Freakonomics: Does Defense Win Championships?

[-X-]

 

[Ram Quixote]

If Defense won championships, those '70 Rams would have been to more than one Super Bowl. In addition, SB13, with PIT and DAL having top defenses, and the final score was 35-31.

I think the biggest difference between Offense and Defense is that Offenses are typically more complex and, as they say, the more bells and whistles, the more likely that some component will breakdown. Just look at GB vs NY and how Rodgers didn't play well. Or the Giants manhandling Brady and his Oline all day in SB42.

Another reason you hear that is when a Defensive strategy can pinpoint the top 1 or 2 components and take them out as a major option. But that's not specifically defense, but tactics, such as the Cheaters holding Faulk all game and getting away with it.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes defense has and can still win championships. Especially a defense that can score points.

 

[Memento]

I don't think that I've ever seen a team win a Super Bowl without having some semblance of a good defense. Even high-powered offenses such as New Orleans, Green Bay, and the 1999 Rams had opportunistic defenses to complement them.

 

[-X-]

I had this discussion with zn a year or so ago when I ran the numbers. I think, if I'm not mistaken, there was only one team in the past 25 years that won a SB *without* a top 10 defense during the regular season. Pretty sure it was the Giants too. I'm too lazy to look it all up again (right now), but I probably will at some point.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I had this discussion with zn a year or so ago when I ran the numbers. I think, if I'm not mistaken, there was only one team in the past 25 years that won a SB *without* a top 10 defense during the regular season. Pretty sure it was the Giants too. I'm too lazy to look it all up again (right now), but I probably will at some point.

Just in recent years, the Saints (25th) in 09, the Colts (21st) in 06 and either the Giants (27th) or the Patriots (31st) this year. That's starting to look like a trend. The Patriots of 01 were 24th. :what:

But looking at this past season, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the offense we saw wasn't an aberration brought on by the lockout. A lot of defenses weren't ready to start the season and offenses really bulked up the stats in the early going. Only 4 teams allowed under 300 points for the season, and the 5th ranked Jets allowed 363 points. That's more than the Patriots (342) at 31.

But maybe it isn't the lockout. Last year there were just 5 teams that allowed less than 300 points. So I took a look at the numbers back to the 99 season. From 1999 thru 2009, and the average was 8. In 2002, there were just 3 (though 3 other teams were below 305), the next lowest was 6 in 2006, the highest 12 in 2001. Both 09 & 08 had 7.

These numbers may seem cherry picked, but I just found them as I was writing this post. IMO, the rules they began enforcing last year about helmet contact has and will continue to affect defenses. But also, no teams really had much of a chance last offseason to reprogram the players toward compliance of the new rules. I'm guessing we'll see some defenses rebound next season.

 

[-X-]

Yep. I misremembered. There was only one team that wasn't top ten in either offense OR defense. The 2007 Giants.

 

[Ram Quixote]

Yep. I misremembered. There was only one team that wasn't top ten in either offense OR defense. The 2007 Giants.

Actually, the Giants were 7th in Defense that year. The Patriots in 2001 were 19th on Offense, and 24th on Defense. Again, :what:

 

[libertadrocks]

I love Freakonomics. Great stuff. Two of my favorite books ever. Theyre a couple of incredibly intelligent guys that will reshape the way you think about things. Highly recommend those books.

As to the basis of the video, I disagree with the metrics used to measure defense. I dont think yards per play is the best way to measure a defense. A good defense, thats paired with a good offense, will give up some big plays and distort that stat because team will be trying to come back.

That said Im not sure what the appropriate stat would be to measure a defenses worth. Id think it would need to be a culmination of different stats.

I think defense does win championships..... When paired with a sufficient offense. A great defense usually is not enough to win it alone. IMO

 

[Memento]

I had this discussion with zn a year or so ago when I ran the numbers. I think, if I'm not mistaken, there was only one team in the past 25 years that won a SB *without* a top 10 defense during the regular season. Pretty sure it was the Giants too. I'm too lazy to look it all up again (right now), but I probably will at some point.

