Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Statistical analysis: DeAngelo Hall plays the hero, and other notes

Statistical analysis

Some notes on the Redskins' win over Chicago on Sunday and a look ahead to this weekend's game in Detroit:

DeAngelo Hall virtually and literally won that game against the Bears single-handedly. His four interceptions, including a one-handed grab he returned 92 yards for a touchdown, were worth a total of 0.99 Win Probability Added (WPA). WPA measures the change in each team's chances of winning from play to play. A 0.99 WPA essentially says Hall's performance could have won an entire game, even if the offense did everything it could to lose.

Speaking of doing everything it could to lose, that's precisely what the offense did. Quarterback Donovan McNabb's WPA was -0.20. Running back Ryan Torain's WPA was -0.25. Although Torain ran well against a tough Bears defense at 6.0 yards per carry, his fourth-quarter fumble was extremely costly. This is a lesson that shouldn't go overlooked. One lost fumble in a critical situation can wipe out all of the positive impact of a 125-yard game, and then some.

Lovie Smith's enormous blunder kept the Redskins in the game. Smith decided not to challenge Jay Cutler's fumble on first and goal from the one. Most accounts claim the replay clearly showed the ball crossed the plane of the end zone prior to the fumble. Had the play been a touchdown, the Redskins would have been down 11 points early in the third quarter, giving them only an 11 percent chance of winning. Instead, the fumble put the Redskins' chances at 30 percent, a difference of 19 percent. To put that in perspective, only two plays were bigger on Sunday, and they were the two interception returns for touchdowns.

Albert Haynesworth made a measurable impact Sunday (+0.10 WPA) with a sack in the first quarter, a tackle for a loss on a critical third down and one, and another hit on Cutler later in the game. (Technically, Haynesworth was not credited with an assist on the Cutler goal-line fumble in third quarter. But if he were, his WPA would have been +0.21.) His performance was amplified because his big plays were in high-leverage circumstances, forcing two Chicago punts.

Two former Redskins made news last weekend. Quarterback Jason Campbell helped shred the Broncos defense to the tune of 16 Expected Points Added (EPA). That means Campbell's performance was worth about 16 points of the Raiders' amazing 45-point margin of victory. That averages out to about half a point per snap for Campbell. Chargers Coach Norv Turner is now responsible the most underperforming team in recent memory. His team leads the league in all sorts of statistical categories on both offense and defense, including total yards and yards per play. Statistically, a team with those numbers would be projected to be 7-0, perhaps 6-1 or 5-2 at worst. With Sunday's loss to the Patriots, the Chargers are 2-5. No head coach is doing less with more than Turner.

One reason the Redskins have played in so many close games is because they are a very average team. Statistically, they now rank in the middle of the pack in the measures that are most predictive of success, namely efficiency and success rate. The offense has been slightly above average, but is trending downward, and the defense is in the bottom third in most measures. Naturally, there are many more average teams than good or bad outlier teams, and when average teams meet, the games tend to be close. Average doesn't mean they can't make the playoffs, though. Just a 5-4 record from here out puts them in the conversation, and a little luck might make it 6-3, giving them 10 wins and a fairly good shot at January football.

The Lions are no longer the doormat they've been, but they are still a bottom-third team. Detroit is below average across the board--5.7 net Yards Per Attempt (YPA) and 3.5 Yards Per Carry (YPC) on offense, and 6.4 net YPA and 4.9 YPC allowed on defense. (Average is 6.1 and 4.1 on both sides of the ball.) The Lions have also had problems with penalties, ranking sixth worst in penalty yards per play. Despite playing on the road, the Redskins should be favored.

I realize bad news for the Cowboys is good news in these parts. Losing quarterback Tony Romo to a broken collarbone is going to replace a passer with a career 7.4 net YPA with one with 5.0 net YPA. We can't say for certain how Jon Kitna will perform in relief, but that difference of 2.4 YPA would take a team that is theoretically average in every other category from an 11-win team to a 5-win team over the course of a full season. Dallas is already buried in last place in the NFC East at 1-5, and things aren't looking good for Cowboys fans.


