I'm sick of hearing about "metrics" in evaluating the Bills

[FreeMaxB585]

4 hours ago, ProcessTruster said:

boy, lose a game and everyone loses their s--t.  well, I guess this IS a fan board

 

the issue was it was a important game because it was actually vs a good team. we have only beaten the bottom of the barrel. all garbage. best win was titans who are a complete dif team without mariota. beating a legit team wouldve ended many questions. we even got the giants with eli. we dont have 1 good win

[Augie]

14 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Well, Edmunds was defensive player of the week last game last season.

 

I’d say the tipped balls that became interceptions and the forced fumbles were impact plays that affected games. He had an odd knack for that last year. He’s not a Dick Butkus style MLB, but the game has changed. I’ll just hope he keeps developing and they use him in the best way possible. 

[Gugny]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The OP may have a point and I may even agree with it, but I think it's clouded by use of the word "metric" in an unusual sense and by lack of clarity about the definition he's using.

The use of the somewhat unusual term "performance level" to describe what the NFL calls "statistics" such as TD passes, TD runs, FG, tackles, sacks, passing yards etc. doesn't help with clarity.  The insertion of a buzzphrase "pre determined inferential statistic" is a nice touch, but it's marooned on a lonely peak isolated from the normal meaning of the term "inferential statistic".  None of the things of which the OP complains (disruption on the OL, covering receivers) are inferential statistics by the usual definition.  If anyone really wants to know what that is, this seems to be a decent explanation.

 

Fundamentally, "metrics" in this context simply means "things that can be quantitated and that are believed to be relevant to the outcome one desires".

If the desired achievement is an NFL Football Championship, wins are a metric.

If the desired achievement is a winning season, wins are an outcome.

 

So the NFL started out by recording statistics that are straightforward to measure: yards gained on a pass, yards gained on a run, first downs achieved or given up, third downs converted or stopped.  These are all, indeed, examples of "metrics".  They are a subset of metrics you can find on the nfl.com "stats" page.

 

Stats geeks (amateur and professional) and other interested parties rummage around in these stats trying to decide which ones are the most important to the desired outcome of wins, and even predict it.  And they noticed something coaches have always known - players who don't show up in some of those stats, seem to make a big difference to the performance of the team and its ability to achieve the desired outcome of wins.  So they looked for ways to quantitate this.

 

I mean, obviously, we've all seen a QB unable to make a good throw because he's being chased around the backfield like a chicken dodging a hungry fox and finally throwing the ball away or maybe throwing an incompletion or even a pick (I'm talking to you, Josh Allen!), but no sack - we would all agree that the players assuming the "hungry fox" role performed in a way that contributed to a bad outcome on that play and eventually a win.

 

Metrics like causing disruption on the opponent's OL can, in fact, be measured and are in fact examples of "descriptive statistics", it's just more time consuming and less straightforward than recording a sack.  It is done by looking on film at where the OLman starts the play and how the DLman impacts his motion.  This is actually pretty straightforward for the OLman's team, because they know what the OLman's assignment is on a play and what he's supposed to do.  It's a little bit more subjective for the DLman's team but the coaches know a good bit about the systems their opponents are running and can make a very educated guess.

 

It takes another step of subjectivity when it's done by external groups who know neither, such as PFF or FO.

 

Then we have what I privately refer to as "Frankenstats", where statisticians weight and combine large quantities of individual metrics in a way that predicts wins or playoffs or championships (their desired outcomes).  I personally don't trust these at all, especially when they're proprietary ("secret sauce"), so if that was what the OP was railing against I'd agree but upon closer examination it doesn't seem to be.

 

Anyway, what the OP seems to be saying is that he doesn't trust data about game contributions he can't quantitate with his own eyeballs or find on the NFL stat page.  He's entitled, but anyone who has coached or played the game (or even talked to people who have coached or played the game) knows that a player's impact on their team in fact can't always be captured by "bright shiny things" like sacks or runs.  And that's just how it is.

