While I was watching the Lions being declawed by the Vikings this past Sunday, I found myself starting to cringe every time Jon Kitna was hit. Since I was under center during my high school playing career, I understand how much it hurts to be sacked continually. That is why my body started to ache when I learned that Kitna’s sack total has now reached 100 in his one plus years as the Lions main quarterback. Reaching for the Motrin bottle, I wondered if the Lions recent spat of futility had any direct correlation with the amount of time their quarterback is brought to the turf.
This should be an easy question to answer. It just makes sense. If your quarterback gets sacked a lot, then you lose. If he does not get sacked a lot then you win. While waiting for my laptop to boot up I had to come up with a few ground rules. What is a lot of sacks? Is it the actual number of times the quarterback is taken down? Is it the amount of sacks compared to the rest of the teams in the league? After all, if your quarterback is sacked 70 time (which seems like a lot) in one season and the other 4 quarterbacks in the league are sacked 75, 72, 79 , and 65 times, then your team is pretty good compared to the rest of the league. As the picture of my children, came up on my home screen, I decided I would compare the data I found with the rest of the NFL.
What time period should I use? Do I use the last 5 years as a reference point? The overall record is horrible, and it would skew the data. How about the last 10 years? The record is just as horrible. Wait this is the Detroit Lions I am talking about, I may have to go back a few more years. So I decided to use 30 years. Why did I finally choose 30 years of data? Well I remember first becoming a Lions fan on Thanksgiving Day 1978, watching as the Lions defeated the “Orange Crush” Broncos of Denver. So 30 years of misery seemed like a good round number.
I typed http://www.espn.com/ into my address bar, and began my research. Much to my dismay th
e website only had statistics back to the year 2002. Knowing I need another 24 years of data to make my piece Pulitzer or Nobel worthy, I directed my browser to http://www.nfl.com/. This was the site. It had searchable stats, by team and by year. I started writing down sacks allowed by year and where the Lions ranked by year, see chart to the right. After getting the sack information I needed, I came to the conclusion that I was happy that I never quarterbacked for the Lions. They give up a lot of sacks, an average of 43.6 per year over the last 30 years.
The Lions have given up over 1,300 sacks over the last 30 years. It seems like a lot, but how do they compare to the rest of the league? How will I break this down? I decided to use simple ranking scale. If the Lions gave up the most sacks in the NFL, then they would receive a 1 for the year. If they gave up the fewest sacks in the NFL, then they would receive a 32, 31, 30, or 28. Why include four separate numbers? Expansion has increased the amount of teams three separate times. The average rank for the Lions is 10.8. Does this mean 10.8 out of 28, 30, 31, or 32? 10.8 out of 32 is much better than 10.8 out of 28. I had to narrow this information down to make it more manageable. I decided to break down the information in a simple way. I broke down the data in fourths. I took each ranking and placed them in four categories: B25, B50, T50, and T25, whereas B=bottom % and T=top%.
Now I was getting to where I was going to prove my point. The Lions have finished in the top 25% in the league in sacks allowed 4 times, the top 50% 3 times, the bottom 50% 10 times, and the bottom 25% 13 times. Knowing how putrid the Lions record has been over the last 30 years, I figured my point was proven. They give up a lot of sacks and consequently have a bad record.
I put my pen down satisfied with my conclusion. Wait, the Lions probably have their best records when in the T25 group and the worst records in the B25 group. I still needed to find their winning percentage in each category. Here I was, at the pinnacle of proving my point and like so many Lions games and seasons, my enthusiasm was crushed. When the Lions give up the fewest sacks (Top 25%) their winning percentage is .381, Top 50% the winning percentage is .417, Bottom 50% the winning percentage is .444, and Bottom 25% the winning percentage is .375. What is this, the Lions lose at almost the same rate if they are giving up sacks or preventing them. My numbers or research must be wrong. Surely if your quarterback is being sacked a lot then you do not win and so on.
My research is correct. My math is correct. My thesis is incorrect. Wait, I am talking about the Detroit Lions, the laughing stock of the NFL. The one constant through the last 30 years of .400 football is Mr. William Clay Ford, Sr. It is time to sell the team sir. If you truly love this franchise and city, then do the correct thing and sell the team to a real owner. Do not make my mistake, and think the problem lies elsewhere.
