Redefining The Turnover
Every once in a while you will hear a football announcer or commentator say that the outcome of a play on the field was, in effect, a turnover. What they are saying is that it is not a turnover — at least by definition — but had the same effect. For example, when a team goes for it on fourth down and fails, it is commonly called a turnover on downs — but it is not counted as a turnover in the stats.
A turnover is traditionally defined as an interception or a lost fumble, and therefore those are the only events that are included in the turnover ratio. And because of that, it can sometimes be difficult to use the turnover ratio as an indication of how good a team is, considering that interceptions and fumbles are often the result of a bad bounce of the ball. A team may have a good record because of a few lucky bounces and not really because they are as good as their record. Interceptions and fumbles are looked at as momentum changers and turning points in games, and for good reason; they often involve good field position for the team forcing the turnover. But there is no fundamental difference between these events and a turnover on downs.
Or a punt for that matter. A punt may be a controlled turnover, done because of the perceived benefit in field position, but punting is giving the ball to the other team. And in fact it is common for people to say that a team forces the other team to punt. Not that they mean a punt is involuntary, but the effect is the same as forcing any other kind of turnover.
So let’s redefine a turnover as ANY TIME a drive ends by giving the ball to the other team without scoring. This includes interceptions and lost fumbles along with punts, turnovers on downs, and missed (or blocked) field goals. It also includes a successful onside kick as a turnover against the receiving team (I will explain the reasoning for this later on). And so consider the following: If a turnover is defined as any time you give the ball to the other team without scoring, scoring is then defined as not turning the ball over. One or the other happens as the result of each drive. And so we can say that fewer turnovers equals more points, and also that fewer turnovers by the opposition equals more points against you. So then, since both teams have the same number of drives in a game (plus or minus one) the team that turns the ball over less by definition scores on more drives and so tends to win.
If this is a valid definition then we could expect to see a correlation between a team’s net turnovers and their win-loss record. To measure net turnovers, let’s add these other items into the turnover ratio and see what we get. Here are the results for what I call Actual Turnover Ratio (ATR) for the 2004 NFL season:
well i had to confirm it and indeed it does not count as a turnover, I am ashamed of myself for not knowing, Now atleast i do now for future reference. However I dont think a moderator or anyone should try to answer a question if they indeed do not know for sure either. Thanks skybook for all the great contests and maybe one day i will nail one.
Every once in a while you will hear a football announcer or commentator say that the outcome of a play on the field was, in effect, a turnover. What they are saying is that it is not a turnover — at least by definition — but had the same effect. For example, when a team goes for it on fourth down and fails, it is commonly called a turnover on downs — but it is not counted as a turnover in the stats.
A turnover is traditionally defined as an interception or a lost fumble, and therefore those are the only events that are included in the turnover ratio. And because of that, it can sometimes be difficult to use the turnover ratio as an indication of how good a team is, considering that interceptions and fumbles are often the result of a bad bounce of the ball. A team may have a good record because of a few lucky bounces and not really because they are as good as their record. Interceptions and fumbles are looked at as momentum changers and turning points in games, and for good reason; they often involve good field position for the team forcing the turnover. But there is no fundamental difference between these events and a turnover on downs.
Or a punt for that matter. A punt may be a controlled turnover, done because of the perceived benefit in field position, but punting is giving the ball to the other team. And in fact it is common for people to say that a team forces the other team to punt. Not that they mean a punt is involuntary, but the effect is the same as forcing any other kind of turnover.
So let’s redefine a turnover as ANY TIME a drive ends by giving the ball to the other team without scoring. This includes interceptions and lost fumbles along with punts, turnovers on downs, and missed (or blocked) field goals. It also includes a successful onside kick as a turnover against the receiving team (I will explain the reasoning for this later on). And so consider the following: If a turnover is defined as any time you give the ball to the other team without scoring, scoring is then defined as not turning the ball over. One or the other happens as the result of each drive. And so we can say that fewer turnovers equals more points, and also that fewer turnovers by the opposition equals more points against you. So then, since both teams have the same number of drives in a game (plus or minus one) the team that turns the ball over less by definition scores on more drives and so tends to win.
If this is a valid definition then we could expect to see a correlation between a team’s net turnovers and their win-loss record. To measure net turnovers, let’s add these other items into the turnover ratio and see what we get. Here are the results for what I call Actual Turnover Ratio (ATR) for the 2004 NFL season:
well i had to confirm it and indeed it does not count as a turnover, I am ashamed of myself for not knowing, Now atleast i do now for future reference. However I dont think a moderator or anyone should try to answer a question if they indeed do not know for sure either. Thanks skybook for all the great contests and maybe one day i will nail one.
