NFL teams with indoor practice facilities averaged 4 more wins in 2010

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

If I use your Indoor Facilities column, I'll end up with 18 teams tied for the best practice facility.

Yes. What's the problem? Do a binary test of correlation: 18 teams with fixed full-field indoor practice facilities, 14 teams without. Good test.

That was absolutely not your point. You mention team value only once at the very start and you only did it to insinuate that Dan Snyder was a cheap-skate. Your intention was to mislead people into believing that not having an indoor practice facility was costing us multiple games per year. Your title even indicates that on average we should expect to win 8 more games per year if we build an indoor practice facility. Based on your findings, we would have been likely to win 12-16 games last year if we had just simply had an indoor practice facility.

I never thought that merely building an indoor practice facility would add 8 wins per season. There are diminishing returns each time one of those facilities are built. All teams in the NFL can't have a median record of 10-6.

However, as long as only 18 teams have the facilities, they can have a median record of 10-6, and the "have nots" can have a median record of 6-10. I'm sure you can follow this logic. As the pool of "haves" increases, their median victories are diluted, due to the zero-sum nature of league wins.

[SirClintonPortis]

The football playbook is like a giant ass textbook of commands that a player has to memorize. Poor practice conditions would likely force players and coaches to commit more time to fixing up mistakes caused random elements than going through the entire game plan or it will result in skimping over. Perfecting execution should be priority No.1, and then they can practice outside AFTER they know how to run the plays.

Also, an indoor facility evens the playing field against dome teams.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I'm going to quote a little Latin legal stuff:

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc"

Literally means, "after this, therefore because of this." The translation is "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." However, in most cases, it's not true.

The assertion is that the reason that the better teams win because they have indoor facilities. Can it be a factor? Sure. Is it a driving factor? Probably not. If you took the Packers and put them in an outside training facility, would they automatically lose 4-6 more games? Of course not. Might their preparation be different? Sure. Would it matter? Complete unknown, but probably not.

Be careful, Statistics can tell virtually any story you want them to. There's a joke: An accountant was being interviewed for a job. The guy interviewing the accountant asked him, 'What's 2+2.' The accountant answer, "Anything you want it to be." Same with statistics. You can crunch numbers in any way you like. You can statistically prove just about any point you are trying to make, and have a great defense for it based on numbers. However, it doesn't always pass the "laugh test."

[RFK Lives]

The football playbook is like a giant ass textbook of commands that a player has to memorize. Poor practice conditions would likely force players and coaches to commit more time to fixing up mistakes caused random elements than going through the entire game plan or it will result in skimping over. Perfecting execution should be priority No.1, and then they can practice outside AFTER they know how to run the plays.

Also, an indoor facility evens the playing field against dome teams.

I like the praticing for dome teams in the same type environment to level the field as you stated. I wonder if there are statistics on the Redskins dome record? During Gibbs I, it did not seem to matter much as I remember them consistenly winning in Detroit, Seattle and Minnesota but I wonder since about 2000-2001 what the record is. Granted, number might be skewed because the Redskins record has relatively sucked over that time period.

[pjfootballer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we still have an Astroturf practice field? Nobody has astroturf anymore and that in and of itself is embarrassing to still have it. It should have been replaced with fieldturf a long time ago.

[MattFancy]

Well, if you don't think we'll win more games because of it, why do you think we NEED it? Obviously you think there is a direct corellation or you wouldn't care.

We need it so we don't lose practice days. Will more practice make us better? Maybe. It certainly wouldn't hurt to practice more, but more practice doesn't a;ways mean more wins.

[KCClybun]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we still have an Astroturf practice field? Nobody has astroturf anymore and that in and of iteself is embarrassing to still have it. It should have been replaced with fieldturf a long time ago.

They never use the Astroturf field. The only reason they did last season is because they were literally forced to. Before that they just practiced on the grass fields like always. Again, I'm sure if a coach ASKED for the field to be changed then it would've been, but since no coach asked, Dan didn't just do it, because if that happened people would talking about how Dan was meddling and going against the wishes of his coaching staff.

Again, they're looking into moving Redskins Park to build better facilities.

[Crazy Levi]

We need it so we don't lose practice days. Will more practice make us better? Maybe. It certainly wouldn't hurt to practice more, but more practice doesn't a;ways mean more wins.

The NFL is a game of inches...of tiny increments in skill and preparation. Like I said...ANY advantage - or disadvantage - is going to show on gameday.

