Turnover Margin

[Dolfanalyst]

There is a positive correlation between turnover differential and winning percentage. We can conclude that 44% of the variation in a team’s winning percentage can be explained by their turnover differential.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-statistics-game/a-statistical-look-at-how-turnovers-impacted-the-nfl-season

The Dolphins have enjoyed an 8-1 turnover margin during their recent four-game win streak.

Extrapolated to a 16-game season, that's a turnover margin of 32-4, or +28.

Here are the teams leading the league, and their turnover margins, over the last five regular seasons:

2015 Carolina Panthers:  +20
2014 Green Bay Packers:  +14
2013 Seattle Seahawks:  +20
2012 New England Patriots:  +25
2011 San Francisco 49ers:  +28

Of course the average team in the league during those five years likely had a turnover margin around zero, and the worst teams in the league with regard to turnover margin were as bad as -24 (the 2012 Philadelphia Eagles, for example).

Here are some other facts about turnovers, taken from the same page linked above:

With regard to fumble recoveries:

This clearly shows that there is no skill in causing and recovering fumbles in the NFL. The number of fumbles a defense recovers in the 1st half of the season explains 1.6% of the variation in the number of fumbles they recover in the 2nd half of the season. It’s completely random. But even though teams have no control over their fumble recoveries, we saw previously that it plays a huge part in their record.

With regard to defensive interceptions:

Just like fumbles, defensive interceptions are completely random! Look at Tampa Bay at the top of the plot. After the 1st half of the season they had only 6 interceptions and were 0-8. Would anybody have predicted that in the 2nd half of the season they would more than double their interceptions and have as many as the Seattle Seahawks (considered one of the best defenses in the NFL)? Of course not!

Oh, and after going 0-8 to start the season, Tampa Bay finished 4-4. Their increase in interceptions was a major factor, as 11 of their 15 interceptions in the 2nd half of the season came in their 4 wins. It’s easy to look back in hindsight and say those interceptions explain why they won. But this plot shows that defensive interceptions are so random that it is impossible to predict in which games they will occur.

With regard to interceptions thrown:

There is a weak [emphasis mine] positive correlation between interceptions in the 1st and 2nd half of the season. So of all the turnovers that we looked at, this is the only one that isn’t completely random. The small R-squared value shows that interceptions can still be erratic, but there is at least some skill in not throwing interceptions.

So with this information in tow, one could argue that the Dolphins' recent four-game win streak has been accomplished largely with "smoke and mirrors" if you will, in that it has relied largely upon their being the beneficiaries of good luck in an area that's strongly related to winning.

When one benefits from events that are largely random in nature, one is purely lucky.

So, the folks here are certainly smart enough to know what all this can potentially mean for the Dolphins' future.

[Dolfanalyst]

More somewhat "bad news" if you will.

Teams with a +2 turnover margin (roughly the Dolphins average margin during the win streak) are 29-5 this year, an 85 win percentage, so the Dolphins have done only what's expected here.

Those teams have averaged just below 27 points in those games (standard deviation 7.3).  The Dolphins have averaged 29 during the win streak.  Again, what's expected, given the turnover margin.

Those teams have surrendered an average of 17 points in those games (standard deviation 7).  The Dolphins have surrendered an average of just below 22.  Again, what's expected.

Those teams have had an average point differential of 9.3 (standard deviation 9.1).  The Dolphins' point differential during the win streak has averaged 7.3.  Again, what's expected.

You have a team riding largely on luck here, folks.  Don't be surprised if this all comes to an end here soon.

[Dolfanalyst]

Some more quick math here, after watching Jared Goff start the game reasonably well.

The correlation between the Dolphins' turnover margin and their point differential in 2016 is 0.72.

Nearly 52% of the variance in the Dolphins' point differential (positive or negative) is associated with their turnover margin.

They're going to have to get Goff to make some mistakes here today IMO.

[Dolfanalyst]

The Dolphins did today what teams do when they win by virtue of something other than luck.

They had a QB whose skill won the game.

[fyo]

One more drop from the receivers and you'd be complaining how bad Tannehill is (yes, I was thrilled Tannehill started looking away from Stills).

[Dolfanalyst]

One more drop from the receivers and you'd be complaining how bad Tannehill is (yes, I was thrilled Tannehill started looking away from Stills).

Please stay on topic if you would.  This thread isn't about the behavior of a nobody who calls himself "Dolfanalyst" on a message board.

If you'd like to discuss my behavior, I'd be happy to do it behind in the scenes in a private message.

[fyo]

I thnk

Please stay on topic if you would.  This thread isn't about the behavior of a nobody who calls himself "Dolfanalyst" on a message board.

If you'd like to discuss my behavior, I'd be happy to do it behind in the scenes in a private message.

This was on topic in as much as it was a comment on your comment, namely that:

The Dolphins did today what teams do when they win by virtue of something other than luck.

They had a QB whose skill won the game

Tannehill did what he always does, except this time Parker caught the ball. Most days he won't and you (and others) will complain about Tannehill, because you are too fixated on numbers without looking at how they actually came to be.

Winning is one helluva deodorant, as the saying goes.

Don't get me wrong. Ultimate, I don't care how we win, as long as we win. If we could luck ourselves to the playoffs, I'd be thrilled. But I wouldn't be calling it skill.

[Dolfanalyst]

I thnk
This was on topic in as much as it was a comment on your comment, namely that:

Tannehill did what he always does, except this time Parker caught the ball. Most days he won't and you (and others) will complain about Tannehill, because you are too fixated on numbers without looking at how they actually came to be.

Winning is one helluva deodorant, as the saying goes.

Don't get me wrong. Ultimate, I don't care how we win, as long as we win. If we could luck ourselves to the playoffs, I'd be thrilled. But I wouldn't be calling it skill.

The point in the post you quoted was simply that the win yesterday couldn't be attributed to turnover margin (i.e., luck, the topic of the thread), and was instead attributable primarily to the play of the QB in the clutch.  It wasn't all that complex.

I for one was glad that a win was generated by something other than luck.  I'd certainly rather be able to rely on skill than luck.

If you follow the game thread, you'll see that I watch the game intently and interweave my observations with an appreciation of the most important numbers associated with the game of professional football.  I've done the same thing for the past 35 years.