peterpan Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 This is why stats lie. In 100 drop backs Brady may get hit twice and Fitz 40 times. how about a stat that shows % of QB hits that draw a roughing the passer flag? Thats the real stat. Pats fans complain about calls going against them same as Bills fans, every fan base thinks the calls that go against them are BS and the ones that are for them legit. But every fan base knows the Pats get more calls than every other team. I've noticed it in every Pats game I have ever watched. Its one of the reasons I started to hate them.
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Statistics are one thing but to judge whether or not a QB is hit 'legally' you've got to make observations by reviewing the plays and using judgment and understanding of the rules to determine if the correct call (or non-call was made). Simply saying a QB draws a roughing penalty x percentage of the time proves nothing about the integrity of the officiating.
Mr. WEO Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 The math doesn't equate when the sampling is completely random like that. It might be per 100 drop backs but Brady will likely end up with 150 more pass attempts than Fitz at the end of the season so unless they are throwing a flag for it at least twice a game (for Brady) the numbers will never match up. Basically it's the same thing as me saying 90% of the time I drink I get drunk compared to my wife who only gets drunk 5% of the time. Why? Because I consume more beer. Bascally, this is false. In the past two full seasons, Brady has never thrown more than 52 passes than Fitz--and that number was in Fitz's 14 game season. Typical Fox news. These numbers are BS. What is the sampling size? Are they factoring in Brady's entire career or just a few games where he didn't get hit? Brady would be at the top of this list if it weren't based on Fox's selective mathematics. The author clearly states the "sample size". You think he went through all of Brady's career and selected the single stretch where he had few roughing calls go his way? That is a ridiculous way to claim that there is no bias on the roughing the passer calls. His math does not support that bogus assumption and it is insulting that he is selling it as valid. Based on the rules he outlines which dictate what qualifies as a LEGITIMATE roughing the passer call/non-call that alone is the determining factor in evaluating bias, if there is any. Where are his numbers that show whether these calls/non-calls are legitimate in the first place? Absolutely nothing definitive can be derived from the variables he uses, roughing calls for every 100 pass attempts, just ridiculous. Correct/incorrect calls begin and end there when evaluating refs and he conspicuously does not address that while throwing ambiguous math around to distract from the real question. The man has a future in politics/marketing/PR work. The math is not ambiguous. Your bias attempts to make it so. Based on the timeframe the data was taken from, it looks to work out to a single roughing the passer call on Brady in that time period (646 dropbacks). What definitive conclusion do you derive from that? In the games covered in the study, there was one roughing the passer on Brady. It was against Pitt after a TD pass. So are you saying that the one call was incorrect, therefore the article is biased?
BuffBill Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 http://msn.foxsports...avorites-092911 Roughing the passer penalties per 100 dropbacks R. Fitzpatrick 0.91 T. Brady 0.16 Fitz gets much more calls for him contrary to perception. That says more about the Offensive Lines then the QBs or the Refs, especially since Fitz is more mobile then Brady. Has nothing to do with refs showing favorites. Give me a stat of number of times they were hit after the whistle, there will be a higher penalty rate against Brady.
mountainwampus Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 The great Fox News conspiracy to cook the numbers in Brady's favor. Really?!?!? If you read the article, you'd see that they took "Statistics from the 2010 season, combined with the first three weeks of the 2011 season," into account. I'm sure they spent hours choosing those to make Brady look good. Exactly, 2010 just happens to be the season where nobody could even get close to Brady. Their O-line was ranked #1 that year. 2010 was the best year ever for the Pats O-line. Selective mathematics.
mountainwampus Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Here is more RTP info with a larger sampling size ('09-'11 week 3). Suddenly, Brady is near top of the list instead of at the bottom, just by adding the '09 into the mix. Now what if we took ONLY the 2009 season? Brady would likely be #1 in RTP.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) when the scabs were calling penalties on the putrids their record was 1-2. When the refs came back they went from 8 flags a game down to 2 flags a game. The next time the putrids had 6 flags they lost to Seattle. The next time they had over 6 flags it was the last game against Buffalo. The Bills had 8 flags to 0 in the first half and finished with 14 flags to 7. AND the Bills nearly came back becasue the putrids got flagged 7 tiems!!! Those are cold hard facts. Favoritism does rule in the NFL. Edited December 6, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever
HeHateMe Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 This is why stats lie. In 100 drop backs Brady may get hit twice and Fitz 40 times. how about a stat that shows % of QB hits that draw a roughing the passer flag? Thats the real stat. This^^, that stat in the OP comment is meaningless. Hell refer back to the first NE game where Brady gets the call and Fitz gets hit high and low and no call.
Drop Kick Flutie Posted December 6, 2012 Author Posted December 6, 2012 To counter the argument to look at percentage of hits, the better the O-line the longer it takes for a defender to get to the QB, making it so that a higher percentage are late hits.
