In Chiefs’ loss to Colts, time of possession wasn’t a part – Arrowhead Pleasure
I don’t blame anyone for believing the things they do about football. Football is emotional. We invest much of ourselves rooting for our favorite teams — deeply hoping that at the end of each game, they will be victorious. And when they’re not (like the Kansas City Chiefs against the Indianapolis Colts on Sunday night),…

I don’t blame someone for believing the things they form about soccer.

Soccer is emotional. We make investments distinguished of ourselves rooting for our favorite groups — deeply hoping that at the end of every game, they are going to be victorious. And after they’re now not (just like the Kansas City Chiefs in opposition to the Indianapolis Colts on Sunday night), we change into distraught.

As humans, it’s perfect our nature that when things don’t plug our diagram (and typically even after they form), we gaze patterns — something on which we can blame the tragedy. We’re in actual fact perfect at it.

So perfect, if truth be told, that we repeatedly gain patterns that don’t in actual fact exist. And one in every of the mythical patterns humans gain after their NFL crew loses a game is time of possession.

The argument typically goes like this:

One crew successfully ran the ball (or the just a few crew failed to end the hasten), allowing them to procure time with out work the clock with every possession. This prevented the just a few crew’s huge title participant (or gamers) from having the ball. The huge title participant is terribly perfect at soccer, so limiting their time with the ball is to take into accounta good thing. At the end of the game, the crew employing this approach now not handiest had extra parts, nonetheless additionally some distance extra minutes conserving the ball. This was as soon as the motive they obtained the game.

Enable me to repeat: I form now not blame (or resolve) someone for believing this argument; you hear it the total time. But right here’s the thing: believing something doesn’t invent it staunch.

Let me point to you what I mean.

There are 60 minutes in a soccer game and two groups, so it’s zero-sum — and thus, it’s staunch: one crew having the ball longer does mean the just a few crew has the ball much less.

But what form does that bear?

The Colts had a possession all the diagram by which eight minutes and 34 seconds got right here off the clock. They ended this pressure by kicking the topic goal — and then they kicked the ball back to the Chiefs.

And that’s what what makes soccer relaxing: after every crew’s possession (or flip) with the ball, the just a few crew will get it back.

After that lengthy pressure, what was as soon as it about the Colts’ hasten offense — or the Chiefs’ hasten protection — that prevented the Chiefs offense from having their enjoy pressure that consumed perfect as distinguished time? Why couldn’t the Chiefs perfect hasten the ball continuously — presumably even throwing in just a few quarterback kneels right here and there — to procure as distinguished time with out work the clock, therefore night out the time to possession?

In spite of the entirety, the Chiefs bear repeatedly shown that they don’t care how lengthy they bear got the ball on offense; in opposition to the Oakland Raiders, they scored four instances in a topic of minutes. They procure extra deep passing shots than nearly any crew within the league — and that’s the least nice approach to procure time with out work the clock.

Why? Because of the goal of the offense is to gain parts — now not procure time with out work the clock. It’s the crew with extra parts that wins — now not the crew that has had beyond regular time with the ball.

You need to well well argue it’s now not precise time of possession that issues right here, nonetheless rather that the Colts operating in each build the Chiefs protection microscopic the Chiefs’ amount of possessions — therefore giving the Chiefs fewer alternatives to gain.

But don’t omit what makes soccer relaxing: after every crew’s possession (or flip) with the ball, the just a few crew will get it back. No topic what form (or what number of) plays they hasten, both groups gain an equal option of probabilities on offense.

There are exceptions to this, pointless to divulge. A turnover on a punt or kickoff gives a crew a further possession. And it’s that probabilities are you’ll maybe well factor in for a crew to bear extra possessions than the just a few fair which potential of they started (and ended) a 1/2 with the ball.

But that didn’t happen on Sunday. Essentially based on the NFL game summary, both groups had 10 turns with the ball. Right here’s what the Chiefs did with theirs:

  1. Enviornment Aim. (three parts)
  2. Touchdown (7 parts)
  3. Punt
  4. Fumble
  5. Punt
  6. Quarterback kneel — end of 1/2
  7. Punt
  8. Punt
  9. Turnover on downs
  10. Enviornment Aim (three parts)

The Chiefs averaged 1.three parts on their drives. The Colts averaged 1.9. So we can take beneath consideration that by scoring extra parts per pressure, the Colts ended the game with 19 parts to the Chiefs’ thirteen.

