A look at Statistical Analysis, Part Two: David Friedman style

Even though I am 49ers fan I’m extremely skeptical about the greatness of an organization concept.

I doubt the Patriots knew what they were doing when they drafted Tom Brady in the 6th round.

What was so magnificent about the Spurs losing David Robinson to injury for the entire season which resulted in winning the lottery and coinciding with the year Tim Duncan declared pro?

Even the Lakers are more blessed than F.O. gifted. They had no post Magic Johnson plan but Shaq was swooned by Hollywood and insisted on playing in LA. The Pau Gasol trade still needs to be investigated by the SEC. The one brilliant move the Lakers have made the past two decades was targeting Kobe in the draft.

The 49ers were lucky in getting a true genius in Walsh and Eddie D. pretty much signed off on all of Walsh’s ideas/plans. The 49ers weren’t so genius in the post-Walsh era. Carmen Policy relied upon the talent Walsh left over and re-enforced the team by spending gobs of money in free agency. The plan worked for most of the decade until Walsh’s left over talent finally thinned out.

Even the Steelers owners are heavily praised without scrutiny. These are same owners using the same methods and philosophy that had the Steelers perennial bottom feeders until Chuck Noll was hired. Same plan for 6 decades: 3 decades the Steelers were rotten, 3 decades the Steelers were good/great.

Now do I believe in stupid franchises? You bet!

but the NFL won’t do it because they’re way behind the times. Sites like Football Outsiders and PFF might take a look at it, or someone else make take a stab at it.

When does it count as a drop? Is it a drop if the pass is way behind the WR but he can still get a hand on it in a futile attempt?

Likewise, if a QB leads a receiver perfectly and “throws him open” for a long RAC gain, shouldn’t the passer get some credit?

If you will please allow me to clarify a few things…

First, if you look back at my first post on analysis, you would see that I already have addressed my level of understanding of the subject matter. I also addressed that I don’t discount the value of it. I think most of the writers who are “stat guys” here know that I hold them with high regard, and that I understand where they are coming from. I don’t slam the work. In fact, the very reason why this is my favorite fan site, even above the other traditional media outlets is because this site recognizes the cutting edges of modern football. My first post on the subject addressed how I discovered Football Outsiders before way before I became a member here. I didn’t call in to slam Beane on Moneyball. I called in to ask him how it applies to football. The original post was really meant for the people who discount the subject matter with impunity, not even giving them any value at all. The basic premise of the original post was how data has been and is a part of daily life, because in this “Brave New World”, data is being collected every minute of the day. I ended the premise with choice, not slamming the messenger’s who bring us their results, but by choosing on how you value it, and where it applies to your interest.

The second post on this is really for people like yourself who have a deeper involvement with statistical analysis. Again, going back to my original post I wrote “people who endeavor in this science”, whereas Friedman’s premise is that it isn’t a science, so right there we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Of course, he, like yourself and others here, have a greater understanding of the subject, which is why I posted his articles. Basically, I’m just a messenger here. I find his blog fascinating because it’s more pragmatic, and guess what? He still has to use stats as part of his message.

You had a comment in the original post about “statistical entrepreneurs”. Well, part of Friedman’s article may touch on that here:

If I make a skill set-based comparison of two players based on my informed opinion—i.e., an opinion based not only on watching a lot of basketball but also on interacting with professionals who make their living evaluating basketball players—every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that his opinion is just as valid and informed but if some guy invents a formula, gives it a catchy name and says that player x is worth 30.2 but player y is worth 28.7 then Tom, Dick and Harry are ready to bow down to those numbers as if they are the Golden Calf.

Going back to my original post, I touched lightly on the misuse of stats when it is combined with opinion, and how given to one’s personal belief, stats become subjective. I think everybody can agree to a point that through all this “statistical noise”, statistical analysis with various formulas can lend to it being subjective. Here at Niners Nation, there already is 2 different formula’s posted from Florida Danny and smileyman. Even a “stable” formula like DVOA is constantly being tweaked by others to present their particular results. This stuff is great, and it helps us understand things a bit better. But it’s still not perfected, nor may it never really be. Whether it’s “noise” or “music” to one’s ears is up to that person. I don’t have a particular stake in any of it. I’m just trying to present a different side to it, and not forcing an opinion on anyone.

Again, thanks for the passionate response. I get where you’re coming from. I just want to let you know that I respect statistical analysis, the people who work at it, and I never discount it.