Wraith
-
Posts
743 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wraith
-
-
On the radio, Murph said Evans lost a fumble on the last play of the first half. It does not show up on NFL.com's stats however. Very weird.
-
I have mixed feelings about suggestion 1. Consider two FG drives, one of which goes 20 yards; the other of which goes 70 yards. In both drives, the QB's sole contribution was to complete a 12 yard pass on 3rd and 10. Is it nobler for a QB to benefit from good field position (the 20 yard drive) than from a good running game (the 70 yard drive)?
Suggestion 2 is interesting. You point out that a QB shouldn't be punished because his defense can't get off the field, and I agree with that. But what about the QB who engineers long, clock-killing drives? A guy like that will have fewer drives because he's helping to kill the clock. So if you look at points per game, the clock killer QB will seem worse than he is. Your modification to points per drive would end this problem, and would judge the clock killer QB fairly.
At first glance, your adjusted points per drive system seems like a clear improvement over adjusted points per game. The key is in implementation. You'd have to weed out kneel down drives, or drives where there was only enough time for two or three plays before time expired. You'd also have to eliminate drives which consisted only of running plays. At the margin you'll end up making judgement calls, "Was 53 seconds of game time, and no time outs, really a realistic opportunity for the QB to have led the offense to points?" I don't see these judgement calls as an intrinsic obstacle to the system's legitimacy, though they may lead a few contentious and unreasonable people to question its results.
Your third paragraph is true and interesting. I'll think about it.
Did you get my response to your question in PM? My messaging doesn't seem to be working right and I'm not sure if the response went through.
-
Two improvements immediately jump to mind:
1) Make the threshold a fixed percentage of drive length instead of a fixed number. Something like 12.5% (1/8th - 10 yards of an 80 yard drive or 5 yards of a 40 yard drive). Thus, a very short but very crucial yardage on a short drive could be included.
2) Normalize your results by number of drives or possession time. I would use drives. This would eliminate the possibility of the quarterback being punished because the defense cannot get off the field.
-
I can't believe I'm defending Holcomb's Arm here, but he has not committed the egregious "sins" that some have pinned on him. In fact, some of the claims are outright false (the claim above that the t-distribution was incorrectly applied, for example).
Using statistical judgement to place a threshold is incredibly common in the real world and is usually necessary. The fact that tweaking the threshold in this test gives different results merely shows that the test is not sensitive enough to pick up a shift in Losman's production, or that there is no meaningful shift in Losman's production. It certainly does not mean that HA is deliberatly misleading with his statistics. Just as HA alluded to above, judgement calls are a part of statistics, so much so that there have been many tools devised to aid in that judgement (the whole topic of confidence intervals, for example, which is what HA was referring to with Alpha Level).
An interesting way of examining HA's measurement system would be to apply the same standard to another QB, either one who's output is unquestionably higher than Losman's (Brady or P.Manning) or one who's output has meaningfully shifted year to year (D.Brees or E.Manning, perhaps. If HA's measurement system were truly capable, it would be able to detect the difference between Losman and Tom Brady or between Drew Brees "good" years and "bad" years. It is important to verify the location of the threshold is adequate by moving the thresold within reason and seeing whether the conclusions still hold.
That's truly how you measure the adequacy of a measurement system. If can detect the difference between samples known to be different. This is coming from someone who does this sort of thing for a living.
-
-
This list does have a fault to it, it is only done by crime rates reports, so obviously cities with big population will have more crime rates because there are more people. While I have no doubt that St Louis and Detroit are dangerous cities, in terms of a ratio of people versus crime rates, there is no competeing with Compton and Camden. I think a ratio would be a better scale for the experiment. You can have more crime rates in a bigger city but not have it be as dangerous as a smaller city with less crime rates.
I'm almost certain this study was done on a crimes per capita scale already. The term rate means a ratio of two things.
That is almost certainly how Greece ranked so high. It is Rochester's largest population center.
-
I think that sums up a huge problem with our offense. First, we have a player on the field that does little to help the play; therefore, when he's on the field we're a man down. Second, he tips the play to the defense; therefore, its harder to be successful with that play.
Take Shelton out and put another possible receiver out their (TE) and JP has another option if its a pass. If its a run, you still have a blocker. Essentially, you've just made the offense less predictable and put a player on the field that may actually contribute.
Not to mention he's had two rediculously costly false start penalties. He's the freakin' fullback, how the heck does he false start?
-
Here's an idea, if you don't like the topic, don't read the post, and don't post in it. This is a discussion board. In a discussion, comparisons are made. It's part of normal discourse. If you've heard it too many times already, stop listening.
-
You make it seem like what people on this board say actually matters....
