The Detroit Lions snapped a 26-game road losing streak last week at Tampa Bay, and will look to make it two straight away from home when they take on the Miami Dolphins this Sunday. Detroit beat the Buccaneers 23-20 in overtime for their first road win since week 8 of the 2007 season, and will [...]
BetFirms
Two weeks ago, Michael David Smith of the Wall Street Journal’s online edition wrote that the Detroit Lions may be the unluckiest team in NFL history. Despite, at the time, outscoring their opponents, the Lions had won only 2 of 9 games. Certainly, Lions fans expected better—and hoped for much better. Infuriatingly, the Lions seem much improved, but there’s been no change in the bottom line. However, it’s hard not to consider Bill Parcells’ famous line, “You are what your record says you are.” Many fans, bloggers, and media pros subscribe to this idea: no matter how much more competitive the Lions look, they are not actually better until they have more Ws next to their name.
So, what do we make of this? Do we ignore what our eyes tell us? Do we disregard increased production on both sides of the ball as window treatments on the Titanic? Or, do we foolishly embrace false “progress” because we’re so desperate to believe? How much of the Lions’ 2-9 record can be blamed on happenstance, and how much of it is just the Lions’ lack of ability? Fortunately, Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats recently wrote an article exploring exactly how random win-loss records are in the NFL.
Imagine flipping a perfectly fair coin 10 times. It would actually be uncommon for the coin to come out 5 heads and 5 tails. (In fact, it would only happen 24% of the time). But if you flipped the coin an infinite number of times, the rate of heads would be certain to approach 50%. The difference between what we actually observe over the short-run and what we would observe over an infinite number of trials is known as sample error. No matter how many times you actually flip the coin, it’s only a sample of the infinitely possible times the coin could be flipped.
As a prime example, the NFL’s short 16-game regular season schedule produces a great deal of sample error. To figure out how much randomness is involved in any one season, we can calculate the variance in team winning percentage that we would expect from a random binomial process, like coin flips. Then we can calculate the variance from the team records we actually observe. The difference is the variance due to true team ability.
I strongly, strongly encourage you to read “The Randomness of Win-Loss Records” at Advanced NFL Stats in its entirety. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Okay, back? Great. Lost? Don’t worry: I’ve got you covered with some bullet points:
If 42% of the Lions’ 2-9 record can be accounted for by randomness, that’s 4.62 games’ worth out of the eleven. Assuming that the Lions have had nothing but bad luck to this point—they’re at the very nadir of randomness—then we flip it to nothing but good luck, we can see the theoretical maximum given this talent. So, if Lions had gotten all the bounces: no Stafford injury, no Megatron Referee Fail, no Wendling/McCann freak TD return, no Alphonso Smith Disasters, Drew Stanton competes that pass, Shaun Hill doesn’t airmail that two-pointer (neither of which would happen anyway because Stafford would’ve been healthy, remember?), a few fewer specious penalties for the Lions, a few more for the opponents, recover a few more of the forced fumbles, catch a couple of dropped INTs . . . the Lions could be as good as 6-5 right now.
Before you freak out: that assumes both a 16-game season, and that the Lions are currently having the rottenest luck possible. An 11-game sample isn’t the same as a 16-game sample; there may yet be some regression to the mean—that is, if the Lions really aren’t what their record says they are, their luck will turn before we get to the end of the season. Well, either that, or next season will be a 16-game dip in the strawberry river:
Let’s assume for a second that there’s no sudden switch in the Lions’ fortunes, and they don’t sweep the NFC North at home during these next five games. Let’s also assume they maintain their current pace: a winning percentage of .182. Applied to 16 games, that’s 2.912 wins. What’s the “best guess at their true strength,” if we regress them one-quarter of the way back to the mean? If I understand this correctly, the difference between .500 and .182 is .318—and a quarter of that is .0795. So, the Lions’ “true strength” should be a winning percentage of .262: just over four wins.
Again: this assumes the Lions only win one more game. If the Lions finish 3-13, we’ll have no business saying “well this was really a 7-win team that got screwed.” Sure, if everything had broken the Lions’ way, and they’d been the beneficiary of some truly rare luck, then maybe they’d have won six or seven games—but as they are, busted-up Stafford and all, if the Lions only win one more game, they really are only a 3-to-4 win team.
