Relax on the turnover thing, Mike

[Oldfan]

In the December 18, 2011 issue of the Washington Post, Barry Svrluga's article entitled "Redskins lose ground in turnover battle" quoted Mike Shanahan as saying

"If you look at the playoffs, the teams that don't turn the ball over, they usually win the Super Bowl...If you look at the turnover ratio, if you look at the teams that get into the playoffs, usually there will be only two or three that aren't [among the best in the league]."

I read this statement as evidence of weak reasoning which could lead to poor coaching decisions. I think Mike is confusing cause and effect.

Poor play causes losing.

Poor play causes turnovers.

Turnovers don't cause losing.

A negative turnover ratio is just one of the effects of poor play; a losing record is another effect.

The average turnover is worth about - 4 points (and, yes, this number includes the value of an emotional swing if one exists)

Settling for a field goal in the red zone is worth about - 4 points.

Giving up a big play (40+) is worth about - 4 points

Giving up a touchdown is usually worth - 7 points

Losing football teams are likely to show negative ratios on turnovers, red zone scoring, big plays and touchdowns. Those are the negative effects of poor play.

In his article, Barry Svrluga concludes that the Redskins -14 stat on the turnover battle "...more than any other plays -- prevented Washington [from winning football games]." This assertion implies a cause and effect relationship that does not exist. It perpetuates the myth of the dreaded turnover that goes beyond reason.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/how-many-points-turnover-worth

[DeadExField]

Well for one I'm tired of hearing Shanahan talk in circles about bologna, if you're not going to be firm and informative, just don't go to the podium at all. Two, when it comes to football, when you turnover you lose. Simple. Defense isn't going to play hero all season long (for most teams) and cover up poor care of the football 3 times a game. With that said, the Shanahan's have been looking to pass blame since they got here, I'm wondering if they will ever be the bigger guy and say "you know what we turned over the ball yeah, but I didn't get us prepared like I should have." or alone with his coaches "hey guys we didn't evaluate talent good this year"

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Welcome back Of.

It seems like forever since you've contributed to the rich fabric of 'our place.' Season's greetings to you and yours. I shall sit down and read this in more detail sometime after today's game. Pre-game I'm a little busy with things.

Hail.

[chipwhich]

Amen Oldfan.

I would add poor play is contagious, and losing is contagious. You start by playing better and winning. Which starts with this season. A franchise should never play for a draft pick. The ramifications on the psyche of the team ar far reaching.

Turn around the qualtiy of play, turn around the turnover issue.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

I read this statement as evidence of weak reasoning which could lead to poor coaching decisions. I think Mike is confusing cause and effect.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/how-many-points-turnover-worth

I concede your numbers, and even your cause and effect flow for this argument. Can you give us some examples of Shanny's confusion leading to poor coaching decisions?

[darrell1106]

Well for one I'm tired of hearing Shanahan talk in circles about bologna, if you're not going to be firm and informative, just don't go to the podium at all. Two, when it comes to football, when you turnover you lose. Simple. Defense isn't going to play hero all season long (for most teams) and cover up poor care of the football 3 times a game. With that said, the Shanahan's have been looking to pass blame since they got here, I'm wondering if they will ever be the bigger guy and say "you know what we turned over the ball yeah, but I didn't get us prepared like I should have." or alone with his coaches "hey guys we didn't evaluate talent good this year"

Barry Sylvuga has a job to do. If you take this quote as the only thing Shanny said surrounding the loosing question then I think you are mistaken. We don't know.

Bottom line, loosing is loosing. Whether it's turnover related, defense, no running game, etc. It's not the sole reason for loosing games but like the OP said, it's a contributor. It really boils down to "when and where" the turnover occurs and the result of the turnover (i.e. points, etc).

We're a bad football team but I think we are heading in the right direction. Limiting turnovers is only one of the mountain of problems we have. They will probably be the same or worse next year assuming we have a rookie QB.

[Oldfan]

Welcome back Of.

It seems like forever since you've contributed to the rich fabric of 'our place.' Season's greetings to you and yours. I shall sit down and read this in more detail sometime after today's game. Pre-game I'm a little busy with things.

Hail.

Thanks, GHH. I hope your holidays are full of good stuff (just as you usually are:D).

---------- Post added December-18th-2011 at 11:04 AM ----------

Amen Oldfan.

I would add poor play is contagious, and losing is contagious. You start by playing better and winning. Which starts with this season. A franchise should never play for a draft pick. The ramifications on the psyche of the team ar far reaching.

Turn around the qualtiy of play, turn around the turnover issue.

There's truth in that. Winning causes confidence, but then confidence carries over to more wins.

