49ers-Rams Statistical Review: Hill vs. JTO

by Florida Danny on Nov 19, 2008 12:00 PM PST in Statistical Preview and Review Comment 42 comments

In my 49ers-Rams, I used Football Outsiders' DYAR statistic to show why (1) Frank Gore is an indispensible part of the 49ers offense, and (2) the absence of Steven Jackson would not have much of an impact on the Rams offense. The stats from Sunday's game supported my conclusion on both accounts:

As I stated in the preview, Gore had been adding about 15 yards to the 49ers offensive totals above and beyond what an average replacement running back would have gained. In Sunday's game, he actually added 20 yards above replacement, raising his season total from 133 (14.8 per game) to 153 (15.3 per game).

The Rams' offensive DVOA for Sunday's game was -6.8%, or 6.8% less efficient than the league average. As their offensive DVOA was -21.9% going into Sunday's game, this means that the Rams actually performed better than expected despite Jackson's absence.

Coming out of the game though, the story wasn't Frank Gore; it was Shaun Hill and his "perfect" first half. The fact that Shaun Hill, of all people, was the first 49er ever to quarterback a perfect half of offensive football is absolutely mindboggling to me given the team's rich QB tradition and its dizzying array of poor QB play of late. Now, one perfect half does not a Hall of Fame quarterback make, and I'm not even going to argue that Hill's performance makes him worthy of quarterback-of-the-future status (though I'm beginning to lean in that direction for various reasons). Nevertheless, this unexpected turn of events got me thinking...Just how much has the replacement of JT O'Sullivan with Shaun Hill improved the 49ers' offense? Thankfully, the magic of statistics makes answering this question possible.

Let's refer back to our friends from the preview, DYAR and EYds. To refresh, DYAR is the amount of yardage a player has gained for his team above and beyond what the team would have gained if they replaced him with an average substitution at his position; the higher, the better. EYds is the player's actual yardage total after it has been adjusted for game situations; the more above his actual total, the better. DYAR tells you how valuable a player is overall, while EYds tells you how valuable a player is on a given play.

Below are the relevant stats for Shaun Hill and JTO:

Quarterback	Games	Passes	DYAR	Rank	Eyds	Actual Yards
Shaun Hill	3	88	71	27	573	593
JTO	8	258	-433	42	688	1,593

After the jump, I’ll put into words (and numbers) just how correct the QB change was, and see how the 49ers performed in the five crucial SVW situations…

This table provides some eye-popping support--pun intended--for Singletary's decision to switch from JTO to Shaun Hill:

The switch has made over 500 yards' worth of difference to the 49ers offense!!!

If you look at it on a per-game basis, Hill has added 23.7 yards per game to the 49ers offense above replacement, while JTO subtracted 54.1 yards per game. In other words, Joe the Replacement would have thrown for about 55 yards more per game than JTO, but about 25 yards less per game than Shaun Hill.

JTO is the 42^nd-ranked QB in a 32-team league.

While Hill's actual yardage total is nearly identical to his EYds total, JTO's yardage total is more than double his EYds total. This means that JTO was super-efficient in pass-friendly situations (e.g., 2^nd and short), but super-inefficient in pass-unfriendly situations (e.g., 3^rd and long). In contrast, Hill has been mildly efficient in the full range of game situations. To me, this is a perfect representation of what the two QBs bring to the table from a nonstatistical perspective. One guy (Hill) is a low-risk, low-reward, steady-as-she-goes type, while the other guy (JTO) is a high-risk, high-reward, rollercoaster-ride type.

If you look at yards per attempt based on EYds as compared to actual yards, you see that Hill's yards per attempt slightly decrease after adjusting for game situation (6.7 vs. 6.5). In contrast, JTO's plummets from 6.2 to 2.7 after adjusting for game situation. In other words, if you dropped JTO out of the sky into 3 random NFL passing situations, he would throw for about 8 yards (2.7 each play), whereas Hill would throw for almost 20 (6.5 each play).

