FrankRizzo
Cheesehead
(LOL, the similar thread search found one thread titled 'Those Lucky Bears', and it was from 2005. And it is in the NFL News forum.)
This from ESPN.com today, KC Joyner (and this doesn't even mention the luck part of the refs letting the Bears blocker illegally block Hawk in the back on Hester's punt return TD, or the refs calling 18 penalties on us, or Jones fumble with 2 minutes to go magically hitting an invisible forcefield 1/4th of an inch from the sideline. And it doesn't count for the fact that the refs started the season stealing the win from the Lions by saying Megatron didn't catch that game-winning TD pass. And it doesn't count for all the backup QBs, and backup RBs (No Adrian Peterson) the Bears were able to face this year.
The luck of the 2010 Chicago Bears
This team has improved, yes, but luck is on its side on both sides of the ball
ESPN Insider
Archive
Over the years, Bill James came up with a ton of innovative ways to gauge and analyze player and team performance, but he recognized that there was one uncontrollable factor that likely would always escape any attempts to gauge it: luck. At one point, James estimated that luck could account for 30 percent of what happens on a baseball field.
This rule almost certainly applies to the world of pro football, too. A good example of this can be found in the supposed improvement of the Chicago Bears' defense this year.
While there is no doubt this unit has made progress in some of its statistics, after taking a closer look at the numbers, it became clear that good fortune has as much to do with this group's improvement as anything.
To help illustrate the specifics behind the meaning of that last sentence, let's do a closer inspection of Chicago's interceptions.
There are generally three ways a defense comes up with interceptions: by forcing the other team's quarterback into making an error, by winning a one-on-one coverage situation with a receiver, or by getting a lucky bounce (e.g., a pass tipped at the line or tipped in the secondary that ends up in the hands of a defender).
Last season, Chicago picked off 13 passes. By my count, four of these came as a result of a quarterback's mistake. Three were the result of a lucky bounce. Two came because of a wide receiver's mistake (e.g., a poorly run route or a miscommunication with the quarterback). That leaves four that were picked off in a one-on-one coverage situation.
This season, the Bears' D has 20 interceptions. Six of these have been a direct result of a quarterback's error. Two occurred because of a receiver's error. Nine occurred after a tipped pass, and three came in a one-on-one coverage situation.
To sum up:
INTs from QB mistakes: Four in 2009, six in 2010
INTs in one-on-one situations: Four in 2009, three in 2010
INTs from WR mistakes: Two in 2009, two in 2010
INTs resulting from a tipped pass: Three in 2009, nine in 2010
The first three categories are nearly equal in volume, but the last category leans heavily in favor of the 2010 Bears. It can be said that picking off tipped passes is a skill -- but the truth is that the old adage about the football taking funny bounces applies here.
Luck is a significant factor in where those tipped passes land, and since the 2010 Bears' ball hawks are composed mostly of players who were on the team in 2009, it is quite likely that this was simply a case of the weight of circumstances (i.e., luck) being on their side this year.
Chicago also had plenty of that same kind luck on the offensive side of the ball. In 2009, Jay Cutler threw 26 interceptions. Fourteen of those were a result of quarterback/receiver mistakes (10 of which fell directly onto Cutler, two of which were on both Cutler and the receiver). Five occurred after a tipped pass, leaving seven for one-on-one situations.
Now contrast that to 2010. Cutler has 14 picks. Seven were a result of mistakes on his part and one was the fault of a miscommunication between Cutler and a receiver. Those are controllable errors, and to see a drop-off of six from one year to the next is a significant improvement.
Having noted that, it is also worth noting that the Bears have had only one pass picked off via a tip and five via one-on-one situations. The one-on-one total is close to the 2009 level, but the tipped passes account for a four-interception drop in '10, largely because of luck.
Add those four lucky non-picks to the six-interception increase in the luck column on the defensive side of the ledger, and it totals 10 additional lucky turnovers.
Many football statisticians say that a turnover is worth 40-50 yards and that every 100 yards generally equals seven points.
Using that math here adds up to about 400-500 yards, or four to five touchdowns. Since the Bears have seen about a 100-point turnaround in their points scored/points allowed differential, it can be said that luck accounts for somewhere in the range of one-quarter to one-third of the improvement. Cutler's reduction in bad-decision interceptions accounts for a significant portion of the rest, thus leaving little for the defense to hang its hat on.
This isn't to say that the 2010 Bears' defense is having anything less than a good year. It is rather to say that if last year's D had been on the receiving end of better ball protection from Cutler and a better set of lucky bounces, the '09 team could easily have performed just as well.
KC Joyner, aka the Football Scientist, is a regular contributor to ESPN Insider. He also can be found on Twitter @kcjoynertfs and at his website.
