Dear Coach,

WHAT IS THE MENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX, THE "MPI?"

It is a Report, using sport performance psychology, which gives you a precise rating of your team’s actual execution/performance in a game, looking at every play that matters and accounting for pressure moments of the game and other psychological factors.

HOW IT WORKS

Since every football game is unique, this Report captures the actual performance of both your team and your opponent's team with a precise statistic between 0 and 1, where .500 is roughly average and 1.000 is perfection.

Since football is a team sport, your team’s Total MPI score is the most important number to consider. After this, look at the various sub-scores for Offense, Defense, Special Teams, Total Pressure, Offense Pressure, and Defense Pressure.

Combine these reports and ratings with team, unit, and individual mental skills training, and you are providing your players the best possible means of improving in areas of critical mental skills such as focus, confidence, energy control, resilience, goals, passion, discipline, and imagery. When your team performs better mentally and executes well, as shown by higher scores on the MPI, overall team performance improves and you stand a better chance of winning games.

 The MPI rates what we all want, namely, excellence in every game, on every play. The reality is that most games are filled with mental errors and mental mistakes. As Herman Edwards stated in Time Magazine a couple years ago, “on every single play someone messes up.”  As such, a total score of .600 (or 60% of perfection) is tremendous, a goal to strive for. A team scoring this high will almost never lose the game! Football is truly a sport of mistakes!

Regrettably, the outcome of this particular game was not favorable to your program at X University.

The talent level of your opponent often influenced your team’s ability to execute and perform well (e.g., it’s easier to block and tackle well when the opponent is not as talented and vice versa!). But even then, if you had used the MPI, you would still have gain important information about what actually happened on game day  -- independent of the final score.

You would have known how your team performed on each play. This would have helped you guard against discouragement when your team performed very well but lost anyway.  It would have helped the team avoid overconfidence had they performed less than well and still won.

The MPI would have placed the focus on what you really want: for your team to perform their best on every play regardless of their opponent.

The MPI shows this much better than the final score. Whenever there is a significant drop–off in performance in any area, this helps you to focus on that area in preparation for the upcoming game.

(Keep in mind that I will also scout your upcoming opponent by doing an MPI analysis on any one of their previous games. This alerts you to where your upcoming opponent is particularly strong or weak, and what you might need to emphasize more in practice to have a better chance to defeat them. When I scout opponent’s games, I always give a summary of tips at the end of each report too. It may be a very simple comment, or it may provide you a slightly different and important angle that you might not have considered as seriously.)

The uniformity and logic of the MPI scoring is solid, statistically balanced, and football smart. It gives you a standard metric to make comparisons and draw conclusions from week to week. As you keep using your traditional means of analyzing your team and the next opponent, think of the MPI as added knowledge and insight from an objective viewpoint, and as a measuring stick for the team. Aspire to get your players to perform to .600 or even .700 in the upcoming game! 

A FICTIONAL REPORT

Let’s get into the rating of your game. I never sugar coat anything and only report exactly what I find in a consistent manner. I have carefully reviewed every single play in this game. Your team’s total MPI score was slightly below average, while Y's total MPI score was slightly above average. Y outperformed your team on the MPI (.517 to .486) and also on the scoreboard. This was a fairly typical game from this perspective. It is very rare for a team to win the MPI battle and lose the game. It has only happened three times in over 100 uses of the MPI.

Most striking in this game was the way Y's defense outperformed your offense on the MPI (.535 to .480), and how Y clearly performed better in pressure situations (.531 to .382). Y was particularly strong in pressure situations on offense, while your defense performed very poorly in pressure moments on defense. Examples of four poor performances on defense in critical moments of the game included a missed easy interception, a pass interference penalty, giving up a big touchdown pass, and yielding a big touchdown run. Reverse just two of those defensive errors in critical moments and X might have prevailed.  

Y's quarterback (3 TD passes) was much sharper than the X's quarterback who missed a lot of passes with open receivers. Give credit to Y's defensive line which was very solid. It should also be noted that the MPI scores at halftime were nearly identical (.503 to .500 for Y). Y won this game in the second half, and prevailed on the strength of their defense and their offense in pressure moments.