Brian Burke is a former Navy pilot who has given up his F/A-18 for the less dangerous hobby of football analysis. He is the creator of Advanced NFL Stats, a Web site about football, statistics and game theory.

By Brian Burke  | October 27, 2010; 6:03 AM ET
Categories:  Albert Haynesworth, DeAngelo Hall, Statistical analysis  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Grossman over McNabb? Here's the argument against.
Next: Redskins add running back James Davis to practice squad

Comments

and every post in this thread should end "and things aren't looking good for Cowboys fans."

Lets get some blog dedication going!!

And things aren't looking good for Cowboys fans!

Posted by: alex35332 | October 27, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

I think Bucs coach Raheem Morris said it best:

"Stats are for losers, so you keep looking at stats and we'll keep looking at wins."

Just a little something for Lance Corporal Numbnuts over there to consider...

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure this is a LOT easier for Brian Burke than Night Carrier landings but this "exoected points added" and "win probability Added' etc. is a bunch of nonsense.

Posted by: TheCork | October 27, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Now THAT'S something we can agree on Cork...trying to use theorems and equations and other garden variety bullsh*t to predict and/or explain football is a complete and total waste of time and energy. Surely there's a better use of Mr. Burke's talents than assigning number values to the obvious.

"DeAngelo Hall virtually and literally won that game against the Bears single-handedly."

"Lovie Smith's enormous blunder kept the Redskins in the game."

No...sh*t...Sherlock.

DHall is sending a jersey to the HoF...something that doesn't happen every day (especially in these parts). No post on that...we get stat geeks highlighting the highlights. UFB...

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

bw26-

Raheem Morris also said his Bucs were the best team in the NFC.

Posted by: Diesel44 | October 27, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse


Grossman over McNabb? Here's the argument against.

In e-mail we've received recently, many Insider readers have suggested that the Washington Redskins should bench Donovan McNabb and start backup quarterback Rex Grossman.

By Jason Reid | October 27, 2010; 6:00 AM ET


Another reason this blog sucks so badly! Instead of reading the comments on the thread, Reid responds to "e-mail we've received recently." Way to interact with the blog, Jason.

I haven't seen even the weirdest odd-balls up here calling for Grossman. So Reid is ignoring what people are saying or he's just making up this (one?) e-mail because he sees it as a meatball over the plate that he thinks he can turn into a grand slam. Out at first base, Reid.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 7:17 AM | Report abuse

If you can say that the Redskins are statistically average but could still make the playoffs, then your stats are crap. Just about everything to do with the Washington Redskins statistics defies what the statisticians "know". The bottom line is you can't statistically account for the conditioning, coaching and attitude - and I think right now, that is what separates the Redskins from most other teams.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | October 27, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

People act like Burke's Statistical analysis posts are the equivalent of a handful of sand thrown into their vagina.

I for one think they are a nice change up to the majority of nonsense that comes from the bloggers and is just as much non-news as the rest of the posts.

To quote the west coast curmudgeon that everyone is familiar with: "Do you know where to send your resume?"

Posted by: Diesel44 | October 27, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

and every post in this thread should end "and things aren't looking good for Cowboys fans."

Lets get some blog dedication going!!

And things aren't looking good for Cowboys fans!

Posted by: alex35332 | October 27, 2010 6:58 AM

You too alex? You could start posting as rachel35332.

We're 4-3, trailing the Giants, and we looked decidedly mediocre in our last outing. We haven't won anything. So every post should focus on what's going on in Dallas? This is the mentality that the Dallas Cowboys brought into the season, "Super Bowl or bust."

Let's get it done here first and then crow about where the losers finished.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

What's with the hate? The measures he uses are hardly garden variety, and definitely add a sophistication to football talk that's sorely missing from play by play commentators and Haynesworth updates. It may not tell you anything you don't intuitively know, but it's interesting to note the odds at various points in the game and the comparisons to the rest of the league in specific measures. It's not like the other RI posts are giving us revelatory insights anyway...