Just in recent years, the Saints (25th) in 09, the Colts (21st) in 06 and either the Giants (27th) or the Patriots (31st) this year. That's starting to look like a trend. The Patriots of 01 were 24th. :what:

I agree with some of what you're saying. Still, all of those teams (plus the Packers) had defenses that capitalized on turnovers and sacks. Opportunistic defenses, if you will. Players like Freeney, Umenyiora, Tuck, McGinest, and Matthews III were among the league leaders in sacks during the years their respective teams won, while players like Bob Sanders, Sharper, Collins, and Woodson helped with turnovers.

The Saints never had an overwhelming defense, but they created opportunities for interceptions and forced fumbles (credit Sharper; he had a career year), and their offense had more chances to score because of those turnovers. The Giants applied a ton of pressure with their defensive line, much like they've done this year. The Colts had a dominant safety (at the time) in Sanders and a dominant end in Freeney, as well as a solid group of cornerbacks. The Packers had a set of cornerbacks (plus another dominant safety in Collins) who were amazing in coverage, as well as Matthews III being practically unblockable that year. I can't say much about the 2001 Patriots, but I know that McGinest was still regarded as one of the best pass-rushers in the game at that time, and Rodney Harrison - as dirty of a player as he was - was still a very intimidating safety, especially when he blitzed the quarterback.

I don't think that the Patriots have much of a chance this year; their defense is full of letdowns; Devin McCourty, Patrick Chung, and Jerod Mayo were supposed to play so much better than they have. They don't have a pass-rusher or a ballhawk on their current defensive squad (if McCourty hadn't played so horribly this year, I'd nix my statement on the ballhawk, but since he has...)

The Giants, on the other hand, not only had Tuck, Umenyiora, and a healthy Kiwanuka, but they also have an elite defensive end in Pierre-Paul. Aside from that, they have a lot of depth at defensive tackle. They have all of the qualities of past Super Bowl winners. The Patriots don't.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I had this discussion with zn a year or so ago when I ran the numbers. I think, if I'm not mistaken, there was only one team in the past 25 years that won a SB *without* a top 10 defense during the regular season. Pretty sure it was the Giants too. I'm too lazy to look it all up again (right now), but I probably will at some point.

Just in recent years, the Saints (25th) in 09, the Colts (21st) in 06 and either the Giants (27th) or the Patriots (31st) this year. That's starting to look like a trend. The Patriots of 01 were 24th. :what:

I agree with some of what you're saying. Still, all of those teams (plus the Packers) had defenses that capitalized on turnovers and sacks. Opportunistic defenses, if you will. Players like Freeney, Umenyiora, Tuck, McGinest, and Matthews III were among the league leaders in sacks during the years their respective teams won, while players like Bob Sanders, Sharper, Collins, and Woodson helped with turnovers.

The Saints never had an overwhelming defense, but they created opportunities for interceptions and forced fumbles (credit Sharper; he had a career year), and their offense had more chances to score because of those turnovers. The Giants applied a ton of pressure with their defensive line, much like they've done this year. The Colts had a dominant safety (at the time) in Sanders and a dominant end in Freeney, as well as a solid group of cornerbacks. The Packers had a set of cornerbacks (plus another dominant safety in Collins) who were amazing in coverage, as well as Matthews III being practically unblockable that year. I can't say much about the 2001 Patriots, but I know that McGinest was still regarded as one of the best pass-rushers in the game at that time, and Rodney Harrison - as dirty of a player as he was - was still a very intimidating safety, especially when he blitzed the quarterback.

I don't think that the Patriots have much of a chance this year; their defense is full of letdowns; Devin McCourty, Patrick Chung, and Jerod Mayo were supposed to play so much better than they have. They don't have a pass-rusher or a ballhawk on their current defensive squad (if McCourty hadn't played so horribly this year, I'd nix my statement on the ballhawk, but since he has...)

The Giants, on the other hand, not only had Tuck, Umenyiora, and a healthy Kiwanuka, but they also have an elite defensive end in Pierre-Paul. Aside from that, they have a lot of depth at defensive tackle. They have all of the qualities of past Super Bowl winners. The Patriots don't.

The Colts benefited from Sanders getting well at the right time. They were horrid on D all season, missing Sanders. In the playoffs they turned everything around.

