Turnovers

[Mojo Ram]

Coaches preach it. We as fans watch the games and understand the importance of it. They can win or lose a game in a single moment. They also determine how careless or opportunistic a team is.

Turnover ratio = Simple formula of +1 takeaways (INT's, Fumble recoveries) vs -1 Giveaways (INT's, lost fumbles). Add it up.

Rams are at 0 in turnover ratio after two games. 2 takeaways, 2 giveaways. Middle of the pack ranking.
Arizona is first with a +7
Tampa Bay is last with a -6



Net Team Turnover Points statistic measures the points a team generates off of takeaways including interceptions and fumbles less the points its opponents have generated off of interceptions thrown and fumbles lost.


Rams are -14 in Net turnover points after two games. Ranked 30th
Arizona is first with +30
Tampa Bay is last with -23


It's too early to decipher much from the turnover stats. I'll post more once we get a decent sample in a couple weeks.

Final 2015 rankings were as follows......

Turnover ratio:
1. CAR +20
2. KC +14
3. CIN +11
4. AZ +9
5. NE +7

11. Rams +5

28. CLE -9
29. JAC -10
30. TEN -14
31. BAL -14
32. DAL -22

Net Team Turnover Points:
1. CAR +116
2. KC +76
3. AZ +72
4 SEA +58
5. NYG +43

7. Rams +34

28. JAC -43
29. DET -43
30. WAS -54
31. BAL -55
32. DAL -56


*Rams finished -23 in 2014(27th)

 

[Fatbot]

They also determine how careless or opportunistic a team is.

This is true to some extent, but as usual I need to throw in my little reminder that a lot of turnovers are simply dumb luck no matter how careless or opportunistic a team is trying to be... Some studies conclude a team's turnovers are influenced over 50% by luck, so "skill" or intention is the lesser input. The last year's numbers are a good sign on one hand showing the Rams pay attention to taking care of the football, but on the other hand it suggests that the numbers would most likely regress to the mean, not improve this year.

 

[Mojo Ram]

This is true to some extent, but as usual I need to throw in my little reminder that a lot of turnovers are simply dumb luck no matter how careless or opportunistic a team is trying to be... Some studies conclude a team's turnovers are influenced over 50% by luck, so "skill" or intention is the lesser input. The last year's numbers are a good sign on one hand showing the Rams pay attention to taking care of the football, but on the other hand it suggests that the numbers would most likely regress to the mean, not improve this year.

I might agree with you if NFL coaches didn't put such a huge emphasis on it.
I also disagree that luck plays any more a significant role in this statistic than it does in say...errors in baseball, turnovers in basketball. The ball bounces in a funny way. We know this.
Was Nick Foles 50% lucky to throw 27 TD's and 2 INT's a few years ago and 50% unlucky last year in St Louis?

Some teams put more emphasis on it than others and some teams are consistently better at it. Some teams couldn't care less about being careful with the football, yet are more opportunistic when the other team makes a mistake. Some teams have a strong defense that offers up opportunities that the offense just can't or won't capitalize on. The Rams were terrible at QB in 2014, and the defense was constantly being put behind the eight ball. Seattle has consistently been one of the most penalized teams in the league the last few years. How have they been able to overcome that? According to these numbers they are extremely disruptive and opportunistic. Consistently.
I could go on and on. I find it fascinating.

I'm not sure why you continue to downplay it to be honest. It's your right to disregard them of course. I suppose that if one wanted to look at the pure numbers(any numbers anywhere) and forget about how the game of football is actually being coached and played on the field correlates to those numbers...one might find these statistics mostly useless. I don't.

 

[Mikey Ram]

All I know is that I would rather have my team cause a turnover than turn it over...All the other shit is aftermath...

 

[dieterbrock]

Turnover points is a bit misleading IMO. Take yesterday and the turnover that iced the game. We didn't score but it may have prevented 6
Turnover ratio is a good one. Typically if you are in the top you're having a good year

 

[LesBaker]

This is true to some extent, but as usual I need to throw in my little reminder that a lot of turnovers are simply dumb luck no matter how careless or opportunistic a team is trying to be... Some studies conclude a team's turnovers are influenced over 50% by luck, so "skill" or intention is the lesser input. The last year's numbers are a good sign on one hand showing the Rams pay attention to taking care of the football, but on the other hand it suggests that the numbers would most likely regress to the mean, not improve this year.

Most fumbles are not dumb luck, they are the result of a defensive player attacking the ball. INT's are probably 65ISH% luck and 35ISH% defender knowing what is going to happen, or the QB gets hurried into a bad throw, or a tipped pass at the LOS. That 35% is not luck, it's effort and good play by the defense.

@Mojo Ram it's a fascinating as booties. HAHAHA kidding! But it's fun to stare at the numbers and think about them and what they mean. And the same with the booties.

 

[Fatbot]

Most fumbles are not dumb luck, they are the result of a defensive player attacking the ball. INT's are probably 65ISH% luck and 35ISH% defender knowing what is going to happen, or the QB gets hurried into a bad throw, or a tipped pass at the LOS. That 35% is not luck, it's effort and good play by the defense

Believe it or not, it's actually the opposite -- INTs are less lucky than fumbles. The reason is fumbles have to be recovered. So there is a definite skill to forcing a fumble that can be repeated year to year by individual players, but whether you recover 10% or 90% is completely random from year to year, and the overall result is that luck is more important than skill in the final tally. As a team all you can do is try to force as many as possible and hope you get lucky.

 

[Fatbot]

I'm not sure why you continue to downplay it

Sorry no intent to downplay the importance of winning the turnover battle. I really like you posting the numbers as it describes how teams are winning. I just caution that the turnover numbers are not simply the result of a team being "careless" or "opportunistic", there's another factor to consider (luck).

