Points against and time of possession?

[TDs3nOut]

An old axiom in football is that holding on to the ball, getting first downs, keeping the clock running, and keeping the opposing team’s offense off of the field are all important for a team’s defense keeping the opposition off the scoreboard. Of course, that axiom ignores just how good a defense is to begin with, regardless of how long it’s left on the field.

In order to investigate the relationship between a team’s time of possession and the number of points that it gives up, I used data from every team in the league last year to estimate the following linear regression model:

Estimated Points Allowed/Game = 51.2-55.2* Average % Time of Possession.

For example, the team that most closely fits that model is TB, a team that gave up 24.3 points per game and possessed the ball 49.3% of the time in its games. So, the estimated model predicts that the Bucs would give up 51.2-55.2(.493)=24.1, which is quite close to the 24.3 points per game that the Bucs actually gave up.

Some teams, however, do not fit the model at all. For example, Seattle gave up only 14.4 points per game, the fewest of any team in the league, yet they possessed the ball only 50.8% of the time, which, according to the model results in an estimated average points against of 23.2 points per game. At the other end of the spectrum are the Bears, who had possession of the ball 51.7% of the time, yet gave up 29.9 points per game.

So, what do you think? Does time of possession systematically affect the ability of a team to prevent the opposition form scoring, or is it just a matter of the particular characteristics of the team that matters?

 

[Schmoopy1000]

An old axiom in football is that holding on to the ball, getting first downs, keeping the clock running, and keeping the opposing team’s offense off of the field are all important for a team’s defense keeping the opposition off the scoreboard. Of course, that axiom ignores just how good a defense is to begin with, regardless of how long it’s left on the field.

In order to investigate the relationship between a team’s time of possession and the number of points that it gives up, I used data from every team in the league last year to estimate the following linear regression model:

Estimated Points Allowed/Game = 51.2-55.2* Average % Time of Possession.

For example, the team that most closely fits that model is TB, a team that gave up 24.3 points per game and possessed the ball 49.3% of the time in its games. So, the estimated model predicts that the Bucs would give up 51.2-55.2(.493)=24.1, which is quite close to the 24.3 points per game that the Bucs actually gave up.

Some teams, however, do not fit the model at all. For example, Seattle gave up only 14.4 points per game, the fewest of any team in the league, yet they possessed the ball only 50.8% of the time, which, according to the model results in an estimated average points against of 23.2 points per game. At the other end of the spectrum are the Bears, who had possession of the ball 51.7% of the time, yet gave up 29.9 points per game.

So, what do you think? Does time of possession systematically affect the ability of a team to prevent the opposition form scoring, or is it just a matter of the particular characteristics of the team that matters?

I would still say yes.
what if that same bear team only had possession 49.3 pct. of the time. That # given up would be even worse. Or the seattle team with 51.7, they would have given up less.
Time of possession isn't stating how good a defense is, but how it helps the defense. Which in turn helps to win games.
A horrible defense is still gonna be horrible & a good defense is still gonna be good, but time of possession is still gonna help both defenses

 

[cdumler7]

There are so many factors that it really does come hard to judge how it is all connected. Such as There was somebody on the Broncos board who figured out how many garbage points were scored on the Broncos last season (garbage points are considered those when the team I think was up by 21 points or more in the 4th quarter). That usually meant the defense went into more of a prevent mode than anything else which lead to the opposing offense moving the ball very well and sometimes scoring but it taking much longer than an average drive to do so. So should those points really count against a teams total defense. Or I guess a better way of saying it is does the team's stats paint the team in a worse light than maybe they actually performed on the field? Now using the Broncos because they are the team I know best but again there are so many factors that play into trying to figure out how good or bad a team really is.


Now as for the question at hand. TOP definitely makes a difference. If a team can march down the field with a 10 minute drive eating up almost a whole quarter of time that throws an offense out of rhythm and a defense that is gassed needing a much needed break but most likely not getting one since the offense will most likely struggle.

 

[Midnightangel]

Hate to throw a monkey wrench into this but one does not need to be on offense to score.

Did you factor TD's scored by defenses?

Team A had the ball for an 8 minute drive but the QB throws an INT and the other team gets 7 out of it.

 

[RobToxin]

Hate to throw a monkey wrench into this but one does not need to be on offense to score.

Did you factor TD's scored by defenses?

Team A had the ball for an 8 minute drive but the QB throws an INT and the other team gets 7 out of it.

You watched way too many Houston games last year.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Hate to throw a monkey wrench into this but one does not need to be on offense to score.

Did you factor TD's scored by defenses?

Team A had the ball for an 8 minute drive but the QB throws an INT and the other team gets 7 out of it.

