Football data -- How far back should I look?

Now that it is football season I think I'll update my football page and write some new content. I plan to start with a fresh analysis of parlay and teaser cards.

My question is how far back should I go in analyzing these things? I've got data for ever NFL game going back to the 1983 season. However, at some point, the data gets stale. Or does it? Here is a look at the total points scored per game since 1983.

Season	Avg total
1983	43.75
1984	42.30
1985	42.76
1986	41.04
1987	43.47
1988	40.35
1989	41.47
1990	40.22
1991	38.00
1992	37.73
1993	37.91
1994	40.80
1995	43.38
1996	41.00
1997	41.31
1998	42.70
1999	41.68
2000	41.09
2001	40.54
2002	43.72
2003	41.79
2004	43.15
2005	41.15
2006	41.51
2007	43.39
2008	43.98
2009	43.16
2010	44.28
2011	44.49
2012	45.78

You can see the average points have been creeping up since a low in 92, but it has always ranged from the high thirties to mid forties. Average points in 83 was close to what it was in 08.

Maybe a good place to start would be 1994, the first season with the Two-point conversion rule. That changed the dynamics of the game somewhat.

The question for the poll is for a general study of parlay and teaser cards what is the first season I should include in the data. Go with the choice you feel is best. You may wish to keep in mind games per season has ranged from 233 in 1983 to 267 today.

I voted 1994 but because the years 1993-1995 were real turning points for the NFL. Besides the 2-point conversion it was when the modern expansion era started as well as the current expanded playoffs. It gives 20 years of data, which should be enough to smooth out things.

Quote: AZDuffman

I voted 1994 but because the years 1993-1995 were real turning points for the NFL. Besides the 2-point conversion it was when the modern expansion era started as well as the current expanded playoffs. It gives 20 years of data, which should be enough to smooth out things.

What specifically changed between the 94 and 95 seasons? I'm wondering if I should include 94.

Quote: Wizard

What specifically changed between the 94 and 95 seasons? I'm wondering if I should include 94.

I can't remember much on those two years, just that the years of 1994-1996 were big change years overall. 1994 from 1993 and 1996 from 1995 bigger than 94/95. Also do not forget that free agency started to really bite in this era as well even though Plan B ended in I think 1992 or 1993.

Play clock went from 45 to 40 seconds in '93.

1994 was the two-point conversion, of course.
Kickoff was moved back to the 30 from the 35 in '94, funny thing about that is when they moved it up recently, most people didn't realize it was just going back to where it used to be.
1994 also saw the defense taking possession at the spot of the kick on a missed FG, used to be at the line of scrimmage.

---Couple others from '94, can't remember, don't think they were that big.

1995 was the rule that a receiver who got pushed out-of-bounds by a defender could come back in bounds and still be an eligible receiver. It was this rule, of course, that enabled for many of the end of half and endgame sideline plays that we are accustomed to today, I would surmise.

Instant replay began officially in 1999.

Teams are starting at the 20 more often without the kick returns.

The game is softer. Any hard hit could be called a penalty. With all the players now having to wear manpons and panty shields, this will increase scoring. If a player has to avoid the instinct to grind the runner into the ground, extra yards will be scored with possible penalty yards tacked on.

You could go back to the 60's and it wouldn't make much of a difference. People mistakenly believe that scoring is way up in recent years due to more passing, easier offensive rules, tougher enforcement on the defenses, the wildcat, run n gun, more athletic qb's, no huddle offenses, etc, etc, etc. It's not true.

Total scoring varies from year to year, but all the way back to the 60's, total scoring has always remained within a 2.5 point (1.25 points per team per game) spread.

If anything I would say kickers are the biggest improving factor in the game. Accuracy from longer distances are a major factor, but overall accuracy is ridiculously better. Kicking accuracy (field goals made percentage) in the 60's was around 55%. In the last 3 years, around 83%!

If you compare the scoring increase from 1962 (44.6 total points per game) to 50 years later in 2012 (45.6 points per game), it's about a 2% increase.
If you compare kicking accuracy from 1962 (49.5% made) to 50 years later in 2012 (83.9%), it's about a 69% increase.