 

[LACHAMP46]

Dumb luck....I like when @LesBaker gets fired up....

Dumb ass luck...unless you let Ogletree hit you moving at a high rate of speed....

they can't be produced with any type of frequency...game to game, or even year to year....

@Mojo Ram

so this means a blowout vs :shooting:Tampa, huh????

 

[Mojo Ram]

Sorry no intent to downplay the importance of winning the turnover battle. I really like your numbers as describing how teams are winning. I just caution that the turnover numbers are not simply the result of a team being "careless" or "opportunistic", there's another factor to consider (luck).

Of course luck plays a role....if one believes in luck

 

[Mojo Ram]

so this means a blowout vs :shooting:Tampa, huh????

I would say it's too early to determine teams' tendencies concerning turnovers(which was stated and apparently ignored in the OP) Lol.

I will say this. I've watched both Tampa games in their entirety vs Atlanta and Arizona, and Winston will sling it. Also, a Dirk Koetter offense doesn't put too much emphasis on winning the turnover battle dating back to his days as HC at Arizona State and OC in Atlanta. There should be some opportunities there next week IMO.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Coaches preach it. We as fans watch the games and understand the importance of it. They can win or lose a game in a single moment. They also determine how careless or opportunistic a team is.

Turnover ratio = Simple formula of +1 takeaways (INT's, Fumble recoveries) vs -1 Giveaways (INT's, lost fumbles). Add it up.

Rams are at 0 in turnover ratio after two games. 2 takeaways, 2 giveaways. Middle of the pack ranking.
Arizona is first with a +7
Tampa Bay is last with a -6



Net Team Turnover Points statistic measures the points a team generates off of takeaways including interceptions and fumbles less the points its opponents have generated off of interceptions thrown and fumbles lost.


Rams are -14 in Net turnover points after two games. Ranked 30th
Arizona is first with +30
Tampa Bay is last with -23


It's too early to decipher much from the turnover stats. I'll post more once we get a decent sample in a couple weeks.

Final 2015 rankings were as follows......

Turnover ratio:
1. CAR +20
2. KC +14
3. CIN +11
4. AZ +9
5. NE +7

11. Rams +5

28. CLE -9
29. JAC -10
30. TEN -14
31. BAL -14
32. DAL -22

Net Team Turnover Points:
1. CAR +116
2. KC +76
3. AZ +72
4 SEA +58
5. NYG +43

7. Rams +34

28. JAC -43
29. DET -43
30. WAS -54
31. BAL -55
32. DAL -56


*Rams finished -23 in 2014(27th)

I can't help but think, when you compare TB and the Rams it looks good for the Rams in our up-coming match against TB! And TB is favored by 5 points!!

 

[RamBall]

Of course luck plays a role....if one believes in luck

Luck played a major role in all the TOs the Rams had against the Colts a few years ago.

 

[JIMERAMS]

What was our plus minus when we won the Super Bowl?

 

[Mojo Ram]

What was our plus minus when we won the Super Bowl?

Best i can tell from limited archived statistics is 31 giveaways and 36 takeaways.
+5

Sounds about right with a Mike Martz offense featuring Az Hakim.

 

[JIMERAMS]

Best i can tell from limited archived statistics is 31 giveaways and 36 takeaways.
+5

Sounds about right with a Mike Martz offense featuring Az Hakim.

Ya I think that is about right. I still have nightmares about that punt :banghead:

 

[tempests]

Best i can tell from limited archived statistics is 31 giveaways and 36 takeaways.
+5

Sounds about right with a Mike Martz offense featuring Az Hakim.

Honestly, Torry Holt was pretty bad with his ball security too....then Bruce started in with the fumbling.

It's why I never did get upset when they hit the deck after a catch. Both cerebral receivers, ball security was part of their thinking in doing that and Peyton Manning used that reasoning when he occasionally turtled in the pocket before the defender got to him.

 

[LesBaker]

Believe it or not, it's actually the opposite -- INTs are less lucky than fumbles. The reason is fumbles have to be recovered. So there is a definite skill to forcing a fumble that can be repeated year to year by individual players, but whether you recover 10% or 90% is completely random from year to year, and the overall result is that luck is more important than skill in the final tally. As a team all you can do is try to force as many as possible and hope you get lucky.

I can see that point on the fumbles but a team attacking the ball is going to cause more and end up with more in their hands right?

 

[Fatbot]

I can see that point on the fumbles but a team attacking the ball is going to cause more and end up with more in their hands right?

Your logic is sound -- of course the team that forces more fumbles on average over time should get more fumbles -- but the answer is no. It's the problem with having only a 16 game sample size, the luck just doesn't have enough time to "even out" and there will always be strange outliers in turnover statistics due to the huge impact of luck.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Thru week 3...
.
Team Net Turnover Points
1. San Francisco +26
2. Philadelphia +23
3. Atlanta +21
4. Denver +19
5. Arizona +18
6. San Diego +17
7. Kansas City +17
8. Buffalo +16
9. Minnesota +16
10. Green Bay +10

25. Rams -13 (14 takeaway points, 27 giveaway points)

28. New Orleans -17
29. Tennessee -19
30. Indianapolis -22
31. Tampa Bay -24
32. NYJ -28

Team Takeaway/Giveaway
1. Minnesota +8
2. Philadelphia +6
3. Buffalo +5
4. Kansas City +5
5. New England +4
6. Oakland +4
7. San Francisco +3
8. Arizona +3
9. Dallas +2
10. San Diego +2
11. Atlanta +2

17. Rams 0 (4 takeaways and 4 giveaways)

28. Seattle -4
29. Tennessee -5
30. NYG -6
31. Tampa Bay -6
32. NYJ -7