Total defense (yards v points)

[jrry32]

I didn't say they would prefer it - I said if they use the term "top 5 defense" - total defense is what they would be referring to. It's the vernacular. You are, of course, free to abandon it - or suggest that it shouldn't be - but that is the language.

No, it's not the language. It's an assertion you made that you haven't provided any evidence of. Provide us some quotes of coaches and coordinators using top 5 or top 10 defense to mean top 5 or top 10 in yards per game.

The simple truth is that you agree that defensive points per game is a more important measure than yards per game. That ends any debate.

 

[Ellard80]

They usually go hand in hand... a team that allows less yards will tend to allow less points.

Defensive 3rd down % in my mind is another key stat.

I see both sides of the argument. I might lean towards points being more important but I certainly don't agree with the assertion that yards are meaningless and only points matter.
The field is easier to defend once it gets condensed inside the 20's. Being better at defending 1/4 of a field doesn't necessarily make you a better defense.

You bend over and over again eventually you are going to break.

 

[jrry32]

They usually go hand in hand... a team that allows less yards will tend to allow less points.

Defensive 3rd down % in my mind is another key stat.

I see both sides of the argument. I might lean towards points being more important but I certainly don't agree with the assertion that yards are meaningless and only points matter.
The field is easier to defend once it gets condensed inside the 20's. Being better at defending 1/4 of a field doesn't necessarily make you a better defense.

You bend over and over again eventually you are going to break.

Not necessarily. As Mojo pointed out, it depends on how good a red-zone defense you are. Yards are not 100% meaningless. But when they're pitted against points, they are. What I mean by this is that giving up a ton of yards is meaningless when it comes to the outcome of the game if you didn't give up (m)any points.

 

[RamBall]

Team A has to defend a 60 yards field and team B has to defend an 80 yard field. Still fair?

And lets take your suggestion at face value - that the Rams do trade yardage for negative plays. Did it work? We went 7-9 last year. Isn't W-L the ultimate stat? Because the #1 D in total defense is wearing Superbowl rings and not because of their offense.

You cant put the final record on the D alone. It was ineptitude of the O and the points allowed by the O that played a bigger part in the final record. By playing more aggressive on D and allowing more points would not have given the Rams a better record, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I would rather the D force the oponent to have to convert more plays without making a mistake. If the D is more aggressive and makes a mistake it ends in a quick 6 points, which doesnt help the O, it just puts more pressure on them.

 

[Ellard80]

Not necessarily. As Mojo pointed out, it depends on how good a red-zone defense you are. Yards are not 100% meaningless. But when they're pitted against points, they are. What I mean by this is that giving up a ton of yards is meaningless when it comes to the outcome of the game if you didn't give up (m)any points.

My point is that a team that gives up a lot of yards is sooner or later going to give up points. I don't have the energy to try and research it now. I bet if I looked up teams that gave up the most yards last season - a high percentage of them also gave up a lot of points.

 

[jrry32]

My point is that a team that gives up a lot of yards is sooner or later going to give up points. I don't have the energy to try and research it now. I bet if I looked up teams that gave up the most yards last season - a high percentage of them also gave up a lot of points.

Not necessarily. Rams gave up a lot of yards because the offense put the defense on the field so often. The defense still gave up a low amount of points.

 

[Ellard80]

Yeah I researched it a little bit...

9/10 top teams in yards per game gave up up 20 pt's or less per game

9/10 of the teams that gave up the most yards gave up 23-24 pts a game or higher.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

All you have to do is look at the trend of the stats... it's pretty obvious and glaring.

 

[Ellard80]

of the worse 15 teams in yardage ... only 1 gave less than 20 pts per game.

Of the top 15 there were 10 that gave up less than 20 pts per game...

Soooo.....

 

[Fatbot]

Of all defensive stats, defensive points allowed has the biggest correlation to wins. Pretty obvious, and on that criteria alone ranking by points allowed is far superior to ranking defenses by yards.

The only argument for yards comes when you factor in on the offense side, offensive points scored also has the biggest correlation to wins of any offense stat -- and has been argued to be slightly more valuable than defensive points; i.e., it's more important to score than prevent points.

So how do you score more points on offense? Obviously "being good", but it's also shown that starting field position has an effect. One study even suggested for every 3 yards of extra average starting field position you give to your offense, you add 2 wins.

Seems crazy, but that might suggest if a defense prevents yards, it could be a big factor in its offense scoring points by giving them better field position. However, a college study broke down the factors that create field position as:

* Punt Margin (22%) -- have a great punter (Rams get to check this one off having the best damn punter)
* Kick Margin (22%) -- have a great kickoff kicker (Rams are good here with GZ)
* Turnover Margin (21%) -- very random/luck based (Rams suck in anything lucky)
* Success Rate (37%) -- how efficient are the offense & defense at successful drives

So the last category is where an inefficient defense could factor into it. And note two things -- it's only a small percentage of what makes field position; and it's split with the offense. So perhaps instead of the defense worrying about conceding yards, it's more logical the offense should worry about sustained drives to help itself out...?