Kickers are the biggest changing factor in the NFL since 1947 when they added the back judge, who for the first time stood behind the defense to watch for pass interference. Receivers were manhandled prior to that.

ZCore13

EDITED: No text above was changed. Link below added.





Scoring averages by year

It all depends on "the man" in the end.


I heard a stat today, that this past week had the most touchdowns ever scored in one week in NFL history.

You would think there would be a predominant"over"for the week...............not really.

the man adjusted to the expected high scores.

Quote: Zcore13

If anything I would say kickers are the biggest improving factor in the game. Accuracy from longer distances are a major factor, but overall accuracy is ridiculously better. Kicking accuracy (field goals made percentage) in the 60's was around 55%. In the last 3 years, around 83%!

If you compare the scoring increase from 1962 (44.6 total points per game) to 50 years later in 2012 (45.6 points per game), it's about a 2% increase.
If you compare kicking accuracy from 1962 (49.5% made) to 50 years later in 2012 (83.9%), it's about a 69% increase.

Kickers are the biggest changing factor in the NFL since 1947 when they added the back judge, who for the first time stood behind the defense to watch for pass interference. Receivers were manhandled prior to that.

This wasn't as much about a rule-change as it was about soccer players finding their way to the game at that time. Plus the start of the domed stadium.

I had asked this with no reply....interested if a "casino" or legal sports book in Las Vegas has ever refused to pay the full odds of a winner. There at least used to be a disclaimer on every card about pay out limits in aggregate.

You would also have to include in your update the impact of online gambling on sports wagering.

I don't know what you're going for here. Comparing stats are only good for the current year or specific players. But I am changing my mind a bit because of the info I have on the NCAA Seeding. I use it to bet. If we were talking about the NCAA Mens Tournament, then you have the seed stats that show a history for how each seed, 1-16 or 1-18 have done over the history of the championship.

For example,

#4 Seeds games Are OVER 61.5% The total averages less than 142.5 and the #4's are a +55% win ATS when the spread is less than 9

And here's my W/L data by seed that doesn't included 2012 or 2013

Second Round:

The #1 seed is 112–0 against the #16 seed (100%).
The #2 seed is 106–6 against the #15 seed (94.64%).
The #3 seed is 96–16 against the #14 seed (85.71%).
The #4 seed is 88–24 against the #13 seed (78.57%).
The #5 seed is 74–38 against the #12 seed (66.07%).
The #6 seed is 74–38 against the #11 seed (66.07%).
The #7 seed is 67–45 against the #10 seed (59.82%).
The #8 seed is 54–58 against the #9 seed (48.21%).

The football season doesn't have a seeding until the playoffs. You can look at the same team over a period of time and see the stats. The players change throughout the years along with the coaches. But I'm not so sure it's as helpful. While the seeds change from year to year, their opponents never change. #1 will always play #16 in the second round.

Sorry I can't be much in any help on the football, but I got tons of data for the NCAA Tournament. If you can somehow find a seeding type of pattern, you might find something new. Maybe divide up all 32 teams into 8 seeds 4 per seed based on the teams with the best W/L record over X years.

Hope this sparks some positive energy. Best I can do here...

1993 was an important year for many reasons, but mostly because it's the first year I started playing Fantasy Football. I placed second, in the money. So, since I am the best Fantasy woman ever, my opinion should count for double.

IOW, I don't know enough to have an opinion. but I voted 1994 because that's when you started seeing a predominance of multiple great backs making ground yardage, where before it was more about the QB stats and their receivers. Barry Sanders. Thurman Thomas. Emmitt Smith. They showed what could be done, and that trend continues, kind of a moneyball approach to grinding out multiple threat teams, so I think it's a useful validation for comparison to today's game.

" since I am the best Fantasy woman ever " Babs, truer words were never spoken !

You may have to start a new analysis that begins as recently as the last couple years now that more teams are employing the hurry-up more regularly.