Clearly then, based on the stats, the least we can say is that Shaun Hill is a much better option at starting QB for the 49ers than JTO. Hill may not always be perfect, but he'll rarely be as imperfect as JTO.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

Just to refresh our memories, I identified the following strength vs. weakness (SVW) matchups for the 49ers in their game against the Rams:

Situation	SF Rank	ARI Rank
SF RUSH OFFENSE VS. STL RUSH DEFENSE	8	31
SF RUSH OFFENSE VS. STL RUSH DEFENSE ON 2^ND DOWN	6	31
SF DEFENSE VS. STL OFFENSE ON 2^ND AND LONG	7	30
SF PASS OFFENSE VS. STL PASS DEFENSE ON 3^RD DOWN	31	7
SF OFFENSE VS. STL DEFENSE ON 3^RD AND MID	25	7

So how did they do? Let's take each matchup one-by-one. Like last week, I'm going to assign success points using the following standards: Success on 1^st down means gaining (or preventing if on defense) at least 45% of the yardage to gain, success on 2^nd down means gaining at least 60% of the yardage to gain, and success on 3^rd/4^th down means gaining 100% of the yardage to gain.

Rush offense-The Niners could have done a lot better. They were successful on only 11 of 35 rushing plays, not counting the JTO kneel down at the end. However, if you consider they were basically in run-out-the-clock mode for the entire second half, it wasn't such a horrible performance. When the game was still a game, they were successful on 46.7% of their runs (7 of 15). Score: Par.

2^nd down rush offense-This was a gold rush for the 49ers. They were only successful on 6 of 13 such plays, but 5 of those 6 successes (and 2 of the failures) included some really successful plays, either yardagewise or in terms of their outcomes: Gore 27 yards prior to fumble, Gore 2 yards on 2^nd and 1, Gore 5-yard TD, Gore 10 yards on 2^nd and 6, Gore 10 yards on 2^nd and 9, Gore 8 yards on 2^nd and 18, Robinson 10 yards on 2^nd an 8. That's 72 of the Niners' 135 total rushing yards...on only 7 plays. Score: Birdie.

2^nd and long defense-I have mixed feelings about the Niner D's performance on this one. On one hand, they were only 8 of 17 in a situation that called for much better. On the other hand, they got turnovers on two of the 2^nd and long plays. Also, 6 of the 9 failures were on either running plays or short passes when the Rams were down by a huge margin. I mean, can I blame the Niners' D for not stopping a draw on 2^nd and 10 when they're up 35-3? Probably not. Score: Par.

3^rd down pass offense-Again, mixed bag with 1^st-half macadamias and 2^nd-half cashews. Hill went 2 for 2 with a TD, and then the Niners shut it down. The 2^nd half saw a 1 for 5 performance including consecutive 3^rd-down sacks. What I found most interesting, given that they scored 35 points, was that the 49ers had only 11 third-down plays, and passed on only 7 of them. To me, that smacks of offensive efficiency. Score: Birdie.

3^rd and mid offense-They went 1 for 3 with a sack here, but that's a really tiny sample. Plus, all three 3^rddowns between 4 and 6 yards occurred in the 2^nd half, when they were up comfortably. Score: Par.

Using my golf scoring system, the Niners were 2 under par in 5 holes. Not bad, not bad at all. However, I do have the lingering feeling that they left a couple of birdies out on the course this past Sunday. I'm telling you, the Rams are that bad. Nevertheless, this is now the second week in a row where the Niners overachieved in their SVW situations. Praise has to go to the common denominators: Shaun Hill at starting QB, Mike Singletary at starting Head Coach.

Poll

Consensus of the poll before the game was "Niners by less than 10" if Steven Jackson played. Knowing what you know about the Rams now, do you still think they would have kept it within 10 points if Steven Jackson played?

Yes

30 votes

No

74 votes

104 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 42 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Running was not their problem

Pittman was tearing up the D when they gave him the ball. The turnovers just quickly got them behind and they were forced to pass. I don’t see how Jackson would have made any difference.

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Nov 19, 2008 1:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Pittman was held down in the 2nd half

anytime he touched the ball. They were playing from behind by then but anytime he touched it in the 2nd half he was stuffed. It would have made a big difference if Jackson was in the game.

