A poor time of possession (TOP) ranking could be a symptom of things good and bad, usually bad, but not always. It is best to look at it within a constellation of other factors. You could start with the fairly strong correlation between TOP and how a team performs on 3rd. down on both sides of the ball. We should all agree that winning 3rd. downs is an unqualified good. 3rd. downs are by far the most frequent single set of occurrances where possession is retained or lost, and possession is far and away the single most frequent prerequisite for scoring. And third down conversions burn clock, and denying them puts clock in your own hands.
TOP has meaning even when a team is an outlier, where 3rd. down performance strays significantly from TOP and/or the win-loss record, in telling you some significant other factors come into play and whether to go look for them.
Here are the top 5 teams in TOP and their offensive and defensive ranks on 3rd. down:
1.
Baltimore 35:15: O=5th. ranked, D=20th.
2
San Francisco 34:31: O=3rd. ranked, D=3rd.
3
New Orleans 33:18: O=8th. ranked, D=4th.
4
New England 32:58: O=15h. ranked, D=1st. (extremely low 18.87% more than offsetting mediocre offesensive performance)
5
Philadelphia 32:13: O= 4th. ranked, D=13th.
The more precise way to do this would be to subtract the offensive 3rd. down rate from the defense's and rank those results. That's frankly too much work for this cowboy. That might zoom NE to the top of the list in 3rd. down differential. New England's +17 turnover differential to go along with that 3rd. down defensive performance amounts to a historically dominant defense to date which more than compensates for a lackluster offense. Defense doesn't always win championships, but it can. However, without getting into the 3rd. down % differential business the rankings as presented go some way in showing how to look at the question.
The ranking outlier would be Baltimore where the O and D 3rd. down performance doesn't sync with TOP even if the TOP syncs with the won-loss record. How do we explain that? Running the ball consumes something like twice as much time as passing on a per-yard-gained basis, and they run the ball alot and well, moving the chains, with a big contribution from their running QB. Baltimore is the poster child for the method of winning most closly associated with TOP dominance: keeping the ball out of the opponents hands. The fact they rank tied for 5th. with fewest turnovers with 9 contributes to the cause.
Philly ranks well in TOP and 3rd. downs suggesting their record should be a little better than 5-4. Nothing immediately jumps to my mind as to the other factors involved, but it does say there are factors to look at. I won't dig into why Philly is where they are, but the first place I'd look is turnovers and red zone performance. After that there is a constellation of other factors to look at which I'm not going to list. They are numerous.
The point being, if TOP, 3rd. down performance and winning sync up, you probably don't need to look much further. The constellation of other factors likely work out to average or better. This combination TOP and 3rd. down performance is a reliable way of winning which doesn't rely on one-off factors in any particular game. Though not a certainty, the odds suggest SF and NO should be regarded as having the best combination of factors in getting to the #1 and #2 seeds.
Let's look at the Packers, whether they are an outlier, and how we would account for that.
TOP: 31:03, 10th. ranked. This is a case where rankings can be deceptive. The Packers are only a trivial 28 seconds behind 6th. ranked Houston. I would not consider this an outlier stat. It's fairly consistent with the 7-2 record.
3rd. down offense: 36.5%, 22nd. ranked
3rd. down defensive: 40.8%, 18th. ranked
This is an outlier. The offense/defense differential suggests TOP should be sub-30:00 and the record should be a losing one. How do we account for this?
One factor is the +7 turnover differential. There is a doubling factor with turnovers in subtracting a possession scoring opportunity and TOP from the opponent's column while adding to your own unless you actually score on the turnover, which is not common. Nearly two possessions per game in the doubling will compensate for a lot of ills on 3rd. down. New England's 4 per game is a huge factor in winning. In the loss to Baltimore, the turnovers were even-Stephen which tells us something.
A secondary factor on the other side of the ledger is defensive and special teams scoring. Those plays put points on the board while burning a trivial amount of clock while in essence forfeiting a possession. It is a trade off anybody would take but it does skew TOP negative on a very positive play. The Packers don't have any of those.
While TOP is fairly consistent with the 7-2 record, even the turnover differential doesn't seem to fully account for poor 3rd. down performance vs. the W-L. That takes me to red zone TD scoring performance. The Packers offense is 4th. at 67.7% on 3.4 trips per game. The defense is 6th. at 48.3% on 3.3 trips per game. The idea that the defense is a bend-don't-break is legit; the idea that they bend more than their opponents is not.
You could also look at big play scoring for and against, plays that put points on the board without taking time off the clock, akin to scoring on defense or ST. Without looking that up, I'd say the eye test says the Packers give what they get. And the fact of the matter is these plays are not that common.
The bottom line is TOP, to repeat, doesn't by itself say much about one game or one team's season, but when you put it together with 3rd. down performance it can point you to other key factors in the win-loss record if there is a disconnect.
In the case of the Packers, their key to winning is fairly clear: turnover differential and red zone performance. I don't consider these edges over opponents to date the most reliable predictor of future performance since they hinge on a small handful of plays in any particular game. SF and NO, on the other hand, are winning on consistent play throughout game as indicated by high TOP and 3rd. down performance on both sides of the ball consistent with TOP.
It's kinda funny how with all the stats that are available, there is little attempt to put them together to create an overall picture. You can look at any one in isolation and find a lot of weak correlations, but when you start putting them together you get a more coherent picture. This just scratches the surface.