So, again, perspective: this is applying Brian Burke’s analysis of win/loss randomness in the NFL to the Detroit Lions’ current record. All it can do is tell us, at the end of the season, what role “the Football Gods” have played in making the Lions’ record what it is—it is a redictive system, giving us a way of understanding what’s already happened. It can’t tell us which games were the result of randomness, if “the randomness” has already happened, or if the Lions are “due” for a hot streak. It can’t tell us what we really want to know: how many games the Lions will win going forward.
Let’s attack this from the other direction: with a predictive model, one that can actually assess teams’ relative strengths and project a winner. I’m choosing the Simple Ranking System, as published by Doug at Pro Football Reference.
Yes, this is required reading too. Yes, I’ll wait.
Fortunately, it is as simple as the name implies, so it only requires one bullet:
Okay, so average point differential, adjusted by strength of schedule, which adjusts the rankings, which adjusts the strengh of schedule, which adjusts the rankings, which adjusts the strength of schedule, over and over and over until the numbers stop changing. Very simple indeed, yes—but as Doug says, “As it turns out, this is a pretty good predictive system.”
Chart?
Chart:
| Team | W | L | T | W-L% | PtDif | SoS | SRS |
| Green Bay Packers | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0.636 | 103 | 1.2 | 10.6 |
| New England Patriots | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0.818 | 68 | 2.2 | 8.4 |
| Pittsburgh Steelers | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0.727 | 73 | 1.5 | 8.1 |
| New York Jets | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0.818 | 77 | 1 | 8 |
| Atlanta Falcons | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0.818 | 67 | -0.1 | 6 |
| Philadelphia Eagles | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0.636 | 53 | 1.1 | 5.9 |
| Baltimore Ravens | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0.727 | 62 | 0.3 | 5.9 |
| San Diego Chargers | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0.545 | 85 | -2.1 | 5.7 |
| Tennessee Titans | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0.455 | 39 | 0.5 | 4 |
| Chicago Bears | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0.727 | 50 | -1.1 | 3.5 |
| Indianapolis Colts | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0.545 | 30 | 0.5 | 3.3 |
| New York Giants | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0.636 | 37 | -1.4 | 1.9 |
| Miami Dolphins | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0.545 | -20 | 3.5 | 1.7 |
| Kansas City Chiefs | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0.636 | 54 | -3.3 | 1.6 |
| New Orleans Saints | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0.727 | 68 | -4.5 | 1.6 |
| Cleveland Browns | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0.364 | -13 | 1.4 | 0.2 |
| Detroit Lions | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0.182 | -24 | 2.1 | -0.1 |
| Houston Texans | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0.455 | -23 | 1.5 | -0.6 |
| Oakland Raiders | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0.455 | -1 | -1.9 | -2 |
| Minnesota Vikings | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0.364 | -50 | 2.5 | -2.1 |
| Buffalo Bills | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0.182 | -66 | 3.7 | -2.3 |
| Washington Redskins | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0.455 | -47 | 2 | -2.3 |
| Dallas Cowboys | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0.273 | -45 | 1.3 | -2.8 |
| Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0.636 | -4 | -3.1 | -3.5 |
| Cincinnati Bengals | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0.182 | -63 | 2 | -3.7 |
| Jacksonville Jaguars | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0.545 | -54 | 0.9 | -4 |
| St. Louis Rams | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0.455 | -18 | -4.1 | -5.8 |
| Denver Broncos | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0.273 | -73 | -0.1 | -6.7 |
| San Francisco 49ers | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0.3 | -59 | -2.5 | -8.4 |
| Seattle Seahawks | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0.455 | -66 | -3 | -9 |
| Arizona Cardinals | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0.3 | -104 | -1.6 | -12 |
| Carolina Panthers | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0.091 | -136 | -0.9 | -13.3 |
Guess how this chart is sorted? By SRS rank. You can see the Packers, Patriots, Steelers, and Jets up there at the top, and Seahawks, Cardinals, and Panthers scraping the bottom of the barrel. But wait, that team in bold, the one that’s darn near in the center? That’s the Lions, ranked 18th overall. When we take into account who they’ve played—per SRS, the Lions have played the 6th-hardest schedule in the NFL to this point—and how their offense and defense has performed, the Lions are the 18th-strongest team in the NFL.