Losman will be fine regardless of what is said on this board after the game.
-
Which chart? The statistics in the tables by distance and down are current and provided via the splits on ESPN.com.
The control chart is also up-to-date (takes about 30 seconds in JMP) and is my own creation. The last two games do not negatively impact his numbers at all (Detroit was right at the mean and NE was above it). CLARIFICATION: This particular control chart was compiled by me, they are a very well established statistical tool in general. :-P
-
Are the numbers you cited for Losman's performance in 2005 for the whole year, or just for his second stint? I'm perfectly willing to agree that he's playing better than he did in his first stint of 2005. If you've got first stint 2005 data lumped into the totals you cited, he'll obviously look better in 2006. But the real question is: is he playing better now than he was in his second stint of 2005?
The breakdown by distance and down are for 2005 as whole versus 2006 as a whole. In general, the distinction between the two stints is important, I agree. However, in the case of completion percentage, it's not. A control chart of his completion percentage from Stint A to Stint B to 2006 shows no statistical differences from Stint A to Stint B and a shift in the mean at the beginning of 2006. The comparisons of the aggregate are appropriate.
-
This is about how many points Losman helped the offense score in an average game last year, versus how many he helped it score in an average game this year. In other words, we're dealing with two measured means, and we're testing to see whether the difference in those two measured means is statistically significant. The correct tool to test for statistical significance in differences between measured means is the t-distribution.
I have to agree. I don't think using the t distribution here is inappropriate. I'm not sure what having the NFL standard would do for you. The test of mean using the t distribution (I call it the T Test) is dependant only on the sample size n, the variability seen within that sample of size n, and the specified confidence interval.
The only problem with the t test, as I mentioned in my previous post is that less sensitive to subtle but definite shifts in the mean over a small sample size.
-
In this case, the difference will be statistically insignificant due to a low sample size (4.5 games last year, 7 games this year) and due to the high level of variance in each sample. In 2006, for example, Losman helped the team score 17 points in the Jets game, but just 6 points in the second New England game. This creates a lot of uncertainty about how many points the Losman of 2006 will help the team score in the next game.
The definition of "noise" is very broad, and includes differences in the quality of the defenses Losman faced, differences in playcalling, differences in the play of the supporting cast, differences in weather conditions, and everything else along those lines. Please believe me when I say that "noise" could very easily account for quite a bit more than the 7% change we're looking at.
As for other QBs' stats, it's not necessary to bring them into this particular discussion. The question at hand is whether Losman is playing better this year than he did in his second stint last year.
Your definition of noise is fine, but the general explanation might be better to use here: Noise is variation that can be explained by the natural, random behavior of the system (I.E. cannot be explained by a special cause).
A t-test is the general method for determining differences in mean to a specified confidence. However, the T-Test is not nearly as sensitive at picking up process shifts when samples sizes are small (the process being quarter backing a football team in this example). Something as simple as control chart with run tests would pick up the change quicker.
-
Add to that the fact that his yards per attempt is slightly lower this year than it was last year, his TD/INT ratio is about the same, and you're looking at numbers which don't support the idea that he's improved. I guess you could use completion percentage to make the case he's improved, if you're willing to overlook the ways completion percentage can be inflated. Or you could use the eyeball test, at least if your eyes saw something different than mine. Or you could make the claim that this year's circumstances are worse than last year's. If that was the case, stable numbers would indicate improving performance. But this year the offensive line is, um, less bad than it was last year, and the playcalling is better. Eric Moulds is gone, but that's partially negated by the Robert Royal upgrade at TE.
It is funny hearing an argument from a guy named Holcomb's arm AGAINST completion percentage. However, you are right, completion percentage can be artificially inflated.
In the case of J.P. Losman, it hasn't.
Pass Thrown in Air Table, 2006
Distance______Att_______Comp______Comp%_______% of Total Plays
Behind LOS____46_______28_________60.9%__________23.4%
1-10 Yds______95_______70_________73.7%__________48.2%
11-20 Yds_____31_______17_________54.8%__________15.7%
21-30 Yds_____14_______6__________42.9%__________7.1%
31-40 Yds_____6________1__________16.7%__________3.0%
41+Yds_______5________0__________0.0%___________2.5%
Pass Thrown in Air Table, 2005
Distance______Att_______Comp______Comp%_______% of Total Plays
Behind LOS____46_______25_________54.0%__________20.4%
1-10 Yds______112______66_________58.9%__________49.5%
11-20 Yds_____42_______15_________35.7%__________18.5%
21-30 Yds_____10_______3__________30.0%__________4.4%
31-40 Yds_____9________2__________22.2%__________4.0%
41+Yds_______7________2__________28.6%__________3.0%
Completion PCT by Down, 2006
Down___Comp%____Att
1______70.1%______77
2______57.1%______63
3______56.4%______55
4______50.0%______2
Completion PCT by Down, 2005
Down___Comp%____Att
1______41.0%______83
2______63.2%______68
3______46.6%______73
4______50.0%______4
It's been argued in the past that Losman is inflating his completion % by throwing shorter passes(<10 yards), which clearly is not the case (only 2.0% more over last year). He's just MUCH better at it. In addition, the most significant improvement is coming from his improvement in the 11-20 yard pass range.
