Toxic differentias

[BuffaloBills62]

Wow, dude. 

 

Take a chill pill.   This is the Internet.  This is a football message board.   It is  not  that  serious.  No one attacked you personally, OK.  Have some pie.

shhh, i'm having fun.

 

 

Anyone who reads any posts on here is attacked personally. It's a personal attack on anyone's intelligence level to read 80% of this garbage, but yet, here we all are refreshing the Huddle and posting anytime there's a free second in our busy lives.

that's funny.  and true.  i've wasted entire afternoons on message boards.  and just the other day watching Bills and Ted Excellent Adventure.

 

 

sometimes i wonder about the quality of my life.

[t96]

Did you even read the article?  Do you even know what the stat is or the history of it in the league?  Do you even realize that you sound like a moron bringing up the Bills in to this discussion?  What do the Bills have to do with this?  Yes, the word Bills is in the title.  Are you that much of a moron that you only saw that and did not bother reading further down?  And, what exactly do the "back to back" Super Bowl losses matter?  Especially, when they were back to back to back to back losses?

 

What you said added nothing to this.  The Bills do have a better record then the Panthers - does that make you sad?  Of course, I had told everyone here that the Bills would finish the season with a better record, but hey, lets not bring that up, mm'k?  Because what matters more is 20 years ago.

 

You only posted it because the Bills are at the top. 

[BuffaloBills62]

You only posted it because the Bills are at the top. 

 

Actually, this is the last I'll post in this thread, getting boring now.  I got lots of attention and feel better about myself.

 

But, actually, look at my posting history.  I post a ton of links and articles to this site that have nothing to do with the Bills and several of them trashing the Bills.

[Marguide]

This stat should have a good correlation with wins and losses within a given game. However, it should not be used as a predictor of future performance. So just because our number looking at YTD is better than the Saints, that doesn't have much relevance for the game coming up on Thursday. If we turn the ball over more than them, or have fewer explosive plays, we will likely lose no matter what the YTD stat says.

 

You could have a team have a toxic differential of 8 in one game, and 0 in the rest of their games, and they would be in the upper half of the league on this list. That may not be any kind of representation of how good or bad they are.

[top dawg]

This stat should have a good correlation with wins and losses within a given game. However, it should not be used as a predictor of future performance. So just because our number looking at YTD is better than the Saints, that doesn't have much relevance for the game coming up on Thursday. If we turn the ball over more than them, or have fewer explosive plays, we will likely lose no matter what the YTD stat says.

 

You could have a team have a toxic differential of 8 in one game, and 0 in the rest of their games, and they would be in the upper half of the league on this list. That may not be any kind of representation of how good or bad they are.

 

I get your point, and believe it on a theoretical level. The thing is that you could probably say this about any stat/metric.  It's the developing patterns that count. One or two bad games in one particular area can skew the bigger picture.

[davos]

Ignoring the Bills bashing (ook people haha)..this stat is void the more a given team has an anemic offense.  Turnover margins correlate to wins, but you still have to be able to punch it in when you get to the RZ.    

[TonyN]

Saw this on NFL.com and the Bills board I frequent.  Thought you guys might learn a little bit about football from it.  At the least generate some football discussion heading in to the Thursday night game.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000419687/article/toxic-differential-watch-out-for-bills-texans-in-the-second-half

 

 

 

 

 

It's kind of an interesting angle, actually

 

Everyone knows the strong connection between turnover margin and winning, but 4 teams currently with winning records also have a negative turnover margin.

 

Interestingly, the only team with a positive turnover margin and a losing record so far this season are the Carolina Panthers.

 

I don't know about its long term viability, but of the 18 teams with a neutral or positive "toxic differential" only 1 has a losing record (Falcons). Conversely, of the 14 teams with a negative "toxic differential", only two have winning records.  So, while I think it is a bit of a contrived angle, the component parts obviously have some merit.

 

As far as the Panthers are concerned, the number of big plays the defense has allowed is the biggest difference from last season. If you take away most of those big plays, the defense starts looking much better statistically. I know that's easy to say, but for the most part, allowing big plays is a correctable offense. Missed tackles, over pursuit, blown assignments, etc., are the normal culprits. These things can be corrected.

 

Thanks for an interesting post.