Was Joe Flacco's 4-yard throw that Steve Smith turned into 50 yards and a TD the same as And Dalton's long TD to AJ? Was it as good of a throw as AJ's throw to AJ in the corner.

 

That's the issue with stats. Nothing new as we've discussed ad nauseum with baseball. Technology allows for greater/easier review and categorization.

Was Joe Flacco's 4-yard throw that Steve Smith turned into 50 yards and a TD the same as And Dalton's long TD to AJ? Was it as good of a throw as AJ's throw to AJ in the corner.

 

That's the issue with stats. Nothing new as we've discussed ad nauseum with baseball. Technology allows for greater/easier review and categorization.

 

I think there are existing quantitative data that can be used to get close to a metric that would account for those differences. A metric that combines data like average YAC per completion, average depth of throw per completion, and completion percentage while controlling for drops might tell us something useful about which QBs are making plays versus getting help from receivers.

 

It would be imperfect, but with a large enough data-set it would be more objective than someone sitting at a TV and deciding who made a good throw and who didn't (and that's the allure of big data, it takes away the aberrations and reveals something difficult to see in isolation).

I think there are existing quantitative data that can be used to get close to a metric that would account for those differences. A metric that combines data like average YAC per completion, average depth of throw per completion, and completion percentage while controlling for drops might tell us something useful about which QBs are making plays versus getting help from receivers.

 

It would be imperfect, but with a large enough data-set it would be more objective than someone sitting at a TV and deciding who made a good throw and who didn't (and that's the allure of big data, it takes away the aberrations and reveals something difficult to see in isolation).

 

Sometimes the short throw was so hard tight that it's much better than the YAC. As you said, a quantitative analysis would be imperfect. I like the eyeball process.

Sometimes the short throw was so hard tight that it's much better than the YAC. As you said, a quantitative analysis would be imperfect. I like the eyeball process.

 

I'm fine with the eyeball process. Both have their merits. Both should be used in conjunction with the other. My gripe here is that PFF is doing the eyeball process and trying to quantify it into a number, then throwing up their hands and saying, effectively, "the data doesn't lie, nothing we can do."

 

I watched the game. Ignoring Rodger's gaudy stat line, I think he is an awesome QB who was playing at the height of his powers last night. He was dominant. Then, I get a "statistic" today that says "actually, he was below average." Ok. :lol2:

I'm fine with the eyeball process. Both have their merits. Both should be used in conjunction with the other. My gripe here is that PFF is doing the eyeball process and trying to quantify it into a number, then throwing up their hands and saying, effectively, "the data doesn't lie, nothing we can do."

 

I watched the game. Ignoring Rodger's gaudy stat line, I think he is an awesome QB who was playing at the height of his powers last night. He was dominant. Then, I get a "statistic" today that says "actually, he was below average." Ok. :lol2:

 

That's the biggest issue. Stats don't tell the whole story but are we really saying a QB that threw 5 TD's, over 300 yards, and 0 Int's had a below average score? How many QB's have ever put up those type numbers by making 5 yard screen passes the whole game?

 

The best may be "don't get worked up over the negative rating, it doesn't mean poor, just a little below average."

All I know is I watched the entire game and loved, loved, loved his performance. He put on a clinic on how to run an offense and was in total control of the game. He's a joy to watch.

Here's a link talking about how they grade.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/

 

Ex: QB hits a WR on a post pattern between two defenders right in the hands but the WR drops it. They score it a positive because it as a strong pass. Someone subjective but certainly not binary like a stat is.

Worst players for week 3 by position.

 

Eifert "won" the TE award.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/28/worst-players-at-every-position-for-week-3/

Worst players for week 3 by position.

 

Eifert "won" the TE award.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/28/worst-players-at-every-position-for-week-3/

 

Bodine also "won" for center.

Here's a link talking about how they grade.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/

 

Ex: QB hits a WR on a post pattern between two defenders right in the hands but the WR drops it. They score it a positive because it as a strong pass. Someone subjective but certainly not binary like a stat is.

 

Let me ask your opinion. What value do I get from their grading system that I can't get from, say, an analyst breaking down a player's performance?

 

In the case of Rodgers, what am I learning from their grade?

Let me ask your opinion. What value do I get from their grading system that I can't get from, say, an analyst breaking down a player's performance?

 

In the case of Rodgers, what am I learning from their grade?

 

Their service is "mass analysis" which you are not getting from an analyst. I'd also question of an analyst goes to this level of detail. Maybe that level isn't needed but I'd say that's a key difference.

 

As to you're "what am I learning" question I'd say last name is a great example of stats not telling the entire picture especially in comparison to other players of the same position.

 

I don't think many Joe Schmoes like us are going to pay for such a service but his business is not aimed at us. It's aimed at NFL teams and anyone that can make a buck off of data.

 

Gold mind for Cris.

 

....walks away slowly...

....walks away slowly...

 

I was just telling SharBear tonite how much I like predictive text, too.

The other part from what I understand of this system is it also isn't taking into account the footwork or mobility of Rodgers in the pocket.

 

I love quantifying sports, I'm a numbers guy by nature. I welcome advance metrics. But this system is flawed at best.

 

I do like them measuring lineman , because historically there is relative little data to judge them.

 

I didn't look at the scores , but on their method how would Brady every score high because of the simple and short pass plays they run .

 

There is no way anyone could watch Rodgers poetry in the pocket last night and call it below average. You just can't defend a system that scores it that way.

 

I almost wonder if this was just a marketing ploy to discuss their system.