I discussed why you shouldn’t be concerned about the Packers going through any kind of significant regression to the mean in the upcoming season in Part One (Note: You might want to read it first, though you certainly don’t have to!). However, it isn’t the complete picture; anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. There are undoubtedly a few regression indications that will be against the Packers in 2024. Let’s examine the areas where Lady Luck will try her hardest to destroy Green Bay and the reasons why this squad is probably going to be resilient, even though the Packers are probably going to have an uphill battle in a few crucial areas. Still, I wouldn’t worry.
Unlucky
Fumble luck and performance on third down relative to first and second down are the two regression stats that Football Outsiders and football analytics pioneer Aaron Schatz first recognized as having the most impact. Okay, so this is going to be four parts. We’ll deal with third down regression in Part Four, but for now, let’s speak about fumble luck, which is undoubtedly a huge concern and has some mainstream traction.
A football team’s average rate of recovery from fumbles on the ground is roughly 50% (fumbled snaps are recovered at a higher rate by the offense). Given the well-established randomness of recovery rate and the tremendous scale of the event (a turnover versus a non-turnover), fumble luck is the classic regression statistic. A club that has above-average fumble luck one year is very likely to lose numerous turnovers (or, conversely, suffer several more on offense) the next year. This is because a fumble recovery may quickly shift a game from a win to a defeat.
According to FTN, the Packers recovered a total of 69% of fumbles in 2023—12 of 17 on offense and 10 of 14 on defense (22/31). Because of how muffs and fumbled snaps are handled, there is significant uncertainty in the fumble recovery statistics. There are websites that claim the Packers recover 72.5% of all fumbles, and one that I came across has their recovery percentage at an astounding 82%, which includes postseason games. According to my personal counts, they recover 29 balls that are on the ground while failing to collect 12, for a recovery rate of 71%.
But the one thing they all have in common is that the Packers were the league’s luckiest team when it came to recovering fumbles, so they will probably make a huge comeback.
It’s also important to note that Marshawn Lloyd, the rookie running back, struggles with fumbling, so he won’t aid the offense much when he’s on the field.
Measuring Inadequate Recoveries
What would it look like if the Packers recovered three fewer fumbles on defense and two less on offense? Three fumbles that led to turnovers occurred in the Packers’ game against the Rams the previous season, all on first and 10. In the first quarter, Brett Rypien fumbled; De’Vondre Campbell recovered it; in the third, Aaron Jones fumbled; Duke Shelley recovered it; and in the third, Dontayvion Wicks fumbled; Ahkello Witherspoon recovered it. The relative EPA values of such errors were -6.4, -5.0, and -4.8. The Packers fumbled three times against the Chargers in their second-biggest fumble luck game of the season, losing none of them, while the Chargers fumbled twice, losing an Austin Ekeler fumble on second and two in the fourth quarter the fumble that was lost was worth -6.0 EPA.
Assume for the moment that the Packers got roughly five extra points per fumble. They recovered roughly five fumbles more than anticipated, which works out to be about 25–30 points. That may not seem like much until you consider that the Packers finished with a 9.4-7.6 Pythagorean record the previous season and went 9-8. A revised Pythagorean record for Green Bay would have them at about exactly.500, with roughly 373 points on offense and 365 points allowed on defense. The Pythagorean record is based on points scored (383 for Green Bay in 2023) and points allowed (350). It may be argued that this squad would not be in the playoffs without those extra fumbles.It’s not that easy, though, as with anything. The value of a blunder and the timing of it vary greatly. For instance, in the eighth-week game against the Vikings, the Packers fumbled twice and recovered both times, while the Vikings fumbled just once—a Preston Smith strip-sack by Jaren Hall that Devonte Wyatt recovered. The Packers seem to have had a lot of luck, don’t they? Okay, so…Just a tiny amount. When Aaron Jones received a swing pass in the second quarter, the score was already 10-0, and Danielle Hunter stripped him. Elgton Jenkins, who played the role of Johnny on the Spot, recovered to preserve a seven-yard gain. As the half came to a close, the Packers successfully converted a field goal to reduce Minnesota’s advantage to 10-3. Unfortunately, Minnesota came out swinging, scoring points right away to open the second half (17-3). Josh Metellus then picked off Jordan Love on the next Packer drive, which resulted in a touchdown by Jordan Addison (24-3). Although Green Bay was able to save a field goal thanks to the initial fumble recovery, the Vikings’ regular offense rendered it meaningless.The second fumble, the aforementioned Jaren Hall strip-sack, occurred with 6:02 left in the fourth quarter and the Vikings leading 24-10. Although a comeback was impossible at this point in the game, the Packers needed two touchdowns to tie, thus this did help to keep them in it. Regretfully, the Packers won it on downs after the drive sputtered out. Even though a Packer comeback most likely depended on forcing a turnover then, it was incredibly improbable to happen, thus that was “lucky” in a way, but it may have been more helpful at another time.
And then, with less than two minutes remaining, Danielle Hunter made the third blunder, strip-sacking Jordan Love. Zach Tom recovered the fumble, yet this play was meaningless in the extreme. The only thing that changed the outcome of the game was whether there was an actual turnover in garbage time or an impractical fourth down. The Packers were behind by two scores, and they continued to lose 10 yards on the sack phase of the strip-sack, resulting in fourth and twenty. Were the Packers fortunate to reclaim that one? Oh, I see.
