Saints record with and without Mark Ingram (1 Viewer)

[bclemms]

The good news about having a player that misses a lot of games is it allows for a decent sample size to see how a team performs with and without that player.


The Saints are 11-3 when Ingram doesn't play. We are 27-23 when he does play.

With Ingram over the past 4 seasons the Saints have a .540 winning percentage. That would equate to 8.5 wins in a season.

Without Ingram over the past 4 seasons the Saints have a .786 winning percentage. That would equate to 12.5 wins in a season.

That's a massive difference in a pretty large sample size.

 

[Zack Lee]

IMO, this year was the first year that Mark looked like an NFL running back. The sample size is shrunked.

 

[gumbotron]

who was calling the plays over that time ? ....or,also SP record vs PC in that dept.....

 

[No2DC]

It's really not that big of a sample size considering that this past season was really the first he was healthy the bulk of the year. He's been was on the team for 4 years, but you need to control for if he was healthy or not.
Your playing with the numbers again, I see. There are so many other variables involved, but I'm sure u know that.

 

[Blessedog]

Thanks for the information, I didn't realize there was such a large disparity. However, I feel like that is a skewed stat.

Let's look at the years

2011: Jimmy Graham and Darren Sproles show, defense creating turnovers and running game was great. Offense was almost unstoppable. I don't think Ingram made a significant impact either way because of the way we were crushing teams yet we went 13-3.

2012: Bounties, suspensions and all that jazz. Defense was record setting awful and it didn't really matter who was back there the way our defense was giving up chunk plays. Again, I don't think Ingram had a significant impact either way. 7-9.

2013: Switched to the ZBS where Ingram thrived in college. Good season with Ingram getting hurt early and just not playing well. He picked it up over the second half as he got acclimated and was extremely valuable late in the season and during the playoff run especially in the Eagles game. 11-5. First season I feel Ingram actually made a difference in winning and losing.

2014: Again defense was bad, O-Line was below average, but Ingram started strong regardless. We were manhandled in the trenches on both sides of the ball, no pass rush, no secondary to speak of. Ingram was hurt again early but he ran hard. 7-9.

Would be nice if he could stay healthy, but I don't think he made much difference at all the first two seasons. The next two, after we switched to the ZBS, are all that matter to me to be honest. I don't remember offhand which games he missed but I'm sure you can tell me our record in those games just for fun. I don't think we should give him and more than 3.5M and if it's more than that I'd be okay with letting him walk. He is replaceable but I don't think we should let him walk based purely off of your stats.

 

[CitySaint]

In 2011 during the 2nd half of the season without Ingram the Saints won 5 or 6 games in a row. I'm not sure that run was due to Ingram being on the bench. Over the last 4 years there have been a lot of easy wins in that win column as well.

 

[bclemms]

IMO, this year was the first year that Mark looked like an NFL running back. The sample size is shrunked.

And what was our record this season?

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

You know how I feel about Numbers but here is what I do know. Ingram has his limitations.

He is very rarely used as a 3rd down blocker (though he can do it) and when Pierre went out the screen game went with him. Despite having 3 years in the system we are still not confident enough with him to run many screens.

Yet and still he was effective last year and you don't let good talent escape unless you have to.

Still don't think he will be a saint when its all said and done but I have confidence in Khiry to expand a role. He just needs to be paired with a thumper. For that I can see why we have the guy from Arizona competing 6'1 220+ and will likely look at guys of similar size in the draft.

I really like the kid from Texas Malcolm Brown in that role. Would wear down defenses late and could probably be had for a 5th rounder.

 

[AcesOverSixs]

The good news about having a player that misses a lot of games is it allows for a decent sample size to see how a team performs with and without that player.


The Saints are 11-3 when Ingram doesn't play. We are 27-23 when he does play.

With Ingram over the past 4 seasons the Saints have a .540 winning percentage. That would equate to 8.5 wins in a season.

Without Ingram over the past 4 seasons the Saints have a .786 winning percentage. That would equate to 12.5 wins in a season.

