The Turnover Issue

[ThatGuy]

A month ago, I wrote a column about the Redskins’ turnover issues, and why I expected a turn around soon. Needless to say, that turn around has yet to come. This is a team that ranks ahead of only New Orleans with a negative eleven turnover ratio. The only other team with a negative turnover ratio and a .500 or better record in the NFC is Chicago (-2). To be at -11, and still be 5-5 is in itself a remarkable achievement.

Unfortunately playoff spots aren’t awarded based on remarkable achievements. If the current trend continues, the Redskins will be enjoying January on the golf courses instead of the football field. And despite the multiple off-season championships the Redskins have won of late, I think most fans are ready for some playoff football. Are these poor suffering Redskins fans stuck to a destiny of a playoff free football team or is there still room to hope things will turn around?

The simple fact of the matter is this, in terms of turning the ball over; the Redskins haven’t been that bad. Washington only has thrown six interceptions on the season. That leaves them tied with Atlanta for the fewest INTs in the NFC. In terms of fumbles, the Redskins aren’t doing as well. They’ve fumbled the ball 21 times this year, losing 15. The 21 fumbles ranks 13th in the 16 team NFC. The 15 lost fumbles ranks last in the NFC. That’s obviously not good.

But what I’ve been saying is that it’s been tremendous bad luck that the Skins lose as many fumbles as they do. To prove my point I’m going to focus on lost fumble percentage. That’s taking total fumbles and dividing it by fumbles lost. I’ll show the bottom three and the top three in the NFC:

Lost Fumble Percentage

Team TF L LF %

Green Bay 18 5 0.278

Philadelphia 18 5 0.278

Dallas 22 8 0.364

Detroit 11 7 0.636

Washington 21 15 0.714

New Orleans 17 14 0.824

As you can see, Dallas has had more fumbles than the Skins thus far this year, but they’ve lost seven less. There is no special fumble recovery skill. The Cowboys don’t have some magic trick that use that make the ball miraculously fall right to their own players. It is pure luck. Would you like proof? Here are the same teams, only using 2004 stats instead of 2005:

Team TF L LF % Change

Green Bay 22 10 0.455 -0.177

Philadelphia 17 11 0.647 -0.369

Dallas 26 14 0.538 -0.175

Detroit 12 7 0.583 0.053

Washington 20 10 0.500 0.214

New Orleans 23 10 0.435 0.389

To show what I mean, focus in on New Orleans. In 2005, they are the worst team in the NFC at recovering their own fumbles. In 2004, they were on the best teams. The Saints didn’t suddenly lose the ability to recover fumbles, its just luck of the draw. Philadelphia is another extreme example. In 2004, they were on the worst teams at recovering their own fumbles, this year they are the 2nd best team in the league.

If the Redskins were at the NFC average level of lost fumble percentage, they’d have turned over 4 less fumbles on the year. That is a significant difference.

I won’t go as in depth on the defensive side of the ball, but the same theory applies. Once a fumble hits the ground, which team gets the recovery is based on luck. Again the Redskins are well behind the average:

Team FF Rec Rec %

Washington 18 3 0.167

NFC TOTAL 263 133 0.506

In terms of forced fumbles, there are only 3 teams in the NFC better at it than the Redskins. Yes, only three teams. In terms of recoveries, there isn’t a team any where near the level of the Redskins. The next worse is Seattle and they sit at 0.313. If you move the Redskins to the league average level of recoveries, the Redskins gain six fumble recoveries.

You probably remember the term ‘regression to the mean’ from some old math class you took back in the day. Heck you probably hated trying to figure the damn thing out. But as a Redskin fan, it should be your new best friend. Regression to the mean is that giving a large enough sample, the results will move towards the average (think flipping a coin 10 times versus flipping a coin 1000 times). If the Redskins fumble lost and recovery percentages were at the league averages the team’s turnover ratio would be negative one. Negative one isn’t something to brag about, but compared to -11, I’ll damn well take it. It’s doubtful the Redskins will get to back to the NFC average by the end of the year, but a positive ratio for the remaining games would be a pleasant change of pace for all fans.