Harrison didn't sign with the Patriots until after 2002. We all know how those Patriots won. The fact that their O was 19th and the D 24th seems to confirm my beliefs.

This year's Pats are using their offense to hide their defense. The best defense is a good offense strategy.

 

[-X-]

Yep. I misremembered. There was only one team that wasn't top ten in either offense OR defense. The 2007 Giants.

Actually, the Giants were 7th in Defense that year. The Patriots in 2001 were 19th on Offense, and 24th on Defense. Again, :what:

Okay. Here's where the disconnect is. It's not that I'm a moron, but instead, that I'm going by points allowed and points scored. I'm not sure what stat you're using. Is it yards? Because going by points, the 01 Pats were 6th and 6th respectively. It's all coming back to me now, actually. This is another aspect of that conversation that zn and I differed on, because he was going by yards (I believe), and I was going by points. Yards can be racked up all day long, but it's scoring that I believed to be the more important stat.

See, here are the Patriots' stats from 2001 --

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... e/2001.htm

.

.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep. I misremembered. There was only one team that wasn't top ten in either offense OR defense. The 2007 Giants.

Actually, the Giants were 7th in Defense that year. The Patriots in 2001 were 19th on Offense, and 24th on Defense. Again, :what:

Okay. Here's where the disconnect is. It's not that I'm a moron, but instead, that I'm going by points allowed and points scored. I'm not sure what stat you're using. Is it yards? Because going by points, the 01 Pats were 6th and 6th respectively. It's all coming back to me now, actually. This is another aspect of that conversation that zn and I differed on, because he was going by yards (I believe), and I was going by points. Yards can be racked up all day long, but it's scoring that I believed to be the more important stat.

See, here are the Patriots' stats from 2001 --

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... e/2001.htm

.

.

Points scored for offense.....for defense.....for STs? I'd bet that '01 NE team scored some points that really mattered on defense.

 

[-X-]

Points scored for offense.....for defense.....for STs? I'd bet that '01 NE team scored some points that really mattered on defense.

I haven't looked that up. I would think, over the course of a year, that points scored on defense would be negligible when factored into the overall offensive scoring stat. I don't even know if PFF factors it in at all, to be honest. It could just be offensive points scored for all I know. At any rate, I still maintain that points mean a bit more than yards. Take the 2011 Rams, for instance. They moved the ball rather well at times - sometimes up and down the field all day. But how many points did they score on offense? They had a couple of safeties and a Darian Stewart return for a TD, but that's it on defense as far as points scored goes. Same thing applies with the 2011 Rams' defense. They gave up big chunks of yards, but once a team got to the redzone, they tightened up pretty good.

Back to your original point though. The Packers scored 5 defensive TD's this year, and 2 on special teams for 7 that weren't the result of the offense. The offense, on the other hand, scored 63 TD's (51 pass, 12 rush) for 70 total TD's, which made them 1st in the NFL in scoring.

I mean, both stats have merit (yards and points), and that's why some stat reporting services use one and not the other. And then more still have both of those categories available. It's really up to the individual to determine how they want to interpret it.

 

[Ram Quixote]

Yep. I misremembered. There was only one team that wasn't top ten in either offense OR defense. The 2007 Giants.

Actually, the Giants were 7th in Defense that year. The Patriots in 2001 were 19th on Offense, and 24th on Defense. Again, :what:

Okay. Here's where the disconnect is. It's not that I'm a moron, but instead, that I'm going by points allowed and points scored. I'm not sure what stat you're using. Is it yards? Because going by points, the 01 Pats were 6th and 6th respectively. It's all coming back to me now, actually. This is another aspect of that conversation that zn and I differed on, because he was going by yards (I believe), and I was going by points. Yards can be racked up all day long, but it's scoring that I believed to be the more important stat.

See, here are the Patriots' stats from 2001 --

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... e/2001.htm

.

.

Gotcha. I was going by yards, which is still the benchmark. When they refer to defensive rankings, calling a team #1, that's about yards. But I understand your point.

My point is simply that the 2001 Patriots are the only SB winner in the last 13 years that was not anywhere near the top in yards for offense or defense.

The 2007 Giants' defensive point rankings were undone by huge breakdowns in the first 2 games (80 points). Even though they improved as the season went along, it's hard to overcome that.