TOTAL PERFORMANCE OF THE TEAMS

Your team’s Total MPI score in this game was slightly below average (.486). This reflects almost average overall performance. Y (.517) performed a little above average. This game was actually relatively close in terms of overall performance. Roughly speaking, this means that your team performed at 49% of perfection in this game and Y performed at 52% of perfection.

OVERALL QUALITY LEVEL OF THE GAME

The overall quality level of the game was very slightly above average. The game quality level can be roughly approximated by adding together the two Total MPI scores (.486 + .517 = 1.003). The higher these two numbers are above 1.000 the better the overall performance of the teams, or the better the quality of overall performance in the game, and vice versa. As a counter-example, when the Baltimore Colts defeated the Dallas Cowboys in the 1971 Super Bowl, each team scored in the low .400s, indicating an extremely sloppy football game with many turnovers, penalties, and missed assignments. So, we can clearly say that Y defeated X in a game of about average quality. The higher quality games involve more solid execution and better play in pressure situations.

X VS. Y UNIT MATCH-UPS

Y's defense outperformed X's offense (.535 to .480) more than Y's offense outperformed X's defense (.500 to .480). However, X's special teams unit was the best unit on the field that day and were better than Y's special teams .563 to .500. While this special teams score is good, some teams routinely score in the .600s here. There are fewer special teams plays but their influence over the ultimate game outcome is often underestimated, especially as it impacts field position. 

RELATIVE UNIT COMPARISONS FOR X

X's offense was slightly better than X's defense. X's special teams unit was best of the three. 

PRESSURE PLAY

Y outperformed X in all three comparisons of pressure play (total pressure, offense vs. defense, and defense vs. offense. This better performance in key moments of the game was a clear factor influencing performance and the outcome of this game.

Mental mistakes hindering Y's ability to overcome X's defense in pressure moments included: A) Four harmful penalties at very critical moments showing poor focus, B) Lack of killer instinct and questionable confidence at the goal line resulting in having to settle for field goals, and C) difficulty executing against X's defensive line in several very short yardage situations.

GIVE X CREDIT, BUT ELIMINATE JUST ONE OR TWO OF THOSE KEY MENTAL MISTAKES IN IMPORTANT MOMENTS OF THE GAME, AND THE OUTCOME COULD HAVE EASILY TILTED IN Y'S FAVOR. DEFENSE ALSO HAD A MINI-MENTAL COLLAPSE (FATIGUE OR LACK OF FOCUS LEADING TO BLOWN ASSIGNMENTS) LATE IN THE 4TH QUARTER ON THREE CONSECUTIVE BIG PLAYS BY X LEADING TO THE GAME WINNING TOUCHDOWN.

Mental strengths revealed in Y's performance included: confident and smart quarterback play and scrambles showing good mental quickness/anticipation, good quarterback decisions and solid concentration by both the quarterback and receiver on multiple occasions, and super application of intensity and gang tackling on occasion on defense.

SUMMARY

In sum, Y defeated X (your team) on both the MPI and the scoreboard, in a game of very slightly above average overall quality. As far as overall performance there were no surprises in this game. For Y it was a solid but not overwhelming victory.  Y's defense did the job when it mattered in key moments. For the serious coach and sport psychologist interested in helping your team, X,  the emphasis has to be on better execution overall and especially better performance in key third and forth down and red zone situations. .486 is not a bad MPI score. Teams will occasionally win games at this level, but they more often lose. Against Y, the mental performance was too low.  

If you find this report and information useful, I will be happy to continue rating games for you the rest of this season. For this first one, there is no charge. If you would like to discuss a package for the rest of the season, I will provide you a project rate.  I can also rate upcoming opponents’ games each week, so perhaps you’d like a package including two games each week.  

I will also be happy to come to your campus to talk to the team about what we are doing with the MPI, and to present any number of possible topics to further enhance their emphasis on high performance each and every play and to maximize their mental skills. Another possibility is doing some individual evaluations so that I know the mental skills of individual players and can design follow-up strategies to most effectively help players that need it the most.