[SkinsFTW]

The Redskins will have a tough time winning turnovers this week though. The Chargers have a great run D and Portis and Brunell drop the ball much more than LT and Brees.

To me this weeks game will decide whether the Redskins want to make it to the playoffs or not. If both the offense and defense show up and turnovers are even or in their favor they have a good shot. More of either the offense or defense taking a bye though and the seasons over. Losing to the Raiders at home was just pathetic.

It's almost as if the team was paying tribute to Norv Turner in his return last week.

[Chachie]

A month ago, I wrote a column about the Redskins’ turnover issues, and why I expected a turn around soon. Needless to say, that turn around has yet to come. This is a team that ranks ahead of only New Orleans with a negative eleven turnover ratio. The only other team with a negative turnover ratio and a .500 or better record in the NFC is Chicago (-2). To be at -11, and still be 5-5 is in itself a remarkable achievement.

Unfortunately playoff spots aren’t awarded based on remarkable achievements. If the current trend continues, the Redskins will be enjoying January on the golf courses instead of the football field. And despite the multiple off-season championships the Redskins have won of late, I think most fans are ready for some playoff football. Are these poor suffering Redskins fans stuck to a destiny of a playoff free football team or is there still room to hope things will turn around?

The simple fact of the matter is this, in terms of turning the ball over; the Redskins haven’t been that bad. Washington only has thrown six interceptions on the season. That leaves them tied with Atlanta for the fewest INTs in the NFC. In terms of fumbles, the Redskins aren’t doing as well. They’ve fumbled the ball 21 times this year, losing 15. The 21 fumbles ranks 13th in the 16 team NFC. The 15 lost fumbles ranks last in the NFC. That’s obviously not good.

But what I’ve been saying is that it’s been tremendous bad luck that the Skins lose as many fumbles as they do. To prove my point I’m going to focus on lost fumble percentage. That’s taking total fumbles and dividing it by fumbles lost. I’ll show the bottom three and the top three in the NFC:

Lost Fumble Percentage

Team TF L LF %

Green Bay 18 5 0.278

Philadelphia 18 5 0.278

Dallas 22 8 0.364

Detroit 11 7 0.636

Washington 21 15 0.714

New Orleans 17 14 0.824

As you can see, Dallas has had more fumbles than the Skins thus far this year, but they’ve lost seven less. There is no special fumble recovery skill. The Cowboys don’t have some magic trick that use that make the ball miraculously fall right to their own players. It is pure luck. Would you like proof? Here are the same teams, only using 2004 stats instead of 2005:

Team TF L LF % Change

Green Bay 22 10 0.455 -0.177

Philadelphia 17 11 0.647 -0.369

Dallas 26 14 0.538 -0.175

Detroit 12 7 0.583 0.053

Washington 20 10 0.500 0.214

New Orleans 23 10 0.435 0.389

To show what I mean, focus in on New Orleans. In 2005, they are the worst team in the NFC at recovering their own fumbles. In 2004, they were on the best teams. The Saints didn’t suddenly lose the ability to recover fumbles, its just luck of the draw. Philadelphia is another extreme example. In 2004, they were on the worst teams at recovering their own fumbles, this year they are the 2nd best team in the league.

If the Redskins were at the NFC average level of lost fumble percentage, they’d have turned over 4 less fumbles on the year. That is a significant difference.

I won’t go as in depth on the defensive side of the ball, but the same theory applies. Once a fumble hits the ground, which team gets the recovery is based on luck. Again the Redskins are well behind the average:

Team FF Rec Rec %

Washington 18 3 0.167

NFC TOTAL 263 133 0.506

In terms of forced fumbles, there are only 3 teams in the NFC better at it than the Redskins. Yes, only three teams. In terms of recoveries, there isn’t a team any where near the level of the Redskins. The next worse is Seattle and they sit at 0.313. If you move the Redskins to the league average level of recoveries, the Redskins gain six fumble recoveries.

