Thread: Guns don't kill people, INTs kill people

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_3102_Guns_don%27t_kill_people%2C_INTs_kill_peop le.html

Guns don't kill people, INTs kill people
Cold, Hard Football Facts for January 21, 2010

The postgame reports said that the Jets sealed their upset win over the Chargers last week when Kerry Rhodes uncovered an onside kick, allowing his team to run the final two minutes off the clock.

But the Cold, Hard Football Facts say that the game ended – statistically, anyway – when Philip Rivers threw his second pick of the game late in the third quarter. Darrelle Revis picked off the first earlier in the period. Jim Leonhard hauled in the second, on San Diego’s very next drive.

The game was effectively over, at least according to one of the most interesting gauges of success in all of sports: the Cold, Hard Football Facts Interception Ladder.

What a great stat this next one is:

Here’s the CHFF Interception Ladder, a look at the record of teams in the playoffs (since 1970) based upon the number of interceptions that they throw (through the 2009 divisional playoffs):

* 0 INT – 191-51 (.789)
* 1 INT – 144-119 (.548)
* 2 INT – 54-119 (.312)
* 3 INT – 17-78 (.179)
* 4+ INT – 1-41 (.024)

That's frigging amazing. Obvious, but amazing once the numbers are actually shown.

=Z=

And check out this stat (same article):

In fact, take a look at the record of teams that throw more touchdown passes and compare that with the record of teams that throw fewer interceptions (playoff games since 1970, through 2009 divisional playoffs):

* Teams that toss more touchdowns than their opponents are 216-65 (.769)
* Teams that toss fewer interceptions than their opponents are 271-56 (.829)

Consider the case of New England’s Tom Brady, who out-gunned Baltimore’s Joe Flacco in the wildcard round, with two TD passes to none. But Flacco tossed just one pick. Brady was intercepted three times. Given those numbers, it's no surprise that the Ravens romped, 33-14.

=Z=

What's really amazing is that one team threw 4+ INTs and still won the game...

My guess is that the other team was in the 4+ range as well. I wonder what the numbers would be for turnover differential. That might be even more staggering.

It would be interesting to see turnovers in the conference championship games and how those stats relate. At this level all the weak are gone, might even be more pronounced. Either way, interesting stat on INTs.

NodakPaul wrote:

What's really amazing is that one team threw 4+ INTs and still won the game...

My guess is that the other team was in the 4+ range as well. I wonder what the numbers would be for turnover differential. That might be even more staggering.

Read the article! It talks about that game.

=Z=

These stats are very interesting, but perhaps a little misleading.

Teams that are ALREADY losing are much more likely to be passing the ball down field and taking riskier throws to get their team back in a position to win. Therefore the INTs may be more of a result of already getting their ass beat and not the other way around.