RealityCheck Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Bascally, this is false. In the past two full seasons, Brady has never thrown more than 52 passes than Fitz--and that number was in Fitz's 14 game season. The author clearly states the "sample size". You think he went through all of Brady's career and selected the single stretch where he had few roughing calls go his way? The math is not ambiguous. Your bias attempts to make it so. Based on the timeframe the data was taken from, it looks to work out to a single roughing the passer call on Brady in that time period (646 dropbacks). What definitive conclusion do you derive from that? In the games covered in the study, there was one roughing the passer on Brady. It was against Pitt after a TD pass. So are you saying that the one call was incorrect, therefore the article is biased? I don't even know where to begin with your interpretation of what I posted. My argument is that how many times a QB drops back, gets hit, draws a roughing call, or doesn't get a roughing call is totally irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the ACCURACY of the call/non-call and the corresponding frequency of those events. The proper way for the ex-chief of the refs to present this is a breakdown of what percentage of the time that a QB gets hit versus whether the refs made an accurate decision as to whether it was roughing or not based on the rules. The stats used say nothing of whether or not those calls were accurate or not. Based on that fact the question of bias/non-bias is not properly addressed. I have never blamed officiating for the Bills ineptitude. You responded to my post making many false assumptions as to my point. I made no mention of Brady favoritism/non-favoritism, I could care less about it and don't believe that there is bias(that is my belief and I have no stats to back that up). My post was solely on the validity of the math behind the assumption. You can't make a claim either way for bias simply because the wrong variables are used. So tell me, pick any QB you want in that article and tell me which QB was illegally hit the most (and it wasn't called) per drop back? Bias can work 2 ways. You can make a call to protect someone, or you can not make a call to hurt someone, such as seeing a guy get hit illegally and NOT throwing the flag. Even then missing a roughing call that should have been is not by itself evidence of an ulterior motive. Mistakes happen. Hence, nothing definitive either way can be derived from these stats in determining bias. To attempt to do so might be a symptom of a greater personal problem or agenda.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Here is another conspiracy theory…. For all of the stories of the Pats O Line not being the best how is it Brady is protected so well? Ref's missing and or ignoring obvious holding calls? Google search threads It Is What It Is » Why the 2012 Patriots offensive line is the best of ... 5 days ago – At the start of the season, it certainly appeared the Patriots' offensive line was going to be in for a tough year. The group was coming off an ... New England’s offensive line thriving despite constant change for first-place Patriots Washington Post http://articles.wash...lmer-dan-koppen From the onset of training camp, the New England Patriots offensive line has been a work in progress, a mix of experience and youth that led to a handful of questions. Patriots Offensive Line Issues Could Derail Entire Season Edited December 7, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever
peterpan Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 when the scabs were calling penalties on the putrids their record was 1-2. When the refs came back they went from 8 flags a game down to 2 flags a game. The next time the putrids had 6 flags they lost to Seattle. The next time they had over 6 flags it was the last game against Buffalo. The Bills had 8 flags to 0 in the first half and finished with 14 flags to 7. AND the Bills nearly came back becasue the putrids got flagged 7 tiems!!! Those are cold hard facts. Favoritism does rule in the NFL. I quoted this just to make sure people would read it.
Mr. WEO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I don't even know where to begin with your interpretation of what I posted. My argument is that how many times a QB drops back, gets hit, draws a roughing call, or doesn't get a roughing call is totally irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the ACCURACY of the call/non-call and the corresponding frequency of those events. The proper way for the ex-chief of the refs to present this is a breakdown of what percentage of the time that a QB gets hit versus whether the refs made an accurate decision as to whether it was roughing or not based on the rules. The stats used say nothing of whether or not those calls were accurate or not. Based on that fact the question of bias/non-bias is not properly addressed. I have never blamed officiating for the Bills ineptitude. You responded to my post making many false assumptions as to my point. I made no mention of Brady favoritism/non-favoritism, I could care less about it and don't believe that there is bias(that is my belief and I have no stats to back that up). My post was solely on the validity of the math behind the assumption. You can't make a claim either way for bias simply because the wrong variables are used. So tell me, pick any QB you want in that article and tell me which QB was illegally hit the most (and it wasn't called) per drop back? Bias can work 2 ways. You can make a call to protect someone, or you can not make a call to hurt someone, such as seeing a guy get hit illegally and NOT throwing the flag. Even then missing a roughing call that should have been is not by itself evidence of an ulterior motive. Mistakes happen. Hence, nothing definitive either way can be derived from these stats in determining bias. To attempt to do so might be a symptom of a greater personal problem or agenda. Let's start with the premise of the article--which you have missed completely (perhaps intentionally). It was very simple: do certain QBs ("stars") get more roughing the passer calls against the opposing defenses they face. The presumption on this board and elsewhere is that they do. The author showed that they do not. That was his only goal--to answer the question as to whether there is bias towards these QBs based on this one "variable". He did not seek to answer the question "are refs biased against non-star QBs and therefore calling fewer roughing the passer calls for them and/or do they allow more uncalled roughing the passer on these nonstar QBs?". No one is really claiming that they do. Nor did he set out to reveiw every hit on every QB to determine whether they should have been flagged or were improperly flagged. But he didn't have to because it wasn't going the answer the question he sought to answer. If you want this guy to address whether penalties are being properly called at all, you should ask him directly. But my guess is that he is going to assume they were all made correctly (calls and noncalls), so your point would be rendered moot.
djp14150 Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 http://msn.foxsports...avorites-092911 Roughing the passer penalties per 100 dropbacks R. Fitzpatrick 0.91 T. Brady 0.16 Fitz gets much more calls for him contrary to perception. Thesenumbers are meaningless without understand more of how its calculated. One reason Fitz would be higher is that he doesnt get the league respect like Brady does. The DL know if they blow on Brees will get flagged but with Fitz they feel they can take a chance.