I'm sorry to hear you're feeling sick, OP; have you considered the use of hearing protectors?

 

 

 

 

 

 

How the hell did Exiled get Hap's login credentials???

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

29 minutes ago, FreeMaxB585 said:

 

the issue was it was a important game because it was actually vs a good team. we have only beaten the bottom of the barrel. all garbage. best win was titans who are a complete dif team without mariota. beating a legit team wouldve ended many questions. we even got the giants with eli. we dont have 1 good win

 

I'm just curious here. 

 

We beat the Tennessee Titans, who currently are 4-4 with the #4 defense, the #26 offense, and ahead of the Bills with a point differential/game of 2, are "garbage"

We lost to the Eagles, who are currently 4-4 with the #21 defense, the #14 offense, and currently have a point differential/game of 0.

 

The Titans scored 43, 17, 7, 24, 7, and 0 points with Mariota (the last two games being what benched him) and have scored 23 and 27 points with Tannehill.

So it's not as though all Mariota's games were impotent offense - 2 were equal or greater points scored than Tannehill's 2 games.

 

So.....why exactly is Mariota the difference that makes a strong defensive team "garbage", and a team that is by some measures not as good, a "good team"?

 

Then, while you point out we got the Giants with Eli as though that proves they were horrid, Eli did put up 68% completions for 306 passing yards and a TD for a 95.5 passer rating the previous week against Dallas, so it's not as though they were shown to be impotent on offense before we played them.  We also got the Jets with Darnold, who then proceeded to suck on offense without him for 3 subsequent Sundays before rebounding against the Cowboys, but you don't point that out.

 

It just seems like really twisting the data to fit a narrative.

 

6 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

How the hell did Exiled get Hap's login credentials???

 

 

? That's actually quite a Vintage Hapless post, while I haven't seen Exiled pontificating about statistical matters.   (maybe I missed it)

 

So I'm really totes not sure where that's coming from, Gugny

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

? That's actually quite a Vintage Hapless post, while I haven't seen Exiled pontificating about statistical matters.   (maybe I missed it)

 

So I'm really totes not sure where that's coming from, Gugny

 

It was just a joke re: the length and the amount of information packed into it.  It was a shot at Exiled; not you!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, Gugny said:

It was just a joke re: the length and the amount of information packed into it.  It was a shot at Exiled; not you!

 

I don't pontificate about locks and waterway ecology

 

I do pontificate at times

 

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't pontificate about locks and waterway ecology

 

 

And for this, I thank you!

[NoSaint]

15 hours ago, PUNT750 said:

A lot of people seem to make excuses  for the LACK OF PERFORMANCE of individual Bill's players.  Ed Oliver doesn't get sacks or make big plays.  Yet, his metrics for causing disruption on the opponents OL is high?  Edmunds has great metrics for covering receivers but he has yet to make an impact in games.  Trent Murphy & Star are similar examples.  We keep waiting for Josh to take over a game with all his great metrics!

KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are much different from metrics. Literally anything, as long as you can count it, can be a metric. The problem is that a metric doesn’t actually do much for you. It doesn’t give you a true indicator of how someone is performing. It’s just a number and not and indicator of performance.  That number can be divided or multiplied by anything to support a pre determined inferential statistic.

 

 

 

If a player is recording sacks, making tackles, throwing for touchdowns or making FG’s that’s a performance level that counts and can be measured!.

 

 

On the defense - we don’t have many huge star machines but they have been relatively efficient. So one might say that some of these guys are playing higher than their sack or INT or TFL stats might indicate... you know, since those are somewhat arbitrary metrics to measure a guy on too

[HOUSE]

Penalty #85, HOLDING

Penalty #85, illegal formation

Penalty #85 , HOLDING

Penalty #85, too many men on field

Penalty, not sure of the number but it was probably #85

 

Yahoo News

Edited November 2, 2019 by HOUSE

[BullBuchanan]

15 hours ago, nrenegar said:

KPIs are examples of metrics.

 

Even wins are an example of a metric...

As someone that uses KPIs daily, this is 100% correct. It's just a more complicated word for "metrics"

[Don Otreply]

The measuring of anything makes it a metric, you must be enormously pissed off about everything by that standard....

 

Go Bills!!!

[TwistofFate]

18 hours ago, PUNT750 said:

A lot of people seem to make excuses  for the LACK OF PERFORMANCE of individual Bill's players.  Ed Oliver doesn't get sacks or make big plays.  Yet, his metrics for causing disruption on the opponents OL is high?  Edmunds has great metrics for covering receivers but he has yet to make an impact in games.  Trent Murphy & Star are similar examples.  We keep waiting for Josh to take over a game with all his great metrics!

KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are much different from metrics. Literally anything, as long as you can count it, can be a metric. The problem is that a metric doesn’t actually do much for you. It doesn’t give you a true indicator of how someone is performing. It’s just a number and not and indicator of performance.  That number can be divided or multiplied by anything to support a pre determined inferential statistic.

 

 

 

If a player is recording sacks, making tackles, throwing for touchdowns or making FG’s that’s a performance level that counts and can be measured!.

 

 

what if you throw 2 tds but have a turn over?  what if you have 3 sacks but get blown out of the water for a 30 rushing td? what if you have an int but give up 100+ receiving?

[FreeMaxB585]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm just curious here. 

 

We beat the Tennessee Titans, who currently are 4-4 with the #4 defense, the #26 offense, and ahead of the Bills with a point differential/game of 2, are "garbage"

We lost to the Eagles, who are currently 4-4 with the #21 defense, the #14 offense, and currently have a point differential/game of 0.

 

The Titans scored 43, 17, 7, 24, 7, and 0 points with Mariota (the last two games being what benched him) and have scored 23 and 27 points with Tannehill.

So it's not as though all Mariota's games were impotent offense - 2 were equal or greater points scored than Tannehill's 2 games.

 

So.....why exactly is Mariota the difference that makes a strong defensive team "garbage", and a team that is by some measures not as good, a "good team"?

 

Then, while you point out we got the Giants with Eli as though that proves they were horrid, Eli did put up 68% completions for 306 passing yards and a TD for a 95.5 passer rating the previous week against Dallas, so it's not as though they were shown to be impotent on offense before we played them.  We also got the Jets with Darnold, who then proceeded to suck on offense without him for 3 subsequent Sundays before rebounding against the Cowboys, but you don't point that out.

 

It just seems like really twisting the data to fit a narrative.

 

 

? That's actually quite a Vintage Hapless post, while I haven't seen Exiled pontificating about statistical matters.   (maybe I missed it)

 

So I'm really totes not sure where that's coming from, Gugny

 

we beat the titans when they had mariota..... they are a complete diff team wiithout him. and your right they do have a good defense thats why we only put up 14 points lmao! 7 being on a short field. and thats are best win by far so that really says something, cause mariota is trash and until they benched him they were multiple games below 500. we have beaten all garbage.

 

Honestly if we had the raiders schedule where they faced KC...and then @Minn @indy, Vs the bears IN LONDON @ GB and then @ Houston those are all playoff caliber teams I dont know where we would be. the 2 teams we played that will be playoff teams or close to playoff teams we lost. its just a fact. we got an extremely lucky schedule this year with both jets and dolphins taking, and still have some easy games coming up, nobody takes us serious cause we have no legit wins.

 

lmao bro you can do mental gymnastics all you want but there is a reason why he was benched, cause he was trash, all he could throw was check downs so not shocked he had a high completion rate, and even with daniel jones they blow but eli made it that more easy. we get another gimme this week, its just a fact nobody will take us serious  until we beat some legit competition.

 

again mental gymnastics, they benched mariota because of turn overs and when he did score some points and yards they were down a crap ton going against prevent, its a FACT that the offense is MORE efficient without him, they stay in games and dont turn it over. just a fact. and again beating a .500 team where we scored just 14 points isnt anything to brag about, thats also a team that beat....browns, falcons, buccs, and chargers., scrubs to, with the chargers pretty much giving the game away getting stuffed on the goal line. so barley beating a team who also has no real legit wins while they were using a QB they benched is nothing to brag about.

 

is daltons completion % next lol?

[PlayoffsPlease]

13 hours ago, Mojo44 said:

Wins are not metrics. They are what metrics try to predict.

Or you can use wins to project the likelihood of future wins or making the playoffs, which means of course they are a metric. 

[Mojo44]

28 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Or you can use wins to project the likelihood of future wins or making the playoffs, which means of course they are a metric. 

 OK, I suppose there is something to that. But ultimately, wins is an outcome measure that you are trying to predict with metrics. To me that is fundamental to this discussion. The metrics are the many variables that may or may not predict the only important statistic which is wins. So it may be a matter of semantics. To me the metrics are the variables and wins is the outcome measure.

[JDubya76]

On 11/1/2019 at 9:33 PM, fansince88 said:

But look at the notoriety peanuts got!

God I hated that cartoon, snoopy is not funny.

[Mike in Horseheads]

If your sick maybe you should go to Urgent Care btw 1-4 tomorrow

[Locomark]

14 hours ago, Mojo44 said:

Wins are not metrics. They are what metrics try to predict.

A win is the ultimate Metric. In fact any great company gets that way because they understand performance is improved by measuring things that matter and that includes measuring quality. It’s what PFF tries to do and assuredly the Bills rate their players down to the quality of technique on specific plays. They just don’t share it with us. Coach McD has mentioned Kaizen before which is Japanese for continuous improvement. Hence “the process.” Major companies have trashed their competition by measuring the right things and then finding the ways and people that improve them. Metrics matter immensely. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, FreeMaxB585 said:

we beat the titans when they had mariota..... they are a complete diff team wiithout him. and your right they do have a good defense thats why we only put up 14 points lmao! 7 being on a short field. and thats are best win by far so that really says something, cause mariota is trash and until they benched him they were multiple games below 500. we have beaten all garbage.

 

lmao bro you can do mental gymnastics all you want but there is a reason why he was benched, cause he was trash, all he could throw was check downs so not shocked he had a high completion rate

 

again mental gymnastics, they benched mariota because of turn overs and when he did score some points and yards they were down a crap ton going against prevent, its a FACT that the offense is MORE efficient without him, they stay in games and dont turn it over. just a fact.

 

Punctuation saves lives

 

I'm not your bro, but while you're jumping back and forth between subjects in a blissfully punctuation free screed, do you ever, I dunno, like, look at a box score or peruse a stat sheet or pause to consider some facts? 

 

I do suspect I know the answer, but for the sake of completeness I figured I'd ask

 

I don't need mental gymnastics, I have facts.  Was Mariota lighting the world on fire, No.  Was he doing enough to have his team in the lead or in a close game in 4 of the 6 games he played, yes.  Tannehill has played 2 1/2 games, and while they've been better QBing, it's not been a "completely different team".  In fact if I pasted up 2 games from each of them I bet you couldn't tell who was who. 

 

Let's try shall we?  Here you go, Bright Eyes, tell us which 2 games are Trashy Mariota and which 2 are Terrific Tannehill.  No peekin' at the box scores now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PUNT750]

THANK YOU for the intelligent and informative replies.  I have coached teams (baseball) for many years.  I KNOW you can't win games with players that have just great metrics.  A guy that hits a HR every few games but is a liability in the field may have wonderful metrics.  Winning games is a statistic that can be measured.  I see the phrase "great metrics" for a player that doesn't have great statistics as a prop.