Posted by: crashinghero | October 27, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

I think Bucs coach Raheem Morris said it best:

"Stats are for losers, so you keep looking at stats and we'll keep looking at wins."

Just a little something for Lance Corporal Numbnuts over there to consider...

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 6:58 AM
------------------------------------------
He was a Navy pilot, Brownwood. He'd probably be Lieutenant Numbnuts. Either way, I think he's played with one too many joysticks.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | October 27, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Diesel, while you and I will most definitely disagree with Morris, he IS 4-2. Hard to argue with results...

Hell, I'd be cocky too if I had Josh Freeman at QB. That kid looks GOOD...

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Grossman over McNabb? Here's the argument against.

In e-mail we've received recently, many Insider readers have suggested that the Washington Redskins should bench Donovan McNabb and start backup quarterback Rex Grossman.

By Jason Reid | October 27, 2010; 6:00 AM ET

Another reason this blog sucks so badly! Instead of reading the comments on the thread, Reid responds to "e-mail we've received recently." Way to interact with the blog, Jason.

I haven't seen even the weirdest odd-balls up here calling for Grossman. So Reid is ignoring what people are saying or he's just making up this (one?) e-mail because he sees it as a meatball over the plate that he thinks he can turn into a grand slam. Out at first base, Reid.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 7:17 AM
----------------------------------------
I don't think Reid even reads the blog. We hear about emails people send to him, but we never hear about what he reads on the blog. I guess this allows him to make up his own reality based on "sources close to the team" and "emails I have received".

Posted by: RedSkinHead | October 27, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

"Stats are for losers, so you keep looking at stats and we'll keep looking at wins."

At the end of the day, wins are all that matter, even if you get them in an ugly way.

And ugly ain't bad, you know.

Ugly babies usually grow up into ugly adults, proving the consistency of nature and genetics.

I used to drive an ugly old SUV that never broke down or had the trouble the new, shiny one I replaced it with does.

My first high school girlfriend was so ugly that when we had afterschool sex, PETA would protest, march, and make claims of cruelty to animals outside my bedroom window.

The redskins are such a ugly team that I watch the games with a bag with an open slit over the television where the FOX score graphic usually framed.

And when it's over, I sheepishly admit to myself that where the redskins aren't pretty to look at, they sure look good to me.

And after the ugliness of 4-12, the beauty of 4-2 looks even better.

No matter what the statistics say.

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 27, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

I for one think they are a nice change up to the majority of nonsense that comes from the bloggers and is just as much non-news as the rest of the posts.

Posted by: Diesel44 | October 27, 2010 7:23 AM


I would be more inclinded to agree if this were the offseason...during the year, these posts are completely out of place. Way too much other/better stuff to talk about than the Redskins success rate in FA and their draft tendencies. This stats stuff isn't nearly as ridiculed up here if its posted during the offseason.

Kinda like the cleaning lady coming to vacuum the church while the service is going on. The act itself isn't bad...the timing is.

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

I would be more inclinded to agree if this were the offseason...during the year, these posts are completely out of place.

bw26

Please see the previous post..

Posted by: Diesel44 | October 27, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Just ask Cowboy and Charger fans how good the "on paper" crap is looking to them.

They play the games for a reason. I just hope the Skins can get a win going into the bye. This is the type of game we typically lose.

Posted by: skins91r | October 27, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

I would be more inclinded to agree if this were the offseason...during the year, these posts are completely out of place. Way too much other/better stuff to talk about than the Redskins success rate in FA and their draft tendencies. This stats stuff isn't nearly as ridiculed up here if its posted during the offseason.

Kinda like the cleaning lady coming to vacuum the church while the service is going on. The act itself isn't bad...the timing is.

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 7:38 AM

I'm voting with Diesel on this one. The timing is spot on. What he analyzed was last weekend's action: Hall, Haynesworth, McNabb, Lovie Smith, etc. You really think that makes sense in June?