You probably remember the term ‘regression to the mean’ from some old math class you took back in the day. Heck you probably hated trying to figure the damn thing out. But as a Redskin fan, it should be your new best friend. Regression to the mean is that giving a large enough sample, the results will move towards the average (think flipping a coin 10 times versus flipping a coin 1000 times). If the Redskins fumble lost and recovery percentages were at the league averages the team’s turnover ratio would be negative one. Negative one isn’t something to brag about, but compared to -11, I’ll damn well take it. It’s doubtful the Redskins will get to back to the NFC average by the end of the year, but a positive ratio for the remaining games would be a pleasant change of pace for all fans.

Well presented and very encouraging, ThatGuy. I've been steaming over this issue and I applaud you for doing some extensive research.

:applause:

[Mister Happy]

Luckily San Diego is 6th in the NFL in fewest takeaways.

[MidPennSkin]

Our turnover ratio is -13, not -11. This was discussed yesterday. See http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128719

[Dead Money]

Neat perspective. Thanks for sharing.

[ThatGuy]

Our turnover ratio is -13, not -11. This was discussed yesterday. See http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128719

Good thread MidPennSkin, my apologizes for missing it.

ESPN has us at minus 11, thats where I got that from. Are they missing special teams or something?

[SkinsCrunkin]

Good in depth analysis of this, one thing I'd note though, a lot of these fumbles we are losing aren't "bad luck" by losing more. If Brunell continues to get hit from behind because Samuels can't block his man, it's hard for the O-line to recover those mistakes... anyway.... let's pray for a mistake free football game this Sunday. HTTR!!!

[FullbackIsKey]

looks like it's time to run the fumble drill in practice this week. which, by the way, is one of the most fun drills you can do in a football practice.

[MidPennSkin]

Good thread MidPennSkin, my apologizes for missing it.

ESPN has us at minus 11, thats where I got that from. Are they missing special teams or something?

We were at -11 before the Oakland game, but now we are at -13 per NFL.com.

[Hail_Skinz]

ThatGuy...I wish more people on this board were as logical as you. It doesn't take a genius to determine why were are losing games.

Out of our 5 losses...only 1 was justified (NYG - an embarassing loss, too).

Here are some exapmles of turnovers that cost us the game:

Denver: 1st quarter

(12:35) M.Brunell FUMBLES (Aborted) at WAS 43, RECOVERED by DEN-A.Wilson at WAS 43. A.Wilson to WAS 43 for no gain (C.Portis). Handoff was never completed.

4 plays later:

(11:49) T.Bell left end for 34 yards, TOUCHDOWN

We lost this game by 2 points. Take away the above TD, we win by 5.

__________________________________________

Kansas City: 3rd Quarter

(5:57) R.Cartwright right end to KC 22 for 3 yards (C.Hall). FUMBLES (C.Hall), RECOVERED by KC-S.Knight at KC 20. S.Knight for 80 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

We lost this game by 7. Take away the above TD and it's a tie. It could've gone either way...but we dominated every aspect of this game (except TOs)

___________________________________________

Tampa Bay: 1st Quarter

(9:52) M.Brunell pass intended for D.Patten INTERCEPTED by J.Bolden at TB 25. J.Bolden ran ob at WAS 47 for 28 yards (L.Betts).

6 plays later:

(7:22) M.Alstott up the middle for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN. dives across line

We lost this game by 1. Take away the above TD and we win by 6.

___________________________________________

Oakland: 4th Quarter

(:17) (Shotgun) M.Brunell sacked at OAK 48 for -5 yards (D.Burgess). FUMBLES (D.Burgess), RECOVERED by OAK-D.Burgess at WAS 49. D.Burgess to WAS 49 for no gain (C.Rabach).

