Thnx for the gratuitous Klein pics. You must have a blonde fetish. Oh, wait, I see you also wrote something :)

Not really but you know what that would be like :)

Brian Billick makes the point that teams chart big plays like turnovers.

I don’t recall the number, but I think that if a team has a +2 or +3 edge in big plays in a game, it usually won the game.

OCC’s chart bears that out. Success, playoff berths in this case, relates directly to big plays.

I think if you count sacks, I’d also throw in any tackles-for-losses.
And if you count defensive scores, I’d also throw in return-game scores.

and T.O is still without a team……sign me up for the yay column on that one.

That’s called being in the same division as the Rams, Seahawks and 49ers…

These numbers seem to convey important determinants for success. The top ranked teams in this overall statistic are also the most successful teams of the year. There certainly are a couple of flukes, but it seems to correlate to success. Borne out over an entire year, the numbers seem to indicate some greater truth.

I’m curious, however, about a way to refine them, as any stat can have misleading components. For example, a team could have a great game against another, weak, team. That could artificially inflate the numbers. Were the Patriots final numbers in Big Play Index bumped up significantly due to the Tennessee game? What about Dallas? Were their numbers higher because of games against the Bucs, Seahawks, Chiefs, and Raiders?

Not too cause too big of a headache OCC – and I think your stats are awesome – but it would be very interesting to weigh those stats against another stat, which indicate level of competitiveness. For instance, sacks could be weighed against the other teams’ quality of offensive line (as operationalized by, perhaps, their final ranking in sacks allowed). Big rushing plays could be weighed against that teams’ rushing defensive ranking.

These all begin to compound and could become a meaningless exercise in irrelevant data, or it could also speak to a more significant ability of a team to play well against tough competition.

Of course, the other side to this argument, is that teams beat teams, and that’s what matters. In other words, perhaps Big Plays are essential to beating weaker teams, and the good teams battle out relatively ugly (or close) games against other good teams. If they say in baseball that every team will win 54 games and lose 54 games, and it’s what they do with the other 54 that matters, perhaps this Big Play Index is an indicator of that type of success. How do you beat the teams you’re supposed to beat? You come up with Big Plays that stops them.

Now I’m rambling and have no idea what I’m talking about anymore. Oh yes! I like what you say at the end OCC. This demonstrates two key areas that the Cowboys could improve in: 1) protecting Romo, and 2) creating turnovers that turn into scores. I’m definitely big on the first of those two. Although part of that stat is inflated due to Romo’s growing maturity and ability to take a sack rather than force a play. The second of those two I’m ambivalent toward. Turnovers are great, but overplaying the turnover leaves teams vulnerable to big plays. I’d rather a team cover well, and force 3 and outs, (which reminds me of an older post of yours OCC), than take unnecessary risks.

of 40+ yard plays in 2009. Truly a big play offense.