Allen is NOT inaccurate unless Baker, Lamar, Darnold, Rosen, 2017 Watson & 2016 Wentz are, too

[Warcodered]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You have the diagram right but the interpretation wrong.  I've posted the same one.  When you hit a guy in the legs vs. chest it is the lower left hand diagram, high accuracy but low precision.  Allen and others need to be more precise, less so accurate.

 

Hitting the bulls eye every time is high accuracy but importantly high precision.

I think you might be arguing over what you consider accurate not precision. A single pass is more accurate the closer it is to where it needs to be(if that's where you're aiming). Whether you consider a throw accurate depends on where you draw the line as you get farther from that.

[VW82]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You have the diagram right but the interpretation wrong.  I've posted the same one.  When you hit a guy in the legs vs. chest it is the lower left hand diagram, high accuracy but low precision.  Allen and others need to be more precise, less so accurate.

 

Hitting the bulls eye every time is high accuracy but importantly high precision.

 

Ok so taking the lower left chart as example, would you agree that one of the dots in the red bulls eye is more accurate than one of the dots in the white space? My interpretation is fine. You're making the same mistake as OP in assuming that there are no degrees of accuracy. It's harder to catch a pass at the knees or shoelaces (where you have to bend down to get it) than one that hits you right in the chest. One pass is more accurate than the other.    

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

Ok so taking the lower left chart as example, would you agree that one of the dots in the red bulls eye is more accurate than one of the dots in the white space? My interpretation is fine. You're making the same mistake as OP in assuming that there are no degrees of accuracy. It's harder to catch a pass at the knees or shoelaces (where you have to bend down to get it) than one that hits you right in the chest. One pass is more accurate than the other.    

No.  The dot in the red is more precise, not more accurate.  That's where you're confusing the two; it's shown right in the label of the diagram.

 

The OP talked about catchable balls.  Let's take a WR numbers as the bulls eye.  If the QB throws a ball that is "catchable", which I think could be be interpreted as within the catch radius, then it's accurate.  But not precise.  The OP should weigh in on what he considered accurate.

 

When you say hitting a guy in the numbers consistently, that requires not just accuracy, but precision.  When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window that's not just an accurate throw it's a precise throw.  Allen can stand to be more precise for sure.

 

as for completion percentage by the way, if he throws 30 passes the difference between 52 and 60% is about 2 passes a game.  Or two drops or throwaways.

[oldmanfan]

16 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I think you might be arguing over what you consider accurate not precision. A single pass is more accurate the closer it is to where it needs to be(if that's where you're aiming). Whether you consider a throw accurate depends on where you draw the line as you get farther from that.

Accurate is how close you come to a target and precision is him consistently you hit a given spot.  The great QBs have both.  

 

Thd only way to know if a throw is accurate or precise is to know exactly what the QB is aiming at.  Also if you narrow the area in which a throw has to be to be considered accurate, you can narrow it to a point where accuracy and precision are the same.  So if say you want to define a WB as being accurate only if he hits a guy right on the numbers, then there's really not much difference.

[VW82]

14 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

No.  The dot in the red is more precise, not more accurate.  That's where you're confusing the two; it's shown right in the label of the diagram.

 

The OP talked about catchable balls.  Let's take a WR numbers as the bulls eye.  If the QB throws a ball that is "catchable", which I think could be be interpreted as within the catch radius, then it's accurate.  But not precise.  The OP should weigh in on what he considered accurate.

 

When you say hitting a guy in the numbers consistently, that requires not just accuracy, but precision.  When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window that's not just an accurate throw it's a precise throw.  Allen can stand to be more precise for sure.

 

as for completion percentage by the way, if he throws 30 passes the difference between 52 and 60% is about 2 passes a game.  Or two drops or throwaways.

 

You're just flat wrong on this which is funny because you're accusing everyone else of mistaking them.  

 

Accuracy is measured as the distance from the accepted value (i.e. the bulls eye) and the experimental value (i.e. where the throw landed on the dart board). Precision is the measure of deviation from the average throw. 

 

Let's say the dot in the red bulls eye (which you claim is more precise but not more accurate than dots outside the red bulls eye) was all by itself, and the rest of the dots were like the dart board on the upper right. The bulls eye dot would be accurate, but not precise in comparison to the rest of the throws. You have it completely backwards.   