We lost this game by 3. We needed a 5 yard complettion to get to the 38 yard line to be in Hall's range. We could've sent this game into O.T. and possibly won.

____________________________________________

Two of the above losses were definitely a result of turnovers. We could be 7-3 right now. I think at least one additional game (KC or Oakland) could have been decided in our favor if it wasn't for one of the above turnovers.

[Oldfan]

Count me among the illogical fans who think the turnover differential is the most overrated stat in football. This is my reasoning:

In tennis matches, broadcasters talk about forced errors and unforced errors. I think the same way about turnovers in football. Most turnovers are forced turnovers.

Good teams score more points than they give up. Good teams force more turnovers than they give up.

To say that we need to reverse the turnover differential makes no more sense than stating the obvious... we need to outscore our opponents in future games.

As in tennis, the first aim should be to eliminate unforced errors, even when they don't result in turnovers. For example, fumbled snaps are easy to recover, but the lost down is costly. A well thrown pass that bounces off the receiver's hands is an unforced error even if it doesn't unluckily bounce into a defender's hands for an interception.

By the way, teams which recover an unusually high percentage of their fumbles probably have a problem fumbling snaps which are easily recovered. Conversely, teams with an unusually low recovery percentage probably don't have a problem fumbling snaps.

[Mister Happy]

Not to mention, in the KC game, we were in field goal range twice when we fumbled, so there's another at least 6 points we lost. In the Oakland game, we were also within field goal range when Portis fumbled.

[FightForOldDC21]

we need to protect the ball

[ThatGuy]

We were at -11 before the Oakland game, but now we are at -13 per NFL.com.

Wow, remind me to never trust ESPN's stats again. That's crazy that they would be off like that.

[Type-TNA]

Our turnovers on offense is a pretty big problem, but I think the bigger problem here is that our defense, after 10 games, has only forced 8 turnovers.

[Doctor ToughLove]

Redskins just aren't playing that well and turnovers are a fair reflection of that. I am not a big believer in "bad luck" either, you make your own "luck". OldFan & SkinsCrunkin got it right.

Here is what I wonder though. I imagine QBs trying to pass & getting hit in backfield would have a much greater % of fumbles than other players protecting the ball. And passing also leads to more interceptions. Could passing the ball too much, tilt the turnover % against you. And are the Redskins passing the ball too much?

[Oldfan]

Redskins just aren't playing that well and turnovers are a fair reflection of that. I am not a big believer in "bad luck" either, you make your own "luck". OldFan & SkinsCrunkin got it right.

Here is what I wonder though. I imagine QBs trying to pass & getting hit in backfield would have a much greater % of fumbles than other players protecting the ball. And passing also leads to more interceptions. Could passing the ball too much, tilt the turnover % against you. And are the Redskins passing the ball too much?

Well, there's the obvious. The more you pass, the more likely you are to be intercepted but to ask if it's too much...you need to first analyze risk versus gain, turnovers versus point production.

[ThatGuy]

Redskins just aren't playing that well and turnovers are a fair reflection of that. I am not a big believer in "bad luck" either, you make your own "luck". OldFan & SkinsCrunkin got it right.

Here is what I wonder though. I imagine QBs trying to pass & getting hit in backfield would have a much greater % of fumbles than other players protecting the ball. And passing also leads to more interceptions. Could passing the ball too much, tilt the turnover % against you. And are the Redskins passing the ball too much?

The Redskins have the least interceptions in the NFC. And quarterback fumbles are the ones offenses are most likely to recover.

[Hail_Skinz]

Count me among the illogical fans who think the turnover differential is the most overrated stat in football.

Illogical? You betcha! Comparing tennis to football? That's like comparing chess to football. Both games require strategy...that's where the simiarities end.

You truthfully don't believe that turnovers have cost us some wins this year? I'm sorry but that is absurd!

