Week 14 TNF Lions-Packers: Advanced Review
The Lions leverage their aggressive nature to maintain their lead on the NFC North and the entire conference
The adjusted scores quantify team play quality, with emphasis on stable metrics (success rate) and downplaying higher variance events (turnovers, special team, penalties, fumble luck, etc). Adjusted expected points added (EPA), in conjunction with opportunity-based metrics like total plays and drives, projects adjusted points. Adjusted scores have been tested against actual scores and offer slightly better predictive ability, though their primary benefit is explanatory.
All 2024-2022 and historical Adjusted Scores and other site metrics are available in a downloadable format to paid subscribers via Google Sheet.
Find previous advanced reviews here
** Adjusted Scores table:
“Pass” - Pass rate over expectation (based on context of each play and historical averages
“Success” - Success rate on offense, a key metric in adjusted score vs actual
“H & A” - Home or away team
DET (-3) vs GB
What a game to decide the leading team in the NFC North and, really, the entire conference. The Detroit Lions were the slightly better team by the fundamentals of success rate, but worse in EPA efficiency, largely due to inefficiency running the ball, with Jahmyr Gibbs losing 11.8 expected points on 17 designed runs, including 3.9 points lost on a single 4th & 1 failure. Smartly, the Lions leaned more into the pass than normal, giving them a chance to win with aggressive playcalling and fourth down decisions.
The Lions broke the scale for win probability added on their fourth down decisions, going for it five times, converting four of those for a net +7.4 EPA. In total, the nflverse fourth down model showed them gaining +17.4% in win probability via those decisions, and the Green Bay Packers losing 7.9% in passing up three chances of their own.
Strangely, the model did not have the final 4th & 1 decision as a net gain, but I think the assumptions were probably a bit off contextually, with the Lions only needing inches to convert and the Packers having a relatively strong passing offense in their ability to score if they got the ball back with 40 seconds.
My back of the envelope calculation gave the Lions more than 5% in win probability by choosing to go for it. Even if my assumptions are a bit off, it was at least a very close decision with a likely positive gain, meaning there can’t be real criticism of the call as reckless. Overall, Dan Campbell’s aggressiveness was necessary to give the Lions a chance to win, if not the defining reason for the win.
Masterful game for Jordan Love by the numbers, with the most negative play for the Packers’ offense (receiver fumble) not affecting quarterback efficiency. Love is rising quickly in my adjusted efficiency numbers and Bayesian quarterback projections, now sitting in the top-5 of the NFL. This game will only bolster his standing.
Unfortunately for the Packers, Love wasn’t given enough opportunities to pass them to victory. Yes, the Packers were also running the ball well, but equivalent efficiency percentiles running and passing still means a nearly 0.2 EPA per play gap in value.