Fans stuck in the 80's are lame. Respect the past, live in the now.

by maveric_87 on Nov 19, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

FYI...

here’s more of a breakdown…

STL was successful on 12 of their 23 runnings plays, and gained 109 of their 126 rush yards on those 12 successful plays.

in terms of down and distance, STL was most successful running the ball on 2nd and long. they were 5 of 8 with 74 yards on those 5 successful 2nd and long run plays. 2nd and long is not a friendly running down so it was just a case of against-the-trend play-calling for STL. that’s the “tearing up” you saw.

in terms of halves, STL was successful on 8 of 15 running plays in the 1st half, and gained 74 of their 85 1st-half rushing yards on those 8 successful plays. In the 2nd half, they were 4 of 8, with 35 of their 41 2nd-half rushing yards coming on those 4 successful plays.

bottom line…you guys seem to only be remembering a handful of plays, and overgeneralizing about how often and at what time pittman was gashing the niners’ run D. the fact is, STL was unbelievably consistent between halves in terms of their success rate (and yardage) running the ball, they just ran it half as many times in the 2nd half. pittman wasn’t getting stuffed “anytime he touched it in the 2nd half.”

likewise, pittman was not “tearing up” the D whenever they gave him the ball. he did almost all of his damage on 2nd and long, which is a heavy passing down. if you take away their success on 2nd and long, they were 7 of 15 for 49 yards, with 35 of the 49 yards coming on successful plays. that’s 3.3 yards per carry (49/15) in all other situations besides 2nd and long. so, STL wasn’t gashing the niners’ run D as much as the niners’ run D was playing the odds by calling pass defense packages on 2nd and long, and getting burned when STL called a run play against it.

so i guess i’d say i’d agree with you, unleashthegore, that jackson wouldn’t have made a difference, but not based on some “pittman was gashing them when he did touch the ball” argument. also, i’d disagree with you, maveric_87, that jackson would have made a difference because pittman wasn’t “held down anytime he touched the ball” in the 2nd half.

by Florida Danny on Nov 19, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I still don't understand why you don't think one of the top 5 RB (when healthy) in the NFL

Why you don’t think one of the top 5 RB (when healthy) in the NFL wouldn’t have made a difference when playing over a scrub back-up. He’s by far St. Louis’ best player to say that it wouldn’t have made a difference if he played or not seems a little odd. Whatever Pittman can do Jackson can do better. Imagine if the Niners played that game without Gore. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t think that there would be a significant difference between what Gore could have done and what Foster/Robinson could have done. Basically, Jackson means as much to STL as Gore means to SF.

If STL was successful on 12 of 23 rushing plays with Pittman it’s very likely they would have been successful on 16-18 rushing plays with Jackson. Stephen Jackson is also more of a recieving threat out of the backfield than Pittman.

by methodrampage on Nov 19, 2008 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

two things...

well, three…

1) i totally get your point, i’m just saying your argument isn’t based on the steven jackson of 2008 or the rams of 2008…which leads me to my two main rebuttals.

2) jackson is not even close to a top 5 RB this year in terms of his value to his team. as i showed in my preview of the game, he’s the 29th most valuable RB this season. that stat takes into account that he’s missed games. it’s not like the stat is saying, “frank gore has 837 yards and steven jackson has 527 yards, so gore must be way better,” which is what traditional stats would tell you. frank gore is a top 5 RB this season (now ranked 4th after sunday’s game), jackson is bottom 10. in previous years, jackson was top 5. in fantasy drafts this season, he was top 5. he’s just not anywhere close to top 5 so far this year, and, just to be as clear as possible, the stat that makes him not even close to top 5 takes into account that he’s missed games due to injury. in fact, by very definition, it tells you how much the team would miss him if he got injured and was replaced by an average replacement. you may think pittman/darby is not “an average replacement,” but in today’s NFL, they’re more than adequate. just look at the fact that the two-headed monster rushed for 121 yds this week.