It has also been argued that Losman is inflating his completion % by throwing short on third and long (ala Mr. Holcomb). If that were the case, his completion percentage would have to be significantly better on 3rd down than the aggregate (to make up for the fewer attempts). From the table, that is also clearly not the case.
The real change is that Losman is much better this year at the short and intermediate passes and is really damn good at the first down pass.
This is the progress that I see. I still see a QB that loses the ball at odd moments and who should learn when to throw the ball away. But anyone who argues against progress is simply ignoring facts.
-
By "big enough" I mean "likely to be statistically significant." Generally, small differences are likely to be due to noise. So the slight decrease in yards per attempt probably doesn't mean Losman is doing worse, just as the slight increase in adjusted points per game (using a 15 yard threshold) probably doesn't mean Losman is doing better. Either or both of these trends could easily be wiped out by his next game.
This is the most reasonable statement you've ever made on these boards in regards to statistics. You are probably right. But have you done the work to prove it or are you just assuming?
-
I was wondering how those stats compared to those for other quarterbacks. In the process of looking for aggregate QB stats, I came across this breakdown from Football Outsiders. Their system has Losman ranked 29th out of the 36 QBs with enough passes to be ranked.
Their system is interesting, I will give them that. They attempt something very important, putting the data in context. However, I've read their book and their methods, while a huge step in the right direction, are still amateurish. Some of their comments in regards to statistics make me cringe. In addition, by their own admission, these rankings are much more for the passing game as a whole rather than the individual quarterback. They are unable to decouple the quarterback from the offensive line and wide receivers. It's a difficult issue to avoid.
Two weeks ago Losman was 14th in their rankings.
Now he is 29th.
Where he ends up at the end of the year will be interesting, and possibly somewhat valid, but not before then.
-
If JP had not overthrown the reciever by 8 yards on that bomb close to the end of the game, we would have scored.
Do you think in those 7 games Holcomb played in last year, the coaches took the "kid gloves" off of Kelly?
I think Tortured Soul has a legitimate point. JP's passing percentage is good, but drives seem to bog down once we get past about the 40. (This could be to play calling too, but not buyintg it.) Late in the game Brady and JP's stats were were almost identical, except Brady had 2 TDs and 0 picks, whereas JP had 0 TDs and 1 pick. Brady was able to hit his long pass for a TD, whereas JP's was 8 yards long.
I too think that if JP could improve in some parts of the game, the points would too. If our points could improve even just a little, wins would too.Tom Brady missed two wide open receivers deep in the first freakin' quarter. Losman missed one, big deal.
Hell, Brady has completed 38 % of his passes past 10 yards this season. Losman 43%. So what? If you're going to use Brady as the standard to which Losman fails to reach, you should at least use aspects of the game that Brady is better at. There are many.
-
Do you have numbers with which to back up this statement?
As for the numbers you provided, they could show one of three things: Losman's doing an above-average job of creating first downs, McGahee & company are doing a below average job, or the Bills are disproportionately likely to pass in 2nd and 2 or 3rd and 2 type situations.
Of course.
99/162 61.1% 1131 yds 6.98 yds/comp 5 int
Also, the Bills have only attempted to pass 10 times in 7 games with less than two yards to go.
-
But drives are not sustained solely on third down. In fact, third down performance is largely a function of first and second down performance.
An interesting metric is percentage of first downs responsible for. Currently the Bills have 100 total first downs from plays (with 9 coming from penalties), with 39 coming from run plays and 61 through the air. That means that Losman's passing performance is accounting for 61.0% of the offenses first downs.
That compares favorably with the league:
J.Losman 61/100 61.0%
Brady 71/118 60.1%
Grossman 68/103 66.0%
P.Manning 90/136 66.2%
E.Manning 78/129 60.5%
Palmer 70/100 70.0%
McNabb 92/135 68.1%
Rivers 70/118 59.3%
The Bills problem, and Losman's problem, has not been sustaining drives as you assert. It's scoring points. The Bills, and Losman, have been fairly succesful in between the 20s. Where both Losman and the Bills in general have suffered is in the red zone. But the blame does not lay solely with Losman, as Willis McGahee is averaging 1.53 yds/carry (43 yards on 28 carries) in the red zone and has 1 TD. Hell, Losman has 77.7% of the Bills TDs on offense (7/9) and McGahee has 11.1% (1/9).