Other-better stuff to talk about? Isn't that what we've been talking about up here since the game ended?

It's about the only analysis that we get on this sorry-ass blog, except what you paste up here from the Examiner. It's definitely a plus, not a minus.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

RSH

I don't think Reid even reads the blog. We hear about emails people send to him,..

I think he emails himself.

It's kinda like literary self-gratification if you ask me.

Sorta like what a lot of us do in this forum.

Me included.

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 27, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

I think he emails himself.

It's kinda like literary self-gratification if you ask me.

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 27, 2010 8:01 AM

Mistamoe,

If you'd post your e/m address we can send you our questions and suggestions for which topics you should address. I feel like you're sometimes out of touch with your audience. (Not this time, of course.)

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Reid even reads the blog. We hear about emails people send to him, but we never hear about what he reads on the blog. I guess this allows him to make up his own reality based on "sources close to the team" and "emails I have received".

Posted by: RedSkinHead | October 27, 2010 7:34 AM


I don't think he does either...I wouldn't have a problem with him and his emails so much if he didn't pick the most assinine emails to respond to. Any email starting with "should we start Grossman over McNabb" should be deleted on sight...and this guy goes the other way and crafts a whole damn post about it. Maybe he'd like to take time to address a couple other well thought out topics, like:

-Can we draft a QB NOW that's still a redshirt freshman in the NCAA?

-DHall catches the ball well...can we move him WR?

-Santana is FAST...what do you think about playing him at RB?

-Are you related to Andy Reid?

-How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if he's not by water like in the Geico commercial?

Geez...I might've just given him the topics for the rest of the week...

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Geez...I might've just given him the topics for the rest of the week...

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 8:07 AM
----------------------------------------
Just don't email them...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | October 27, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Brian, can you comment on the Redskins fumble luck? They were already ahead of the curve before recovering 7 of 8 fumbles on Sunday.

To the stats naysayers: as a long time Redskins fan, they are just this side of suck. They could easily be winless. Only a series of fluky and lucky plays has given them their victories. Easy to list them: Romo's pass to the flat, missed FGs by Philadelphia and GB, and the blown call on the touchdown that Lovie didn't challenge. They did get unlucky on their own missed FG against Houston, though Gano misses one a game, it seems.

The offense, except against one of the worst pass defenses in the league, has been bad. The defense, though they look better by advanced stats like Burke uses than by simple yards per game, has been average--turnovers making up for the ease with which teams slice through us--even the Rams.

Say what you will about lucky wins. What I say is that this is a 6 win team talent-wise, with a couple of luck wins that will leave us with 8 wins if luck doesn't reverse. Of course luck does tend to reverse.

You can take pleasure in a potential lucky drive to the playoffs, but this team won't be a contender without significant changes, and I'd hate to see a lucky playoff run make the team complacent. Personally, I won't be happy until the Redskins have good talent and are a threat to go deep in the playoffs on a yearly basis, as they were in the Gibbs era, as the Broncos were under MS, as the Eagles and Giants have been for a few years now. I won't even mention the Colts, Pats, and Steelers b/c they are so far ahead of the pack I can't even dream it.

Posted by: MarquisSmith | October 27, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

brownwood

That's some funny stuff, bro'.

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 27, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

I just hope the Skins can get a win going into the bye.


I'd like to see 3-1 or even 2-2 over our next four games.

But yes, we must take victory away from a young and improving lions team this weekend.

The close games and almost victories are annoying.

I'd like a 32-17 third quarter laugher this week.

Posted by: MistaMoe | October 27, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

The timing is spot on. What he analyzed was last weekend's action: Hall, Haynesworth, McNabb, Lovie Smith, etc. You really think that makes sense in June?

Other-better stuff to talk about? Isn't that what we've been talking about up here since the game ended?