This isn’t “with Stafford,” “with that Megatron touchdown,” “with that Drew Stanton pass,” or with anything imaginary added or subtracted. Quite literally, it’s the scoreboard of every Lions game so far this year; it’s simply been adjusted by the scoreboards of everyone they’ve played.
Ah, but how accurate is this method? It’s a predictive model, but how predictive is it? Clearly, if it says the 2-9 Lions are near the middle of the pack in relative strength, it can’t be good at predicting who’ll win and who’ll lose, right? Well, I regressed the SRS rankings against win percentage, and this is what I got:
Check out the correlation factor there: .7449205, or if you round up .001, .745. What was the theoretical maximum for a predictive model again? Well, if Brian Burke is right, it’s approximately .75. That means that given the inherent randomness in NFL outcomes, the Simple Ranking System is as good as it gets when it comes to assessing relative strength of NFL teams, and thereby predicting future NFL outcomes. Again, according to this system, the Lions are the 18th-best team in the land. Further, if I’m not mistaken, they’re the biggest outlier on the chart: they’re the lowest, rightest dot (-0.1 SRS, .186 W-L). Nobody’s getting screwed harder, or helped out more, by Lady Luck than the Lions. Just trace the Y axis up to the line of best fit (the diagonal one), and you’ll know what the Lions’ win percentage ought to be: .500. That’s right, SRS expects the Lions to have 5 wins by now.
So what does this all mean? It means that if the Lions keep playing like they’ve been playing, they’re either going to pick up multiple wins in these last five games—or next season, they’ll be tubing down the strawberry river of regression to the mean.
This game was considered a trap game and the Bears played like it was in the first half at least. The Bears came away with the win in Detroit against a Lions team starting their third string QB.
You would think it would be a blow out, but the Bears played uninspired football in the first half. They let the Lions score 17 points, including a score with 34 seconds left in the first half.
The Bears defense was playing okay, but that drive made them look awful. The Bears special teams was the reason the Lions were looking good in the this game, Lions return man Stefan Logan averaged 38.7 yards on kicks and 19 yards on punts. The Lions consistently had good field position and the Bears defense was holding them for the most part.
The offense got the running game going with Forte and Taylor, they both found their way into the end zone in the first half. They combined for 97 yards on 19 carries and 2 touchdowns.
Getting the running game going was very important, but seeing Jay Cutler play the steady role was nice. Cutler completed 21 of 26 for 234 yards and one touchdown. Earl Bennett caught seven passes for 104 yards and he seems to be Cutler’s favorite target as of late.
Cutler’s lone touchdown pass came with 8:39 left in the fourth quarter, when Lions DE Suh just got penalized for elbowing Jay Cutler. Cutler hit Brandon Manumeluena on the following play for a touchdown and that allowed them to pull away.
Even though it looked like the Bears were struggling at times and they were, I think this was a good game to have before a big match-up against the 10-2 Patriots. The defense must be on it’s top game because the last time these two teams played, the Bears defense caused 5 turnovers and still lost. Expect the Bears to play hard nosed football in the cold windy city temperatures.
Matt Forte and Chester Taylor will be the focus in this game, running and catching balls out of the backfield will be important keys to the offense. The offense just needs to keep drives going because you don’t want Brady and the boys’ out on the field, they put up 45 points against the NY Jets, who were said to be a Super Bowl favorite.
The Bears close win over the Lions might be the reason they win or lose against the Patriots. Sunday should be a good game either way.
By now, you’ve certainly heard the news: Drew Stanton will be starting for the Lions as they face the Bears this Sunday. This kicked off a cavalcade of reactions:
“Apparently Schwartz said that the offense won’t change with Stanton at the helm. All I can say is I’ll believe it when I see it.”
"Hell had to find a way to ferret out the tiny pockets of hope that were still left in the fanbase and then crush their fragile spirits, and what better way to do that than to parade down the streets with a clueless Drew Stanton waving and smiling and throwing Grit at horrified onlookers while the devil rides an evil sleigh made from the bones of Matthew Stafford and Shaun Hill?"