Applying these factors, the Rams already have good kicking/punting, if they could get a damn turnover once in a while and increase their lack of 3-and-outs and stop giving up so many yards, then the Rams could improve their average starting field position.

However, the Rams weren't awful on field position -- they ranked 13th! To boost their average starting field position that magical 3 yards to get those extra 2 wins, they would have to rank 1st or 2nd in the NFL -- which would put them equal to Carolina (#2 in field position).

But before we get too excited, Denver was a very bad 26th in field position. This suggests what we all probably know -- there is no one secret recipe. Bottom line at the end of the day both Carolina and Denver didn't give up points.

It's a tough one... Most "advanced" stat systems value every event in football by a yardage equivalent. For example, a turnover is worth about 40 yards. The theory being points don't just happen magically, they come from a sum probability of opportunity times successful plays times field position, etc.

But defense yards allowed seems to be just "a factor on other factors" that might lead to more wins, where we know for sure that preventing points directly leads to more wins.

 

[Ellard80]

The point is that giving up less yards... tends to result in giving up less points... I just posted some pretty glaringly obvious team stats that show what is just simple logic.

 

[TexasRam]

Points given up is king.

Next is defensive turnovers and points.

The rest is the chess game.. the setup to create the turnover or big stop.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Personally, I think yards allowed is a better way to rate defenses.

Great topic....
If the offenses strategy is points..and we all know that converting on 3rd downs often leads to points....why wouldn't a defense want to stop teams on 3rd down, which should lead to less yards, and less points...

Total yards allowed is the true defensive stat in determining a dominant defense...Bend but don't break will lead to a defense on the field too much...

 

[thirteen28]

Sign me up for the "points allowed" side being the most important measure of a defense.

The argument for the "yards allowed" side is one of correlation, i.e. the more yards allowed, the more points allowed. But that's an indirect measurement, points allowed is absolutely direct, and accounts for times when yards allowed doesn't correlate as strongly with points allowed. Last year's Rams defense was such an instance, and the yards allowed by them is in no small part a consequence of an exceptionally bad offense.

 

[12intheBox]

Not in the tallies I use. I purposefully use rankings that factor them out.

Where do you find those, btw?

 

[Ellard80]

Sign me up for the "points allowed" side being the most important measure of a defense.

The argument for the "yards allowed" side is one of correlation, i.e. the more yards allowed, the more points allowed. But that's an indirect measurement, points allowed is absolutely direct, and accounts for times when yards allowed doesn't correlate as strongly with points allowed. Last year's Rams defense was such an instance, and the yards allowed by them is in no small part a consequence of an exceptionally bad offense.

yards allowed commonly correlate with points allowed.... it's so bizarre how some people just are refusing to see this lol

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

 

[thirteen28]

yards allowed commonly correlate with points allowed.... it's so bizarre how some people just are refusing to see this lol

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

Points allowed directly correlates with points allowed.

 

[Ellard80]

Points allowed directly correlates with points allowed.

/nod

 

[12intheBox]

Points allowed directly correlates with points allowed.

Unless it includes pick 6s, special teams returns, safeties allowed, etc.

And again, when the offense turns the ball over in their own zone, points are likely even if the D does their job perfectly.

In the end - I think we would all like for teams to put up as few points on the Rams as possible - and if I got to pick one for the Rams to lead the league in - I'd choose scoring defense all day every day as it's more likely to lead to wins than total defense is. It's just that scoring defense involves more factors than just the defense by itself - so for the sake of comparing defenses to one another - total defense is the more fair measure.

 

[thirteen28]

Unless it includes pick 6s, special teams returns, safeties allowed, etc.

And again, when the offense turns the ball over in their own zone, points are likely even if the D does their job perfectly.

In the end - I think we would all like for teams to put up as few points on the Rams as possible - and if I got to pick one for the Rams to lead the league in - I'd choose scoring defense all day every day as it's more likely to lead to wins than total defense is. It's just that scoring defense involves more factors than just the defense by itself - so for the sake of comparing defenses to one another - total defense is the more fair measure.

Generally, scoring defense and overall defense will show some sort of correlation, but it's not perfect, and the defensive philosophy comes into play. But the genesis of this argument on the GDT last night comes from the fact that there was a significant discrepancy between last year's Rams D in terms of points scored vs. yardage (and thus overall D). And that's where I give the nod to scoring as being a better measure of our D's effectiveness last year, because they held points somewhat in check despite a philosophy that will give up yards in bunches sometimes, as well as a putrid offense that left them on the field an excessive amount of time.

 

[jrry32]

Where do you find those, btw?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-offensive-points-per-game