[SWFLSkins]

[/color]There's truth in that. Winning causes confidence, but then confidence carries over to more wins.

The only thing I would add to that is Turnovers are momentum killers that crush confidence. So there is some cause and effect there, and I don't know what a coach can do on the sideline as far as TO's go.

[Oldfan]

I concede your numbers, and even your cause and effect flow for this argument. Can you give us some examples of Shanny's confusion leading to poor coaching decisions?

If a coach puts too much emphasis on the turnover ratio, he consequently gives less attention to other factors.

For example, a defense that gives us one less big play (- 4 points) per game has advanced just as much as a defense which gains one more takeaway (+4 points) per game. The offense which converts one more RZ possession into a TD, rather than settling for a FG, has improved just as much as an offense which commits one less turnover per game.

[Jumbo]

I agree OF, though if you get a specific player (or coach) in a specific key role that almost "single handedly" elevates the team's overall ability in that area via their personal contributions, that can be a separate factor to varying degrees. Good to see ya, and check your PMs.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Well for one I'm tired of hearing Shanahan talk in circles about bologna, if you're not going to be firm and informative, just don't go to the podium at all.

Going to the podium is part of the job. Believe me, a lot of coaches absolutely would not talk to the media on a regular basis if they didn't have to.

With that said, the Shanahan's have been looking to pass blame since they got here, I'm wondering if they will ever be the bigger guy and say "you know what we turned over the ball yeah, but I didn't get us prepared like I should have." or alone with his coaches "hey guys we didn't evaluate talent good this year"

IIRC, they've essentially said the bolded part before.

[Oldfan]

The only thing I would add to that is Turnovers are momentum killers that crush confidence. So there is some cause and effect there, and I don't know what a coach can do on the sideline as far as TO's go.

As noted earlier, whatever emotional value the turnover has, is included in that four point value. It's not something extra that has to be accounted for.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

If a coach puts too much emphasis on the turnover ratio, he consequently gives less attention to other factors.

For example, a defense that gives us one less big play (- 4 points) per game has advanced just as much as a defense which gains one more takeaway (+4 points) per game. The offense which converts one more RZ possession into a TD, rather than settling for a FG, has improved just as much as an offense which commits one less turnover per game.

Why must he consequently give less attention to the other factors you mentioned? Can't he place a lot of importance on the TO ration and also give those other areas a high priority? It seems to me that successful coaches must be able to cover all their bases adequately to remain so. That might be a tad too simplistic a viewpoint, but I feel it's largely accurate.

BTW, reading other posts in this thread informs me you were gone for a bit. I must've missed that, but I too am glad you're back. This place wouldn't be nearly the same without you.

Have we re-upped your contract yet? If not we need to get a hold of your agent immediately...

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Have we re-upped your contract yet? If not we need to get a hold of your agent immediately...

Wait ..... yers all have CONTRACTS! :yikes:

Those mod *******! They sold me on me giving my valuable time and thoughts for free to be rewarded in the knowledge that y'all appreciated me.

Well Hell, now I'ma pissed. And to think I even gave out free cookies to everyone that joined the Backers of Bradford a few years back. HUMPH!

Hail.

[Oldfan]

Why must he consequently give less attention to the other factors you mentioned? Can't he place a lot of importance on the TO ration and also give those other areas a high priority? It seems to me that successful coaches must be able to cover all their bases adequately to remain so. That might be a tad too simplistic a viewpoint, but I feel it's largely accurate.

You are forgetting that practice time has a limit.

Let all practice time equal 100%. If too much time is spent on the turnover factor, the coach, by logical deduction, has less than enough time to spend on the other factors.

[MumboSauce]

We just need play makers imo. True "star" level players that can have a great impact on games. Good teams have turnovers but their high level of play can overcome them.

This team doesn't have play makers, and are so average to below average..that any little miscue or mistake in the turnover margin seals their doom. They have to play perfect just to be on even footing if at all.

[SWFLSkins]

As noted earlier, whatever emotional value the turnover has, is included in that four point value. It's not something extra that has to be accounted for.

Agree and disagree, where it occurs in the course of the game and the current score could mean 4 points would be a greater or lesser impact on the games outcome.

[MumboSauce]

turnovers in the red zone, late in the game, or on your side of the field..ie at the worst times/scenarios. are the killers though.

[Oldfan]

Agree and disagree, where it occurs in the course of the game and the current score could mean 4 points would be a greater or lesser impact on the games outcome.

Yes, but the term I used was "average value." A TD usually has a seven-point value but that seven could be meaningless in a blowout or it could be the difference maker in a game.