I come from a different school of thought entirely. Way back in March of aught-nine, in this blog’s third month, I penned a little piece I called “On Quarterbacks,” which was much more about Drew Stanton in particular than quarterbacks in general:
Stanton is a player I have an extra soft spot for, because my then-toddler daughter was introduced to football through him. One of the games we’d play with her would be to point out Drew Stanton every time teh camera closed in on him. In fact, one of the first times she recognized a number was during a Spartan football game, and she started shouting, "Green Number Five!" It took us a little while to realize that she was seeing Stanton and calling out his jersey number: a green five. When got a little older, my mother taught her to say "Drew Stanton, what a babe!" (gee, thanks, Mom). Ultimately, DS was kind enough to do an autograph session at the Mall, and my little girl actually got to meet the man in person.
Anyway, when Stanton was drafted by the Lions, it was a dream come true, of course. A second-round pick, at just the right time to draft and groom a QB, and a very Millen kind of QB, a tough-nosed, smart, gritty, vocal leader. The kind of player who legitimately hates opponents and wants to beat them–not for glory, not for stats, not for money, but for the sake of victory. The kind of player who can’t stand losing, and will give every last ounce he’s got to come out on top. That is exactly the kind of quarterback that most Lions fans have been screaming for for years, yet have not ever seen.
I was both thrilled and scared to tell my daughter about Drew Stanton What A Babe becoming a Lion, because deep down I feared that what happened to Chuck would happen to Drew. That the dark presence that hangs over this organization would roll down upon Ford Field and smite him, and DS would never lead the Lions to anything. Sure enough, it’s been two whole seasons now; thanks to injuries, blackouts, and the ineffable Will of Rod, my now-twice-as-old-as-she-was-then daughter has still never seen Drew Stanton play for the Lions. She roots for the Buccaneers now.
If the Millen/Martz/Marinelli three-headed monster, and multiple untimely injuries, hadn’t snuffed out Drew Stanton’s hopes of ever becoming The Lions’ Quarterback (instead of a Lions quarterback), the selection of Matthew Stafford did. As soon as the ink was dry on Stafford’s massive contract, the forecast for Drew Stanton’s Lions career read “Cloudy with a slight chance of Charlie Batch in Pittsburgh.” From that point, Hometown Boy Career Backup was the best Detroit Lion he could hope to be.
Unfortunately, Drew hasn’t made enough of his few chances to get even there. His first—and until Sunday, his only—NFL start didn’t go so hot: 11 of 21 for 130 yards, no scores, and 3 INTs. Combined with his various relief and mop-up appearances, he’s completed 55 of 104 attempts for 611 yards, two TDs, and seven interceptions. That’s a career passer rating of 49.0.
His limitations as a passer are undeniable. At his best, Drew’s passes are in the right place at the right time, but lack zip, especially on deep routes. At his worst, his throws are wildly inaccurate and easily intercepted. As Neil is so fond of pointing out, though, Drew’s stock in trade is Grit: with heart and effort and general athletic ability, he goes out and makes plays and does his best to win, no matter the odds. In college, it worked—sometimes spectacularly. Drew did engineer the biggest comeback in NCAA D-I history, after all.
Unfortunately, the same hasn’t been true so far in the pros. In preseason, we’ve seen Stanton scramble for scores and throw 50-yard bombs—but when the bullets have been live, he’s been a dud. Some of it’s because his team’s been terrible. Some of it’s because he gets almost zero practice reps outside of training camp, so never practices with the starters and barely practices at all. Some of it’s because his best chance to make it in the pros was with slow, steady, careful grooming to build good habits and iron out bad ones. Some of it’s because . . . well, his limitations as a passer are undeniable.
Even so, this season we saw some real progress out of Drew. When he came in cold against the Giants, he turned in a performance that was a little shaky—but, yes, gritty. He made plays when he had to, and nearly shocked the Giants at Your Company Name Here Stadium. He impressed everyone, even Giants head coach Tom Coughlin:
"The third quarterback came in and, geez, he played very, very well,” Giants coach Tom Coughlin said.