3) in terms of jackson improving their success rate on running plays, again, the 2008 stats argue against that convincingly. first, as i showed in the preview, the 2008 rams are absolutely atrcious, with or without jackson. they’re the least inefficient running team in the NFL, by a wide margin, based on games that included jackson, as well as those that didn’t. jackson has had little if any impact on the team’s performance. this week’s game was more proof of that (see the review above). also, jackson’s indivdual dvoa is -4.8, meaning he’s been less successful per play than the average NFL running back, when he actually played. pittman, on the other hand, is actually the most successful RB compared to league average among backup/part-time starting RBs w/ 60 or more carries (+17.8).

bottom line: i get what you’re saying. in previous years, i probably would agree with you. but when we’re talking about THIS rams team and THIS steven jackson, there’s not even an argument to be had when you look at the most valid nfl statistics that currently exist. neither his absence nor his presence has had an impact on how bad the rams are this year.

by Florida Danny on Nov 19, 2008 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not so fast

Your statistical analysis is only going to take you so far. Jackson sat out like all of the preseason which in my opinion helps to explain why he got off to a slow start. Those first 3 games was him just getting up to speed (if he had played more in the preseason he probably would have started off a little faster). It’s atleast concievable that he started to hit his stride weeks 4-7. Then he got hurt. There was a huge difference between the Stephen Jackson that played in week 1-3 than the one that showed up weeks 4-7 and based on his past the one that showed up weeks 4-7 is the more like the real Stephen Jackson.

by methodrampage on Nov 19, 2008 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ok..

…look….i agree 100% that stats only take you so far. however, stats take you a hell of a long way, especially when they’re as valid and methodologically sound as DYAR and EYds. when a stat is compared against a baseline, like both of these stats are, and it’s adjusted for opponent defenses and game situations, as these are, all of these other factors you’re talking about wash out. coming off a preseason injury is just one of any number of factors that might explain jackson’s performance in any given game.

but mostly, your argument is flawed because you’re commiting two cardinal sins of logic. first, you’re looking at jackson’s good games, comparing them against his bad games, and then saying the good ones were caused by x and the bad ones were caused by y. truth is, it’s just a pattern of performance that has any number of causes. we can only say it looks like there’s some kind of relationship there, not that his bad games were caused by “getting up to speed,” and his good games were caused by “being up to speed.” those are just your opinions explaining an apparent correlation between two things. i could just as easily say that his OL blocked better in his good games than his bad games, or that he had a different coach in his good games than in his bad games. hell, i could even say that maybe he was getting laid more before his bad games than before his good games, and that not getting laid caused him to play with a chip on his shoulder. correlation is not causation. it may be true that there are explainable differences between his good games and his bad games, but you can’t be certain that the things you list “caused” the difference, while other things you’re not listing didn’t.

second, you’re engaging in something called selection bias. you’re choosing which games were “good” games and which games were “bad” games based on whatever criteria best supports your argument. you have to take the whole body of evidence into consideration. what you think was a “good” game may actually have been a “bad” game when you compare that performance against other RBs in similar situations and against similar defenses. this is what DYAR and EYds do, objectively rather than subjectively, and both stats say that jackson has played bad overall.

even if i took as stone-cold fact everything you’re saying in terms of why jackson has performed certain ways in certain games, it still wouldn’t be affecting his performance that much. all of these factors you’re talking about operate on the margins. perhaps it adds a little here and a little there, but the fact of the matter is, what we know (the stats) shows that gore vs. jackson is not even close. gore is the 4th best RB in the league, jackson is the 29th. if it was a comparison between 10th and 15th, then i’d be a lot more receptive to the idea that jackson is still more valuable than (or as valuable as) gore despite the stats. in this specific circumstance, however, the stats are so overwhelming that the impact of other factors are basically meaningless when it comes to what stat-based conclusion i’m going to arrive at.

one last thing i’d say is this. injury is not exactly an argument in jackson’s favor. the fact that his preseason injury lingered into the season, and that his current injury has lingered for 3 weeks now, shouldn’t be some kind of crutch to explain away his bad performances. gore strained his neck last week, and had a great game this week. other running backs (all running backs?) have “lingering” injuries at this time of year, and you don’t see them playing like shit when they’re in there. jackson constantly gets hurt and his injuries tend to linger. those facts shouldn’t be used as an excuse to explain away his bad performances. they should be used to argue he’s simply not a reliable RB, and unreliable RBs are not top 5 RBs, as you suggest. being injury-prone has to have some negative impact on how “valuable” he is. i think part of value, in a non-statistical sense, is knowing that a guy is going to be lining up in the backfield week in and week out.

by Florida Danny on Nov 19, 2008 10:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Now you're twisting words

I clearly stated that, when healthy, Jackson is a top 5 back in the league. Obviously when he’s not healthy he isn’t. Fooch asked a hypothetical questions and my stance was formed assuming he meant a healthy Steven Jackson. Also, Jackson missed the preseason not because he was hurt but because he was holding out for a new contract. Runningbacks have experienced similar slow starts when missing the preseason (see Tomlinson in ’07).

DYAR and EYds are fine and dandy, hardly perfected, and can be useful in painting part of the picture but fall drastically short of the telling the whole story. Where’s his Offensive Line/Offensive System adjustment?

I’ll give you that Jackson has performed like the 29th best back in the league this year but he’s also had games this season where he’s performed like a top 5 back. You’re using stats to judge a player on 6.5 games, not a great sample size, where two of which he was lousy, two of which he was pedestrian, and two of which he was an absolute monster. He’s earned too much respect based on what he’s done in the past for me to write him off as below average because he’s had 4 less than stellar games.

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Stats

Football is not like baseball where “stats,” advanced or not, can tell the story about a player. In football, it’s almost impossible to completely separate one player form the other 21 players on the field, and that’s not to mention the 24653653 people on the sidelines and the booth that also affect that player’s play.

by sfgfan on Nov 20, 2008 9:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Very true

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It is as though you are intentionally ignoring the core of what FD is saying. The DYAR and EYds take MANY factors into account, and are fairly reliable predictors of performance. Your argument that the two predictors are “hardly perfected” can hold true for any predictor in any form. While they aren’t “perfect,” they are certainly more accurate than your own perceptions, which are affected by the assimilation of information into preexisting schemata. What I mean by this is that each individual’s perceptions are modified by past experience and preexisting conceptions of how things are supposed to work. You believe that Jackson is a stand-up running back with the ability to tear up defenses.

I recall a certain quarterback (J.T.O.) that many of us held biases for until he had to prove us all horribly wrong. Had he injected a good performance or two in between his abysmal outings, we may have been able to assimilate his bad performances (as we did in his first few outings), but we were forced to accomodate, meaning create a new schema, to interpret his performances. Now, if he were to have a stellar game we would attribute that to the coaching, the poor play of the opposing defense, or a stellar job by the O-line or receiving corps.

What the DYAR and EYds allow us to do is look at the information objectively (not subjectively), and have an unbiased look at performance based on mitigating factors that we may ignore as a result of the assimilation phenomenon.

Simply because you’ve earned respect based on past performances does not make you a great player now. Case in point: Shaun Alexander. I am still biased toward Alexander because of his outstanding play up until 2005. Alexander fell from grace, but it took more than one season and nagging injuries similar to those Jackson is facing for people to change their views. If you look back though, Alexander most certainly had “top 5 RB” performances amidst his horrid outings.

While I’m not saying Jackson is following the path of Alexander (though I am certainly indicating that it COULD happen), I am not convinced that Jackson is the same player that we have seen in years past. The weighted stats show this, and the performance of the Rams in his absence show this.

by Cruithear on Nov 20, 2008 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't know so many people...

… thought so highly of O’Sullivan. He definitely has had his plusses, but his negatives have ALWAYS been apparent.

by sfgfan on Nov 20, 2008 10:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe it was my own biases leading me to believe that others agreed with me in the early days ;).

by Cruithear on Nov 20, 2008 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"The DYAR and EYds take MANY factors into account, and are fairly reliable predictors of performance."

They’re running totals not projections.

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They can be used to predict future performance when compared with other statistics.

by Cruithear on Nov 20, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not here to argue the validity of DYAR and EYds

I just think a 6.5 game sample size is fairly small.

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

true...

6.5 games is a very small sample size…however, 128 carries is not a small sample size at all. that is the sample FO is using to come up with YAR and EYds. also, both stats are based on what the “average” performance is, which means that each player’s sample of carries is being compared to every other player’s sample of carries. so we’re talking about every running play in every game so far this season as the data set that’s being used to calculate each running back’s stats. if we just looked at games, rather than individual plays, we’d be making the mistake that i mentioned earlier about simply comparing gore to jackson in terms of yards per game. that’s a totally invalid statistic for sample size reasons, and some of the other reasons we’ve discussed here.

by Florida Danny on Nov 20, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

DYAR & EYds are awesome

I’m really impressed with a system that ranks LeRon McClain ahead of Adrian Peterson and has Lendale White as a top 12 RB.

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you must be reeeeeeeeeally impressed with...

…a system that ranks jackson as the 20th best RB then. it’s called the NFL rushing yardage and yards per carry leaderboard. that must be total bullshit because jackson is definitely a top 5 RB.

i think the problem here is that you’re taking a guy’s past history, the skill set he’s shown in the past, and applying it to him forever, whereas i’m strictly talking about ONE PLAYER’S value for ONE TEAM during ONE SEASON, given how he and the rest of the players at his position have performed during that season in specific situations.

i’m riding AP in my keeper league, so there’s no way you’re going to get me to talk shit about him. the guy is obviously a stud. and just to correct you, EYds ranks AP as the 4th best RB, miles ahead of both white and mcclain. he’s lower in DYAR than mcclain because mcclain has been successful in tougher running situations vs. defenses that are better in those situations, while AP has been successful in easier situations comparatively. also, since you’ve obviously visited FO’s rankings, mcclain has made a successful run 63% of the time, while AP has only been successful on 52%, and those are not adjusted for situational difficulty at all!!!

i’m gonna continue this train of thought in something a little broader, so i’ll stop now.

by Florida Danny on Nov 20, 2008 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Last 3 games

Jackson averaged 4.91 yards per carry over his last 3 games before getting hurt (that’s close to Top 5 RB production) he also averaged 12.6 yards per reception.

In 2007 Tomlinson averaged 2.28 yards per carry through his first 3 games (he didn’t play in the preseason). He averaged something like 4.3 yards per carry over his first 122 carries (Steven Jackson has averaged 4.2 yards per carry over his first 121 carries this season). Through LT2’s first 6 games that season he averaged something like 5.0 yards per touch (Steven Jackson has averaged 5.6 yards per touch through his first 6 games this season). LT2 ended up leading the league in rushing in 2007 after only rushing for 130 through his first 3 games.

Tomlinson must have been a below average running back last season.

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

actually...

LT was #2 in DYAR last season and led the league in EYds. his actual yards per carry was 5.0, and his EYds per carry was 4.7, meaning that he got about 100 rushing yards in easier-than-average situations. it could easily have been that his first 3 games were full of tough situations that he wasn’t doing well in, and then his final 13 were the opposite. who knows what the cause was other than that? you say “getting up to speed”, i say “getting laid.” we both could be right, we both could be wrong.

by Florida Danny on Nov 20, 2008 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i couldn't...

….have put it better myself

by Florida Danny on Nov 20, 2008 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oops...

…sorry method. i was responding to your comment as if you were either maveric or unleashthegore. didn’t realize it was a new argument tha was being made for jackson’s value, rather than a rebuttal of my rebuttal to their arguments. my bad.

by Florida Danny on Nov 19, 2008 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

exactly!

when healthy, jackson is ranked ahead of gore. to say he wouldn’t have made a difference is ignorant. the 2 games the rams have won? jackson was a major key to that.

Fans stuck in the 80's are lame. Respect the past, live in the now.

by maveric_87 on Nov 20, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i don't really understand...

…this whole, “when healthy” argument. the stats are based on when he has actually run the ball (i.e., healthy enough to run). those stats say he’s not even close to gore in terms of value. now, if you want to say, “oh, well, he was gutting it out in the games he sucked, and he was 100% in the games he was awesome in,” then you’re making the same selectin bias mistake that method is making. i mean, there are a lot of ifs in this “when healthy” argument. if he’s 100% healthy, and if he did well in the game, and if st. louis actually won, then he’s more valuable gore.

also, no one’s saying jackson wouldn’t have made a difference. i’m saying the difference he would have made is negligible, and not anywhere near the difference that losing gore would make on the 49ers offense.

by Florida Danny on Nov 20, 2008 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He's a whole hell of a lot better than Pittman

Pittman isn’t a game changer, while Jackson very much so is.

by methodrampage on Nov 19, 2008 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the point is...

Jackson’s not a game changer this year. The memory of Jackson is vivid, but flesh and bones hasn’t lived up to the memory.