Guess which one of those things driving an hour through a snowstorm to an airport hanger, or spending a day of "practice" without pads in a basketball gym is?

Hint - it's not an advantage.

[goldenchild]

Correlation doesn't imply causation, and one year of data is a poor sample to assess the effects of having an indoor practice facility, given the impact of each season's rosters, injuries, matchups, etc. that aren't being controlled in the design or analysis.

It would be a far better analysis to look at the before and after effects for each team over time. Then you could argue for potential causation, but it is disingenuous to assert that this analysis indicates the Skins would become a better team because of a new practice facility.

[Popeman38]

So about 75% of your posts are just attacking the originaliy of Dan Snyder bashing posts? Usually with the word "shock!" sarcastically included?

Great contributions dude.

Meanwhile, the orignal post was really a fine piece of journalism, with photos, stats, and real research. Great starting point for a conversation.

You can argue with the original post, you can come up with your own evidence, or your own suggestions or opinions.

Or you can just say how shocked you are that people are picking on Snyder, contributing nothing to the actual discussion. Your call dude.

It's not everyday you get called out by the guy who contributes only in threads deriding Dan Snyder. I feel I have accomplished something!

The OP is opinion based on statistics. Gmail is the most popular email service, therefore Google must have superior email service, right? No, everyone just likes Google. Minnesota has a built in home field advantage in the winter, therefore they play outside, right? Nope, they built a dome. Arizona plays in a dome, therefore they have artificial grass, right? Nope, field moves in and out. The point is that there are so many factors that go into winning in the NFL that to assume a proactive facility basically averages you to a 10-6 season is foolhardy. The Jets? The friggin Jets? They win now because of an indoor practice facility? It isn't because they hired a defensive genius and drafted really well the last 5 years while adding significant FA/trades (LT, Holmes, Edwards, Scott, Leonard, Taylor, Revis, Cromartie, Sanchez, Fergusan, Mangold.....)? Seriously, how can anyone say with a straight face that an indoor practice facility has had anything to do with the Jest success the last 3 years?

[ouvan59]

Let's trade next year's first and third for an indoor facility.

[MattFancy]

You can make stats say anything you want.

For example: The Orioles should change their hats because the last time a team that won the WS didn't have a letter on their hat was the Toronto Blue Jays in 1993. So that implies that if the Orioles put just a letter on their main hat, they will win a WS.

Or, the Orioles should have interlocking letters on their hats because teams that have that (Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants) have combined to win 49 WS. So if the Orioles use interlocking letters, they should win multiple WS.

Sure an indoor facility would help, but its not the sole reason those teams are winning.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Let's trade next year's first and third for an indoor facility.

Only if it agrees to build for the vet. min. + incentives ......

Hail.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Correlation doesn't imply causation, and one year of data is a poor sample to assess the effects of having an indoor practice facility, given the impact of each season's rosters, injuries, matchups, etc. that aren't being controlled in the design or analysis.

It would be a far better analysis to look at the before and after effects for each team over time.

Maybe you haven't read the full thread / posts. Your comment implies that the only demonstration was 2010 regular season. That just happened to be dramatic.

I also demonstrated by Super Bowl winners (last 8), Super Bowl appearances (13 of last 14), and provided two case studies with the Packers and Jets, showing their performance after they built their facilities in 1994 and 2008, respectively.

Any one of these data points might be a fluke, but it's highly unlikely to be a fluke, taken together. Almost every time I looked for a trend, I found it. Someone pointed out that the Giants did not get better when they built their facility, but they were already good, and were using a bubble prior to 2009. I'm not going to argue that a facility will automatically make a very good team (Super Bowl winner) better. Nor that by itself it makes a bad team good. Rather that it's a required foundation for sustained success in today's NFL, particularly in December and January.

[SwampEm]

Let's trade next year's first and third for an indoor facility.

They would end up with a aging facility if they followed status quo.

[Popeman38]

and provided two case studies with the Packers and Jets, showing their performance after they built their facilities in 1994 and 2008, respectively.

I refuted the Jets last page.

I will now refute the packers and your 1994 start:

BRETT FAVRE

He joined the Packers in 1992. He was a starter by week 4 and made every start for them through the end of the 2007 season.

See also Montana, Joe and the 49ers and Brady, Tom and the Pats and Marino, Dan and the Dolphins and Roethlisberger, Ben and the Steelers and Manning, Peyton and the Colts....