The point I wanted to be clear on is that the turnover's average value (the actual value will vary depending on the field position) includes all factors including whatever emotional factor it involves. There is not an emotional factor which can't be evaluated whether the play is a turnover or a big play (40+).

[SWFLSkins]

Yes, but the term I used was "average value." A TD usually has a seven-point value but that seven could be meaningless in a blowout or it could be the difference maker in a game.

The point I wanted to be clear on is that the turnover's average value (the actual value will vary depending on the field position) includes all factors including whatever emotional factor it involves. There is not an emotional factor which can't be evaluated whether the play is a turnover or a big play (40+).

Yeah I got ya there. Also the multiple TO differential is significant in not only emotional value but win/loss differences. Two 4 pts. TO's > one TD.

[Mahons21]

Seems like you're just reaching to make a negative comment about MS.

It's quite obvious that poor play causes turnovers, but when asked or interviewed why do you think the team you're coaching is losing, it's difficult to just say poor play.

Reporters, and fans want more, in what facet specifically did they play poorly? Clearly for the Redskins this year its in the turnover battle, so Ms points to that.

That doesn't mean he doesn't understand it's all in the end due to bad play.

MS is going to come out and say "the teams that play the best end up in the Superbowl" it just sounds dumb and obvious.

[TSO]

Good to see you, OF!

Ok, that's enough mushy crap on gameday, lol. On to the argument...

This argument is entirely based on one gigantic assumption that by Shanahan focusing on the effect, he doesn't know the cause or is missing the reasons that generated the effect.

That is as big as an assumption as I've ever seen, OF. Do you think, say, if a reporter asked him "what do you think causes the turnovers?", he'll just stare blindly in the air without an answer?

I think it's pretty clear he focuses on the TO thing because that's an easy point of emphasis to speak on with the media without getting too detailed and hanging anyone out to dry. It's like when the questions about Grossman's issues arise, he starts making general statements like "you can't turnover the ball and win in the NFL". I'm sure he knows exactly what Grossman's issue is and why he keeps turning the ball over, but he's not going to air it out.

To assume he doesn't is really demeaning Shanahan's football acumen and I refuse to believe he's that bad a coach.

[Hitman21ST]

You are forgetting that practice time has a limit.

Let all practice time equal 100%. If too much time is spent on the turnover factor, the coach, by logical deduction, has less than enough time to spend on the other factors.

I agree with your premise, OF. However, the amount of time and one can devote to the turnover factor is negligible in any given practice. The way you practice "not turning the ball over" on offense or "getting turnovers" on defense is by the execution of the play during practice. If the offense turns the ball over, the play is run again. The turnover factor is a secondary result of the play execution, so the turnover focus of practice is more often than not negligible.

[Darth Tater]

In the December 18, 2011 issue of the Washington Post, Barry Svrluga's article entitled "Redskins lose ground in turnover battle" quoted Mike Shanahan as saying

"If you look at the playoffs, the teams that don't turn the ball over, they usually win the Super Bowl...If you look at the turnover ratio, if you look at the teams that get into the playoffs, usually there will be only two or three that aren't [among the best in the league]."

I read this statement as evidence of weak reasoning which could lead to poor coaching decisions. I think Mike is confusing cause and effect.

Poor play causes losing.

Poor play causes turnovers.

Turnovers don't cause losing.

A negative turnover ratio is just one of the effects of poor play; a losing record is another effect.

The average turnover is worth about - 4 points (and, yes, this number includes the value of an emotional swing if one exists)

Settling for a field goal in the red zone is worth about - 4 points.

Giving up a big play (40+) is worth about - 4 points

Giving up a touchdown is usually worth - 7 points

Losing football teams are likely to show negative ratios on turnovers, red zone scoring, big plays and touchdowns. Those are the negative effects of poor play.

In his article, Barry Svrluga concludes that the Redskins -14 stat on the turnover battle "...more than any other plays -- prevented Washington [from winning football games]." This assertion implies a cause and effect relationship that does not exist. It perpetuates the myth of the dreaded turnover that goes beyond reason.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/how-many-points-turnover-worth

The red zone thing is all over the map. In some years, very bad teams out perform good team in the red zone. Red zone performance is historically a very bad predictor of overall record. In 2009, we were in the top-10 in the red zone performance. As far as turnover, examples of teams that were bad include the 2001 Bears who manage to use turnovers to go from a 5 win team to a 13 win team and the 1983 Redskins. On the flip side, there have been several teams with talent and good coaching that ended up being less than they should have been because of turnovers. Now big plays do tend to positively correlate. Generally, the FACTS support Svrluga not you

[SkinsNumberOne]

1 or 2 play drives are also big problems.