And just how many carries do you suppose Jackson would have received in the pre-season as the starter – maybe 3 carries in the each of the first 2, 6-8 carries in the 3rd, and 0 in the 4th, based upon many clubs’ treatment of game #3 as full first half for starters, and next to nothing in game #4.

by StepUp on Nov 20, 2008 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"Jackson’s not a game changer this year."

Not true. He put up 188 total yards against Bills and 168 yards (with 3 TDs) against Cowboys. So two of his 6.5 games played he put up game changing performances. He’s averaged over 155 yards over his last 3 games before he got hurt.

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just about carries.

I’m not going to speak for method, but my theory about missing preseason time goes beyond just carries for a RB or catches for a receiver. It’s just getting in work with the rest of your team to get a feel for the others around you. It’s running plays that you wouldn’t be running (whether or number is called or not) while you’re not playing.

It even goes beyond that. If I’m not mistaken, he was flat out not available to the team during the preseason. He wasn’t being held out of games. That means he missed practices, and possibly, meetings. There’s no way anyone can say that missing practice doesn’t affect one’s game.

by sfgfan on Nov 20, 2008 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Steven Jackson and stats

Well I had a nice little post going and I accidentally closed the window. So I’ll cut it down to the basic points.

First (and this is more for Danny), how does FO account for receptions and receiving yards for a running back? A guy like Frank Gore has always been a big receiver in the 49ers offense, but much of that is due to the fact that the 49ers receivers have been mostly inept in his time here. Then there’s a guy like Roger Craig who was a big receiving RB for the 49ers, but he was on teams with the greatest receiver of all time, and a solid #2.

Second, the discussion taking place here is certainly prototypical of the battle between hard core stats guys and those more interested in what they’ve seen up to this point and the more visual analysis they bring to the table. I think I fall somewhere in the middle. In looking at his whole body of work this season, Steven Jackson has struggled much of the time. I don’t know if he’s finished as a great running back because he’s also playing on a god-awful Rams team.

Even though there have been some long and outstanding careers, the average career of an NFL player is still relatively short. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a player wears down quickly. It may seem surprising, but I’d imagine that has more to do with the level of performance of a player before the down fall (see Alexander, Shaun). One could ask whether a guy like Ladanian Tomlinson is also wearing down? He’s averaging 3.8 yards a carry and currently ranks 29th in DYAR. For those less inclined to look at some of those stats, LDT just seems to not be playing at the same level. Is it just a one-year blip? After all, he averaged 3.8 yards per carry in 2004 but quickly bounced back in the subsequent years. I’m not saying he’s finished by ANY stretch of the imagination. Just more of a mental exercise I suppose.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Nov 20, 2008 12:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

SJax Finished?

I’m not trying to start anything and I know that your not saying that “he’s finished by ANY stretch of the imagination” but that’s got to be scary thought for Rams fans. He just signed 6 year $44.8M contract (good for like the 5th highest RB in the NFL). He’s also only been over 255 carries once so he should still be pretty fresh although the injuries this year and last are a concern.

Just curious, where did Gore rank in DYAR last year? And the year before?

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think the argument has been about...

… stats versus what the eyes see. I think the back and forth has primarily been about using one year’s stats to negate a player’s career’s worth of work. As you mentioned Fooch, I’d also be curious about how those FO stats account for the fact that your offensive linemen may suck. Better yet, how do those stats adjust for having maybe only one or two offensive linemen that suck?

To make any judgments on Jackson’s productivity and absolutely ruling him out because some stats say that he wouldn’t make a difference is absolutely wrong. The guy can still play, and if he’s had some good performances this year, who’s to say that he wouldn’t have done the same against a 49ers defense?

by sfgfan on Nov 20, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by methodrampage on Nov 20, 2008 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by no means..

….am i intending to discount jackon’s career. i’m just making a conclusion about his value, based on his performance this season, to the 2008 rams. his value in previous years is a totally separate issue. in terms of the offensive line, you’re correct that it’s not something that’s factored in. as i said earlier, the idiosyncatic game-to-game performance of his offensive line certainly can be a factor influencing his performance. however, hasn’t his line been injured for almost 2 seasons now? hasn’t their line been shitty for almost 2 seasons now? why should i believe that if, after such consistent injured shittiness over the past 2 seaons, that jackson would magically turn into an MVP running back this season if ony he could just get healthy?

by Florida Danny on Nov 20, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we're arguing...