On paper at least, their luckiest game of the year was against the Lions in Week 12, when Green Bay recovered all three of Detroit’s fumbles in a one-score victory while committing no turnovers themselves. Even though those fumbles clearly helped, it appears very likely that the Packers would still lose the game without them. However, with more scrutiny, a few aspects become apparent:
1. The Packers led by 15 points with 46 seconds left in the game, despite the fact that it ended in a tie. Though not THAT near, it was close.
2. In this game, there were three fumbles that were either strip-sacks or almost so. One was on a Goff two-yard run that was really a strip-sack). As I have stated, quarterbacks have a higher chance of recovering fumbled snaps. Although I can’t prove it, I have a suspicion that the defense has a higher chance of recovering strip-sacks because the quarterback is typically unable to assist in the recovery. as he was simply destroyed.
3. Strip-sacks are still sacks, and the offense should never play one of these plays! Even if Goff’s initial fumble had been recovered by a Lion, Jonathan Owens would have returned the ball straight into his arms for a score, setting up a third and long. It would have set up fourth and three at the Detroit 24, probably still a punt, if Goff hadn’t fumbled on his run. And fourth and seven was the last strip-sack. The play would have ended the same way even if Detroit had rallied.
4. More than anything else, the Owens score allowed the Packers to play with a lead, which was incredibly helpful! However, that also occurred in the first quarter, and it’s hard to predict how the game would have ended in a different scenario.
Now, this kind of cherry-picking is risky. It’s inevitable for there to be isolated incidents that deviate from a general tendency, such as fumble recoveries, and the Packers were very fortunate to capitalize on their mishap luck. They certainly did! However, I believe that they did not gain as much as an average squad did because of other unpredictable events. Why do I believe that?
Single-scoring video games
We talked about the Packers’ poor record in one-score games in Part One of this series. Since it catches and aggregates all other regression stats, one score games are, in my opinion, the most significant regression statistic. The fact that it records regression statistics—both known and unknown—is crucial. We have a good understanding of fumble luck, third down luck, and a few other underlying regression statistics. However, there are a ton of other regression statistics that we are probably not tracking or quantifying, and I’ll give you an example
Before Goff fumbled the ball for the first time in the Lions game, Jordan Love connected Tucker Kraft for a 9-yard touchdown on third and one. AJ Dillon appeared to pick up a first down on the previous play (second and two), but the officials called him short. In the end, the Packers were not hurt by this, and I don’t believe that the referees are biased in favor of Green Bay when it comes to ball placement. Since spotting the ball is done with chains and eyes, I do believe it to be quite random (though this may be changing). However, we are aware of it because it varies year to year and is random, It’s likely that certain teams gain greater advantage from having more players on third and fourth down in any particular year, while other teams suffer more losses, and the whole thing tends to regress year after year. Even though this occurs, it’s very hard to monitor, so it stays a part of a chaotic mist of unidentified regression statistics that have the potential to, and occasionally do, offset the ones that are known.
And while we are unable to conclusively demonstrate that Green Bay had anything akin to that in the previous season, we can conclude that their exceptional fumble luck and their one-score game luck are at odds. It makes much more sense to rely on their one-score game luck when anything like that happens. In fact, the Packers were unluckier in three of their six losses—against the Steelers, the Giants, and the 49ers in the playoffs—than they were in two—against the Falcons and the Raiders—and unluckier in one—against the Panthers, whom they defeated despite failing to recover two Carolina fumbles. In one-score games, the Packers went 4-6 overall. Indeed, when the Packers had greater fumble luck in one-score games, they went 3-3. Proceeding.500 feels extremely unfortunate in games where you recover more fumbles than you should!
In summary
Thus, fumbles will probably cost the Packers the next season. That is just the case. Therefore, don’t be shocked if they don’t seem to be as hurt as you believe they should be. Even though it’s hard to really detect the shadow regressions, the Packers were unlucky in a number of other ways as well. I’ll give you this before I go.
As was indicated in Part One, defense is essentially its own large regression to the mean metric. This is mostly due to turnovers, which are mostly determined by the quarterbacks you face more than anything else. They just don’t repeat themselves year after year. Given how awful Brett Rypien and Jaren Hall are, it’s not shocking that the Packers had interceptions against them in the previous season. Although interceptions aren’t as arbitrary or as “regress-y” as fumble recoveries, they are still quite unpredictable. If your team was an anomaly in terms of interceptions last season, they probably won’t do as poorly or well the following year.
In 2023, Green Bay ranked 31st in the league with just seven picks (the Titans had just six). With 22, the 49ers and Bears were equal for the league lead. Even with the sixth-worst pressure rate in the NFL, the Bears managed that. Despite having the seventh-best pressure rate in the league, the Packers placed second last in terms of picks. The Houston Texans, who were the average team previous season, had fourteen picks.
Allow me to ask you a question. How likely do you think it is that the Packers pick up at least seven more interceptions, given Jeff Hafley’s stated attacking approach joining the defense, even though it’s anticipated that the team will lose about five fumble recoveries?
Very likely, I believe.
Be the first to comment