turnovers

[judicial clerk]

This is my first foray onto the strategies message board and I am very impressed with statistics analysis of everyone here. I was wondering if anyone had done a statistical analysis concerning turnovers. I am assuming that turnovers are the most important factor in determining who wins a game in real football. I was wondering if this holds true in FOF. Also, I was wondering if anyone has determinedwhat factors in the game effect turnovers the most? (offensive player attributes, def player attributes, training camp, coaches, etc.?)

[Morgado]

Hold on while I change into my pimp suit...

"Turnovers are overrated. They're important, just not as important as everyone thinks. Early in the '87 season, one of those national college score shows (sorry, we can't tell them apart) led its story of Memphis State's upset of Alabama with the news that the 'Bama quarterback threw three interceptions. Ah-hah! we said, 'Bama lost on turnovers. But then the host of the show (sorry we can't tell them apart) added that three times 'Bama drove to inside the Memphis State 5-yard line without scoring. In that Memphis State won by three points, we have a strong feeling that those three goal-line stands might have had more to do with their win than the three interceptions. A little bit later, in the same score show (whatever it was), the same host (whoever he was) raved about the "great day" by some western college quarterback (sorry...), but we noticed the guy's stats included two interceptions.

As nearly as we can see, turnovers are important sometimes because they're a way to explain away a loss. It's easier for a coach to say his team lacks concentration than talent. Every team has turnovers, but unless they get up to five or six in a game, a good team will win in spite of them. It's not that good teams don't make mistakes (if you want to call turnovers mistakes); it's just that good teams make up for them with other outstanding plays."

- The Hidden Game of Football: The Next Edition, p.67

The authors go on to discuss how offensive system probably influences turnover rates and that the direction of causality is being reversed (low turnovers is caused by success, not the other way around). Breaking down three seasons of turnovers and examine what situations they all occurred in. A rant they make is how failed fourth downs are not counted as turnovers and talk about the "long INT equals a punt" factor. Is an INT on fourth down with zero runback any different from an incompletion?

Admittedly, in FOF these real football arguments may not apply. Some players have stated that they believe interceptions are too frequently run back for touchdowns as compared to reality - and I tend to agree with them (same with fumbles). So in FOF, turnovers are more costly than turnovers in the NFL. Another place there are more turnovers than expected is on kick and punt returns (in all of 1997, there were only 30 punt return fumbles and 20 kick return fumbles). I suspect but have no proof that fumbles on these plays are happening too often because I see a lot of them when running scoreboard simulations. Because these particular fumbles are usually occurring deep in your own end of the field, they are more costly than the run-of-the-mill turnover. So that's two strikes making turnovers more important in FOF. Another thing that comes to mind is that interceptions seem much more likely in obvious passing personnel plays and situations. Due to the tendency of CPU coaches to call tons of 3, 4 and even 5 WR shotgun sets out of desperation early (like down by 10 in the early 3rd quarter... WTF?), this may lead to higher turnover frequency than would be expected in a human playcalled game. So turnovers *might* be happening more often so they *might* have a bigger impact (the authors said 5 or 6 and i'm guessing that should really be interpreted as +5 margin). But again, I have no hard data on this - just hunches.

To be honest though, I am one of the sheep who still believe in the old coaches' tale of turnover margin deciding games (probably because I believe in ball control and each possession means that much more in a ball control scheme).

Speaking of turnovers and run-based ball control offenses, is a run oriented offense "safer" than a pass oriented offense? I like to believe so, and there's something in the book about that too - 112 fumbles on running plays in 1997. But 161 fumbles came on passing plays! When you add interceptions to the mix, turnovers are more likely on passing plays than running plays.

So what do I make out of all my hot air? In real football, no turnovers should not be that big of a deal (although my gut reaction tells me otherwise). In FOF, yes turnovers should be a big deal because the consequences and frequency of them appear to be more than in reality.

What can be done about it? Not much. Get a passer with high accuracy rating, ball carriers and return specialists with high endurance and carrying, and set your game plan to be run oriented with extremely low usage of obvious passing formations (unless you have a VG-EX offensive playcaller coach). On defense, go for ballhawks in the secondary (especially at safety) with high INT and try to get heavy hitters at DL and LB spots to jar the ball loose (just a guess since I don't know if there's a Ronnie Lott effect where the good run stoppers have higher likelihood of jarring the ball loose).

And now to change out of the pimp suit...

------------------
The 64 Dollar Question: What *is* The FOF Journal?