 

Just because a throw is within the catch radius does not make it equally accurate to all other throws within the catch radius. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by VW82

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

You're just flat wrong on this which is funny because you're accusing everyone else of mistaking them.  

 

Accuracy is measured as the distance from the accepted value (i.e. the bulls eye) and the experimental value (i.e. where the throw landed on the dart board). Precision is the measure of deviation from the average throw. 

 

Let's say the dot in the red bulls eye (which you claim is more precise but not more accurate than dots outside the red bulls eye) was all by itself, and the rest of the dots were like the dart board on the upper right. The bulls eye dot would be accurate, but not precise in comparison to the rest of the throws. You have it completely backwards.   

I think we're saying the same thing.  I agree with what you've said here.  I run a clinical lab so I get accuracy and precision of assays.  Where I think we disagree is the distance from accepted value.  You seem to want to define it to such a small degree (I.e. Hitting a guy right on the numbers) that in reality there would be no real difference between being accurate and precise.  The OP defines a wider radius to be accurate.

 

My definition of precision is how repeatably you hit a specific value.  For QBs it's how oftten you hit the same spot the same time.  QBs have to be accurate, but also precise.

Edited January 17, 2019 by oldmanfan

[Warcodered]

14 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

No.  The dot in the red is more precise, not more accurate.  That's where you're confusing the two; it's shown right in the label of the diagram.

 

The OP talked about catchable balls.  Let's take a WR numbers as the bulls eye.  If the QB throws a ball that is "catchable", which I think could be be interpreted as within the catch radius, then it's accurate.  But not precise.  The OP should weigh in on what he considered accurate.

 

When you say hitting a guy in the numbers consistently, that requires not just accuracy, but precision.  When folks talk about fitting a ball into a tight window that's not just an accurate throw it's a precise throw.  Allen can stand to be more precise for sure.

 

as for completion percentage by the way, if he throws 30 passes the difference between 52 and 60% is about 2 passes a game.  Or two drops or throwaways.

So are you saying that Allen is the bottom left target where the red dot is a perfect in stride pass right where it needs to be and the first white circle is still catchable but not perfect?

[VW82]

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I think we're saying the same thing.  I agree with what you've said here.  I run a clinical lab so I get accuracy and precision of assays.  Where I think we disagree is the distance from accepted value.  You seem to want to define it to such a small degree (I.e. Hitting a guy right on the numbers) that in reality there would be no real difference between being accurate and precise.  The OP defines a wider radius to be accurate.

 

I think OP took any pass that was even remotely catchable (even if the receiver had to lay out to get his finger tips on it, or stop/alter his route and pull it off the ground) and called it a drop/catchable whereas the PFF and ESPN guys held QBs to a little higher standard in terms of what was considered on target. That would seem to be a simpler explanation than assuming everyone is so completely confused with accuracy vs. precision that they messed up their whole analysis.   

Edited January 17, 2019 by VW82

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, VW82 said:

 

I think OP took any pass that was even remotely catchable (even if the receiver had to lay out to get his finger tips on it, or stop/alter his route and pull it off the ground) and called it a drop/catchable whereas the PFF and ESPN guys gave QBs a little less benefit of the doubt in terms of what was on target. That would seem to be a simpler explanation than assuming everyone is so completely confused with accuracy vs. precision that they messed up their whole analysis.   

I think that is likely.  

[K-9]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Maybe we try surrounding Allen with some talent that can actually catch the football and protect him a bit.

 

Positional spending by position of the Bills vs. the remaining 4 playoff teams on average:

I read that and think, “Man, we are getting a helluva steal with our secondary.”

[oldmanfan]

18 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So are you saying that Allen is the bottom left target where the red dot is a perfect in stride pass right where it needs to be and the first white circle is still catchable but not perfect?

That's a fair interpretation.  

