Fatbot
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,467
Since it's just a sum the numbers are dependent on the total number of turnovers received/lost. You can't be net minus-40 if you've only lost one turnover the entire season, the max would be minus-8... So it's not exactly "based simply on minimizing your mistakes and taking advantage of the opponents mistakes on the scoreboard"... That's implies too much skill in the numbers since turnovers are one of the luckiest events in sports.looking at a teams giveaway/takeaway ratio involves some luck as to how these turnovers occur, but not the result on the scoreboard
If you want to get to the opportunistic/prevention skill component, you would have to compare every team's turnover versus the expected points the average NFL team scores/gives up in that situation, then take an average total result for comparison. Your INT example, imagine it's on their own 20-yard line: look at all the times a team throws a pick, what's the usual result? Is it your defense's fault if it's a pick-6? Do they allow a TD pass/run? FG? Missed FG/turn it back over? It would probably be some number like 5.7 expected points, then you would look at that team's actual result and plot the difference from the expected for all that team's turnovers... Then you have to consider adding game clock situation, home/road, weather, etc. factors.. and how do we build the data of expected outcomes, go back 5, 10, 20 years to compare? etc... Then come up with some kind of final "skill" statistic that also reflects the number of chances -- after all maybe it's easy to stop someone from scoring after a turnover once, so you need to give more credit to a team that does it two, five, ten times... blah blah blah
So given that difficulty in isolating the skill component, I think the most accurate summation of this stat is best left as "the effect of turnovers on a team's scoring", leaving out the buzz words like "taking advantage" and "minimizing mistakes". That leaves the door open to all the possible reasons for a high/low score while still getting the point across. Maybe that team is really great/lousy at capitalizing on opponent mistakes/minimizing their own, or perhaps just getting really lucky/unlucky so far in all the other factors that go into turnovers -- who cares exactly how but here's the bottom line on the scoreboard.