This from ESPN.com today, KC Joyner (and this doesn't even mention the luck part of the refs letting the Bears blocker illegally block Hawk in the back on Hester's punt return TD, or the refs calling 18 penalties on us, or Jones fumble with 2 minutes to go magically hitting an invisible forcefield 1/4th of an inch from the sideline. And it doesn't count for the fact that the refs started the season stealing the win from the Lions by saying Megatron didn't catch that game-winning TD pass. And it doesn't count for all the backup QBs, and backup RBs (No Adrian Peterson) the Bears were able to face this year.
The luck of the 2010 Chicago Bears
This team has improved, yes, but luck is on its side on both sides of the ball
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
By KC JoynerESPN Insider
Archive
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
With a win Sunday, the Bears will improve five games over 2009 -- but from a metric standpoint, a good portion of that improvement is actually the result of luck.Over the years, Bill James came up with a ton of innovative ways to gauge and analyze player and team performance, but he recognized that there was one uncontrollable factor that likely would always escape any attempts to gauge it: luck. At one point, James estimated that luck could account for 30 percent of what happens on a baseball field.
This rule almost certainly applies to the world of pro football, too. A good example of this can be found in the supposed improvement of the Chicago Bears' defense this year.
While there is no doubt this unit has made progress in some of its statistics, after taking a closer look at the numbers, it became clear that good fortune has as much to do with this group's improvement as anything.
To help illustrate the specifics behind the meaning of that last sentence, let's do a closer inspection of Chicago's interceptions.
There are generally three ways a defense comes up with interceptions: by forcing the other team's quarterback into making an error, by winning a one-on-one coverage situation with a receiver, or by getting a lucky bounce (e.g., a pass tipped at the line or tipped in the secondary that ends up in the hands of a defender).
Last season, Chicago picked off 13 passes. By my count, four of these came as a result of a quarterback's mistake. Three were the result of a lucky bounce. Two came because of a wide receiver's mistake (e.g., a poorly run route or a miscommunication with the quarterback). That leaves four that were picked off in a one-on-one coverage situation.
This season, the Bears' D has 20 interceptions. Six of these have been a direct result of a quarterback's error. Two occurred because of a receiver's error. Nine occurred after a tipped pass, and three came in a one-on-one coverage situation.
To sum up:
INTs from QB mistakes: Four in 2009, six in 2010
INTs in one-on-one situations: Four in 2009, three in 2010
INTs from WR mistakes: Two in 2009, two in 2010
INTs resulting from a tipped pass: Three in 2009, nine in 2010
The first three categories are nearly equal in volume, but the last category leans heavily in favor of the 2010 Bears. It can be said that picking off tipped passes is a skill -- but the truth is that the old adage about the football taking funny bounces applies here.
Luck is a significant factor in where those tipped passes land, and since the 2010 Bears' ball hawks are composed mostly of players who were on the team in 2009, it is quite likely that this was simply a case of the weight of circumstances (i.e., luck) being on their side this year.
Chicago also had plenty of that same kind luck on the offensive side of the ball. In 2009, Jay Cutler threw 26 interceptions. Fourteen of those were a result of quarterback/receiver mistakes (10 of which fell directly onto Cutler, two of which were on both Cutler and the receiver). Five occurred after a tipped pass, leaving seven for one-on-one situations.
Now contrast that to 2010. Cutler has 14 picks. Seven were a result of mistakes on his part and one was the fault of a miscommunication between Cutler and a receiver. Those are controllable errors, and to see a drop-off of six from one year to the next is a significant improvement.
Having noted that, it is also worth noting that the Bears have had only one pass picked off via a tip and five via one-on-one situations. The one-on-one total is close to the 2009 level, but the tipped passes account for a four-interception drop in '10, largely because of luck.
Add those four lucky non-picks to the six-interception increase in the luck column on the defensive side of the ledger, and it totals 10 additional lucky turnovers.
Many football statisticians say that a turnover is worth 40-50 yards and that every 100 yards generally equals seven points.
Using that math here adds up to about 400-500 yards, or four to five touchdowns. Since the Bears have seen about a 100-point turnaround in their points scored/points allowed differential, it can be said that luck accounts for somewhere in the range of one-quarter to one-third of the improvement. Cutler's reduction in bad-decision interceptions accounts for a significant portion of the rest, thus leaving little for the defense to hang its hat on.
This isn't to say that the 2010 Bears' defense is having anything less than a good year. It is rather to say that if last year's D had been on the receiving end of better ball protection from Cutler and a better set of lucky bounces, the '09 team could easily have performed just as well.
KC Joyner, aka the Football Scientist, is a regular contributor to ESPN Insider. He also can be found on Twitter @kcjoynertfs and at his website.