-
And, you, sir, have omitted a very important statistic that would hurt your argument.
'05* 134 Att 904 yards 6.8 yards per attempt * 5 games cited above
'06 197 Att 1312 yards 6.7 yards per attempt
Yes, his completion percentage is higher, but he's not getting more yards per attempt. To me this shows that the playcalling has shifted towards shorter, safer, higher percentage passes, thereby increasing Losman's completion percentage and passer rating. But the stable yards per attempt stat suggests he's not doing a more effective job moving the offense down the field than he did in those 4.5 games last season.
Does that pass the eyeball test? Well, the Losman we've gotten this year--and in particular the Losman we've gotten the last few weeks--sure doesn't look a whole lot more effective than the Losman who played those five games last year.
Where did I omit that information? I gave attempts, completions, yards, and TDs in my posts. You want me to calculate out every ratio for you? The statistic you cite was available from the information I presented.
You also have an interesting leap of logic in your second paragraph. How exactly does an increase in completion percentage coupled with a level ouput in yardage mean he's NOT more effective at moving the offense down the field? Those two statistics coupled together mean his yards per completion has dropped off, that is correct. That does not necessarily mean he is completing fewer long plays. It may also mean he is completing more short passes. The statistic you presented is at worst, inconclusive, and at best, supportive of my argument rather than yours. You need to complete passes to sustain drives.
-
That's because the person who originally cited those statistics (incorrectly) omitted the statistics that would hurt his/her argument.
The missing statistics:
'05 134 Att 68 Comp 50.7% *(5 Games Cited Above)
'06 197 Att 122 Comp 61.9 % (+23.47%)
That's progress.
-
The title of this thread would seem to describe the opposite of the text's argument. Three negatives = a negative.
Stats don't mean that much. David Carr is having a fabulous statistical year because his bad team has dug themselves into a huge hole four times and he's spent the second half chucking it. It's nice to see the improved accuracy, but he's still not averaging enough yards per pass play to say that that improved accuracy is meaningful. The improved accuracy has seemingly come with a price in terms of scoring (.87 TD passes per game versus 1.6) and yards gained (40% less in '06 per game).
Your numbers are off. The totals at the bottom of the '05 set are for the full year, not just the five games he cites. The rest of the data was truncated. For the five games cited in '05 versus the seven in '06 the statistics you refer to are actually:
'05 7 TD 907 YDS in 5 games (1.4 TD/Game, 181.4 YDs/Game)
'06 6 TD 1212 YDS in 7 games (0.85 TD/Game, 187.4 YDs/Game, +3.3% YoY)
-
I don't care if this idiotic team does not make the Super Bowl for the next 50 years but can they at least field a team that makes the last 10 games of the season SOMEWHAT worth watching.
Too bad the Bills don't play all their home games first so at least you can get a little bit of your moneys worth.
Were you expecting playoff's this year?
What exactly has changed between the beginning of the season and now? Coming in, it was a young team hoping to improve as the year went along and expecting a roller coaster ride along the way.
That's exactly what's happened. The thing worth watching, just as it has always been for this team, is improvement. I watch every week because I want to see individual plays, because that's where I get to see if players have improved. It's that simple.
-
Yes, the Steelers were loaded with good talent.
Bradshaw had a fine arm, and was an excellent leader. One tough guy.
You have to put passing stats in context of the times.
When Bradshaw played, bump 'n run pass defense meant receivers were constantly being mugged. None of today's no-touch-me after 5 yards. Defensive linemen were allowed to haul back and slap the bejesus out of offensive linemen. Receivers could and did execute crackback blocks. QB's were not protected species - you could pretty much smack 'em as hard as you like, anywhere, anytime.
The differences in the league from then to now do not matter.
The actual statistics do not matter (because the league is different now than then).
The only thing that matters is the change in the statistics over time. It can be seen from Bradshaws career numbers (partially displayed in this thread), that Bradshaw was a markedly different QB his first five years than he was for the rest of his career.
That is the point people should be taking away from this thread. Don't let the specific numbers cloud your mind.
Weather on NYS thruway
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
I'm making the drive from Rochester to Buffalo on the Thruway tomorrow evening also. The forecast doesn't seem too ominous. Mix of rain and light snow. It will probably be spotty, like you said.
The good news is it was 70 degrees here on Tuesday so the roads are still pretty warm. We had a short burst of snow here this evening, got about a half inch on the ground, but the roads remained clear.