That is definitely a good point and one that I thought about, though I didn't deal with it, since I simply used the "points against" values reported on espn.com. I considered adjusting those figures to reflect points given up by a team's offense, but the problem with that (at least in my view) is that an INT returned for a TD would be dealt with but an INT returned nearly for a TD before a score is given up a play or two later by the offense would not be dealt with.

 

[TDs3nOut]

You watched way too many Houston games last year.

Houston last year is clearly not representative of the average team in the league, since so many of the points its opponents scored were scored against the Houston offense.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Yes, generally speaking the longer the DEF is on the field, the potential to be scored on goes up simply because they're facing more OFC plays.

But...it's not iron clad...if the OFC has a few turnovers and leaves a short field to defend...the opponent can score quickly and your OFC has 2 or 3 long drives skewing the TOP.

 

[Malibu]

There are so many factors that it really does come hard to judge how it is all connected. Such as There was somebody on the Broncos board who figured out how many garbage points were scored on the Broncos last season (garbage points are considered those when the team I think was up by 21 points or more in the 4th quarter). That usually meant the defense went into more of a prevent mode than anything else which lead to the opposing offense moving the ball very well and sometimes scoring but it taking much longer than an average drive to do so. So should those points really count against a teams total defense. Or I guess a better way of saying it is does the team's stats paint the team in a worse light than maybe they actually performed on the field? Now using the Broncos because they are the team I know best but again there are so many factors that play into trying to figure out how good or bad a team really is.


Now as for the question at hand. TOP definitely makes a difference. If a team can march down the field with a 10 minute drive eating up almost a whole quarter of time that throws an offense out of rhythm and a defense that is gassed needing a much needed break but most likely not getting one since the offense will most likely struggle.

The Broncos defense sucked last year. No and ifs or buts about it. Like I said all year. When the offense sturggles can you count on that defense to step it up and make some plays and pick up the slack. The answer was no and the Super Bowl was proof of it. I didnt want to be right the whole time. Believe me. Watching that game sucked big time. Thas why this offseason Elway made many moves on defense. He is no fool.

 

[cdumler7]

The Broncos defense sucked last year. No and ifs or buts about it. Like I said all year. When the offense sturggles can you count on that defense to step it up and make some plays and pick up the slack. The answer was no and the Super Bowl was proof of it. I didnt want to be right the whole time. Believe me. Watching that game sucked big time. Thas why this offseason Elway made many moves on defense. He is no fool.

Yes Malibu we have heard you all season long rag on this defense. I agree they were not a top-10 type unit. They did however step up when needed and yes even in the Super Bowl. Heck look in the playoffs where our defense actually outshined our offense. I think just about everybody would agree that in the Super Bowl the Broncos defense very much outplayed their offense. Yes final score looks terrible but the defense is the only reason they were in the game. Anyway that is not what this topic is about. I was just using the Broncos as an example where some of their points per game given up was inflated because of garbage time points. That again doesn't mean they were great it just means some of those numbers were inflated because of the craziness at which our offense scored and just put games out of reach.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

I would still say yes.
what if that same bear team only had possession 49.3 pct. of the time. That # given up would be even worse. Or the seattle team with 51.7, they would have given up less.
Time of possession isn't stating how good a defense is, but how it helps the defense. Which in turn helps to win games.
A horrible defense is still gonna be horrible & a good defense is still gonna be good, but time of possession is still gonna help both defenses

Well said ....

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Yes, generally speaking the longer the DEF is on the field, the potential to be scored on goes up simply because they're facing more OFC plays.

But...it's not iron clad...if the OFC has a few turnovers and leaves a short field to defend...the opponent can score quickly and your OFC has 2 or 3 long drives skewing the TOP.

Another very good point...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Just some observations:

there were 13 NFL teams with over a .500 record last season

10 of those teams were in the top 15 in % time possession. And 11 of those teams had possession time of larger than 50%. Only the colts and eagles were lower than 50%...

- this shows that their is a direct correlation between time possession and winning games...
Of course It is not iron clad!!! The eagles were the worst team in time possession last season, and they had a winning record...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

in 2012 there were 14 teams over 500, 10 of those teams were top 15 in Possession% and 11 teams were over 50%

 

[Xponentialchaos]

This is pretty easy to actually test.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

I took the first two weeks of the NFL season and I'm getting a correlation coefficient of -0.21.

This would indicate that as teams have a higher TOP, they give up less points. However, this is a very weak correlation.

 

[night]

When the Falcons have winning seasons they do it because the offense has the ball to keep our horrible defense off of the field. As you saw last season when the running game was non-existent we were one of the worst teams in the league.

 

[UK Cowboy]

90's Cowboys. 80's Redskins. Any team coached by Bill Parcells.