STATIC CLING
Flood of worthless graphics on the way this weekend
IF I HAD a bell, I would ring out a warning. Warning: Much of what will be told and shown during today’s NFL conference championships is not nearly as significant as what you won’t be told and shown.
It is not a matter of nefarious conspiracy, but of those in charge tethered to habit-formed, repetitive ignorance.
For example, all week long we’ve been told that Tom Brady didn’t play particularly well last week. Exhibit A: He threw an interception!
It wasn’t his best game, but does it count that the “pick” first hit
his receiver’s hands? Of course not; stats are stats.
The likelihood of red-zone stats being emphasized as significant in one or both of Sunday’s games is high. These stats have been blindly and obediently stressed for the past few years.
But what you won’t hear or read in a graphic is that among the top four NFL red-zone teams, only the 9-7 Titans, No. 1 in red-zone success percentage, had a winning record. Next came the 2-14 Niners, then the 7-9 Saints then the 8-8 Colts.
The best red-zone teams were a combined 26-38.
In fact, among the four worst red-zone teams, two, 9-7 Houston and 8-7-1 Washington, had winning records.
So what are worthless stats worth?
On TV, plenty! Network shotcallers years ago determined it is TV’s job to fill our heads and screens with as many stats as possible. Whether they can be intelligently applied to what we’re watching is irrelevant.
And it is far too late to examine them for value, thus TV will keep throwing them at us as valuable.
Thursday, right from the start of Clemson-Louisville, ESPN did what it does best: everything it could to destroy the game by throwing up worthless, satireproof stats.
Just 3:20 in, Clemson up, 11-4, the view was shared with a graphic noting that Clemson had “started 0/1 FGs, since 4/4.”
At game’s end, a Louisville romp, ESPN failed to finish what it started. There was no graphic that read, “Clemson outscored, 88-49, in final 16:40.”
Near the top we also read that Louisville’s Donovan Mitchell, “Saturday at Duke had 15 points, 6-of-12 FGs.”
Odd, I recalled watching that played at Louisville — and on ESPN; it was confirmed by Adam Schefter!
But back to today. Third-down conversion rates, as TV has schooled us for the past, oh, 35 years, are hugely important. Of course, as per TV’s math, they’re all the same — third-and-1 is the same as third-and-20 — when no
third-down plays are alike. Two of the four finalists made the top third-down four. And Atlanta was ninth, Pittsburgh 11th. Hmmm, so they likely have something to do with season-long success.
But wait. Finishing between Atlanta and Pittsburgh was 5-11 San Diego, an achievement that doubtless will be exploited to sell Chargers’ PSLs in Los Angeles. And the bottom 10 third-downers included the 11-5 Giants, 10-5-1 Seahawks, 12-4 Chiefs, 10-6 Dolphins and 9-7 Texans.
Then there are the equally important, all-the-same fourth-down conversion stats, also likely to command your attention Sunday.
Among the four finalists, none made the top four. Dallas (13-3) was first, 7-9 New Orleans second, 6-9-1 Cincinnati third and 1-15 Cleveland was fourth.
That’s right, nearly unstoppable on fourth down, the Browns nevertheless chose to punt 83 times. Small wonder they were 1-15!
And for what it’s worth — and it must be worth plenty or the NFL’s networks wouldn’t bother — among the bottom seven in fourth-down conversions were five winning teams — Green Bay, Tennessee, Houston, Seattle and, dead last, 10-6 Miami.
Then there’s the grandpappy of them all, time of possession.
The Eagles, at 7-9, won this year’s title, while the Falcons should be ashamed even to be playing in the conference championship — they finished 17th, just the 5-11 Jets, which should bring succor to Jets’ PSL holders as Woody Johnson, at President Trump’s nomination, likely will be off to England to learn how the Brits make cologne from English leather.
Clearly, TV remains convinced that upon walking into a room in which football is being televised, fans demand to know, in addition to the score, time of possession numbers, third- and fourth-down conversion stats and red-zone percentages. Well, don’t we?