It's about the only analysis that we get on this sorry-ass blog, except what you paste up here from the Examiner. It's definitely a plus, not a minus.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:00 AM


While I concede that the topic of this post is better than normal, if this blog fancies itself Redskins "Insider", this would be a good place to add actual information instead of insanely obvious stats about the week in review. Why the WaPo is the only news outlet incapable of grasping this concept is beyond me. I guess I'm beating a dead horse here, but sometimes it just gets a little frustrating...

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Grossman over McNabb!!! I'm just now reading that, so I have to comment. WTH. Even when McNabb is bad, he is good. The little things he does helps us win. He is a playmaker, he lives on big plays. If he is not making them, his stats look bad.

Posted by: roccoskins | October 27, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

The bottom line is if the Skins can get a win before the bye they will have a chance at the playoffs. If they can't then in all reality they are not making the playoffs. Must beat Detroit, and if they do we'll have something to look forward to in the 2nd half.

Posted by: joeboggs | October 27, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

If you can say that the Redskins are statistically average but could still make the playoffs, then your stats are crap. Just about everything to do with the Washington Redskins statistics defies what the statisticians "know". The bottom line is you can't statistically account for the conditioning, coaching and attitude - and I think right now, that is what separates the Redskins from most other teams.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | October 27, 2010 7:18 AM

RSH -- I don't understand why you think that his conclusion that a team that is average at 4-3 can make the playoffs is crap. To me, it's just not very profound. His statistics are fine (if I understand them correctly) and are a more subtle than we're getting from anyone else, including you.

They don't account for immeasurables like conditioning, coaching, attitude, but so what? The measure of those is that a team will consistently beat the odds that are embedded in his statistics. And the opposite is that a losing team, like Dallas, will consistently perform worse than the odds because those factors work against them.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

NNNNEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: monk811 | October 27, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

"In e-mail we've received recently, many Insider readers have suggested that the Washington Redskins should bench Donovan McNabb and start backup quarterback Rex Grossman."

But are we seriously to believe ANYONE would suggest DM be replaced by Grossman? Many? I don't believe one.

Many?
Get out of here.

Posted by: craig81 | October 27, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Chargers Coach Norv Turner is now responsible the most underperforming team in recent memory.

Brian Burke
RI NERD Reporter


I resent that remark!

Signed,
Wade Phillips

Posted by: monk811 | October 27, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

"In e-mail we've received recently, many Insider readers have suggested that the Washington Redskins should bench Donovan McNabb and start backup quarterback Rex Grossman."

But are we seriously to believe ANYONE would suggest DM be replaced by Grossman? Many? I don't believe one.

Many?
Get out of here.

Posted by: craig81 | October 27, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

someone tell Chris Bosh the regular season started.......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | October 27, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

someone tell Chris Bosh the regular season started.......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | October 27, 2010 8:26 AM

Someone tell GeantownBreg, "Who gives a sh*t?"

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

To the stats naysayers: as a long time Redskins fan, they are just this side of suck. They could easily be winless. Only a series of fluky and lucky plays has given them their victories.

Posted by: MarquisSmith | October 27, 2010 8:11 AM


Dude, don't start playing this game...you could say that about literally every team in the NFL in any given year. This ain't college...there aren't many 63-0 or 45-10 blowouts. Most NFL games are close, and come down to a handful of plays. So while a fortuitous bounce here and there can be the difference in winning/losing, it's not the ONLY thing.

Besides...my old man used to tell me "there's no such thing as luck...luck is when preparation meets opportunity." This year, our guys are much better prepared to play both mentally and physically...plus we're getting some of the bounces we haven't had in years past. Quit trying to quantify it and just enjoy the ride...

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

On the lighter side of things... Any1 notice the trees and bushes turning burgundy and gold?!?! I think it's a sign for good things to come.

Posted by: roccoskins | October 27, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

One reason the Redskins have played in so many close games is because they are a very average team.

By Brian Burke | October 27, 2010; 6:03 AM ET

I'll take average over last season. Is very average better than average, worse than average, or the same as average?

Posted by: PlayAction | October 27, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I knew Greg would be up here crowing about his Celts...they made that Heat team look pretty ordinary, no? Guess that 70 win season is out the window...(eye roll)

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Another reason this blog sucks so badly! Instead of reading the comments on the thread, Reid responds to "e-mail we've received recently." Way to interact with the blog, Jason.


Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 7:17 AM


Agreed.

Posted by: saltine182 | October 27, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Who is Chris Bosh...I wonder what the WPA would be if he was the starting WR of the Redskins.

Posted by: PlayAction | October 27, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Besides...my old man used to tell me "there's no such thing as luck...luck is when preparation meets opportunity."

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 8:28 AM

I think your dad was almost right on this. I'd insert one word "there's USUALLY no such thing as luck..." On that McNabb pick six that got nullified by a delay of the game penalty, I don't think that can be attributed either to preparation or opportunity. That was luck.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

***ATTENTION***:

For those who didn't see my posts last night, start doing your research on James Davis, RB, cause we'll be signing him later today.

Ran behind Spiller at Clemson and asked to be released from the Browns cause he didn't fit their power scheme.

Posted by: Rypien11 | October 27, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

brown, first game and all, but not very impressive...they need a PG, and a C...

ryp, give the details on this Davis cat...what is his story...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | October 27, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

On that McNabb pick six that got nullified by a delay of the game penalty, I don't think that can be attributed either to preparation or opportunity. That was luck.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:39 AM

Donovan did that intentionally to deflate the Bears. It worked.

Posted by: PlayAction | October 27, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Whenever Brian Burke writes a column, I scroll past it as fast as I can and go straight to the comments.

I mean seriously, a Win Probability Added Formula that shows DeAngelo's 4 picks gave us a really great chance to win.

This guy sucks, I want to read something interesting, not a math formula that relates to a football game.

If this guy sat beside me at a Sports Bar and started talking about the WPA formula, I would 1.00 Punch Him In The Face.

Posted by: iH8dallas | October 27, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

On the lighter side of things... Any1 notice the trees and bushes turning burgundy and gold?!?! I think it's a sign for good things to come.

Posted by: roccoskins | October 27, 2010 8:29 AM

Good one, rocco. Only problem is they did the same thing last year and, well...

Wait. Did they turn maroon and black last fall?

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse


Another reason this blog sucks so badly! Instead of reading the comments on the thread, Reid responds to "e-mail we've received recently." Way to interact with the blog, Jason.

I haven't seen even the weirdest odd-balls up here calling for Grossman. So Reid is ignoring what people are saying or he's just making up this (one?) e-mail because he sees it as a meatball over the plate that he thinks he can turn into a grand slam. Out at first base, Reid.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 7:17 AM |

sources close to JReid would not comment

And things aren't looking good for Cowboys fans!

Posted by: hessone | October 27, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

On that McNabb pick six that got nullified by a delay of the game penalty, I don't think that can be attributed either to preparation or opportunity. That was luck.

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:39 AM


I'd call that opportunity...we earned the penalty. The ref didn't make it up. And we didn't turn it over there again. I wouldn't call that luck at all. Fortunate? Yes. Luck? No.

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

***ATTENTION***:

For those who didn't see my posts last night, start doing your research on James Davis, RB, cause we'll be signing him later today.

Ran behind Spiller at Clemson and asked to be released from the Browns cause he didn't fit their power scheme.

Posted by: Rypien11 | October 27, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I saw James Davis play in college, I thought he was a good runner.

But nobody stops a Torain.

Posted by: iH8dallas | October 27, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Math Formula = A NERD'S Wet Dream

Posted by: monk811 | October 27, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

So stat genius, are turnovers still luck? Go analyze poker Burke.

Posted by: paperwc | October 27, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

And things aren't looking good for Cowboys fans!

Posted by: hessone | October 27, 2010 8:47 AM

Can you prove that? How about spending the rest of the day posting junk from the Cobwoys blog?

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse


Can you prove that? How about spending the rest of the day posting junk from the Cobwoys blog?

Posted by: beep-beep | October 27, 2010 8:52 AM |

wow beep-beep, you sound pissed this morning. is everything alright ?

Posted by: hessone | October 27, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Come on now Beep-beep, I have two hands 2 halves of a brain, i can do both things at once. The Skins can't control their destiny in relation to the giants until the final 5 weeks of the season. Not gonna think that far ahead too much, that said lets look at the giants remaining games:

Nov 07 NYG @ SEA
Nov 14 DAL @ NYG
Nov 21 NYG @ PHI
Nov 28 JAC @ NYG
Dec 05 WAS @ NYG
Dec 12 NYG @ MIN
Dec 19 PHI @ NYG
Dec 26 NYG @ GB
Jan 02 NYG @ WAS

I sadly don't see many losses for them in there. Maybe they split with Philly, lose to Green Bay, hopefully we split with them or go 2-0 with them, and there is maybe one upset loss in there.

Not counting what they will do against the skins, that puts NY at 10 wins 4 losses, with our 2 games to play them.

Lets look at Philly who we are tied with.

Nov 07 IND @ PHI
Nov 15 PHI @ WAS
Nov 21 NYG @ PHI
Nov 28 PHI @ CHI
Dec 02 HOU @ PHI
Dec 12 PHI @ DAL
Dec 19 PHI @ NYG
Dec 26 MIN @ PHI
Jan 02 DAL @ PHI

The good news for us here, is that Philly still has to face good teams in Indy and Houston, and they have 2 games left against the cowboys and giants. To me this looks like a schedule where again, not counting our other game against the eagles, they are best case looking at a 9-6 record.

So the question is, can the redskins put together enough of a offence to keep pace with both the eagles and giants? For a shot at the wild card we not only need to beat the eagles, I figure we need to have 10 wins end of the season.

And to have a chance at beating the giants we need to 2-0 them and try and tie them at 11-12 wins, that means going near perfect the rest of the year.

We have room for 1 loss to win the division, 2-3 losses for a great shot at the playoffs. And things aren't looking good for Cowboys fans!

Posted by: alex35332 | October 27, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I think Burke makes up his own math formulas, and they have absolutely no validity.

All these formulas are, are statistics from past games, showing that when a single player has 4 INT his team has a .99 chance of winning.

I also bet if a player has 5 rushing TDs or a QB has 6 passing TD's their team has a .99 chance of winning.

brian Burke=NERD to end all NERDS

Posted by: iH8dallas | October 27, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

RB Carousel Beeps

Posted by: PlayAction | October 27, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Brian Burke = Rainman LITE

Posted by: monk811 | October 27, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Alex, I'll be stunned if the Giants win 11 games...I doubt they do better than 10. Like I said yesterday, I don't trust that team down the stretch...they're notorious for peaking in October.

I still believe 10 wins will be enough to take the NFC East outright. Get to 10, win the division.

Posted by: brownwood26 | October 27, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

brown, first game and all, but not very impressive...they need a PG, and a C...

ryp, give the details on this Davis cat...what is his story...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | October 27, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse
___________________

Bean, I must say that for the first time in my entire life, I was glad the Celtics won a game....

Posted by: skinsfan713 | October 27, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Getting Laid Probability Added (GLPA) measures the change in this DB's chances of experiencing carnal knowledge from beer to beer. A 0.01 GLPA essentially says that this DB's chances of 'hitting it' are about as likely as Carlos Rogers making an INT.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | October 27, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Where to begin with these asinine comments?

We'll start with an important point that will roll right into the point of the Redskins season, explanatory stats vs predictive. Brian's (or, Nerd McNerderson to some) stats (save for WPA) are predictive. Meaning they focus on aspects of the game that are likely to be consistent from game to game. Explanatory stats are things like turnovers: Team A won because of getting 5 turnovers. It helps explain past performance but helps ziltch when looking at the next week/months/years games (Just ask the Saints).