 

[Anonymous]

Points scored for offense.....for defense.....for STs? I'd bet that '01 NE team scored some points that really mattered on defense.

I haven't looked that up. I would think, over the course of a year, that points scored on defense would be negligible when factored into the overall offensive scoring stat. I don't even know if PFF factors it in at all, to be honest. It could just be offensive points scored for all I know. At any rate, I still maintain that points mean a bit more than yards. Take the 2011 Rams, for instance. They moved the ball rather well at times - sometimes up and down the field all day. But how many points did they score on offense? They had a couple of safeties and a Darian Stewart return for a TD, but that's it on defense as far as points scored goes. Same thing applies with the 2011 Rams' defense. They gave up big chunks of yards, but once a team got to the redzone, they tightened up pretty good.

Back to your original point though. The Packers scored 5 defensive TD's this year, and 2 on special teams for 7 that weren't the result of the offense. The offense, on the other hand, scored 63 TD's (51 pass, 12 rush) for 70 total TD's, which made them 1st in the NFL in scoring.

I mean, both stats have merit (yards and points), and that's why some stat reporting services use one and not the other. And then more still have both of those categories available. It's really up to the individual to determine how they want to interpret it.

I agree points scored is most important. We sure have witnessed our share of moving the ball well between the 20s for years and then sucking air in the RZ so yards means little IMO. Although with scoring I think all points are not equal in that game winning points are most important, That stat is kept in baseball and it is quite meaningful over the course of a season. I see no reason for it to differ in the NFL. If a defense scores meaningful points.....points that were necessary to win the game or the points that won the game.....that has to come out of the offense ranking as it has nothing to do with yards. Same goes for STs. I remember this being the case in the Rams '03 season in which the defense seemed very opportunistic and directly lead to winning games in a 12 win season.

 

[-X-]

Points scored for offense.....for defense.....for STs? I'd bet that '01 NE team scored some points that really mattered on defense.

I haven't looked that up. I would think, over the course of a year, that points scored on defense would be negligible when factored into the overall offensive scoring stat. I don't even know if PFF factors it in at all, to be honest. It could just be offensive points scored for all I know. At any rate, I still maintain that points mean a bit more than yards. Take the 2011 Rams, for instance. They moved the ball rather well at times - sometimes up and down the field all day. But how many points did they score on offense? They had a couple of safeties and a Darian Stewart return for a TD, but that's it on defense as far as points scored goes. Same thing applies with the 2011 Rams' defense. They gave up big chunks of yards, but once a team got to the redzone, they tightened up pretty good.

Back to your original point though. The Packers scored 5 defensive TD's this year, and 2 on special teams for 7 that weren't the result of the offense. The offense, on the other hand, scored 63 TD's (51 pass, 12 rush) for 70 total TD's, which made them 1st in the NFL in scoring.

I mean, both stats have merit (yards and points), and that's why some stat reporting services use one and not the other. And then more still have both of those categories available. It's really up to the individual to determine how they want to interpret it.

I agree points scored is most important. We sure have witnessed our share of moving the ball well between the 20s for years and then sucking air in the RZ so yards means little IMO. Although with scoring I think all points are not equal in that game winning points are most important, That stat is kept in baseball and it is quite meaningful over the course of a season. I see no reason for it to differ in the NFL. If a defense scores meaningful points.....points that were necessary to win the game or the points that won the game.....that has to come out of the offense ranking as it has nothing to do with yards. Same goes for STs. I remember this being the case in the Rams '03 season in which the defense seemed very opportunistic and directly lead to winning games in a 12 win season.

I think we're on the same page here.

 

[Faceplant]

Points scored for offense.....for defense.....for STs? I'd bet that '01 NE team scored some points that really mattered on defense.

Yeah, I seem to remember a pretty important defensive score in that damn superbowl..... :slap!:

 

[Anonymous]

I think we're on the same page here.

Indeed, 2 of 2.

 

[Anonymous]

Points scored for offense.....for defense.....for STs? I'd bet that '01 NE team scored some points that really mattered on defense.

Yeah, I seem to remember a pretty important defensive score in that damn superbowl..... :slap!: