Citizens Blame Weatherman for Sun
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 10:20 AM PDT
in Statistical Preview and Review
87 comments
Danny here...Just wanted to pass along a link that I think is pretty relevant for Niners Nation (NN) in general, but especially relevant to those of us who've engaged in the whole "football stats matter" vs. "football stats don't matter" debate.
In his post introducing the Week 6 DVOA ratings, Aaron over at Football Outsiders discusses a few things that I'd like to call attention to for the sake of debate.
First, Aaron talks about how their preseason predictions for the Broncos and Chargers were very wrong, and -- get this -- asks the audience for assistance in coming up with objective reasons that might identify where DVOA was deficient. As I've said on NN, "Stats are NOT people too." DVOA is not some master plan executed by FO at their secret headquarters ala Dr. Evil calling for "the laser" or Don Corleone doing a favor for Bonasera the undertaker. Rather, it is an objective measure refined over and over again to account for instances in which it doesn't seem to spit out a valid result. Acknowledging a DVOA deficiency and asking for assistance is proof positive of this refinement process.
Second, Aaron talks about how the Eagles are -- just like last year -- much higher in the DVOA rankings than their winning percentage would otherwise indicate. In 2008, FO was hammered all season for PHI's weekly top 5 ranking. Then the playoffs arrived, and the 6th-seeded Eagles vidicated FO by advancing to the NFC championship game. Through Week 6 in 2009, PHI is #2 in Total DVOA despite a pedestrian 3-2 record, and thus FO is once again under fire. In the post, Aaron -- with the help of commenters -- tries to figure out why the Eagles are DVOA darlings.
Finally, motivated by the Titans' 59-0 loss to the Patriots this past weekend, Aaron lists the worst 10 single-game team performances in the history of DVOA. This is relevant to NN because (a) the 2005 49ers hold 2 out of the 10 spots, and (b) NFC West teams hold the top (bottom?) 3 spots, and 6 out of the top 10.
So, if you've been involved in the DVOA debates on NN and/or you'd like to see how the 2005 49ers (or 2000-2003 Cardinals or 2008 Rams) were the embodiment of game-specific situational inefficiency, click here and give Aaron's post a read.
0 recs |
87 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
I can’t think of anything off the top of my head for the Broncos or the Chargers, but the main difference I can think about between the Eagles and most other teams is their unusually high pass/run ratio. I don’t know what the numbers look like this year, but in the past I believe they’ve been comfortably over 60% passes.
On the face, I don’t see why this would make any difference. It seems like that kind of problem would naturally be accounted for by DVOA. But would it be possible that the system does value passing success somewhat higher than running? If so, it could skew their numbers high.
I’m just shooting darts here, really, and I’m not confident enough in the idea to post it over at FO right now. But it is the only thing that jumps out at me about the Eagles that has separated them from the rest of the league the last few years.
Don’t the Patriots also pass an inordinate amount of the time? And the proficiency of New Orleans’ passing game is well documented. I really don’t know if I’m actually on to something or just spewing nonsense….
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
from what i've noticed...
passing is weighted more than running in DVOA, so teams that pass more will have their DVOA more affected by how efficiently they’re passing the ball. i think what others on FO have said about PHI (and NE) is that DVOA favors the west coast offense because it is, by definition, a passing offense geared toward super-efficiency.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So then I guess the question would really be, “should passing be weighted more?”
It could just be the case that a strong passing game is more valuable than a strong running game. In which case, it wouldn’t really be a flaw at all. But then, in a system where you pass significantly more by design, you also really have to be consistent about it. Being super-awesome every other week still could average out to a pretty good total. And – and this is purely observational, so I’m not going to defend it against real numbers – Philly does seem rather inconsistent on a week to week basis.
Of course, consistency metrics are rather problematic. Particularly when you’re talking about it on a week to week basis (16 samples!)…
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah...
they weight passing offense more than running offense because passing offense has a higher correlation with winning. independent of FO, i’ve done an analysis predicting win change from one season to the next and improvement/decline in pass offense DVOA is the biggest predictor of win improvement/decline, followed closely by pass defense DVOA improvement/decline. MIA, BAL, and ATL from last year were perfect examples of this phenomenon. SF during the 2nd half of last season was also a perfect example. DEN this season is a perfect example of the pass defense DVOA improvement effect, but I’m not sure anyone could have predicted that DEN’s pass defense DVOA would improve by over 40%. in the FO thread, i offered the explanation that it was mildly predictable based on the fact that the lower you are in pass defense DVOA, the more you’re going to rebound the next season (aka a bigger regression to the mean). otherwise, DEN’s pass defense turnaround is a mystery.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So then what you’re saying is that it’s no mystery why Adrian Peterson and the Vikings have been so much better with Brett Favre than they were with Tarvaris Jackson. Even though Adrian Peterson is the best player in football. :P
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
i did the analysis before the signing, so my model didn’t predict MIN to be that much better. once they signed favre, i immediately figured they’d be way better based on what i found in that analysis. CIN having a healthy carson palmer this season also fits the bill.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh, and...
DEN switching to the 3-4 predicted a higher ASR, which probably has a positive effect on pass defense DVOA. watching the niners, it sure seems like the 3-4 has helped their pass rush, which has in turn helped their overall pass defense.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adjusted Sack Rate
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
by Viliphied on Oct 21, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So passing DVOA does have a higher weight than run DVOA . . . OK scratch that suggestion.
As for the Eagles, and this was already brought up, they are rather inconsistent in their passing game. Specifically passing the deep routes. Some games like Tampa it seems like they cannot miss a deep pass and dial up a high number of them. However, the Eagles passing game will also go stone cold and give up trying the deep balls early. I know they measure efficiency over the course of the season so wouldn’t completing 8 deep passes (lets just say that’s a very high amount for one game) against Tampa while throwing for zero successful deep passes against Oakland and New Orleans throw off the measurement (partly from giving up on those type plays).
by bignerd on Oct 21, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think...
…it could definitely be an inconsistency in the deep passing game. i’d just add to your idea that maybe PHI’s deep pass come in relatively diffiicult game situations, so their successes are even more “efficienct” and their failures are not all that “inefficienct.”
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so if pass offense is weighted more
could that also help explain why DEN was ranked so low at the start of the season – they thought with Orton, DEN would be running the ball more and have a shakey pass offense at best?
by sleepyotter on Oct 21, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, i'm not sure...
how FO comes up with their preseason projections apart from just generally knowing what things predict next season’s DVOA. in other words, i know that pass offense is weighted higher than rush offense for season DVOA, but I don’t know whether or not this is true for their preseason DVOA projections. if it is true, then, yeah, it would have skewed DEN’s projection southward. DEN was really high in pass offense DVOA last year (i think 5th), and cutler was really high in QB DYAR, so all things pointed to a big pass offense DVOA decline.
for the specific instance of DEN’s turnaround, i think it’s obviously being driven by a huge rebound in pass defense DVOA. their overall team DVOA is up 40% this year, and it’s probably no coincidence that their pass defense DVOA is also up 40% this year. perhaps what this means is that changes in pass defense DVOA are more important than changes in pass offense DVOA from one season to the next only for teams that were horrible in pass defense. if you know anything about stats, i’m talking about a moderated effect here, with “badess of previous season’s pass defense” being the moderator variable. basically, moderation just means that the effect of last season’s pass defense DVOA on this season’s total DVOA depends on how bad the team was in pass defense DVOA last season. for really horrible pass defenses like DEN in 2008, improved pass defense the following season has a bigger effect on total DVOA, whereas for mediocre or good pass defenses, improved pass defense the following season has a smaller effect on total DVOA.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cool
thanks for the link and the explanation. Unfortunately, i just have no idea how other teams in the league have ranked in pass/rush offense and defense historically, so even though I’d love to continue this conversation about what other possible moderating variables could affect performance, i got nothin insightful to add :) Today was the first day I’ve ever been to footballoutsiders.com, but I’ve definitely bookmarked it, so hopefully i’ll be able to jump into the conversations on these posts a bit more in the future.
Do you know if they have downloadable data sets, like to excel? I’ve tried cutting and pasting from websites like cbs and espn, but it always ends up being a pain to reformat in excel.
by sleepyotter on Oct 21, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Passing rated more...
… would make some sense for the Eagles. A large part of their “passing” game involves Westbrook, which in turn provides for more “high percentage” plays. That in turn allows for more potential successes, thus boosting the team’s efficiency, no?
After reading your comment, I feel like I’m basically saying what you’re saying. Didn’t want to delete it though so post anyway!
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still maintain by belief
that FO is bunch of BS
humans are unpredictable… it is sorta like how in a video game, take madden for instance, that it is much easier to decipher and predict what the computer will do next because of the flaw and limited choices in the programming; whereas playing against another human brings a whole another level of unpredictability and difficultly.. because like i said, humans are unpredictable.
FO is trying to correlate stats and performance as a measure of predictability, while they may get close and get things right from time to time, ultimately they will fail. So doing what they do is futile and pointless in the end. So why even do it?
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 11:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
citizens blame weatherman for sun.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and...
sheeple love their kneepads
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait...
so let me get this straight…
the person who’s as deeply interested in footbal stats as maybe 10% of the football-consuming public — and follows a website with “outsiders” in its name — is a sheep…
but the person who’s got the same “they’re all BS” opinion about stats as 90% of the football-consuming public is NOT a sheep?
enjoy your kneepads.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude plays Madden..
and he calls out " t3h sheeple.
/dark*nerd*
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 21, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nerd
yes “dank” “nerd”
dank is in reference to marijuana
nerd is in reference to nerding out over something, in this case the weed
yes i play madden and so do 20 million other people
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, thanks for proving my point.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 21, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why can’t you just be a man and say what you mean? because then I have to assume, and my assumption would be that I proved your point because anyone who smoke marijuana must be be retarded or something? if that is the case…
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Carl Sagan
Sigmon Freud
Frank Sinatra
All losers right? people who didnt know jack and never amounted to anything in their life and this is just naming a few
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't think...
washington, jefferson, sagan, freud, or sinatra ever uttered the words “sheeple love their kneepads.”
if you’re offended by the stereotype, try not to say things that fit it perfectly.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, Freud might have something that translated roughly to that….
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
look fellas, i aint trying to start anything or try to tell you not to follow FO or believe in what they do, just i dont think they have a good mathematical system in place and now they are starting to doubt themselves are they not?
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’ve always held the accuracy of their stats in question, though. It’s not that they’re suddenly starting to doubt themselves now. DVOA has been a dynamic stat since the beginning, and they’ve been tweaking it on a regular basis to try to account for more and more of the things that give it trouble.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait now
did i call you a sheeple? or are just deflecting some inner embarrassment?
i never said stats werent important, or that i dont follow stats, all i am claiming is that FO is full of BS, my opinion right? do i have to believe FO here, if so why? what makes FO better than others?
i stand behind my statement that FO is full of BS, because of my own convictions towards them, and I will voice my opinion as need be on this matter as well
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pretty sure...
i made it clear in the post that FO is looking for objective ways to improve DVOA to account for certain anomalies in their predictions/results. yet here you are providing us with pure subjectivity.
and as howtheyscored said, the whole point of this post was to show that FO, despite what people of your view think, actually acknowledges the shortcomings of DVOA, and is constantly trying to address them…in this case, with the help of their readers.
p.s. enough with the armchair psychology. i’m the one with the graduate degree in psych here. playground nanny-nanny-poo-poo “i know you are but what am i” attempts at projecting embarassment onto me are a waste of time.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
omg!
you have a graduate degree? me too!
they are looking for any objective answers, or else they would scrap their DVOA and start over, since it isnt as accurate as they and others once tried to claimed. yes I am being subjective in my responses because i stand up for the Niners and they are the #1 team in the NFL right now, no one has to believe me nor do I need to provide evidence because I am not selling statistical analysis to try and make a profit.
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How accurate did they once try to claim it was? “More accurate than Total Yards”? “Better than QB Rating”?
Seems okay to me.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
accurate in the terms of this is how x team will perform, but yet they have been wrong alot this year and they even admit it themselves
plus all i heard at the beginning of the season with the FO stuff on this site is how awesome they were, how accurate they are and if they say this about x them it will probably pan out as they say
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow...
please provide a link to any FO-related article on here that says
if they say this about x them it will probably pan out as they say
wanna talk about strawmen? you’re railing against a viewpoint that doesn’t even exist. FO is awesome because their methodology is awesome, not because they’re right 100% of the time. do you know the odds of correctly predicting the win totals for all 32 teams? do you even know how “wrongness” is measured statistically, and how FO is probably the least “wrong” of any publicly available stats?
probably not. you’re too busy vaporizing.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so...
FO never gave percentages of the 49ers win-loss recorded prediction? but yet this thread exists…
http://www.ninersnation.com/2009/7/14/948464/football-outsiders-thinks-the-san
just because FO might have the ‘least’ wrong of any publicly available stats doesn’t make them right, or make me like them anymore. that is absurd to even make such a correlation… if you believe that, then you should agree that whatever music artist has the most album sales in 2009 is the best music act of the year right, and you better promote them as such, buy their t-shirts, posters, blast their music even if it is Miley Cirus sings songs about bananas and fruit cakes, since the stat doesnt lie.
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
danknerd =
mystery man.
he says FO has a crappy mathematical system, but then doesn’t offer one mathematical reason for why it’s crappy. he says he’s not a stereotypical pothead, but makes statement after statement typical of a stereotypical pothead. he responds to a claim about having a specific type of graduate degree that’s relevant in the context of his comment, but then only says he has a graduate degree too (without telling us what it’s in).
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
first, my graduate degree is a Master’s of Science in Emerging Technologies.
second, why the math is crap? because as howtheyscored keeps telling me they are always refining it and doubting their formula… that doesnt sound like sound mathematics to me. im sure NASA would love to hire these guys
finally, stereotypical pothead statements? like Dude, where’s my car… yup I am saying those over and over.
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
second, why the math is crap? because as howtheyscored keeps telling me they are always refining it and doubting their formula… that doesnt sound like sound mathematics to me. im sure NASA would love to hire these guys
You seem to think that mathematical equations come out of this air and are immediately correct? I’m pretty sure the physics, calculus, and various other maths/sciences used by NASA took years to develop, often with scientists devoting their whole lives to said development.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes they were, but they didnt publicly post them until they were sure they were correct, plus they go through scholarly review before being accept and most importantly they didnt sell their work in progress equations either
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK...
now, i’m no aeronautical engineer, but i’m kind of under the assumption that any statistical model of a cosmological phenomenon gets refined over time when new facts present themselves, i.e., the methodology behind coming up with a cosmological estimate gets better.
case in point: the age of the universe. to date, this is something that can only be estimated. scientists have been estimating the age of the universe for a while, and the last best estimate (13.73 billion years) was reported by WMAP project scientists in 2008. two things:
1) WMAP was an improvement over previous methods based on the rate of universe expansion. it required the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, and data collected from the probe itself, to get an improved estimate of the age of the universe. in other words, the WMAP project refined a statistical method (i.e., age of the universe estimation) when new facts emerged (i.e., cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered; WMAP probe developed, built, and deployed).
2) even the “most accurate yet” WMAP estimate has a standard error of .006, meaning that the estimate itself has a confidence interval that’s 120 million years wide! it’s just as likely that the WMAP estimate is exactly right as it is wrong by 60 million years on either side! the important point, though, is that an uncertainty of 120 million years is waaaaaay better than previous estimation methods that produced uncertainties in the the 5-billion-year range. reducing that uncertainty was the whole point of WMAP.
relating this back to football stats, please explain to me how what i just described is any different than (a) refining a method for estimating football efficiency as new data, discoveries, and measurement instruments emerge, and (b) doing all this refining with the express intent of reducing the amount of uncertainty in the efficiency estimates.
i’m really eager to hear what a master in emergent technologies has to say in response here. but, like i said, i’m no rocket scientist.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
:popcorn:...
Gotta love the Labcoats talking smack with each other. Gotta be a first here.
=)
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 21, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can get a lot nerdier if you want.
Not gonna help any us of land that blonde.
by bignerd on Oct 21, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who wants a blonde, anyway?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I NEVER
said my graduate degree had anything to with anything on this site, you are making this claim now… additionally you threw around your educational prowess like you deserve a cookie, or least a better one, because of it.
yes you are not an astrophysicists at all, neither am I, though the measurement of the age and/or size of the universe is far more different because of the amounts of missing data to formulate a decisive calculation; whereas with football statistical analysis has tangible real statistic to formulate a formula for. There is no, and should not be, any theoretical anomalies involved, like the physics behind the alteration of the experienced time near extremely high gravitational forces in determining said age of universe.
I have a question, why are you taking this so personal? It appears to me you are, do you have some stake/investment in FO?
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
here's why
whereas with football statistical analysis has tangible real statistic to formulate a formula for.
this is an incredibly ignorant assertion. the main problem with football statistical analysis is a lack of data. missingness is the #1 obstacle to valid results. that’s why FO has an army of volunteers who chart games for them to supplement the play-by-play data. they actively attempt to solve the missing data problem.
i’m taking this personally because ignorance at the level you’re displaying on here is personally offensive to me. you’re either asserting things that have no factual basis or making assertions — like the one i just cited — that are totally ignorant of the topic of discussion.
to put it about as directly as i can, you’re bitching for the sake of bitching about something of which you know very little or absolutely nothing, and you don’t seem to have any interest in learning more about it. i’m taking this personal because you’re populating an otherwise-rational discussion with sheer, unadulterated buffoonery.
the whole point of this post — i’m tending to assume you’re illiterate in addition to ignorant about football stat analysis — was to show that FO already knows their models aren’t perfect. they don’t need some ignorant person like you to fill them in on the secret. the hypocrisy inherent in you expecting them to have a perfect statistic, yet at the same time ripping them for attempting to achieve that perfect statistic, is honestly staggering.
and, finally, if they — and apparently i — were so hell-bent on profit motive, what business model predicts increased revenue from admitting your product is potentially deficient? find me one, please. if you knew anything on the matter, rather than slinging mud without substance, you’d realize that ESPN, FOX, the washington post, and anyone other major media outlet that FO makes money from, approached them about entering into a partnership. every dime they’ve made has been on the backs of their own reputation in the small subfield of football statistics, and i’m sure the core FO guys spent the better part of 2003-2005 operating at a wallet-killing, but spirit-enhancing, loss. they’re not some snake oil selling scheisters like you seem to be believe. they do good work, and they hope people recognize it. if i’m in cahoots with them, it’s in the belief that you do your best, put it out there, constantly work at it, hope people recognize it, and eventually make a living at it because you’re a value in demand, not a disposable supply. but, again, you’re ignorant about the whole thing, so i wouldn’t expect you to know this, or attempt to know it.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mmmm
I dunno about that example. Physics models aren’t the same as statistical models but I see what you were aiming at.
by bignerd on Oct 21, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah...
obviously, football stat analysis is nothing like estimating the age of the universe. :-)
glad you realized i was making a methodological point.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes they were, but they didnt publicly post them until they were sure they were correct, plus they go through scholarly review before being accept
First of all, you don’t think that Einstein would have had a blog pushing his findings to the world if that kind of thing existed back then? Modern communications allows for people to get their ideas out, and in many cases, fixed.
Think about it this way, FO could either cook up their equations in their own confines, or they can post it to the world to critique them. While I’m sure there are definitely fans that aren’t “scholarly” and maybe shouldn’t be reviewing the stats, but in the pool of sports fans that exists, I’m sure there is a very large contingent of “scholarly” fans that contribute to FO either directly (working for them) or indirectly (as fans criticizing and/or praising).
I just don’t see how you can criticize what is basically open collaboration. Two minds are generally better than one, right?
Rather than attack FO because their (1) not finalized, (2) still mistake ridden, or (3) just flat out wrong in some cases, how about helping them find a solution to said problems? I’m sure FO would gladly accept suggestions on where their formula is wrong and how one would go about fixing it.
Basically, what I’m saying is that you could either look at the stats and take them for what they’re worth and maybe help them evolve, or you can just ignore them and go on doing whatever it is that you do. Instead you’re just complaining about something you don’t even have to pay attention to if you don’t like it.
by sfgfan on Oct 22, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s just a smaller herd, man. Baaaa.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So doing what they do is futile and pointless in the end. So why even do it?
So why track stats at all? Even conventional stats are used by “analysts” to “predict” future performance. Heck, fans and even front office folks use statistics to help project how much they should pay players. In the grand scheme of things, predictions by fans and “analysts” that aren’t tied to football teams are pretty useless, but it’s a fun exercise, anyway.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
why are stats tracked at all. there is really only one thing that matters and that is getting the win.
"The day I stopped worrying about stats is the day I started winning."
-Shaq
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
All that matters in the end is who gets the win. That is why I said predictions by fans and “analysts” aren pretty much useless.
However, in the ever evolving world of sports and the finances tied to them, teams, and people who want to make money from the team at some point, try to come up with projections that work. Advance stats, or any statistics for that matter, are far from the end-all-be-all, but they provide teams, much like any other business, a way to project their business’ future.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
shaq...
aka “the big pythagoras”
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t win consistently if you don’t know what objective factors make it the most likely for a team to win. That what stats allow you to figure out.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why try and find a cure for Cancer?
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 21, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
because...
human biology is unpredictable
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey there strawman!
yeah because FO’s DVOA is along the same lines as cancer.
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
People still have to do research, right?...
Part of doing research is developing formulas that can help to improve our understanding. If you feel that it’s useless because the end results aren’t that predictable because of a human factor, then why do it at all?
Of course Football isn’t Cancer. But it’s not like stat analysis has never been a aprt of the game. Gil Brandt used computer aided analysis to help him scout players years ago.
BTW, one Strawman deserves another.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 21, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what you’re saying is that you’d prefer not to have to understand DVOA, but also would prefer to rip into it than just say that you’re being lazy.
All the things you say you hate FO for are things that FO accept and cover rather extensively as things that they either can’t necessarily account for or can account for much better than you would think.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
really?
FO covers all the things I hate about them and they accept them?
So when should I get a response back from them explaining how they hate the 49ers, how they cover that and accept that?
by danknerd49 on Oct 21, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So when should I get a response back from them explaining how they hate the 49ers, how they cover that and accept that?
Apparently you still don’t understand DVOA or how it works. It’s not like FO magically says: “See this team? Let’s smite them with all our statistical glory!” If anything, you should look at their questioning of why the Eagles are DVOA darlings as a form of trying to answer your question. They’re admitting there’s something amiss in their statistical model, but the only way to fix it is to trial and error it. It’s not like there’s some magical formula that everyone knows or that is written somewhere. If there was, then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weird response is weird.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 21, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think humans are unpredictable?
Clearly, on a large enough scale, this is not true. Especially when you have a pretty good idea of what the possible outcome set is.
Try this mental experiment.
Every day, smile at ten people that you walk past. Record whether they smile back, or not.
Now, if you do this for long enough, you’ll build up a set of data. You’ll have a pretty good idea of the proportions of people who smile back and those who don’t.
Of course, individuals are unpredictable, but you doesn’t mean you can’t express this as a probability. Armed with this knowledge, you’ll be right more times than you’re wrong. And, of course, the larger the sample you have, the more accurate you’ll be.
Plus, people smiling at you is nice.
by bobnothing on Oct 21, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yards per play/drive measures efficiency but doesn’t exactly relate linearly to points. The Redskins are the test case here and admit they look like an outlier. They are decent at picking up a few 1st downs per drive and moving the ball. However are consistent at not putting together enough 1st downs, long drives or producing big plays to get into scoring range.
The 49ers offense is a bit of contrast. This offense will put together four consecutive 3 and outs but so far has shown the ability to put together 80 yards for TD on the 5th drive.
Results over 5 drives:
Redskins: 140-150 yards, 8 1st downs, 0 points
49ers: 100 yards, 5 1st downs, 7 points
Of course this example was illustrated better last week when the Skins were the 20th ranked offense while the 49ers were 29th but things changed in the bye week.
Back to my point, there is this movable threshold level in yards on a drive before points are produced. I’m not sure if F.O. is measuring or accounting for this threshold correctly. Redskins might be the case to examine. But the lesson in understanding this threshold might explain the Broncos and 49ers slightly better than indicated success.
by bignerd on Oct 21, 2009 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Denver's defense
2 Maybe 3 Factors:
Older secondaries due to tend to decline in production overall. However, they are still capable of individually producing rebound years later in their career. Dre Bly is having a rebound year. Walt Harris had a rebound year joining the 49ers a few years ago. Rod Woodson had rebound years later in his career, that is just to name a few. Three years of stats may show a decline in production but an older secondary player might produce a spike in performance in one those years. Dawkins and Bailey might both be experiencing a spike.
Elvis Dumervil is carrying the Broncos pass rush attack. How do you predict a guy having 10 sacks over the first 6 games? He had good production before the season but his production so far has taken a massive jump. He’s also produced every game, not on some, off some like pass rushers tend to perform.
I guess you can factor in coaching and Nolan too. It seems he is putting DJ Williams in the right positions. Last years he would tackle guys 10 yards past the line of scrimmage, this year he’s meeting people in the backfield. DJ Williams has already been talented player, maybe better coaching has put his skills to better use.
by bignerd on Oct 21, 2009 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
These are very valid points.
I think that any statistical model that tries to project the improvement and decline of players (aging or not) will always fall victim to the veterans that generate spikes in the data. We as fans see every year that a player WAY over exceeds expectations or a player that WAYYYYY under-perform expectations.
These points are definitely a part of why Denver’s projection was way off. The big question, to me, is why the Eagles continue to be rated well.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i hadn't really considered this...
…up until now, but might it have anything to do with stability at the QB position? i mean, the 3 teams that are perennial top-of-the-charts offenses are IND, PHI, and NE. manning, mcnabb, and brady have started 429 out of a possible 467 games since becoming their respective team’s starter. coincidence?
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could be onto something.
It would definitely make sense to conclude that a QB who’s been in the system longer tends to be more efficient (and thus successful) than a QB who’s juggling systems or a system that’s juggling QBs.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offensive coordinator I'd bet
The Colt’s Tom Moore has been OC for 12 years.
Marty Mornhinweg has been with the Eagles for 7 years.
Bill Belichick has been head coach with the Patriots for 9 years (no OC there).
A bit of an aberration is the Saints’ Pete Carmichael, Jr who was only promoted to O.C. this year—however, he was previously the Q.B. coach and was QB coach when Brees came to the Saints.
The bottom three teams have no tenure at Head Coach/Offensive Coordinator
Raiders are at No 32. Tom Cable calls the plays and this is his first season with the team.
The Cleveland Browns are ranked 31st. Their O.C. Brian Daboll has been with them 1 year.
The Detroit Lions are ranked 30th. Scott Linehan has been with them 1 year.
The other thing to note is that each of the top teams has a coach who stayed put for a long time. Belicheck with the Patriots for 9 years, Reid with the Eagles for 10 years. Tony Dungy with the Colts for 6 years. Again the aberration here is with Sean Payton who has only been with the Saints since 2006.
It seems that there’s a definite correlation between tenure of the offensive coordinator and their ranking. Also between tenure of QB and coach and ranking. However it’s a bit of a which came first question.
Is the tenure the cause of the high DVOA, or is the high DVOA a cause of the tenure (i.e. the front office keeps coaches and O.C’s who are doing well and in turn they keep their QBs who are doing well).
by smileyman on Oct 22, 2009 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yet..
DEN has a new DC, but they have always an OC that had a dynamic passing attack along with a run game, even though the blocking scheme has changed.
I think you’re on to “it”. The reason why the 49ers have been successful in recent years is the very reason why they have issues now that may prevent them from having future success. I’ve said this in the past for many times, and I will say it once more: when you install an offense in Year 1, you should be running it in year 3 or 4. I think teams that have an continuous offensive identity predicated on a dynamic passing game has more sustained success than a team the isn’t the Steelers, yet the QB is the difference there as well. The real problem with DEN has been defense, right? Plummer had his best years in DEN, and so did Cutler. Orton is reborn in DEN. The thing is, DEN has always had offense. The NFL is still a passing League. People think that the BAL with Dilfer is the rule now, but Dilfer got cut because Billick knew that he had to improve that position, being a guy who knows offense.
Maybe DEN is improved solely on defense, and is aggressive in that aspect now due to that they were aggressive on offense prior, which leads to offense being the key strength despite your QB which DEN has had some success with as far as QB due to the offense and it’s system and coaching.
What is gonna kill the 49ers this season is the fact that they will go against what is historically theirs: Offense.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 22, 2009 1:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree...
with the dumervil factor…i think his jump was predictable…switching to the 3-4 helped a lot i think, but there may be other reasons it was predictable that require a closer look.
the “confluence of multiple, old, rebounding DBs” reason makes sense, but it seems like more of a random event to me. are there any stats we could use to predict the ODB rebound?
pretty sure FO looked at the “change in DC” variable, and it didn’t show anything worthwhile.
overall, i think your reasons are hinting that DEN’s defensive turnaround is one massive random event.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
are there any stats we could use to predict the ODB rebound?
I don’t think there are without injecting quite a bit of subjectivity (or maybe even fan bias) into the equation. Since the idea behind FO’s statistics is to remove subjectivity, I don’t see how you can predict if a guy “still has it” without being subjective.
overall, i think your reasons are hinting that DEN’s defensive turnaround is one massive random event.
I think the MASSIVENESS of the turnaround is definitely an unpredictable event. It just doesn’t happen that often. While there may have been tells for specific players stepping it up, it’s almost impossible to predict that Brian Dawkins wasn’t washed up or that Ronald Fields would actually be a solid NT.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i really...
don’t think it’s as random or subjective as most think. here’s what i mean.
1. fields has always been better suited for 3-4 NT…but nolan constantly played him at 4-3 DT in SF. there’s something to be said about the scheme fitting the skill set and a player having an opportunity he’s never had before.
2. dawkins and r. hill both came to DEN from pretty damn good secondaries. this lead to the hypotheses that (a) Ss are really important for massive pass defense improvement, and (b) you have to look at the caliber of pass defense from which the player came from when evaluating free agent additions.
3. dumervil had 5 sacks as a 4-3 DE last season. as i said in the FO thread, 3-4 LBs avg. about 2 more sacks per season than 4-3 DEs. so that takes him up to 7. the rest of the increase could just be due to a natural 3rd-year progression for young pass rushers who’ve had 17.5 sacks in their first 2 years as a starter.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in case i didn't make it clear enough...
my point here is that each of these things could be considered objective predictors of DEN’s pass defense turnaround, i.e., it’s not as unpredictable as it seems.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nolan and Fields
Just going with this one because I have more of an opinion on it, I suppose, but Nolan has always felt Fields was a better 3-4 DE, even. I seem to remember him and McCloughan both agreeing at this point. I think him starting at NT in Denver has less to do with Nolan and/or the coaching staff believing Fields fits there as much as it has to do with the fact they just flat out needed him there.
I just don’t see how you can project improvement in a player who’s already a handful of years in and has been mediocre at best the whole time.
Basically, I’m agreeing that maybe some part of the defense’s improvement could have been predicted (i.e. Dumervil’s improvement, maybe a slight bump in Fields if he was widely seen as a better 3-4NT than 3-4DE). However, the severity of said increase is definitely random. NFL defense just don’t turn around almost 180 degrees from one year to another, especially if the prediction model doesn’t deem a coaching change to be that significant.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe...
what we’re describing here is a non-linear effect? like all of these incremental changes compound to produce a massive improvement? it’s a confluence of factors (in no particular order)?
1. get rid of horrible DC
2. dumervil switch to 3-4 and 1 more year of experience as starter; also, probably not as bad as his 5-sack performance last season (after 12.5 the year before)
3. dawkins and hill are both Ss who came from real good pass defenses
4. fields starts at 3-4 NT, where he should have been for his entire non-descript career to that point
so all of these factors have some kind of synergistic, upward spiral effect, wherein improvement at NT feeds and the switch to 3-4 feed an improvement in pass rush, which, along with an improvement at S, feeds an improved pass defense, and everything comes together by virtue of replacing an awful DC?
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps.
It’d definitely be difficult to quantify all that into one distinct formula, though.
by sfgfan on Oct 21, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the main obstacle would be...
how to measure “horrible DC” and “player-specific” skill set. difficult, but not impossible though.
by Florida Danny on Oct 21, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't discount coaching
I think that most NFL players are fairly equal in talent (well within a margin of error anyway). Factor in coaching and that’s where you have your major difference. Say you factor coaching in at 20%. If Denver’s coaching were 20% poorer they would be 4-2 instead of 6-0 which is a much less surprising record than we’d think.
You can’t discount luck either. No matter how much you try to quantify it there’s a huge element of luck involved. Without it the Vikings are 4-2 instead of 6-0, and we’re 4-1 instead of 3-2. Maybe 10% luck? Think about Stokely’s crazy TD run vs the Bengals in week one, or their overtime win vs NE.
by smileyman on Oct 22, 2009 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think in the NFL..
The Organization precedes coaching. If you have a true symbiotic harmony between the FO and below, then you can build a team. Most teams that have short term success in the Cap Era are teams assembled. Even in parity, the consistent winners are the ones with great management.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Oct 22, 2009 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
overall, i think your reasons are hinting that DEN’s defensive turnaround is one massive random event.
Yes, I don’t even think it’s worth a big study. Maybe add in a small rebound factor for older secondary players or a footnote in their predictions like they do with injuries. Like this could happen but cannot be predicted and quantified with any consistency.
Maybe their is something to coaching. In Denver’s case it would it’s more like getting rid of terrible defensive coach than gaining Nolan.
I saw one retort to your 4-3, 3-4 switch is it hasn’t worked for the Packers. I think it’s worked for Denver because they had a talent at linebacker in DJ Williams who is now more effective in the scheme. IMO, he’s been under performing in Denver for years and it might have been the scheme. Joey Portes had a similar jump between 2007 Dolphins to the 2008 Dolphins and believe they made the 4-3, 3-4 switch. Packers didn’t have LB’s that benefited from the switch.
by bignerd on Oct 21, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These converations are too smart for me
I feel left out……
:(
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by chikmagnet_565 on Oct 21, 2009 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