Fed Ex is fine to send any future tapes. I can usually turn the reports around in 24 hours, so the earlier they get to me the better. Please let me know how you like this report and information, or if there is anything else you would like me to include in future reports.

Sincerely,

John F Murray, PhD

2601 North Flagler Drive Suite 309

West Palm Beach, FL  33407

Tel: 561-596-9898

http://www.FootballPerformance.com

Below is an article appearing in the Sun Sentinel about the MPI:

Copyright 2004 Sun-Sentinel Company  

Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)

February 1, 2004 Sunday Palm Beach Edition

SECTION: LOCAL; HOWARD GOODMAN COMMENTARY; Pg. 1B

LENGTH: 667 words

HEADLINE: WHO'LL WIN THE SUPER BOWL? ASK THE 'FOOTBALL SHRINK'

BYLINE: HOWARD GOODMAN COMMENTARY

BODY:

In the ceaseless buildup to Super Bowl XXXVIII, few people in our area have been as busy as John F. Murray.

Murray, who lives and works in West Palm Beach, has been giving newspaper and radio interviews all over the country this past week, applying science to the vagaries of human performance.

In other words, he's measured who's really the better team.

Murray is a licensed sport psychologist. He helps athletes improve their mental focus. His Web site features thank-yous from the likes of tennis player Vincent Spadea. 

And he is available for interviews, especially since he started trumpeting his Murray Performance Index as a way of publicizing his ideas about "focused execution" and "pressure management." It's a statistical method of analyzing football teams.

As a Super Bowl predictor, it's a perfect one-for-one.

Last year Murray used it to forecast the Tampa Bay Buccaneers-Oakland Raiders matchup. While the conventional wisdom saw an easy win for the Raiders, Murray said the Buccaneers would conquer by two touchdowns. Final score: Bucs, 48; Raiders, 21.

"Football Shrink Calls It," The Arizona Republic said.

His secret?

"What I'm looking at is how teams perform in the moment."

This sounds New Age, but Murray is more jock than guru. A devout Miami Dolphins fan, Murray was born in Fort Lauderdale, grew up in Boca Raton and Coral Gables and played and coached tennis.

He might have even more diplomas than calluses, including: two master's degrees and a doctorate from the University of Florida.

Ironically for a guy tagged "football shrink," his method doesn't look

into athletes' heads or souls or relationships with their mothers. He says he just uses what's visible: how well the players block, tackle, catch and throw.

This season he studied every game of the pro football playoffs. He rated the execution of every offensive and defensive play, giving point values from zero to 1.000, like a baseball batting average. Under his system, a humdrum three-yard run gets .500. A spectacular clutch pass play can get 1.000. A penalty or turnover draws zero.

An overall team score of .600 is excellent. A team at .700 is almost guaranteed a win.

"By rating every play, by looking at every single moment of a game, if you will, I believe I'm getting a more accurate read of how a team actually performed, rather than how they feel they performed based on the outcome," Murray says.

I respect Murray's attempt to bring more rationality to a sport already overloaded with statistics and analysis. His focus on how a team executes -- how well it stays alert and focused -- makes sense.

But the romantic in me hopes the game proves too slippery for his numbers. Sports would lose half their flavor without their unpredictability.

You've got teams that play flawlessly, game after game -- and then collapse, for no apparent reason. Brett Favre's father dies in a car accident -- and instead of emotional paralysis, the Green Bay QB plays one of the greatest games of his life.

The lack of a script is a big reason we keep on watching.

Luckily for devotees of chaos theory, Murray's measure of perfection is itself imperfect. It doesn't take into account such factors as weather, crowd noise or coaching. In other words, Murray will grade how well a team executed a certain play but not whether that play was a good idea to start with.

What about tonight's game between underdog Carolina and New England?

The doctor says it will be very close.

Throughout the playoffs, Carolina has reached perfection 52 percent of the time to New England's 51.9 percent.

But in key moments, such as critical third or fourth-down plays, Carolina has scored .561 and New England a lesser .482. And the Panthers' defense (.517) has out-performed the Patriots' offense (.469).

So once again the shrink defies the crowd:

The Panthers by a hair.

Howard Goodman's column is published Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday.

http://www.footballperformance.com