Wanna win in the NFL? Draft/sign a FRANCHISE QB. That will result in way more wins than a god damned indoor practice facility.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

I refuted the Jets last page.

I will now refute the packers and your 1994 start:

BRETT FAVRE

I believed that, too, right up until Brett Favre won his second Super Bowl in January.

People prefer heroes. The fact that a much improved practice facility might have a great deal to do do with the success of the Packers (in tandem with Lambeau Field and two great QBs) is too banal to be easily accepted.

It's all about Favre. Or Rodgers. Or coach Ryan, Or Brady. Or Manning. Or Roethlisberger. Or Brees.

Yes, it's mostly about them. Their being great put them over other great QBs in the Super Bowl. Getting there required the whole team and required a lot of things to go right on critical weeks. This is where practice comes in.

Yes, I'm talking about practice.

[MattFancy]

Last 8 Super Bowl Winners:

2010--Packers (Rodgers)

2009--Saints (Brees)

2008--Steelers (Roethlisberger)

2007--Giants (Manning)

2006--Colts (Manning)

2005--Steelers (Roethlisberger)

2004--Patriots (Brady)

2003--Patriots (Brady)

Something tells me those QBs may have more to do with those teams winning the SBs than having an indoor practice field.

[ouvan59]

You can make stats say anything you want..

That's ASF's specialty.

[tshile]

i think this study really only shows one thing

northern teams have been the more successful teams in the last 20 years. they have indoor facilities because of weather.

[ouvan59]

They would end up with a aging facility if they followed status quo.

More likely it would be Kettler since that wouldn't fit our system.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

i think this study really only shows one thing

northern teams have been the more successful teams in the last 20 years. they have indoor facilities because of weather.

I submit that the "northern" association is a consequential correlation, and the actual correlation (with causation) is the practice facilities used primarily and first by northern teams.

[tshile]

oh, so you don't think it has anything to do with having bright coaches/gm's who create rosters with depth and talent? and that maybe their smarts lead them to the decisions to get indoor facilities, alongside their roster moves?

maybe you're right. when i think of the packers, steelers, patriots, and giants i don't think savy roster moves and smart coaches; i think indoor practice facilities.

[Popeman38]

I believed that, too, right up until Brett Favre won his second Super Bowl in January.

People prefer heroes. The fact that a much improved practice facility might have a great deal to do do with the success of the Packers (in tandem with Lambeau Field and two great QBs) is too banal to be easily accepted.

It's all about Favre. Or Rodgers. Or coach Ryan, Or Brady. Or Manning. Or Roethlisberger. Or Brees.

Yes, it's mostly about them. Their being great put them over other great QBs in the Super Bowl. Getting there required the whole team and required a lot of things to go right on critical weeks. This is where practice comes in.

Brett Favre started every game from week 4 of 1992 through the NFCCG in 2007. The Packers were celler dwellers until Favre got there. He made them great. Franchise QBs have a habit of doing that. He went to the Jets, and sucked. He went to the Vikings, and guess where he led them? The NFCCG. NO was nothing until Brees rolled around. The Colts were nothing before Manning. Rex Ryan has had a huge impact on the Jets. You can't gloss over all of these facts and state that yeah, it ain't really the players its the indoor practice facility. If an owner knew indoor facility=SB wins/mass revenue increase, what owner wouldn't invest $10M on a practice facility? NONE. They would all build world class facilities. Then you would start a thread about statistics stating that without a franchise QB a team has zero chance of winning.

The Redskins won't play deep into the playoffs until they have a first-class training facility with a full-service practice field under a fixed structure. The bubble will help, certainly. But, it's literally a low ceiling in today's NFL. The Redskins simply lack the facilities investment required for success in the NFL. Until Dan Snyder spends what is required, expect the losing and short seasons to continue.

This is what you said in your OP. This is the crux of your argument. The Skins can't win until that cheap **** starts investing in his team. Nothing besides a 1st class indoor facility will result in winning. You literally said this. Your words.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

There's actually been a lot of good, reasoned post's as to why we need an indoor facility in this thread. Something I'm far from opposed to. (Even if I would still prefer my guys to practice in the same elements their liable to face game day in the main.).

But regardless, it's real hard to take ANY thread ASF starts without thinking the main crux behind it is his on going vendetta against the owner. (And sorry if you think that's a strong word to use man, but your previous in most every thread your involved in suggests that's exactly what it is.).

REAL hard indeed, however good intentioned a particular thread/ thought may be.

Hail.