[This message has been edited by Morgado (edited 02-18-2001).]

[TheDawgsAreOut]

Concerning your assertion that turnovers are extremely important to victory in FOF, you might want to check out the analysis in '4th Quarter Scoring and Other Keys to Victory'. The analysis I recently did showed that they weren't actually that important.

------------------
The best damn announcer the fake FOFL has ever seen! Check out my cd "Who cares who let them out, I know they're out!" in stores everywhere next month.

[judicial clerk]

I did read through the other thread (very interesting and impressive) and as far as turnovers go, perhaps a better assumption would be that turnovers are not determinative of who wins the game, but perhaps teams that can outscore their opponents because they are "better" also happen totypically create more turnovers because their are better. Also, maybe creating turnovers are part of the "margin of error" which cannot be coached in real football and shouldn't necessarily be considerd when developing an FOF team (i.e. I don't need to worry about my quarterback because he specifically turns the ball over alot, I need to worry about him because he sucks in general and part of being sucky is that turnovers will result.) It is hard to ignore my instincts, however, that tell me that creating turnovers leads to wins, while I logically see the argurment that being a winning team leads to turnovers.

Also, watching the Raven's D in the playoffs made me think about turnovers. The way they seemd to tip the ball up to create the possibility of an interception was very impressive. (of course maybe I was just hypnotized by all of the hype the D received.)

I guess turnovers should be thought of as a part of the overall importance of field position to winning a game. That would eliminate the importance of a late game interception/punt.

BTW, I think the next book I am going to read is going to be that book you keep pimping. It sounds fascinating.

[Morgado]

Originally posted by judicial clerk:
...(i.e. I don't need to worry about my quarterback because he specifically turns the ball over alot, I need to worry about him because he sucks in general and part of being sucky is that turnovers will result.)

I think this is a very good way to look at it. If the players are solid, turnovers will be avoided (or created if you're playing defense). Especially since FOF is a statistical engine with probability distributions, all you can do is get as solid players as possible and pray the dice come up with good values.

BTW, I think the next book I am going to read is going to be that book you keep pimping. It sounds fascinating.[/b]

Heh, I just got another $3.99 bargain book on pro football this morning at Borders, so I may have a new book to pimp... depending on the quality of the book.

------------------
The 64 Dollar Question: What *is* The FOF Journal?

[QuikSand]

While the interception is the real bugbear in this whole debate (and the discussion could go on and on... too many INT's in FOF... too many are returned for TDs... probaby all true) let's not forget the fumble.

One thing we do have is a fairly clear indicator (at least in name) of how often a player will (should?) fumble the ball-- the "carrying" rating. I have no idea if fumbles will tend to increase with, say, the proportion of carries to the outside (pitchouts, etc. might have a higher error factor?) but we ought to expect that a higher carrying rating will mean fewer fumbles for your ball carrier.

Who knows how much to weigh that particular factor? Not me. I personally come pretty close to ignoring "carrying," except when I have a particular player who seems to have a problem. But I almost never really weigh it at all when evaluating players for acquisition. I guess, by implication, I generally side with the "talent and productivity drive turnovers, and not the other way around" argument. If I have quality players, they'll do well-- even if we have a few more turnovers, I'd rather have the quality guys out there who can overcome miscues.

[MIJB#19]

QuikSand, I remember a small test of the carrying skill in FOF2 I did myself.

I only had QB, FB, RB, TE and WR with carrying of 90+ (and almost all other skills 40 or less).
In a 16-game season, only 2 fumbles were recorded (on a run heavy offense).
I think my team went somewere between 11-5 and 9-7.

[MartinD]

For what it's worth, I had a WR in the WLC who played 14 seasons, caught over 1400 passes and didn't fumble once - his carrying rating was never higher than 50, and was something like 20 in the season he retired.

I know that a single case like this doesn't mean anything, so I guess I just got lucky with this guy...

Martin

[OldGiants]

>I personally come pretty close to ignoring "carrying," except when I have a particular player who seems to have a problem. <

As players grow older, their carrying falls and they drop the ball a lot more. QBs in particular. Most of the time my decision to ditch a long time QB is because he's fumbling a lot. RBs, Edgerrin James in particular, and Rickie Williams in FOF2, also have shorter useful lives because of increased fumbling.

I like my teams to be in the top 3 (hopefully #1) in turnover margin. Indeed the first sign my team is aging is when the turnover margin begins to erode. that's when I sit back and evaluate the older starters and get out the ax.