FLFan Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: This is my surprised face Monson basically was quoted as saying as much in one of the recent articles (I think in TBN....believe I linked it on another thread). I forget the word he used, but it was something to the effect that he hoped to troll all 32 fan bases before the year was out, and that the Bills had one of the more reactive fan-bases (that wasn’t his word, but what he meant). I wish us Bills fans would make a pinky pact to treat him as he deserves - with silence Many of us have been ignoring their analysis for quite some time. It is primarily a trolling site. Their analysis, if you can call it that, is always shallow and half baked. 1 1
CincyBillsFan Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 4 hours ago, whatdrought said: What a bunch of worthless *****. ***** = scum sucking, low life, mathematics challenged, dimwits. As an aside, the fact that Allen did not throw a 4th quarter INT or a red zone INT is impressive as hell. And as others have said this fact alone renders the entire PFF notion of "turnover worthy plays" to be hot garbage.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 53 minutes ago, FLFan said: Many of us have been ignoring their analysis for quite some time. It is primarily a trolling site. Their analysis, if you can call it that, is always shallow and half baked. Unfortunately, many of us also respond to them reflexively on twitter like a sea lion exhibit reacting to a zookeep holding a bucket of bait 29 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said: ***** = scum sucking, low life, mathematics challenged, dimwits. As an aside, the fact that Allen did not throw a 4th quarter INT or a red zone INT is impressive as hell. And as others have said this fact alone renders the entire PFF notion of "turnover worthy plays" to be hot garbage. I don't know that it's entirely "hot garbage", but it begs the question "just how are they defining this"? And any time someone creates a statistic around something that didn't happen (like a turnover) it begs the question are they also creating statistics around other things that didn't happen? What about "droppable passes" for off-target throws that the receiver hauled in? Or "potential completions" for passes that could have been caught by an acrobatic guy, but weren't? I think it's probably more meaningful, overall to stick to tracking at what actually occurs 1
CincyBillsFan Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Unfortunately, many of us also respond to them reflexively on twitter like a sea lion exhibit reacting to a zookeep holding a bucket of bait I don't know that it's entirely "hot garbage", but it begs the question "just how are they defining this"? And any time someone creates a statistic around something that didn't happen (like a turnover) it begs the question are they also creating statistics around other things that didn't happen? What about "droppable passes" for off-target throws that the receiver hauled in? Or "potential completions" for passes that could have been caught by an acrobatic guy, but weren't? I think it's probably more meaningful, overall to stick to tracking at what actually occurs For those of us who have used statistics to analyze all sorts of things your sentence in bold pretty much invalidates everything these guys have done. This is so inappropriate at so many levels it begs the question of PFF's basic understanding of statistics. For those of us who use statistics in our everyday work it's hard to understand how groups like PFF deal with the enormous number of variables involved in each individual play. Football suffers from having the most variables per play of any sport while having very small sample sizes. So I struggle with how effectively they can apply "analytics" in assessing QB play. So it's reasonable for anyone experienced with using statistics to study complex processes to wonder how they deal with such a chaotic system like football . But when they employ FICTIONAL results in their analysis my skepticism skyrockets and it's hard not to feel like they've jumped the shark. 1
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 19 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said: For those of us who have used statistics to analyze all sorts of things your sentence in bold pretty much invalidates everything these guys have done. This is so inappropriate at so many levels it begs the question of PFF's basic understanding of statistics. For those of us who use statistics in our everyday work it's hard to understand how groups like PFF deal with the enormous number of variables involved in each individual play. Football suffers from having the most variables per play of any sport while having very small sample sizes. So I struggle with how effectively they can apply "analytics" in assessing QB play. So it's reasonable for anyone experienced with using statistics to study complex processes to wonder how they deal with such a chaotic system like football . But when they employ FICTIONAL results in their analysis my skepticism skyrockets and it's hard not to feel like they've jumped the shark. Yes. I hope that the data teams contract with them to purchase is factual stuff. Their data about personnel, down, and distance on each play is supposed to be something like >98% accurate now. The formation used. The type of play (run vs pass). The result in straightforward terms. The rest of it? Yeah, Monson said it
Recommended Posts