That's a massive difference in a pretty large sample size.

2 things.

1) Alabama was and is known for a zone blocking scheme, which is the scheme Ingram won the Hiesman with. This past season is the first season we used a zone blocking scheme, anf and Ingram quickly became 1 of the better backs in the NFL once the zone blocking scheme was incorporated.

2) Since you failed to point out the blocking scheme change which helped Ingram become successful, and you failed to point out that a heavy dose of thise losses came this past season where our defense and a failing interior oline costing us games, Its safe to assume your cherry picking stats to conjour up non-existant points.

Here is a stat for you.

You successfully created 1 thread, manipulating stats to make a point that doesnt exist, and fooled no one who knows anything about football.

 

[Wheelo]

That is such a terrible generalization of games played for Ingram. There's literally 0 relevance to these numbers. This is one of the worst reaches in Ingram bashing.

A better statistic would be games won and loss when he gets more than 20 carries. For example, last year when had more than 20 carries we were 3-2. Those games were against Green Bay, Carolina (away), San Fran, Cincy, and Pitt. This is a 60% win percentage which would equate to 10 wins. And even in those 2 losses to Cincy and San Fran, would you put the blame on Ingram? I don't think so.

The kid is young, he's obviously getting better, and we have a lot invested in him. Stop grasping for straws.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

By the way.


Wanting to keep a player and keeping him are two different things.


Weeks leading up to FA the Lions "wanted to keep suh" Yet he's hitting the open market and will likely not return...but then again what is the coach supposed to say? We don't want to keep Ingram? He doesn't run hard enough? He's not someone we think can carry the load?

No they aren't trying to decrease his value...there is a reason we are one of the most respected organizations.


We pay players what they are worth, we are fair. If they outplay their contract we reward, underplay contracts we restructure or ask for salary cuts. Its all about performance and we pay the players for what we are expecting to see in performance. We also allow them to maximize their earning potential by hitting the open market. We set a value out..if they want the money and can find a team that will pay them we allow them to go. Meachem is a guy we did that with...yet he wanted to return to the saints.


That's why typically guys don't complain about pay cuts because they know the reason and that's why we are constantly referred to as a 1st class organization.

Any man should be able to look in the mirror and say I didn't perform this past year I don't deserve this money.


That's the main reason I don't see them asking Lofton to take a paycut. He's earned every penny by being reliable (no games missed) and leading the Team in tackles the last 3 years (even if he's missing some tackles)

 

[Zack Lee]

And what was our record this season?

I get that. But we had no shortage of problems and cheese eaters this year. I love when you start crunching numbers; you have put stuff together that impressed me before. I just don't have confidence that this particular set tells us as much as you imply.

 

[bclemms]

It's really not that big of a sample size considering that this past season was really the first he was healthy the bulk of the year. He's been was on the team for 4 years, but you need to control for if he was healthy or not.
Your playing with the numbers again, I see. There are so many other variables involved, but I'm sure u know that.

I'm not playing with numbers. These are statistical facts and not a single opinion involved.

Mark Ingram has missed 14 games in his career. In those games the Saints have gone 11-3.

Mark Ingram has played in 50 games in his career. In those games the Saints went 27-23.

It doesn't get any more straight forward than that when it comes to statistics.


Yes, there are variables and no I didn't touch on them because I didn't want anyone accusing me of playing with numbers or statistics.

 

[bclemms]

I get that. But we had no shortage of problems and cheese eaters this year. I love when you start crunching numbers; you have put stuff together that impressed me before. I just don't have confidence that this particular set tells us as much as you imply.

I implied nothing. Everyone else is assuming.

I kept it short and sweet so everyone else can speculate as to why.



I would love to really dig into this and give opponents winning percentages, games at home vs road, etc but I just don't have the time today. Maybe I will revisit this when I do have a bit more time but that is a ton of work involved.

 

[Zack Lee]

I implied nothing. Everyone else is assuming.

the numbers implied. But I am arguing against the numbers and you have their back.