… that Jackson would be an MVP running back through the rest of this season. We (by we, I’m saying method and I, and whomever else has already voiced a similar opinion) are just saying that it’s wrong to absolutely writing off the possibility that he would have been a lot more effective than Pittman against the 49ers. I’m not saying the Rams would have won, but Jackson’s performance would more likely have been a lot better than what Pittman put up, not just as a running back, but as a total package.

by sfgfan on Nov 20, 2008 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

certainly...

…i don’t intend to completely write off the possibility. there’s always a possibility. stats aren’t infallible obviously, and come with a certain degree of error. i guess my argument is two-fold at its core:

1) if i’m going to make a judgment about the value of gore vs. jackson, i have to decide what evidence to base that judgment on. in my opinion, and based on my knowledge of how methodology can seriously invalidate a stat (see NFL leaderboards), i choose DYAR and EYds because they are by far the most valid (methodologically sound) stats out there. because we’re talking about the steven jackson of this season and the rams offense of this season, i choose jackson’s 2008 DYAR and EYds. again, the whole reason these two stats were even developed was to answer the exact question we’re discussing here.

2) comparing gore’s 2008 DYAR and EYds to jackson’s, there’s no other conclusion besides one that says gore is more valuable to the 2008 49ers offense than jackson is to the 2008 rams offense. in past seasons, and if we charted it over the course of their careers, perhaps the conclusion would be different. but this season, it’s not even close.

by Florida Danny on Nov 20, 2008 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Value

Of course Gore is more valuable to his team that Jackson is. That still doesn’t discount the (valid) idea that Jackson makes more of a difference than Pittman. Maybe not enough to win (which I suppose is the most important thing), but a bigger difference nonetheless.

by sfgfan on Nov 20, 2008 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because the game isn't played in a vacuum

You can’t just take the different situations the Rams were in and then plug Steven Jackson in for Pittman. Game plans change, etc. It’s my feeling that the Rams are a better team with Steven Jackson than they are without (as evident by their two wins).

by methodrampage on Nov 21, 2008 7:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i don't think anyone...

…would doubt that the rams are a better team with steven jackson rather than antonio pittman. all the stats try to do is to quantify, with a certain degree of error, how much better they are.

i agree that game plans do change depending on the personnel available. no question. but jackson’s stats are based on when he was on the field obviously, so game planning around availability isn’t an issue.

by Florida Danny on Nov 21, 2008 9:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But the stats aren't really measuring how much better a team is with or without a cetain a player

I mean, I don’t feel like it’s accurate just to compare what Steven Jackson has done with what Antonio Pittman has done and say “Well Jackson hasn’t been very good so his impact on the game would have been negligible”. Whether his stats/performance thus far this year warrant it or not, I’d imagine defenses are still keying in on and scheming to shut down Steven Jackson and by doing so leaving openings that wouldn’t be there otherwise.

If it’s 3rd and 1 with Steven Jackson in the backfield maybe the defense drops a safety into the box opening up the passing game a bit. Maybe they don’t do the same thing with Pittman in the game. I’ve heard coaches say that games pivot around 5 or 6 plays. Wouldn’t it be tough to measure a player’s impact on those specific plays?

It seems like a player’s impact on a game or team can’t just be measured by his stats.

by methodrampage on Nov 21, 2008 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm agreeing with you...

…that stats are not the only thing that matters. that’s why i keep saying “with error”. if stats were perfect, there would be a lot more billionaires out there. stats aren’t cited as the be all and end all of an argument; they’re just a piece of evidence in the argument. whether or not it’s a good piece of evidence depends on the kinds of methods that the statistician has used to come up with it. in the case of dyar and eyds, FO’s methodology is an improvement over basic nfl stats because it makes adjustments for a lot of things that the regular nfl stats don’t.

i cite dyar and eyds as evidence, and base my conclusion on them to the extent that (a) there is a degree of error in the stats, (b) i don’t think that most of the other factors we’ve discussed matter much, and © if they do, they’re either random or wash out over time. as cruithear said earlier, i trust a valid objective measure more than i trust my ability to ignore any biases i might have that are not based on anything objective.

by Florida Danny on Nov 21, 2008 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs