An NFL information explosion
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 1:00 PM PST
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintFor many folks (myself included), we can never get enough information about football, about the NFL and about the 49ers. Information is power and the more information I have, the more I feel that I can provide quality analysis. Up until recently two of the more frequented sites I've found are Football Outsiders and Advanced NFL Stats. Both are solid sites with some intriguing breakdowns. When you combine that with information you can find at NFL.com or any major sports site, you can get a decent handle on stats.
Well, today that may be changing. In a recent email exchange, our football sites were pointed to an intriguing new site called Pro Football Focus. What does PFF do? Well, according to them:
For every game we analyze and grade every player on every play to provide you with the most in-depth statistics you can find anywhere outside the team's film room. If you want to know how your RG performed as a run blocker or how your MLB did in coverage use the By Team or By Week tabs as a starting point to locate your games.
For every game we log which players are on the field on every offensive and defensive play AND what they do. Want to know how much your rookie WR played, how much help your LT got in pass protection from the TE or how your defense line up on 3-1? Once you've found your game, click on the Player Participation link at the bottom of each 'game box'.
I've been asking around and their participation information (when players were on the field and in what position) appear to be accurate (at least in looking at a small sample of it). They offer an email option to be informed when your favorite team's game log/analysis is posted. I'm curious how quickly they get a given game up, but I think it's safe to say I'd like to start incorporating some of this information into posts.
They have an About section that breaks down their grading, among other things that I recommend checking out:
We want to understand not just how many yards a player gained or how many sacks they conceded but also how well they blocked, how effectively they rushed the passer or how they played in coverage. So, to this end, we measure not only a lot of additional information about the play such as Yards after Catch, Missed Tackles, Dropped Passes etc., we also analyze every player to determine if an Offensive Linemen made a key block, a Defensive Tackle stopped a Guard getting to the second level or if a linebacker kept outside contain on a run. We are not so much interested in how many tackles a Safety made but where he made them, when he made them and what obstacles he overcame to make them.
I definitely have to read more about the grading system, but it seems to be on the right track for now. Of course, if you check out Alex Smith's page, you might disagree with their rating of Alex Smith last week (just a shade over average).
Even if you disagree with the ratings (which is entirely reasonable), the participation information is still especially useful. If you want to skim through the various 49ers' participation reports, head to this link.
170 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
After reading through the post
and looking at the site for only about 2 minutes,
it looks pretty cool. Like you said, the more info the better.
I would like to see these used in comparison to other teams to make my self feel better looking at 49er player ratings when they are higher than other team play ratings.
So many questions
Other websites have tried do this and produced questionable results.
What film are they using to watch the players? Fox/CBS/NBC recordings or the coaches film which shows the entire play?
How do they know the assignment on the play? How do they know the desired technique on a play? How do they really know who missed the assignment?
Interesting Site
Some observations I’ve made:
-Justin Smith is the top ranked 3-4 DE. He leads in snaps played at 503, QB Hits at 9, QB pressures at 23 and is tied for second in stops with 17. Stops are plays that rule the offensive play a failure due to the player making the sack, tackle or what have you.
-Patrick Willis is the top ranked ILB. He’s second in snaps with 557 (DeMeco Ryans has played in 576!!!). Willis hasn’t been penalized yet this season (holy crap) and is also ranked 8th in NFL QB Rating for passes thrown in his direction (80.1, Takeo Spikes is 7th with 78.1).
-Aubrayo Franklin is the 13th ranked NT/DT (that tracks bot 4-3 and 3-4 linemen), but is second in stops with 23! He’s also not been penalized this season!
-QBs have a rating of 55.1 when throwing in Dre Bly’s direction. Nate Clements is the 18th ranked CB in the league, and Shawntae Spencer has played in 551 snaps (3rd).
-Andy Lee is the second rated punter in the league, behind Oakland’s Shane Lechler (go figure)
-Adam Snyder is tied for most QB sacks allowed with 7, and is 17th in QB pressures allowed, with 13. Yep, we need a RT. Tony Pashos is the 23rd ranked OT in the league, too bad he’s out for the year :(
-Chilo Rachal (51st) and David Baas (60th) are terrible. I think Rachal will get better, but bye bye at season’s end to Baas.
-Heitmann is the 11th rated Centre in the league.
-Frank Gore is the 4th rated RB in the league.
This site is interesting to say the least, and based on the ratings seem rather accurate. Although, Vernon Davis is the 32nd ranked TE, and Delanie Walker the 9th. I’m not sure I get it entirely, but it’s a cool site.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 1:26 PM PST reply actions
also
Haralson has 17 QB pressures (3rd among 3-4 OLB), and Lawson has 13 (7th). Not too shabby.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
Here's the problem with all these 'geniuses'
who grade every play and player.
Quoting Larry Fitzgerald in today’s Arizona Republic:
“Some of the interceptions Kurt threw against Carolina were mistakes that we were making as receivers. Maybe not running a route at proper depth or not taking the right angles.”
How are Non- Coaches (or current players), who don’t know exactly what is called for by all parties on the play, supposed to tell any of us how well (or how badly) each player did?
Answer? They can’t. The only people qualified to ‘grade out players’ are the coaches. You know, the ones who know EXACTLY who did the right thing and who did the wrong thing on each and every play.
Pure nonsense.
It always goes make to Jim Mora Sr’s line (when addressing the media): “You don’t know. You don’t know. You THINK you know . . . but you don’t.”
by GeoMak on Nov 12, 2009 1:31 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
also
I’d like to add that the most sacked QB in the league is the top rated QB at PFF, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Rodgers has an awful O-Line, yes, but holds on to the ball far too long as well. Tom Brady is ranked 15th, 3 spots ahead of Alex Smith. While the site is interesting, I’m not sure how they come up the QB rankings and how Aaron Rodgers (4-4 Packers) is ahead of Peyton Manning (9-0 Colts) or Drew Brees (9-0 Saints).
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions
I replied to the wrong post.
Oops, I was trying to get a good converstation started up with myself.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
I agree.
Stats are pure, unadulterated nonsense. It’s hilarious, really, the way these people try to qualify things that only coaches are capable of seeing.
Hilarious.
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 Nov 12, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions
His point isn’t attacking statistics. It’s questioning the expertise of the people grading and producing these type of statistics.
It’s completely independent of the system that we’re looking at, though. I don’t care how imperfect or questionable Pro Football Focus’s methods and results are, he’s dismissing them out of hand without looking at what they’re doing or bothering to understand the process or reasons behind it. He does it with FO as well.
I think Andrew does a good job of bringing up some things that show why this particular system is one that should be doubted, or at least questioned. And he did it by going to the site, reading what they’re trying to do, and actually examining the results.
GeoMak didn’t do anything but see the words “rate every player” before coming out here and dripping his usual anti-stats schpiel. His conclusion might not be far off, but coming to the right conclusion by the wrong means still makes you wrong.
I know that when I’ve seen you argue about the value of these systems and these statistics it’s because you’ve actually looked at what they’re doing and see actual holes in the logic and the process. All he’s doing is saying, “Nope, stats are crap.”
It’s a no-effort comment and I don’t think it’s worth defending.
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 Nov 12, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
the funny part about it
was that I replied failed to my own post! I didn’t realize I was replying to GeoMak’s!
I guess it fits in, but I really was trying to strike up a conversation with myself above!
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
His comments are definitely more dismissive than mine about the topic. I still agree with him on principal that the coaching grades are the only ones that will be accurate.
what about
former players or ex-coaches?
or current players for that matter?
not trying to stir the pot, just curious.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
In my mind it doesn't matter
Every positional coach has their own techniques and point of emphasis. Even if the technique is consistently ineffective and getting the player beat it’s the players role to execute it. That is how the player is getting graded and evaluated by the team.
I’m glad you brought this up. I’m not lampooning the concept because I have the perception that these graders are a bunch of geeky, fan junkies that think they know football. Even if the graders were ex-coaches, former players it’s still a lot of guess work to know exactly what each players assignment is on the play. All 32 teams run things differently. Unless the grader had played for the coach, he’s guessing on the assignment, responsibilities and concepts.
No 'howtheyscored'
as bignerd unnderstands, ‘stats aren’t crap.’
It’s ‘who is doing what with those stats’ that I’m talking about.
You (of course) are putting words in my mouth.
Stats, in the hands of people that have spent their whole lives in football, and have access to the practice tapes, and game tapes, and coaches tapes and gameplans are fine.
In the hands of those that are ‘on the outside looking in’ don’t mean a whole lot to me.
REREAD Larry Fitzgeralds quote.
Who are you, or me, or Fooch or Andrew to judge, when we don’t know EXACTLTY who is supposed to do what on each play?
Makes no sense.
I’ll take Larry’s word for it. Or Warner’s. Or Whisehnunts.
Not, however, yours or Andrew’s or anybody elses.
Sorry.
opinions
I’m allowed to judge because everybody is entitled to their opinions on a subject. I base my opinions on a combination of things that includes what I see with my own eyes and what a variety of statistical websites offer. I don’t lock into one thing because I know there a variety of angles to consider.
If I (or anybody) decided to make no judgments because I don’t what exactly is supposed to happen on a play-to-play, game-to-game, or season-to-season basis, I think that would make for a fairly boring website.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions
All I said is that you dismissed the system out of hand without bothering to even think about the methods they’re using. Which is something you’ve done before. I didn’t say that the system is good. I didn’t say that I support it or have an opinion on it. I didn’t say that Andrew knows anything more any of us. I just said that you didn’t put any effort into this, which is strange because you put so much effort into trying to defend an opinion that is based on such a small amount of it.
The system might be total crap, but it’s clear to me that you made your decision about how to assess it without so much as clicking the link Fooch provided.
To me that makes your assessment of this system nonsense. Pure nonsense.
Sorry.
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 Nov 12, 2009 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
I think Howie was being sarcastic
or facetious
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
howtheyscored's point
The point I believe howtheyscored is making though is how you dismiss it without appearing to actually see where they’re coming from. Maybe you have read more about the site, but your comment (and your pattern of comments related to various pieces of statistical analysis) indicates otherwise.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
Fooch
I don’t have to read the Bible to ‘get it.’ OK?
My basic premise is this.
You, or Andrew or anybody else can watch tape from every play of every game and make your conclusions.
Fine. No problem. That’s your right and I’m not even suggesting that some ‘intelligent’ information and conclusions CAN’T come out of it.
Unless, however, you know EXACTLY how ‘every piece on the chessboard’ is supposed to act, your judgement of the conclusion is SEVERLY lacking.
The only people I heard criticize Andre Hastings (and not Neil O’Donnell) on that second INT were players on the Steelers, not civilians.