In spite of the entirety, shall we plug back to every soccer game ever played, and I’d be prepared to wager that in handiest a little percentage of them has the crew with extra parts per pressure failed to put off the game. The handiest instances it’s at chance of bear occurred are when a crew scored defensive or particular groups touchdowns — which depend as parts nonetheless now not as possessions.

Don’t factor in me? Right here’s the pressure info for the NFL final season.

Offensive Drives – 2018

Team ODrv DDrv OPts/Drv DPts/Drv Diff File Rnk
Saints 153 159 three.2 2.three 1.0 0.8130 1
Chiefs 163 a hundred and seventy three.three 2.5 0.Eight 0.7500 three
Colts 173 169 2.5 1.Eight 0.7 0.6250 Eight
Rams 169 176 2.9 2.2 0.7 0.8130 1
Chargers 163 a hundred sixty five 2.5 1.9 0.6 0.7500 three
Bears 172 185 2.2 1.6 0.6 0.7500 three
Patriots 174 182 2.four 1.9 0.5 0.6880 6
Seahawks 174 169 2.four 1.9 0.5 0.6250 Eight
Ravens 168 A hundred seventy five 2.2 1.7 0.5 0.6250 Eight
Steelers 171 177 2.four 2.0 0.three 0.5940 12
Texans 178 185 2.1 1.Eight 0.three 0.6880 6
Vikings 182 177 1.9 1.6 0.2 0.5310 15
Eagles a hundred and seventy 171 2.1 2.0 0.1 0.5630 thirteen
Cowboys 159 162 2.1 2.0 0.1 0.6250 Eight
Titans 161 164 1.9 1.Eight 0.0 0.5630 thirteen
Panthers 164 163 2.three 2.three 0.0 0.4380 17
Falcons 164 164 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.4380 17
Browns 195 191 1.9 1.9 -0.1 0.4690 sixteen
Broncos a hundred and eighty 178 1.Eight 1.9 -0.1 0.3750 22
Lions 168 163 1.9 2.0 -0.1 0.3750 22
Packers A hundred seventy five 173 2.1 2.2 -0.2 0.4060 21
Buccaneers 178 172 2.2 2.four -0.2 0.3130 26
Giants 174 a hundred and seventy 2.0 2.three -0.three 0.3130 26
Redskins 166 159 1.7 2.0 -0.four 0.4380 17
Bills 188 182 1.four 1.Eight -0.four 0.3750 22
49ers A hundred seventy five 172 1.9 2.three -0.four 0.2500 29
Jaguars 177 174 1.three 1.Eight -0.5 0.3130 26
Jets 194 190 1.6 2.2 -0.6 0.2500 29
Bengals 168 169 2.0 2.6 -0.6 0.3750 22
Dolphins 176 173 1.7 2.four -0.7 0.4380 17
Raiders 169 163 1.6 2.6 -1.0 0.2500 29
Cardinals 182 181 1.1 2.2 -1.1 0.1880 32

There wasn’t a single crew that averaged even one pressure per game extra (or fewer) than their opponents. The Chicago Bears had the most reasonable likely disparity with thirteen extra drives — nonetheless that’s aloof decrease than one extra pressure per game; most groups bear decrease than five extra (or fewer) drives than their opposition.

Additionally scrutinize how the Unique Orleans Saints— the league’s most nice at parts per pressure scored minus parts per pressure allowed in 2018 — are tied with the Los Angeles Rams for the league’s most nice record. With some exceptions owing to the factors I mentioned sooner than, the record rankings typically apply the differential in scoring per pressure — the groups with the most reasonable likely info bear the most reasonable likely differentials, whereas these with the worst info bear the lesser ones.

Now — there is one argument floating round about time of possession that certainly has some statistical merit: that limiting the total option of possessions (the option of turns both groups gain with the ball) typically is to take into accounta good thing for an underdog crew — just like the Colts on Sunday night. So for the sake of fairness, I’ll recent this argument. But then I’ll point to why it doesn’t educate within the NFL — or at the very least, why it didn’t educate in Sunday’s game.