And Dominic Raiola–part of a Lions offensive line that worked incredibly hard to give Drew time against one of the better pass rushes in the NFL–voiced his support of Drew, too:
"Drew is mentally tough. You’re not going to tell him he can’t play and then he’ll go in the tank. The guys are behind him — he got better and he did a good job for us,” Lions center Dominic Raiola said. "Drew’s come a long way. He’s so improved. People who think he’s not an NFL quarterback … he looked like one out there to me. He did a great job of preparing and he gave us a chance."
. . . and Stephen Peterman, too:
"I thought he did great,” guard Stephen Peterman said. "He came in and stepped in and played a helluva game. He made checks and looks that you wouldn’t expect from a guy who hasn’t been in there. He did a great job."
In the wake of the Bills loss, I angrily blamed Jim Schwartz for starting a severely hampered Shaun Hill (who was too hurt to practice the whole playbook that week), instead of giving Drew a solid week of preparation with the starters. Surely, I said during the Fireside Chat, if you knew that that was all Shaun Hill could give you, you have to start Drew. If you can’t count on your third quarterback to play when your second-stringer is too hurt to take snaps under center, then what is he doing on the roster? Schwartz answered that very question this week:
"There’s a reason we’ve kept him around, and you only keep a guy around if you have confidence to put him in a game," Schwartz said. "His role has been third quarterback, and now it’s time for him to be able to answer that and be able to go."
Obviously, actions speak louder than words: if Shaun Hill, playing at about 52% of his usual ability, gets the nod over a healthy Drew Stanton, then in fact you don’t have confidence to put him in a game. Then again, actions speak louder than words—Schwartz and Mayhew have had plenty of opportunities to cut Drew loose and bring in someone else. The Lions have not been shy about churning the roster; there’ve been no sacred cows. Even beloved, respected, hometown boy, brought-in-by-this-regime Jon Jansen was sent packing when the Lions thought his roster spot would be better served on someone younger. In fact, they have brought in several other quarterbacks: Brooks Bollinger, Kevin O’Connell, Zac Robinson—and they just worked out Josh McCown and J.T. O’Sullivan earlier this week. If any of those guys offered a floor, or ceiling, higher than Stanton, Drew’d be gone.
I realize, at this point, that I sound like a fool. I realize, at this point, that everyone else long ago boarded the Drew Stanton Sucks So Bad it’s Funny train, even though the reality of his situation hasn’t changed: he’s still a 2007 second-round draft pick, and he’s still only getting his second real shot at playing quarterback for this team. He’s getting a full week of practice reps with the ones, a full week of preparing as the starter, a sellout home crowd, and a team eager to play for him—and get the victory over the Bears that was taken from them.
Go get ‘em, Drew.
Teams: Detroit Pistons at Miami Heat
Date: Dec. 1, 2010
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Television: Fox Sports Detroit
Pistons: 6-12
Heat: 10-8
Pistons:
Heat:
Spread: Pistons +11.5
Over/under: 191
Score: Heat win, 101.25-89.75
1. Chance to be overlooked
The Heat have lost 4-of-6. Players are pointing fingers at Erik Spoelstra. Imagine the chaos surrounding the Pistons this year, and magnify it by the gigantic media microscope following the Heat. Add LeBron’s homecoming in Cleveland tomorrow, and there’s a chance the Heat look past this game.
On the other hand, Miami has feasted on bad teams, and the Pistons are certainly one of those. The Heat are 1-6 against the Celtics, Magic, Hornets, Jazz and Mavericks. That makes them 9-2 against everyone else.
2. Pistons’ pick-and-roll defense
The Heat have relied on a pick-and-roll-based offense, maybe too much. But it might pay off tonight.
The Pistons are 21st in the league in defending the pick-and-roll when the ball handler keeps it and 26th when he doesn’t, according to Synergy.
The only other category of defense they ranked lower in is transition.
3. Pistons’ offensive rebounding
Without Jonas Jerebko, the Pistons’ offensive rebounding has dropped off considerably. Without Udonis Haslem, the Heat’s defensive rebounding has dropped off considerably. Something has to give.
Tonight is a great opportunity for Jason Maxiell to pound the offensive glass, create a couple putbacks and prove his worth.
Share:
