Is 3rd quarter scoring a meaningful statistic?

[jvessey]

I have been seeing a lot of places lament the Viking's 3rd quarter scoring this year and I had a few thoughts about that statistic.I am of the opinion that it is not all that meaningful, because it is based on the idea that football is a game played in 4 quarters. I think it is more appropriate to think of football as primarily played in two halves. The quarters are not very meaningful from a game perspective. There is no comparison between 3rd quarter scoring and 4th quarter scoring (or between 1st and 2nd). There is not the same motivation to score before the end of the 3rd quarter as there is to score before the end of the 4th quarter. A team could have an 8 minute drive, 7:55 of which was in the 3rd (or 1st) quarter. If they score on the first play of the 4th, do we really want to say it was a failure because they didn't finish it in the quarter it started? I think statistics that focus on the 2 halves of a football game are more meaningful. I think it would be more informative to ask how many points were scored on the first drive of the first half and the first drive of the second half. Or if we were really interested in quarters, how many points were scored on drives that started in the 3rd quarter (or 1st quarter). I think these kinds of statistics would be better at getting at the sort of information we are looking for.

This is the kind of thing I do for a living. I have had my PhD in measurement and statistics for over thirty years, and one of the areas I focus on is the construct validity of measurements--which is the idea of how we determine that we are truly measuring what we want to be measuring. So these are just some thoughts I have had over the past week or so when hearing so many places talk about 3rd quarter scoring. I don't think it is meaningless, but perhaps not as meaningful as 1st and 2nd half scoring.

I would love to hear your thoughts

[VikingsVictorious]

I have been seeing a lot of places lament the Viking's 3rd quarter scoring this year and I had a few thoughts about that statistic.I am of the opinion that it is not all that meaningful, because it is based on the idea that football is a game played in 4 quarters. I think it is more appropriate to think of football as primarily played in two halves. The quarters are not very meaningful from a game perspective. There is no comparison between 3rd quarter scoring and 4th quarter scoring (or between 1st and 2nd). There is not the same motivation to score before the end of the 3rd quarter as there is to score before the end of the 4th quarter. A team could have an 8 minute drive, 7:55 of which was in the 3rd (or 1st) quarter. If they score on the first play of the 4th, do we really want to say it was a failure because they didn't finish it in the quarter it started? I think statistics that focus on the 2 halves of a football game are more meaningful. I think it would be more informative to ask how many points were scored on the first drive of the first half and the first drive of the second half. Or if we were really interested in quarters, how many points were scored on drives that started in the 3rd quarter (or 1st quarter). I think these kinds of statistics would be better at getting at the sort of information we are looking for.

This is the kind of thing I do for a living. I have had my PhD in measurement and statistics for over thirty years, and one of the areas I focus on is the construct validity of measurements--which is the idea of how we determine that we are truly measuring what we want to be measuring. So these are just some thoughts I have had over the past week or so when hearing so many places talk about 3rd quarter scoring. I don't think it is meaningless, but perhaps not as meaningful as 1st and 2nd half scoring.

I would love to hear your thoughts

Excellent post. Keep up the good work.

[Thaumaturgist]

I have been seeing a lot of places lament the Viking's 3rd quarter scoring this year and I had a few thoughts about that statistic.I am of the opinion that it is not all that meaningful, because it is based on the idea that football is a game played in 4 quarters. I think it is more appropriate to think of football as primarily played in two halves. The quarters are not very meaningful from a game perspective. There is no comparison between 3rd quarter scoring and 4th quarter scoring (or between 1st and 2nd). There is not the same motivation to score before the end of the 3rd quarter as there is to score before the end of the 4th quarter. A team could have an 8 minute drive, 7:55 of which was in the 3rd (or 1st) quarter. If they score on the first play of the 4th, do we really want to say it was a failure because they didn't finish it in the quarter it started? I think statistics that focus on the 2 halves of a football game are more meaningful. I think it would be more informative to ask how many points were scored on the first drive of the first half and the first drive of the second half. Or if we were really interested in quarters, how many points were scored on drives that started in the 3rd quarter (or 1st quarter). I think these kinds of statistics would be better at getting at the sort of information we are looking for.

This is the kind of thing I do for a living. I have had my PhD in measurement and statistics for over thirty years, and one of the areas I focus on is the construct validity of measurements--which is the idea of how we determine that we are truly measuring what we want to be measuring. So these are just some thoughts I have had over the past week or so when hearing so many places talk about 3rd quarter scoring. I don't think it is meaningless, but perhaps not as meaningful as 1st and 2nd half scoring.

I would love to hear your thoughts

I agree, scores per quarter may not be as useful as other metrics... Do you think scores per drive would be a more meaningful statistic then? I like scores per half, but could also be swayed by how many attempts the offense has. If the defense is continually giving up 10 minute drives, the offense won't have much opportunity.

[Maelstrom88]

I prefer scores per game vs. scores allowed per game.

[Cliff]

It could suggest that teams are adjusting to the offense after the half. The increase in the 4th quarter might also mean that the team is then adjusting back.

[J. Kapp 11]

In a vacuum, I think you’re correct. The total game is much more important than a single quarter.

My issue — and I have few with this year’s team — is that KOC preaches winning “the middle 8,” which is the last 4 minutes of the first half and the first 4 minutes of the second half. Take momentum into the locker room, re-establish it coming back, and you win a lot of games.

I totally agree with this philosophy. And the Vikings have been really, really good in the last 4 minutes of BOTH halves, leading the NFL in scoring and (I believe) scoring margin. They’ve been great at closing out halves and games.

But if they could be a better third-quarter team, they might not NEED to be so good at the end of the game. Truth is, they’ve let the Saints and Bears back into the game with lackluster third quarters, and they blew a 14-point comeback to tie the game at halftime against Detroit.

Yes, we won all those games. Winning one-score games is great. But it’s not sustainable in the long run. The team could use a breather every now and then. Faring better in the third quarter could help them accomplish that.

[jvessey]

That’s why I think points scored and points allowed on the first drives of the first and second half may be closer to what we are trying to measure.

[StanM]

I have been seeing a lot of places lament the Viking's 3rd quarter scoring this year and I had a few thoughts about that statistic.I am of the opinion that it is not all that meaningful, because it is based on the idea that football is a game played in 4 quarters. I think it is more appropriate to think of football as primarily played in two halves. The quarters are not very meaningful from a game perspective. There is no comparison between 3rd quarter scoring and 4th quarter scoring (or between 1st and 2nd). There is not the same motivation to score before the end of the 3rd quarter as there is to score before the end of the 4th quarter. A team could have an 8 minute drive, 7:55 of which was in the 3rd (or 1st) quarter. If they score on the first play of the 4th, do we really want to say it was a failure because they didn't finish it in the quarter it started? I think statistics that focus on the 2 halves of a football game are more meaningful. I think it would be more informative to ask how many points were scored on the first drive of the first half and the first drive of the second half. Or if we were really interested in quarters, how many points were scored on drives that started in the 3rd quarter (or 1st quarter). I think these kinds of statistics would be better at getting at the sort of information we are looking for.

This is the kind of thing I do for a living. I have had my PhD in measurement and statistics for over thirty years, and one of the areas I focus on is the construct validity of measurements--which is the idea of how we determine that we are truly measuring what we want to be measuring. So these are just some thoughts I have had over the past week or so when hearing so many places talk about 3rd quarter scoring. I don't think it is meaningless, but perhaps not as meaningful as 1st and 2nd half scoring.

I would love to hear your thoughts

I wouldn’t read too much into scoring being down in the third quarter. Teams make adjustments at the half and have some success but the Vikings have figured it out and found ways to adjust and win. No roster is perfect and finding ways to win in spite of less than ideal matchups and game situations can lead to good things late in the season.

We could be 1-6 now instead of 6-1 and I’d have spent yesterday bagging leaves or watching the NASCAR race instead of the Vikings if we had tanked already. I’m still engaged and enjoying the season, that is a win after last year.