Accept as true with you are in a three-point taking pictures contest with Steph Curry — the NBA participant identified for his ridiculous accuracy past the arc. You aren’t a much bigger three-point shooter than Curry; both of this. Curry’s career three-point percentage is 43.6%. Let’s be reliable and indicate yours is ready 1/2 that — divulge 20%. But to invent the three-point contest fair a little extra piquant, you and Curry bear agreed that you gain to resolve the total option of shots every of you procure. In the occasion you to decide a hundred, you each shoot a hundred shots. In the occasion you to decide 50, you each shoot 50. The winner is whichever shooter makes essentially the most shots.

What option of shots would present you with with the most reasonable likely chance of winning?


Right here is an instance of what statisticians name a Bernoulli Trial, which is while you bear a mounted option of experiments (three-point shots) every with two that probabilities are you’ll maybe well factor in outcomes (a invent or a omit) and an equal chance of success (a invent) on one and all.

The reasoning goes like this: if given a hundred shots, Steph Curry is going to beat you. We are in a position to in actual fact calculate the actual percentage of this occurring with a straightforward line in a spreadsheet like Excel. In the occasion you give Steph Curry a hundred shots, there’s a Ninety 9.999% chance he’ll beat you. On the other hand, within the occasion you both gain perfect one shot every, you bear an eleven% chance of winning the competition; it’s the chance of him missing the one shot (1 minus 43.6% — or fifty six.four%) multiplied by the chance of you making one shot (20%). That’s eleven.three%.

So some will argue that in a disaster like Sunday’s game, the Colts had been simply trying to restrict the total option of possessions. The Chiefs would be like Steph Curry — an offense extra at chance of gain parts. The Colts would be corresponding to you — much less at chance of gain with every opportunity. You resolve to power fewer total probabilities, which (you watched) potential you bear a much bigger chance to put off.

And in a teeny-little diagram, you form.

Right here’s the topic: NFL groups typically gain 9-thirteen possessions per game; we aren’t dealing with the variation between a hundred shots and perfect one. Via four weeks, the Chiefs averaged 10.25 drives per game, so reducing that amount by 0.25 perfect doesn’t invent a indispensable distinction.

Besides… Patrick Mahomes namely handiest had eight possessions in opposition to the Jacksonville Jaguars (as Matt Moore got right here in for two drives), yet aloof save up 37 parts. How many did Mahomes bear in opposition to the Colts? 10. So the Colts didn’t in actual fact restrict the Chiefs’ total possession numbers any bigger than any just a few crew this yr.

While it’s a relaxing thought experiment, the Steph Curry analogy can’t be argued to educate right here. Coming in to this game, the Chiefs offense averaged three.29 parts per possession. Sunday night — as we mighty sooner than — it averaged handiest 1.three. Taking a peek at these numbers, is it in actual fact beautiful to recount the pivotal fight was as soon as the one between the Colts rushing attack and the Chiefs rushing protection?

And let’s be perfect — if Curry had a hurt ankle and Cameron Erving was as soon as accountable for conserving him, per chance we would need him taking a hundred shots!

I’ve viewed others argue by increasing your time of possession, probabilities are you’ll maybe well save on down the opposing protection — thereby making them much less nice. But this has been emphatically proven to be fraudulent. Straightforward and straight forward — despite what the announcers divulge on TV all the diagram by the fourth quarter — defensive manufacturing is now not impacted by leisure time.

There could be, on the other hand, glaring worth in being in a jam to hasten the ball effectively when your crew is winning within the fourth quarter — because the Colts had been. On this case, a much bigger defensive efficiency by the Chiefs can bear gotten the ball back with ample time for the offense to avoid losing extra parts on the board and tie the game.

But if the Chiefs offense had been in a jam to gain parts on a single one of its six drives within the second and third quarters, Indianapolis wouldn’t bear had the flexibility to hasten the clock out; as an replacement, they’d bear had to reply by scoring parts themselves.

So… no. The Chiefs didn’t lose to the Colts simply since the Colts dominated time of possession by operating the ball in opposition to a sinful Chiefs hasten protection.

That isn’t to recount that the Chiefs hasten protection isn’t sinful. No topic how developed a metric or statistical methodology you spend, the Chiefs hasten protection is sinful — and if it had been higher in opposition to the Colts, they’d bear had a much bigger chance to put off.

But on Sunday night, the protection as a total did protect the Colts beneath their common parts per pressure for the season. Unfortunately, the Colts protection did even higher, conserving the Chiefs offense to their lowest parts per possession of the Mahomes generation — and that is what made the variation within the game.