It's why every year different teams lead the league in recovered fumbles, it's why one year a "big play guy" makes no big plays and the next he has a ton and the next he may have none again. And the crazy fans, like most on this blog, that want "big play guy" on their team after a big year moan and cry when he has one of those off-years.

The Redskins have lacked those awesome but unpredictable, and fairly uncontrollable, moments in the past few seasons and this year we have them. And I for one am enjoying the hell out of it.

We are an average team that can win when the breaks go our way, like most teams, but as a fan I do like quantifying just how good or bad we are, without taking the breaks into consideration. So thanks for that, Brian.

Posted by: OrganicWater | October 27, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm a geek - whatever. I love these posts because they're so different.

Come on Brian, how about a flash or java based "real-time" version of your statistics? Analysis like this is a step in the direction of picking plays, defenses, and clock management decisions based on previous facts/performance instead of "gut" instinct!

Would be fun to watch the numbers before a snap and see the expected WPA if there is a first down on the next play vs. a sack, fumble, TD etc. Or vs. ran and pass attempt. Or run left or right...on and on. True "key" plays would be obvious in advance; maybe some plays would rise in importance that we wouldn't expect?

Posted by: jiji1 | October 27, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I enjoy these articles. While statistics won't win a game, they are a good way to explain how each play has impacted the game. You know when you watch a game when the tide turned and when the game was determined. The good thing about the game was last week I mentioned that the later the game goes, the more impact a turnover has because you don't have possessions to overcome it. The key point in the game on Sunday was that the Bears turnovers all occured in the 2nd half on Sunday. These turnovers, with the exception of the Hall pick 6, did more to prevent them from scoring than helping the Skins score. In the 2nd half, the Skins had only one attempt at points and that was the field goal that they missed. Given that the Skins didn't really take advantage of the field position advantage they had in the 1st half (they actually unbelievably trailed at the half despite having an overwhelming advantage here) and the fact they turned 1 of the 6 turnovers into points in the 2nd half, it was probably best that the Bears didn't flip flop their halves. The thought that the Bears could have overcome these turnovers if they had all been in the first half and won the game seems to be very possible because their turnovers seemed to prevent them from scoring more than they assisted the Skins in scoring.

Posted by: JWPinCHI | October 27, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"No post on that...we get stat geeks highlighting the highlights."

You're calling a former Navy Pilot who flew F-18s a "stat-geek." Hilarious. Get your head out of the sand. Statistics aren't everything in football - far from it. But it reveals key information in human blind spots for all to see, that augments the traditional ways of analysis.

Posted by: PopTarts | October 27, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Just ask Cowboy and Charger fans how good the "on paper" crap is looking to them.

They play the games for a reason. I just hope the Skins can get a win going into the bye. This is the type of game we typically lose.

Posted by: skins91r | October 27, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Remember kedavis?

He's a San Diego guy who used to troll on here, talking about how the Skins are so stupid to have fired Schottenheimer and Turner, as if they were Bill Walsh.

Speaking of Norv, I could have made some serious money on the Rams game a couple of weeks ago. They were good enough to beat the Skins, yet nobody, including oddsmakers, gave them a chance against San Diego. In my opinion, any bet against Norv Turner is a smart one.

Posted by: jboogie1 | October 28, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

"Statistically, they now rank in the middle of the pack in the measures that are most predictive of success, namely efficiency and success rate."

No kidding? I had no idea "success rate" was a reliable predictor of "success"!

Posted by: jboogie1 | October 28, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

"Statistically, they now rank in the middle of the pack in the measures that are most predictive of success, namely efficiency and success rate."

No kidding? I had no idea "success rate" was a reliable predictor of "success"!

Posted by: jboogie1 | October 28, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

***ATTENTION***:

For those who didn't see my posts last night, start doing your research on James Davis, RB, cause we'll be signing him later today.

Ran behind Spiller at Clemson and asked to be released from the Browns cause he didn't fit their power scheme.

Posted by: Rypien11 | October 27, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Who will they cut to make room for him?

Posted by: jboogie1 | October 28, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company