Mr. WEO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Thesenumbers are meaningless without understand more of how its calculated. One reason Fitz would be higher is that he doesnt get the league respect like Brady does. The DL know if they blow on Brees will get flagged but with Fitz they feel they can take a chance. You're kidding, right?
Drop Kick Flutie Posted December 7, 2012 Author Posted December 7, 2012 Here is another conspiracy theory…. For all of the stories of the Pats O Line not being the best how is it Brady is protected so well? Ref's missing and or ignoring obvious holding calls? Google search threads It Is What It Is » Why the 2012 Patriots offensive line is the best of ... 5 days ago – At the start of the season, it certainly appeared the Patriots' offensive line was going to be in for a tough year. The group was coming off an ... New England’s offensive line thriving despite constant change for first-place Patriots Washington Post http://articles.wash...lmer-dan-koppen From the onset of training camp, the New England Patriots offensive line has been a work in progress, a mix of experience and youth that led to a handful of questions. Patriots Offensive Line Issues Could Derail Entire Season You hop on every conspiracy theory don't you?
CardinalScotts Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) they HOLD nearly every snap , if you get Jerome Booger and the boys they call it, Mike Carey's crew as well (although they are terrible officials). Clete Blakemans could phone it in. Good teams get away with more penalties, when we get to the point of being pretty good the tide will turn. The pass interference calls are what drives me nuts - no consistency from game to game- one calls everything next guy calls nothing and they seem to have thrown out the part about a catchable pass Edited December 7, 2012 by CardinalScotts
RealityCheck Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Let's start with the premise of the article--which you have missed completely (perhaps intentionally). It was very simple: do certain QBs ("stars") get more roughing the passer calls against the opposing defenses they face. The presumption on this board and elsewhere is that they do. The author showed that they do not. That was his only goal--to answer the question as to whether there is bias towards these QBs based on this one "variable". He did not seek to answer the question "are refs biased against non-star QBs and therefore calling fewer roughing the passer calls for them and/or do they allow more uncalled roughing the passer on these nonstar QBs?". No one is really claiming that they do. Nor did he set out to reveiw every hit on every QB to determine whether they should have been flagged or were improperly flagged. But he didn't have to because it wasn't going the answer the question he sought to answer. If you want this guy to address whether penalties are being properly called at all, you should ask him directly. But my guess is that he is going to assume they were all made correctly (calls and noncalls), so your point would be rendered moot. I will agree to disagree with all of your assumptions. Obviously our minds work in very different ways, and I am quite satisfied with that. You actually put a smile on my face.
Captain Caveman Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Your math is wrong, you need to take into account the giant size of Fitz's head. It's a much bigger target, not to mention the gravity it's generating which pulls defenders towards it. http://www.steelersdepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ryan_fitzpatrick_big_head.gif
Alphadawg7 Posted December 9, 2012 Posted December 9, 2012 http://msn.foxsports...avorites-092911 Roughing the passer penalties per 100 dropbacks R. Fitzpatrick 0.91 T. Brady 0.16 Fitz gets much more calls for him contrary to perception. Interesting stat...if you would have polled what people that on this board I assure you they would have said the opposite of those stats. I always see the alleged bias people feel Brady gets, but I just don't see it. I see passionate Bills fans who understandably want to beat the Pats so bad and feel jaded if a call doesn't go their way. But, I just don't see anything at all that would lead me to believe that Brady or the Pats get any special breaks, in fact we have gotten many favorable calls in our favor against them, some I thought the Pats got screwed on but was happy to take. The whole conspiracy stuff with Bills fans is something I will never understand. Every week its the same thing...a ref makes a close, but correct call and some of the fans go into an uproar that they hate the Bills or are somehow conspiring against them. Its usually devoid of things like logic and reason...for instance, they don't care if it was ruled a certain way in live play and that the refs need indisputable evidence to over turn it, they just feel it should always go in Bills favor...as it goes with most fans of any team. Not to mention things like on draft night where they feel ESPN intentionally goes to commercial on the Bills picks but never say anything about the other 90% of the commercials that occur during other teams picks...oh just how ESPN allegedly hates the Bills or something. The funny thing is, every week we get calls that are just as controversial in our favor or we get away with holding, etc and no one says the Refs are doing us favors or there is some conspiracy against our opponent in favor of the Bills. I can without a shadow of a doubt say that no one cares enough about a Bills outcome to risk jeopardizing the whole league to show biased to our opponent, even the Pats. Refs are humans...they are going to see some stuff and they are going to miss some stuff. Thats the human nature of the game, and those calls go against us and in our favor just like any other team in the league.
Recommended Posts