Millions of average fans know that Neil was the goat in that game and that he singlehandly made Larry Brown (the Dallas DB that made the two INT’s) a household name (and a soon-to-be rich FA with Oakland).
Only the more knowledgable know that that is only HALF the story.
Like Mr. Mora said: “You (civilains) don’t know. You don’t know. You THINK you know . . . but you don’t.”
I don’t have to read the Bible to ‘get it.’ OK?
Oh, Lord. Let me count the ways that this is the wrong approach to everything that has ever existed in the entire universe.
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 Nov 12, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
I don't have to READ the entire
Bible to know the ‘story.’
Sorry if this concept is above you. Personally, in my 53 years as a Catholic, i have never read the Bible. That said, I’m pretty sure i ‘know the story.’
I know ENOUGH about what the guys at FO (and others) are doing.
Their analysis is ‘head & shoulders’ above a couple of guys at a corner bar watching and analyzing the game.
No doubt.
And they’re not even close when it comes to the people (players and coaches) who REALLY know exactly what did or didn’t happen on the field.
They’re right in the middle.
Sorry if this concept is above you. Personally, in my 53 years as a Catholic, i have never read the Bible. That said, I’m pretty sure i ‘know the story.’
I’m sorry. This frightens and angers me more than you can imagine, and as long as I remember that you said it I’m not going to consider entering into a discussion with you. Reply to me as much as you want. I’m 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 Nov 12, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
how do you know the story then?
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Ummm
I’ve heard enough (parents, Catholic Schools,etc), read enough (not the source material, other written information) seen enough (movies like ‘Jesus of Nazarath’ )and so on.
I’ve also never been to Paris, France but I’m pretty sure it’s there.
Ditto for San Francisco, California. Never been ther, but I’ve heard lots about it ( I long ago knew the story of Harvey Milk, long before Sean Penn).
You guys kill me.
the funny thing is
that your position seems to be exactly the opposite of the statement you made. “I don’t need to read the bible to understand the story” is strikingly similar to “I don’t need to know exactly what Rashaun Woods was supposed to do on that exact play to know he’s a bad receiver.”
You seem to be arguing that to get the whole story you WOULD need to ‘read the bible’ so to speak.
Again, you’re not complaining about anything in particular with regards to their methodology, except for the fact that they’re operating with incomplete information. However, often you don’t need to have complete information to make a decision. I don’t need to know exactly what everyone on the field was supposed to do to know that Smith staring down Morgan on his 2nd int allowed the safety to jump the route, for example.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
pure nonsense?
Sure it’s not great, but it’s simply one more option for figuring things out. None of us are claiming to know anything and everything, which is why we look at a variety of resources to improve our knowledge of the game. You’re entitled to ignore it all you want, but if I can get even a little value out of it, I’m willing to give it a little bit of credence.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
Are they watching coaches tape?
I doubt it. Maybe. If so, I’d like to here them say so.
Beyond that, are they really qualified?
Most NFL people (players & coaches) would probably laugh at this kind of stuff.
Sorry.
Go back to the 1995 Steelers and their SB loss to the Cowboys. To the two passes by Neil O’Donnell and his two horrible INT’s that cost them the game.
Unfortunately, only ONE was his fault. Not the other. The second was on WR Andre Hastings, who ran the wrong route.
Everybody (fans & media) blamed Neil for both. The players and coaches knew that Neil was only responsible for one INT.
That’s a 50% average.
In my world, when people are right only 50% of the time . . . that’s pure nonsense.
You are free to disagree.
participation
I should have been more specific. I can see how people would have problems with the analysis (although I do think one should at least read a bit about how they’re assessing things before making a blanket statement), but the participation information is still valuable.
There are few sites that compile information about who is on the field over the course of a game and season. I think there’s value to determining how often Takeo Spikes is on the field, or how often Dre Bly is on the field as the third cornerback. That’s why I think there is still value to this kind of site. Information that is more less objective (whether Player X is on the field X amount of times in a game) is valuable to have and not something to be mocked.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
The magic of statistics
You don’t have to know how everything was supposed to go down to get a good representation of the way things work. The vast majority of plays it’s pretty obvious as to who was supposed to do what. When Baas doesn’t hit anybody and allows the LB to come through and sack Alex Smith it’s pretty obvious that he was the one that screwed up.
With as large a sample size as they’re working from most of their grading should be pretty reasonable. Now if you were going to grade somebody based on one play, or even one half, that’s a different story.
It’s the reason that statisticians can poll 2,000 people and get a fairly accurate result for the nation as a whole. Now when pollsters results are off it’s normally because of their sample size being too sample, or their sample population being too selective.
PFF doesn’t have that problem. They’re grading every play with every position, and it’s a really useful tool.
In SuperBowl XX
Mike Singletary recovered two fumbles.
On one of them, he got up with the ball, not ‘happy’ with the fumble recovery, but pissed off at Bear DB Shaun Gayle.
Why?
Cause even though Singletary and the Bears recovered the fumble, Shaun Gayle was OUT-OF- POSITION on the play (according to Singletary). Mike didn’t like that.
Did anybody at home or broadcasting the game know that Gayle wasn’t where he was supposed to be?
Nope.
Only the PLAYERS & THE COACHES (specifically Mr. Singletary) knew that!
No one is saying stats are perfect or capture the essence of every single play correctly
But they obviously give you a lot of information you wouldn’t otherwise have.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
Right
They give you MORE information that you wouldn’t otherwise have.
And that’s FINE!
As long as you UNDERSTAND that the guys ‘making the grades, so to speak’ don’t really know exactly what’s going on.
You want to argue this with me, fine.
Try and find the tape of Jim Mora Sr.
He says it all: “You don’t know. You don’t know. You THINK you know . . . but you don’t know.”
As long as people understand that they are dealing from a position of ignorance, then everything is fine.
Stop with the obnoxious caps
it’s taking away from your argument.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
OMG
seriously? really? OK look at it this way. I work in software. I don’t need to know the particular implementation of a program to tell you whether or not it does what it says it can do. If I don’t have perfect information about what a player was supposed to do, my judgement about any one play may be off. If, however, I say that 80% of plays targeting Josh Morgan are successful, while 20% of plays targeting Isaac Bruce are, if there are a significant number of targets being weighted, it’s not a huge stretch to say that Morgan is performing better than Bruce this year.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
also
morgan is like 25, Bruce is 36
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
well there's that lol
though it was meant to be a purely hypothetical example.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Not to be an a-hole
buuut that’s kind of my overall point. I can tell that Morgan would be a better option than Bruce without a stat. It’s fairly obvious when you consider both their age and the way they look while playing.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
ok how about this then
Player A is successful 80% of the time he is target, player B is successful 20% of the time he is targeted. If they’ve both been targeted, say, 150 times this year, I don’t need any more information to say that it is very likely that Player A is better.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
That's true,
but that’s not how player evaluation works, unless you’re talking about signing a FA or something like that. Normally you would have been able to watch them play. If there’s that big of a disparity in their percentages, it would also show up in their reception and yardage totals.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
probably.
but not necessarily.
I look at it this way. If someone who had never seen a football game before needed to know which teams were likely to be the most successful, I’d send them to FO.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I suppose
but that’s not the perspective I approach it from I guess, and I don’t think that’s their target demo, is it?
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
well, no it's not
However, I don’t know very much about most non-niner teams. When I’m looking to see how they’re doing, or compare niner players league-wide, I learn more from FO than I would from just going to NFL.com and looking at traditional stats.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I guess
I’m just such a huge freaking NFL nerd that I know a lot about most teams in the league. But you’re right- a site like that would teach me more about a team if I wanted to find something specific out. Overall ranks based on scoring defense and yardage gained/allowed are very misleading.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Exactly
Obviously there will be plays where a guy doesn’t deserve a certain statistic or whatever, but eventually over the course of a season these things tend to even out and the stats show who the best players/teams are.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions
Bingo
Stats aren’t the end all be all. But they help. They’re definitely useful for identifying trends and seeing what works and doesn’t
But because football isn’t a science you can’t rely on them for everything. That’s where looking at film comes in handy.
out of place
I think people understand that particular point (that only players and coaches can truly know when someone is out of place). But again, this is about trying to figure out as much as humanly possible given the information we DO have at our disposal. These sites never claim to be perfect. They are just doing their best to develop better and better ways to understand the game we all love.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
another thing
stats, except in really odd and rare instances, wouldn’t reward a player for being out of position.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
That's the point Vilipied
Sheesh.
Baseball is a PERFECT game for ‘stats.’
Essentially, it’s ‘pitcher vs. batter.’
Mano on Mano.
Football is an eleven on eleven ’ballet.
ONE guy, out of position or not doing his jpb correctly, can blow up a perfectly designed play.
And unfortuantely, unless one KNOWS, exactly, what each players responsibilites were, it’s oftentimes hard to determine guilt from a distance.
I am truly sorry that this is so difficult for some to understand.
you seem to have taken
about 30 different positions just in this thread.
Also, you’re extremely condescending.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
This
and the use of CAPS is REALLY making him a DOUCHEBAG
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
The thing with being out of place
Is that if you have a large enough sample size those things even out. I think that’s what GeoMak is missing here.
If you’re looking off a sample size from one game or one series you’ll be wrong more than right. When you extend that to an entire series you have a much better idea what’s going on.
Fooch
Believe it or not I like you and respect you. You run one of the better sites on SB Nation, IMO.
Seriously.
I just believe what I believe and I like to challenge people to defend their beliefs, in an intelligent manner.
There’s nothing wrong with that.
You are a ‘lawyer.’ I respect people that defend their positions in an intelligent manner, even though I may strongly disagree.
Someone here at NN made a fanpost about Pro Football Focus earlier in the season
I hadn’t heard about it before but now I think it’s great personally. The stats evaluating the players are nice, but obviously you can’t take them as gospel. I will say many of their evaluations seem pretty accurate though if you dig through them.
But the real value is in the participation data. You can see who was on the field for every play of every game and what position they were playing (in other words, if Frank Gore is split out slot left on a 3rd and 9 pass play you can see that just by going through the data). I was going to try to breakdown the games like smileyman has been doing, but it seems almost moot now that they are doing it for us!
I also like seeing how much each team subs during the game. Before I had to rewind my recording of the game and look at all the player numbers to see who was in for each play, but now you can just read that info (and use it to accompany your DVR re-watching if you want) and see how often and in what situations Kentwan Balmer or Delanie Walker subbed into the game and when a team went with 3/4 WR’s or into a nickel/dime defense etc. Just one of the many things i noticed while exploring the data was how rarely teams actually bring in 4 WR’s. From playing Madden I had thought it was a fairly common occurance, and Jimmy Raye has been criticized for never bringing in 4 WR’s at the same time, but if you look around other teams rarely, if ever, use 4 WR’s for the most part.
It’s also nice to look and see how an upcoming team on the schedule uses their players. For example the Bears only take Matt Forte off the field on offense for about 8 snaps a game. Desmond Clarkis plays around 40% the snaps (occasionally in place of Greg Olsen, but usually the two are together) and Johnny Knox about half the snaps (he also plays occasionally in 2 WR sets). The Bears never use 4 WR’s on any one play and always have at least 1 RB on the field. They use a fullback around 30% of the time.
On defense they use an 8 man rotation for their defensive line, with Ogunleye and Brown playing ~80% of the snaps and and Mark Anderson and Gaines Adams the other 20% at DE and Tommy Harris, Anthony Adams, Marcus Harrison, and Isreal Idonije at DT. Free safety Daniel Manning actually comes up to play nickelback on most passing downs and Nate Vasher subs in to play free safety, OLB Nick Roach is the player he replaces from the base defense. It’s pretty cool info to have for a game, even if you ignore the actual evaluations.
The other thing is it shows passing and running stats by area of the field, so you can see Gore (and Coffee’s) success on runs to the outside left, inside left, middle, etc. and you can see how the Niners QB’s have fared when throwing to different areas of the field, or when under pressure or blitzed. They also have stats like defensive stops and QB pressures that are hard to find anywhere else.
Anyway, I’m just rambling at this point but the point is that this site is a gold mine of interesting and useful information even if you don’t care for the way they evaluate players. I strongly recommend anyone who wants to delve a little deeper into their football understanding to check it out.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 3:15 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
smileyman's post
Smileyman’s posts still have value in his breakdowns of what he sees. It’s a lot of work to do that, but it’s certainly still valuable. But this site definitely helps.
And yea I had completely forgotten about the previous posts. Glad people noticed it earlier.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
No, sorry
I wasn’t trying to say they don’t have value, they definitely do. I just wouldn’t want to do all that work myself when the participation data is already there! Keep it up smileyman.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
agree
I mentioned somewhere else in this thread about also mixing in what I see with my own eyes. When smileyman goes back to review Game Rewind, I think he brings more to the table than someone who just looks at the PFF raw data. In his FanPosts, smileyman can consider the context of the situation, which goes beyond just the basic raw data.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
The stats evaluating the players are nice, but obviously you can’t take them as gospel.
I LOL’d at this in the context of the thread.
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 Nov 12, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
Yes
I’m not sure why people want to focus on that aspect of the site to discredit it, that’s only a small part of what they do.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, I was LOLing at the use of the word gospel.
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 Nov 12, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
Ah
I get it now. I’m slow sometimes. ;-)
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
Brendan
Your above post was well written an makes a lot of sense.
However, when FO tells us (like they did) that the Rams are going to be the ‘surprise’ team of the NFL (somewhere near 8-8, 9-7) and that the 49ers would be lucky to win three this season and have been about as good as the Lions in the past few seasons they lose all credibility with me.
Perhaps I could take them more seriously if they DIDN’T make such ASININE statements.
When Tony Dungy gets up on Sunday night football and shows us what’s happening with the coaches tape . . . I’m all ears. Tony has seen it all and knows exactly what he’s talking about.
Same with guys like Gruden and Jaworski.
Andrew? Sorry.
What?
You JUST SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE not very far upthread.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
No Viliphied
I said that using the ‘tape’ to tell us the formations and what players are in during certain situations is ONE THING!
Trying to tell us EXACTLY what happened (without knowing EXACTLY what each player is supposed to do on the play) is a completely different thing.
Get it?
What football stat site ever
has claimed to have perfect information?
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
but FO
has never claimed to have perfect information. to use your phrase, they have never tried to “tell us EXACTLY what happened”
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
A good statistician doesn't make predictions
He or she just presents the data.
That’s what PFF has done—they’ve just presented data and rankings with no indicator of how they’ll perform in the future.
It’s up to us to draw our own conclusions. (For the record I don’t pay attention to anybody’s predictions when it comes to W-L because pro football is so crazy.)
not necessarily true
there are such things as “predictive stats” as well as descriptive stats, and they are often valid.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
because
they’re trying to develop a “predictive” stat for football.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
However
more often than not they’re wrong.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
But they’re not trying to be “right.”
They know they can’t be right. Unpredictability makes predictions of all forms innately inaccurate. If they could be right 100% of the time, they wouldn’t be called “predictions.”
All they’re trying to do to be as close as possible.
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 Nov 12, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
That's fine with me
I know they can’t see the future, but what I object to is how dismissive they are of people who disagree with them. They very rarely (in my experience) acknowledge their mistakes or admit that their system may be wrong about something.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
disagree
FO has admitted plenty of times that they’re wrong and they acknowledge that their system is a work in progress because they’re constantly tweaking it.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
Fooch
They would HAVE to admit they’re wrong, now wouldn’t they ?when they make idiotic predictions like the Rams would be the surprise team in 2009).
You’re giving them credit cause they admit that they (nonsensical) predictions were wrong?
Big deal.
how much do you trust BTBS's projections?
Even though they were so far off RE: The Giants this year, I think they’re generally pretty good. I think FO is the same way (though not AS good, because football doesn’t have a stat even close to as good as WOBA or FIP). Though they will be off sometimes, most of the time they’re pretty close.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I don't ever trust any football projections
wayyyyyyyyyy too many things happen over the course of an NFL season. Obviously the same is true in baseball, but the margin for error when you’re playing 16 games is so much smaller compared to 162.
If a guy misses a month in baseball with an injury it’s bad, but that same injury in the NFL could cost a team the playoffs.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
true
and a good reason why team projections are really hard in football. Player projections, on the other hand…
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Those I pay a little closer attention to
because it’s very difficult to just “know” when someone is going to be good or not without seeing them. To FO’s credit, they were worried about both Forte and Slaton’s carry totals in their respective college careers. Obviously they were awesome as rookies, but it’s possible that those carries are catching up to them in their second years.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Say What?
I thought they were going out on a limb (so they could then say how great they were) when they said that the Rams would be the biggest surprise in 2009 and that the 49ers would suck.
You amuse me, Vilipied!
what?
you don’t make any sense.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
However, when FO tells us (like they did) that the Rams are going to be the ‘surprise’ team of the NFL (somewhere near 8-8, 9-7) and that the 49ers would be lucky to win three this season and have been about as good as the Lions in the past few seasons they lose all credibility with me.
First of all, this is wrong. They didn’t say flat out “The Rams are going to go 9-7”. that was their projection. Projections are usually wrong, no one (including former players or coaches) is going to get everything right. They also didn’t say the Niners would be lucky to win 3 games, they projected them to win 5.3 IIRC (and this is obviously a mean, not an exact number. At this point do the Niners really look far off from that projection? It looks like they might win 6-7, but any more is questionable at this point. So that projections wasn’t ASSININE.
When Tony Dungy gets up on Sunday night football and shows us what’s happening with the coaches tape . . . I’m all ears. Tony has seen it all and knows exactly what he’s talking about.
Tony Dungy said he would take Tim Tebow over Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen, doesn’t that qualify as assinine? You think all of his predictions are correct??? If so, that’s just a laughable assumption.
Same with guys like Gruden and Jaworski.
See, this is total selective memory. How many of the great coaches that you respect so much thought the Titans would be great this year? Instead they are 2-6. Why doesn’t that qualify as assinine? Here’s a good article for you, TMQ’s look back at the worst predictions from the 2008 season. You can look for yourself at how many awful predictions there are from traditional analysts. They make just as many if not more mistakes than FO, and you know what, everyone does. That’s why it’s called a prediction!
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
Brendan
Get real, please.
They said that the Rams would be their surprise team in 2009, probably going 8-8 or 9-7.
Look it up son.
What part of their ‘prediction’ confuses you.
Sheesh.
Tony Dungy taking Tebow?
Right. That has everything to do with his ability to diagram an NFL play.
How many of the great coaches that you respect so much thought the Titans would be great this year?
Son. I listen to NOBODY when it comes to predictions. Nobody. Jesus Christ could come down and I wouldn’t listen to him either.
You mae NO sense.
Congratulations.
It may not have anything to do with diagramming a play, which we’re not talking about, but it does have to do with player evaluation, which is what we’re talking about in this thread.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Dude.
The only people qualified to evaluate players are players and coaches and GM’s.
Not some hacks.
You're wrong.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
evaluate
I think the problem we’re having is that you’re making a rather broad statement. I evaluate the 49ers all the time. I’m not an expert, but I also don’t think I’m a hack. I’m providing some moderately informed (although probably not informed enough) opinion.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
exactly.
OK, look at it this way. Let’s say you’re a GM trying to decide whether to sign free agent X. Do you think X’s old team is going to give you their playbook and game film so you can have perfect information to evaluate X? No. Not a chance. So what do you do? You look at how they performed that year. Sure you can use some game tape, in that, but a GM wouldn’t have a ton more information than a layperson would.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
BUT THEYRE SMART BECUZ THEIR IN FUTBALL
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
OMGZ WHY DIDNT U SAY THAT BEFORE
UR SO RITE
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Geo
you are starting with that “son” stuff again. I appreciate that you have an opinion, but the “son” stuff is too much. We all know I’m Scolari’s pappa, not you.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
Rams prediction
When they made the Rams prediction, they also indicated that there was a certain % chance of that happening, but that there was also a certain percentage chance of them finishing better or worse than 8-8 or 9-7. In fact, I just looked up the percentages:
2009 Mean Projection: 8.2 wins
On the Clock (0-3): 7%
Loserville (4-6): 22%
Mediocrity (7-8): 23%
Playoff Contender (9-10): 27%
Super Bowl Contender (11+): 21%
So there was a 48% chance of them finishing with 9+ wins and 71% chance of finishing with 7 or more wins. Both of those %s leave a sizable chance of something worse happening.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
Cmon
that was a terrible projection and you know it. I won’t use that as the singular example like geo is, but seriously. They could not have been more wrong- they gave the rams a 70% chance of winning 7 or more games, and the rams are one of the worst teams in NFL history this season.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
prediction
I’m not saying how good or bad it is (clearly it’s a bad prediction). I’m simply trying to point out that they’re pointing to a broad range of potential outcomes.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
But that's just to cover their arse
It’s hard to give someone credit when they say something like “There’s a 10 percent chance of 10 different outcomes!”. What’s the point of listening to that?
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
but they don't say that
although I will admit, the rams projection is pretty close to flat (except at the 0-3 end)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Which is going to be the outcome
the one they gave the smallest chance to is going to happen.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
outcomes
I take those predictions with a grain of salt, but again it’s about having one more piece of information to take into account.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
In my case
it’s more a “GIANT BLOCK” of salt.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Pro Football Focus is a fantasic idea
I’ll be spending a great deal of time there I can tell. You can disagree about the conclusions they draw but they have the raw data there so you can see what’s going on. Very very handy.
And this is a key point I think:
But the real value is in the participation data. You can see who was on the field for every play of every game and what position they were playing (in other words, if Frank Gore is split out slot left on a 3rd and 9 pass play you can see that just by going through the data). I was going to try to breakdown the games like smileyman has been doing, but it seems almost moot now that they are doing it for us!
Regarding my breakdowns—I think they’re more useful to get a better big picture idea of how things are going. They were never intended to show case individual players (unless they made an egregious mistake), but rather to focus on the offense as a whole and the various formations and plays being run.
I think that during the course of a regular game I get caught up in the action and don’t really focus on various plays as much. Game Rewind is a valuable tool for me to be able to do that.
An example
And I may be the only one in the world who cares about this, but in just a minute or so I counted up the total snaps by the Cardinals and Dolphins WR’s since they have vastly different offenses. The Cards run a wide open passing attack and the Dolphins are a power running team.
The Cards use an average of 2.9 WR’s per play and the Dolphins use 1.8 WR’s per play. So basically the Cards base formation is a 3 WR set (their average would be above 3 if you excluded kneel downs or late run-out the-clock plays). But the Dolphins don’t even use 2 WR’s on a a huge chunk of their plays. The Dolphins also rotate their receivers a ton more than the Cardinals (probably because they don’t have any great receivers. Larry Fitzgerald has played 534 of the Cardinals 553 offensive snaps but no Dolphins receiver has played more than 55% of the team’s snaps (Greg Camarillo has played the most, 269 of the teams 486 snaps).
Maybe most people don’t care about that stuff, but I love learning the little things like that which you never get from somewhere like ESPN.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely
it helps you understand why certain players are more valuable than others- it may not always be because of talent alone, sometimes it may be because they’re more involved with what the team is doing scheme-wise
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Personally
I’ve always found FO to really not be that accurate, so anything that hopes to challenge them is good in my book. Schatz is wayyyyyyyy too arrogant about his stats, and IMO he has no real reason to be
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Wow
very interesting info on that site. Apparently Goldson isn’t nearly as good as I would have thought, as they have him rated below even Roman. Haralson has actually been pretty OK on the pass rush, as has Evans which surprised me.
Of course playing time factors into these numbers, but I like what they’re doing
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
1 problem:
they have Vernon Davis as being a negative overall impact on the offense because of his penalties. Obviously his penalties hurt, but I think they’re weighing a few false starts a little too heavily. Maybe not, though.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Yeah I agree
I generally ignore their penalty ratings for the most part, too small of a sample size.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
what problems do you have with FO
other that Schatz’s arrogance.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Things like
their horrendous projections that are made almost like they’re gospel. It was mentioned above how they thought the Rams were going to be so improved this year, and he’s never even acknowledged how terrible of a call that was. The year the Giants were going to the SB he thought it was a joke to even suggest they’d be IN the game, let alone beat his precious patriots.
I think when you have somebody that is sort of subjective like he is (he doesn’t pay close attention to the west coast teams, and is an obvious pats homer), it really calls into question your credibility. I’m not sure they’ve made a non-obvious call that’s turned out to be any good at all.
In football it’s pretty easy to tell which players are good and which ones aren’t simply by watching them play. I can tell that Jason Hill is better than Arnaz Battle in every way, which is why I’ve been saying it’s so stupid for Battle to keep starting. I just am not sure what exactly those guys bring to the table that people who follow the sport don’t already know.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
but they're not
I see them eat crow every week when their projections are totally off (like in the case of the rams). If you haven’t noticed that, you haven’t been reading the site. Also, you have to separate the opinions of the stat-maker from what their stats actually say.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Fair enough
and I admit I DONT read the site, but I have twittered them and hear Schatz on the BS report regularly. Like I said below, I’m not against stats, but from what I’ve seen from those guys, I’m not sure that’s they way to quantify football.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Stats
Stats do not dictate how a player is going to react. Only how they fit in the Averages. Just a guage of history. Stuff to ponder. Poor players worry about stats. It is a Team Stat that you need to break down.
If stats were so important then why do they analyze tape?……just go off the stat sheet.
False Dichotomy
Stats are important in conjunction with film, practice and everything else.
The video has less value if you don’t have the stats to use for reference, and the stats have less value if you don’t keep them within the context of the film.
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 Nov 12, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions
this.
I swear, I’ve never heard a stats person say that analyzing tape is rubbish, only that our perceptions sometimes lie to us. I’ve heard plenty of statophobes say that we don’t need stats (often shortly followed by an argument where they use bad stats to back their position up)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I wanna clarify MY position anyways
I’m not against stats, I’m a stat guy for baseball, but the problem I have is that I don’t think the stats that have been developed for football are very good yet, and I don’t think they should be treated as very reliable.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
I agree
I look at football stats like I look at UZR, slightly askance. However, like with UZR, I trust DVOA more than, say, QB rating.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Yes
I never look at rating. It’s such a pointless stat.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
I do agree that the FO stats have a lot of problems. I’ve never quite been convinced by the quality of their valuations per play and I even have some misgivings about the very concept of high-versus-low-value-situational plays as a statistical model (not least of all because it splits samples, which always leaves me on edge).
But, like Viliphied says, I like it better than a lot of the other crap out there.
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 Nov 12, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
Oh good, I've got syphilis!
The BEST of the sexually transmitted diseases!
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Not a great analogy. Disease is something you never want. Stats are something you always want.
Having a less bad disease is better than having a more bad disease, but it’s fundamentally bad.
Having a less bad stat is better than having a more bad stat, and that’s fundamentally good.
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 Nov 12, 2009 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
It’s like, say Reese’s Cups stopped being sold.
Sure, you know all of the other candy isn’t as good. You know that candy could be SOOOO much better. But you’re still going to eat your Rolos.
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 Nov 12, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
(I was kidding)
it was from top gear. I agree with your overall point
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Ah yes
I did not catch the reference.
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 Nov 12, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
Most people don't watch that show
I study as though I was going to write a master’s thesis. It is so great
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Reese’s Cups stopped being sold
don’t joke about that sort of thing
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 12, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
I never joke.
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 Nov 12, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
IKR
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Again Viliphied (cause you obviously can't figure this out)
the question becomes . . . are you ready? . . WHO is analyzing the stats!!!!!!
A bunch of players & coaches? No problem.
A bunch of ‘wanna-bes?’ Big problem.
Wow
you need to take a debate class or 2
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
what?
That doesn’t make any sense. All one has to do is listen to Joe Morgan for like 2 mins to know that evaluations from former players and coaches are no more valid than a layperson’s (and often less)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Right Vilipied
Joe Morgan knows NO more about baseball than a bunch of drunks at the local bar.
Too funny.
he really doesn't.
He’s very skilled at baseball, however his knowledge about the things that go in to making a player successful is limited at best.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
If you really believe
that Joe Morgan knows what he’s talking about when he evaluates players (outside of VERY specific things like how they keep their balance through a swing, or their fielding footwork, which he never talks about anyways), I can’t help you.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
BUT HEE PLYED TEH GAMEZ
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
HALL OV FAMUR
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
The best thing about Joe Morgan is that he spends so much energy talking about how stupid MoneyBall is, when the MoneyBall system basically goes out of its way to say that, by its measures, he is exactly the kind of player that is better than ice cream and sliced bread combined.
“MoneyBall Sucks!” says the man with the career 120 isoOBP…
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 Nov 12, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
120 isoOBP
WHAT IS HE, A MAILMAN?
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Moneyball
The best part is how he’s convinced Billy Beane wrote the book.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
Umm
He’s not a scout or GM. That said, he knows what he’s talking about regarding Specific things (your words) but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about regaing what? Non-Specific things.
Dude. You crack me up!
lol
so Brian Sabean knows more about baseball than anyone here?
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Certain specific things. Like the 2 examples I gave. His player analysis is terrible. In fact, his analysis is so bad that it kept a popular satirical site very active for several years.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Stats help measure
The tape is the analysis of the execution or the lack there of. Win, lose or draw. Stats do not equal the actual play. They are just there to bring up later. I was a mediocre player and I did not use stats to get better. I use real on the field stuff and the tapes.
But your coaches use it when analyzing other teams
When a coach looks at film and says “When they use XYZ formation they run off right tackle 90% of the time”, that’s a stat. It helps game plan. Obviously the opposing team won’t run in XYZ formation all the time but it’s a useful tool in a coach’s tool box.
Stats are also useful tools for fans and commentators to help analyze what’s going on. They’re not the Alpha and Omega but they certainly should be completely discounted like some people would suggest.
internet
We would not have this convo if we did not have as much info. The focus is away from natural skills and desire. $$ and cents and lining pockets. Lombardi and Paul Brown would have a different answer for us on this. The internet has changed how the game is played.
smileyman
I beg to differ.
Most fans look at stats as things that happen AFTER the ball is snapped (Alex Smith was 18-26, Gore had 89 yards rushing).
Most ‘fans’ do not look at types of formations BEFORE the ball as ‘stats.’
Those would be TENDENCIES!
(If you want to be a quality control coach you HAVE to know this difference)!
I'm not talking to you zonedog
I have (somehow) survived by completely ignoring your posts.
I was responding to smileyman.
As fond as I am of the ‘smileyman’ he is MISTAKEN.
He is confusing ‘stats’ (what happens AFTER the ball is snapped) with tendencies (what happens BEFORE the ball is snapped).
You analyze tape along with stats
Each complements the other. Would you really have much of an idea of what percentage of passes Smith or Hill has completed just by watching the tape? It’s basically impossible to remember the difference between a 55% completion percentage and 63% completion percentage without keeping track of how often passes are being completed. Stats are a record of what takes place on the field.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 12, 2009 3:53 PM PST up reply actions
game thread
And people definitely don’t need to bring this discussion into the game thread.
by David Fucillo on Nov 12, 2009 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
ROBBED
Of all the punters to out play Andy Lee, Shane Lechler?!
a stinkin raider….
He's the best player they have
not named “nnamdi”
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Ahmad Bradshaw says Cowboys won’t win with Tony Romo at QB
- Cruz: Manningham’s Super catch wasn’t drawn up that way
- Whitney Houston performed the greatest national anthem in sports history (video)
- Justin Tuck visits New York City cop who survived gunshot wound to head
- The Giants won the ‘Brain Bowl,’ too
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
