zero means there is very likely no connection. A negative number means the two variables are inversely related; as one goes up, the other goes down. In this case, as offensive interception rate increases, win totals decrease as we would expect.

But if we divide the season into halves — all even numbered games and all odd number games — we see that team interception rate isn’t consistent. In fact, the correlation is about 0.1, meaning that a team’s past interception rate doesn’t tell you much about how many interceptions it may have from game to game. To put that in perspective, the most consistent aspect of team performance is offensive pass efficiency, which correlates from week to week at 0.6.

And that’s why the Chiefs-Giants game isn’t as lopsided as one might think. The game probabilities for Week 4 are at right. (* Denotes the neutral site game in London, where home field advantage was removed from the probability model.)

Sorter · 09-26-2013, 07:12 PM

Buffalo is at .7 against Baltimore?
Tampa over Arizona?

**Canofbier** · 09-26-2013, 07:13 PM

Pretty damn unconvincing, in my opinion. There are arguments to be made for why the Giants will be competitive next Sunday, but "They can't possibly continue to be this bad!" isn't it.

**DaFace** · 09-26-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

Buffalo is at .7 against Baltimore?
Tampa over Arizona?

Yeah, I don't put much into the probabilities this early in the season. The model is based purely on this season's games, so it's based on a VERY small sample size right now. The analysis in the writeup, however, is based on much more broad trends.

Hog's Gone Fishin · 09-26-2013, 07:17 PM

This statistical analysis hasn't met Alex Smith. Turnovers are not Random with him. Although you do get the feeling that we are overdue , and with the D-lne the Giants have I get a worrisome feeling.

Ah hell no, Justin Houston may set the sack record this week. All is good !

**notorious** · 09-26-2013, 07:21 PM

Get ready to see every hold go uncalled this week.

The NFL needs the Giants to be somewhat respectable.

Ace Gunner · 09-26-2013, 07:28 PM

"When you plAy a losing team, you want to keep them losing"

Will shields this week on 610 sports radio

**petegz28** · 09-26-2013, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious

Get ready to see every hold go uncalled this week.

The NFL needs the Giants to be somewhat respectable.

That's what I am afraid of. East Coast bias. Although, Smith had Eli beat until the punt returner ****ed it up for him. So our QB has faced this team and done well in the past. Need our D to continue and our running and pass blocking to step up.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 09-26-2013, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious

Get ready to see every hold go uncalled this week.

The NFL needs the Giants to be somewhat respectable.

This.

Eleazar · 09-26-2013, 07:38 PM

This league is so QB-centric, you can't count many teams out when they have an elite QB.

It's not like the Giants don't have any talented players. We'll probably have our hands full especially in the secondary.

MMXcalibur · 09-26-2013, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious

Get ready to see every hold go uncalled this week.

The NFL needs the Giants to be somewhat respectable.

Oh yeah, expect this x 100000

**petegz28** · 09-26-2013, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

This league is so QB-centric, you can't count many teams out when they have an elite QB.

It's not like the Giants don't have any talented players. We'll probably have our hands full especially in the secondary.

These are the games when a ball control offense can be the winning factor. An elite QB can't beat you if he is watching his D all game

**BossChief** · 09-26-2013, 07:45 PM

Officials not calling holding on Hali is nothing new.

Their OL is as bad or possibly worse than ours and Hali/Houston should be able to keep Eli uncomfortable all day.

I don't understand how the article shows how NY is giving the ball away at an alarming rate, we are taking the ball away at an alarming rate and we aren't giving the ball away AT ALL and how you can just throw out all of those facts.

O.city · 09-26-2013, 07:47 PM

IIRC, they're without 2 more OL this week.

**BossChief** · 09-26-2013, 07:49 PM

I think Houston has another 3+ sack game and if things play out the way I think they can, he could get 5 or 6.

09-26-2013, 07:07 PM
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $1906899	Advanced NFL Stats: Chiefs-Giants closer than you'd think Not that this is surprising, but interesting to see a statistical analysis of this week's game. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/sp...or-giants.html Week 4 Game Probabilities: Better Outlook for Giants By BRIAN BURKE Weekly game probabilities return for 2013. In this space, we will reveal the outcome probabilities for each week’s N.F.L. games while examining interesting aspects of game prediction and football analytics. This Sunday, the 0-3 Giants visit the 3-0 Chiefs. On the basis of each team’s record, the game looks one-sided, but a closer look reveals a much more even matchup. Both the Chiefs and the Giants have turnovers to thank and to blame for their records through Week 3. The Chiefs haven’t turned the ball over once this season. They haven’t even fumbled, much less lost a fumble. On defense, the Chiefs have intercepted 3.5 percent of opponent pass attempts, significantly higher than the league average of 2.5 percent. The Giants are at the other end of the spectrum. Quarterback Eli Manning has been intercepted on an amazingly frequent 7.6 percent of his pass attempts. And the Giant defense has a below-average 1.7 percent interception rate. In retrospect, turnovers explain a great deal of a team’s fortunes. But prospectively, team turnover statistics don’t predict game outcomes as much as you might think. The reason behind this distinction is something called auto-correlation. Put simply, turnovers are very random. Only a small portion of a team’s past turnover rate carries forward to be predictive. Consider offensive interception rate. In a sample of several recent seasons, interception rate correlates with a team’s win total at -0.46. Correlations are a measure of how connected two variables appear to be, calculated on a scale of -1 to 1. A correlation of 1 is perfect lock-step connection, and a correlation of zero means there is very likely no connection. A negative number means the two variables are inversely related; as one goes up, the other goes down. In this case, as offensive interception rate increases, win totals decrease as we would expect. But if we divide the season into halves — all even numbered games and all odd number games — we see that team interception rate isn’t consistent. In fact, the correlation is about 0.1, meaning that a team’s past interception rate doesn’t tell you much about how many interceptions it may have from game to game. To put that in perspective, the most consistent aspect of team performance is offensive pass efficiency, which correlates from week to week at 0.6. And that’s why the Chiefs-Giants game isn’t as lopsided as one might think. The game probabilities for Week 4 are at right. (* Denotes the neutral site game in London, where home field advantage was removed from the probability model.)
Posts: 51,854

09-26-2013, 07:13 PM	#3
Canofbier ¡RIOS MIO! Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Minneapolis Casino cash: $5906981	Pretty damn unconvincing, in my opinion. There are arguments to be made for why the Giants will be competitive next Sunday, but "They can't possibly continue to be this bad!" isn't it.
Posts: 4,303

09-26-2013, 07:17 PM	#5
Hog's Gone Fishin Fish are scared of me Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1580477	This statistical analysis hasn't met Alex Smith. Turnovers are not Random with him. Although you do get the feeling that we are overdue , and with the D-lne the Giants have I get a worrisome feeling. Ah hell no, Justin Houston may set the sack record this week. All is good !
Posts: 40,368

09-26-2013, 07:21 PM	#6
notorious Supporter Join Date: May 2005 Location: Who knows? Casino cash: $2805884	Get ready to see every hold go uncalled this week. The NFL needs the Giants to be somewhat respectable.
Posts: 83,462

09-26-2013, 07:28 PM	#7
Ace Gunner First Overall Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: kcmo Casino cash: $10007271	"When you plAy a losing team, you want to keep them losing" Will shields this week on 610 sports radio __________________ The Greatest
Posts: 10,580

09-26-2013, 07:38 PM	#10
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000	This league is so QB-centric, you can't count many teams out when they have an elite QB. It's not like the Giants don't have any talented players. We'll probably have our hands full especially in the secondary.
Posts: 80,659

09-26-2013, 07:45 PM	#13
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $1754088	Officials not calling holding on Hali is nothing new. Their OL is as bad or possibly worse than ours and Hali/Houston should be able to keep Eli uncomfortable all day. I don't understand how the article shows how NY is giving the ball away at an alarming rate, we are taking the ball away at an alarming rate and we aren't giving the ball away AT ALL and how you can just throw out all of those facts. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,145

09-26-2013, 07:47 PM	#14
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2624064	IIRC, they're without 2 more OL this week.
Posts: 81,336

09-26-2013, 07:49 PM	#15
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $1754088	I think Houston has another 3+ sack game and if things play out the way I think they can, he could get 5 or 6. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,145