This should be an easy question to answer. It just makes sense. If your quarterback gets sacked a lot, then you lose. If he does not get sacked a lot then you win. While waiting for my laptop to boot up I had to come up with a few ground rules. What is a lot of sacks? Is it the actual number of times the quarterback is taken down? Is it the amount of sacks compared to the rest of the teams in the league? After all, if your quarterback is sacked 70 time (which seems like a lot) in one season and the other 4 quarterbacks in the league are sacked 75, 72, 79 , and 65 times, then your team is pretty good compared to the rest of the league. As the picture of my children, came up on my home screen, I decided I would compare the data I found with the rest of the NFL.
What time period should I use? Do I use the last 5 years as a reference point? The overall record is horrible, and it would skew the data. How about the last 10 years? The record is just as horrible. Wait this is the Detroit Lions I am talking about, I may have to go back a few more years. So I decided to use 30 years. Why did I finally choose 30 years of data? Well I remember first becoming a Lions fan on Thanksgiving Day 1978, watching as the Lions defeated the “Orange Crush” Broncos of Denver. So 30 years of misery seemed like a good round number.
I typed http://www.espn.com/ into my address bar, and began my research. Much to my dismay th
e website only had statistics back to the year 2002. Knowing I need another 24 years of data to make my piece Pulitzer or Nobel worthy, I directed my browser to http://www.nfl.com/. This was the site. It had searchable stats, by team and by year. I started writing down sacks allowed by year and where the Lions ranked by year, see chart to the right. After getting the sack information I needed, I came to the conclusion that I was happy that I never quarterbacked for the Lions. They give up a lot of sacks, an average of 43.6 per year over the last 30 years.The Lions have given up over 1,300 sacks over the last 30 years. It seems like a lot, but how do they compare to the rest of the league? How will I break this down? I decided to use simple ranking scale. If the Lions gave up the most sacks in the NFL, then they would receive a 1 for the year. If they gave up the fewest sacks in the NFL, then they would receive a 32, 31, 30, or 28. Why include four separate numbers? Expansion has increased the amount of teams three separate times. The average rank for the Lions is 10.8. Does this mean 10.8 out of 28, 30, 31, or 32? 10.8 out of 32 is much better than 10.8 out of 28. I had to narrow this information down to make it more manageable. I decided to break down the information in a simple way. I broke down the data in fourths. I took each ranking and placed them in four categories: B25, B50, T50, and T25, whereas B=bottom % and T=top%.
Now I was getting to where I was going to prove my point. The Lions have finished in the top 25% in the league in sacks allowed 4 times, the top 50% 3 times, the bottom 50% 10 times, and the bottom 25% 13 times. Knowing how putrid the Lions record has been over the last 30 years, I figured my point was proven. They give up a lot of sacks and consequently have a bad record.
I put my pen down satisfied with my conclusion. Wait, the Lions probably have their best records when in the T25 group and the worst records in the B25 group. I still needed to find their winning percentage in each category. Here I was, at the pinnacle of proving my point and like so many Lions games and seasons, my enthusiasm was crushed. When the Lions give up the fewest sacks (Top 25%) their winning percentage is .381, Top 50% the winning percentage is .417, Bottom 50% the winning percentage is .444, and Bottom 25% the winning percentage is .375. What is this, the Lions lose at almost the same rate if they are giving up sacks or preventing them. My numbers or research must be wrong. Surely if your quarterback is being sacked a lot then you do not win and so on.
My research is correct. My math is correct. My thesis is incorrect. Wait, I am talking about the Detroit Lions, the laughing stock of the NFL. The one constant through the last 30 years of .400 football is Mr. William Clay Ford, Sr. It is time to sell the team sir. If you truly love this franchise and city, then do the correct thing and sell the team to a real owner. Do not make my mistake, and think the problem lies elsewhere.
1 comment:
I think you analysis reveals the following conclusion: You just can't figure out the Lions. How can a team in the NFL be so consistent; consistently bad!
I guess you have to try very hard.
Post a Comment