 

Let me try to highlight using a clinical assay, something I do every day.  Say you are measuring the concentration of substance X, and you know it's 100.  And you want to determine accuracy and precision.  Accuracy would be how close you are to 100 over a series of measurements and is generally defined by standard deviation if the mean.  So I might not have any of the ten measurements come out 100,  but if the values are 95,96,97,98 99, 102,103 104 105, 106 then I am accurate and I accept my measurement because it fits within an acceptable SD. Precision is how many times out of ten measurements I hit the same number.  So let's take that sample of known value 100.  I do ten measurements and each is 90.  I'm very precise but I can't accept that test because it is inaccurate.

 

I agree with my friend above that it comes down to essentially what you consider the SD for a QB throws.  The OP considers it (I think) within the catch radius.  I think that's reasonable, you may not.  But for a QB to be really good he had to combine that with hitting a specific spot reproducibly- precision.  It's not an either/or necessarily; the greats need both.  

 

It wiuld be interesting to watch film with Allen and ask him where he was targeting throws; it would tell a lot about his accuracy and precision.  Take one pass to Croom as an example, I think in the last game.  Croom was coming over the middle, and the ball was out ahead of him by 2-3 feet.  Terrible accuracy at first blush.  But what if he told you he threw it exactly where he wanted, but he and Croom were not communicating on the route, he thought Croom was going to keep crossing but Croom thought he was supposed to sit down?  Allen gets accused of being inaccurate because it affected his completion percentage, but in reality he threw a good ball.

 

Interesting conversation and has made me think more about my approach to analyzing things.

[billsfan1959]

3 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

That’s kinda the point.  Guys like Allen don’t get drafted that high and if they do, they were dominant.  He wasn’t.  

 

And i I hear the Mahomes stat.  Misleading because the conference switched.  And all things being equal, I’d bet on the guy with 50 tds and awesome physical skills in a power 5 conference over the guy who didn’t make his make his all league team in the MWC with awesome physical skills.

 

hopefully Allen will the complete exception to all the overwhelming evidence that we have had.  

You do this in every thread about Allen. (1) The sample size of sub 60% college QBs drafted in the top 10 is too small to draw any significant statistical conclusions and (2)  even if there was a large enough sample size, it would have no relevance whatsoever regarding whether or not Josh Allen will be successful. Those are group statistics. 

 

 Let me try to explain this to you. If I told you that the average life expectancy of a male in the US was 72 years of age and that 80% of all men die by the time they are 82,  it would not mean that you have an 80% chance of dying by the time you are 82 years old. As a matter of fact, it would mean nothing at all in regard to your personal life expectancy.  That would depend on variables unique to you.  Statistics might suggest that 80% of all men die by the time they are 82 years old; however, they cannot in any way say whether you are in the 80% that will die by age 82 or the 20% that will live longer. 

 

 It is the same with Josh Allen. He will succeed or fail based solely on variables unique to him.    The statistical analyses of any group of quarterbacks, or how well or how poorly any specific quarterback played, in the entire history of the NFL, has no relevance at all to Josh Allen. None.

 

It is a specious argument.

Edited January 17, 2019 by billsfan1959

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, VW82 said:

 

I made this point earlier in the thread but it appears to have been lost in all the replies...I don't think your analysis debunks the accuracy claims. It debunks the claim that he throws a greater percentage of uncatchable balls than other rookies. Your analysis assumes that a ball thrown late and 100 MPH at a receiver's shoe lace is essentially the same as one thrown on time and hits the receiver in stride. Both are technically catchable. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

PFF and ESPN Stats & Info did this exact same analysis and concluded that Josh threw a greater percentage of "off target throws" than anyone else in the NFL, including the rookies. It's unclear how much their version of an off target throw differs from your uncatchable throw. 

 

Anyways, as someone who did a truncated version of this (and got killed for it), you have my appreciation and sympathy. I don't agree with your methodology as I understand it, but your conclusion is interesting nonetheless, and I'm prepared to take it at face value. Nice work.   

 

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

 

Yes, I give every ball that a WR has the ability to catch equal value and every ball he can't as equal value.

 

I understand PFF's and ESPN stats findings and don't agree with them because I scrutinized and watched and tracked every single one of those over 1,000 passes and evidently they're getting into things like ball placement, which is just preposterously hard to define and measure and give value to--because surely a pass to a WR streaking on an in-route across the middle of the field with a ball placed precisely 1 foot in front of his chest when it reaches that WR running at full speed is given more value than a ball that is 1 foot behind him while running full speed than a ball that he has to stop for to catch because it would have been 5 feet behind him if he were running full speed than a ball that is...

 

And do you see how ridiculous this gets?

 

I'm sorry, but consider me extremely skeptical that PFF and ESPN stats had the exact same scaled value system across the NFL for the thousands of passes they had to chart.

 

I understand that some catchable passes are better than others, but I really think people here delude themselves into believing Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees always throw the football to the perfect location and don't have wild misses.

 

Allen was throwing as many or more catchable footballs as all the other QBs save Darnold once you discard Throwaways and spikes AND significantly more of Darnold's passes were Interceptable. And just from watching--obviously subjective--his ball placement and speed are fine and even improved throughout the season.

Edited January 17, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[Scott7975]

3 hours ago, VW82 said:

 

An accurate throw is one that hits the receiver in the numbers (i.e. a bulls eye). A throw that hits him in the knees is less accurate. A throw that hits him in his shoe is even less accurate than the one at the knees.

 

Precision refers to the deviations of his throws from one another. If all of Josh's throws were at knee level, he'd be very precise (though perhaps not as accurate as we'd like).  The fact Josh had issues throwing in front, behind, high, low, and otherwise is evidence of his lack of precision, and the degree to which he was in front, behind, high, low, and otherwise is evidence of his issues with accuracy (though OP didn't get into that besides tracking uncatchables). 

 

I've posted this before, but here's the visual representation. 

 

 

Having read both the PFF and ESPN articles, I can't tell whether they're confusing accuracy and precision. It's possible they are though I doubt it. If I missed the smoking gun please feel free to point it out. So far all I've read are accusations. Specifically, I believe they were talking about percentage of off target throws - that's a(n imperfect) measure of accuracy. It would be better if someone could give average distance from the bulls eye for all these guys, or put them all on a dart board like above.  

 

Edit: also, OP didn't conclude that Allen and the other rookies were accurate. He concluded that Allen was as accurate as the other rookies. He didn't do an analysis comparing rookie accuracy to the rest of the NFL QBs.

 

QBs don't always aim for the numbers.  

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

They traded for Benjamin and Matthews, traded up for Zay (instead of JuJu or Kupp), and drafted Ray Ray over ESB.  

 

Huh?

 

Jordan Matthews hasn't been on the team for a few years.

 

Who's ESB?

 

They did trade for Benjamin. How'd that work out?

 

Zay over JuJu and Kupp... okay... are either of those guys #1 WRs?

 

Draft picks are hit and miss... naturally. Veteran Free Agents are known commodities. Beane and McDermott haven't done much yet to provide some proven offensive talent for their young QB.

[HappyDays]

3 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

That’s kinda the point.  Guys like Allen don’t get drafted that high and if they do, they were dominant.

 

No the point is that he was drafted in the 1st round regardless, because he was a 1st round talent. Sure he has a ways to go to prove himself a franchise QB. But if the draft was re-done today no question he would still go in the 1st round. As pessimistic as you've been even you see that, right? His production in college is meaningless. He has shown that he was drafted exactly when he should have been.

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

When was the last top 10 qb who was a 56% passer from a sub power 5 conference?  It’s not a made up narrative.

 

You literally sound exactly like me in the preseason draft process.

 

I guess we can chalk you up in the same category broadly as the national media and pundits: stubbornly dependent on analytics and hating to admit you're wrong.

 

Well, my feelings about Allen last Spring were dead wrong. He might not become out Franchise QB, but he's already looked much more the part than I thought he would.

 

Remember, this was a scouting pick, not an analytics pick.

[LSHMEAB]

4 hours ago, VW82 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Top right figure may be worse than the top left. Why in the world would you want to precisely be off target?

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

While I appreciate the efforts of the OP, I think the skeptics are hoping for a time when his completion percentage speaks for itself and such threads are unnecessary.

 

Agreed.

 

Hopefully our WRs and TEs significantly better and Allen keeps improving.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Top right figure may be worse than the top left. Why in the world would you want to precisely be off target?

Technically you like that one better because it's easier to increase your accuracy if you have precision. Like from that one you can try to aim further to the right and down where as the top left one I don't know what you'd do.