I agree that the turnover ratio may be a bit overrated...however, points scored as a result of those turnovers have proven to be deadly. True...a maority of the trunovers that we comitted didn't lead to points...but EACH turnover that led to points has been game deciding. It's a fact! :2cents:

[Oldfan]

Illogical? You betcha! Comparing tennis to football? That's like comparing chess to football. Both games require strategy...that's where the simiarities end.

You truthfully don't believe that turnovers have cost us some wins this year? I'm sorry but that is absurd!

I agree that the turnover ratio may be a bit overrated...however, points scored as a result of those turnovers have proven to be deadly. True...a maority of the trunovers that we comitted didn't lead to points...but EACH turnover that led to points has been game deciding. It's a fact! :2cents:

In tennis, the better player forces his opponent into making more mistakes. It's kinda silly to say that if the loser would just stop making mistakes, he'd win.

In football, the better teams force their opponents into making more mistakes. It's kinda silly to say that if the losing team would just stop making mistakes they'd win.

[ThatGuy]

In tennis, the better player forces his opponent into making more mistakes. It's kinda silly to say that if the loser would just stop making mistakes, he'd win.

In football, the better teams force their opponents into making more mistakes. It's kinda silly to say that if the losing team would just stop making mistakes they'd win.

What I'm trying to say is this, the Redskins have forced 18 fumbles. They've only recovered three. That's bad luck.

On offense the Cowboys have fumbled more times than we have, but we've lost seven more.

So yes, we shouldn't fumbled the ball as many times as we do. But we've been unlucky at recovering them compared to other teams.

[onedrop]

turnoevers are crucial beacuse they give the opposing team the football. the more their offense is on the fiels the more tired our defense will become.

other than holding onto the damn ball we need to generate pressure on opposing QB's without blitzing everyone. everyone saw what collins did when he was pressured deep in his own territory. conversly we all saw what that retard simms did to us because he had all day to throw the ball.

that is it in a nutshell. protect the ball, pressure the QB. if we could vastly improve in these aspects we are solid enough in all other areas to dominate.

[Mr. Grundle]

Good thread, I was just thinking about this yesterday watching the Dallas game. I realized how much a factor luck really is in the NFL. This is a game of inches. One unfortunate bounce or bad referree call can cost you a game. At the end of the year that one game could leave you out of the playoffs....so basically your whole season can be decided on the luck of a bounce.

Some teams run lucky, some teams don't. The Redskins are not running lucky this year and that's just something we have to accept. The Tampa game for instance, those two interceptions were deflected passes that bounced right into the hands of defenders...unlucky. The fumble Taylor caused that flew right into the hands of another offensive player...unlucky. It's tough to deal with but it happens.

Football is kinda like poker in that you have to be good AND lucky to win the big event.

BUT having said that, I do believe that teams create some of their luck. A team that isn't playing with confidence, like the Redskins, are more prone to bad bounces or luck for whatever reason.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think bad luck is why we are struggling this season...I attribute that to bad play in the trenches. But it certainly isn't helping the cause.

Ironically, we are probably lucky to be where we are at with all the bad luck we've had.

[Oldfan]

What I'm trying to say is this, the Redskins have forced 18 fumbles. They've only recovered three. That's bad luck.

On offense the Cowboys have fumbled more times than we have, but we've lost seven more.

So yes, we shouldn't fumbled the ball as many times as we do. But we've been unlucky at recovering them compared to other teams.

My remarks were offered mostly as a challenge to the idea that the turnover differential is a significant stat identifying the root cause of a team's problem. I see it as an effect rather than cause.

You probably are correct that luck is a factor in the fumbling issue, but offering your statistics alone doesn't prove your case. For example, I've personally seen Bledsoe drop on two fumbled snaps. Whereas Brunell's fumbles don't include easily recovered fumbled snaps.

Bledsoe's fumbles have probably occurred in the pocket, making it more likely that he had some friendly people around to help recover them. In contrast, some of Brunell's have happened after he fled the pocket.