Interesting article regarding analytical grading sites like PFF

[GoBills808]

Not surprised the Raiders only learned of this last year

[Scott7975]

4 hours ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

Maybe I'm off, but when I look at the grades, I don't look at them individually.  I only look at them to compare. So 47.2 means nothing individually,  but if you compare 2 players at the same position and one is at 70 and the other at 50, it does give an idea of who played better. 🤔

 

Its still subjective and likely graded by different people which furthers the subjectivity.

 

I've argued this for a long time.  I dont listen to their individual grading because they dont know everything that is being asked by the coaches.  Eric Wood said the same thing and now this player is saying it.

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

He's saying that the players have access to better grading, in that they can find out from their coaches how well they think they're doing. 

Duh. Of course they should focus more on what the coaches think.

 

Thing is, while those players have access to their coaches' grades, we don't. Nor do even the other teams.

 

Again, every team in the NFL subscribes to PFF for their info. If you can't find out what a guy's coaches think, you have to rely on film study and those who do it. PFF does it pretty well, or the teams wouldn't subscribe. 

 

Does that mean you have to believe every single thing they put out? Hell, no. Some of their pundit commentary in particular is pretty weird stuff. But their grades are pretty good, basically.

 

A teams subscription gives them way more data that the public doesnt get.  Its that data that they are subscribing to mostly.  Not for the individual subjective player grading.  I've posted before what type of data that is but Beck Water gave a general idea of what that is above you.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Scott7975

[Thurman#1]

4 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Its still subjective and likely graded by different people which furthers the subjectivity.

 

I've argued this for a long time.  I dont listen to their individual grading because they dont know everything that is being asked by the coaches.  Eric Wood said the same thing and now this player is saying it.

 

A teams subscription gives them way more data that the public doesnt get.  Its that data that they are subscribing to mostly.  Not for the individual subjective player grading.

 

 

Yeah, they certainly value the other stuff, as it's a ton of very specific information. But your guesswork about whether teams value the individual subjective player grading is just that, pure guesswork. In several articles coaches have been quoted as saying that the PFF player grades tend to be pretty close, but that if there's a difference on a guy that's enough for the interviewed coaches to go back and take another look at that guy and see if they've maybe missed something.

 

There's an element of subjectivity to any grading system based on film study of anything. And yet film study is part of the constant study and feedback done on nearly everything profitable or interesting and is industry standard nearly everywhere. For the simple reason that subjectivity can be minimized, not eliminated but minimized, with consistent standards and yes, consistent feedback on their output in much the same way the players are being studied. 

 

And yes they don't know what the coaches know, so their feedback isn't quite as accurate. But it can still be very accurate. If it weren't, nobody would study film. And yet they do.

[Scott7975]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, they certainly value the other stuff, as it's a ton of very specific information. But your guesswork about whether teams value the individual subjective player grading is just that, pure guesswork. In several articles coaches have been quoted as saying that the PFF player grades tend to be pretty close, but that if there's a difference on a guy that's enough for the interviewed coaches to go back and take another look at that guy and see if they've maybe missed something.

 

There's an element of subjectivity to any grading system based on film study of anything. And yet film study is part of the constant study and feedback done on nearly everything profitable or interesting and is industry standard nearly everywhere. For the simple reason that subjectivity can be minimized, not eliminated but minimized, with consistent standards and yes, consistent feedback on their output in much the same way the players are being studied. 

 

And yes they don't know what the coaches know, so their feedback isn't quite as accurate. But it can still be very accurate. If it weren't, nobody would study film. And yet they do.

 

I was more meaning to point out that these player grades arent all thats offered to a team getting a subscription.  They get access to a ton of other stuff.  Its on their website somewhere in all the stuff they get access to.  Its actually quite a lot if you are interested in seeing what they get.

[LyndonvilleBill]

31 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Its still subjective and likely graded by different people which furthers the subjectivity.

 

I've argued this for a long time.  I dont listen to their individual grading because they dont know everything that is being asked by the coaches.  Eric Wood said the same thing and now this player is saying it.

 

A teams subscription gives them way more data that the public doesnt get.  Its that data that they are subscribing to mostly.  Not for the individual subjective player grading.

It is, but is still much better than the "Eye Test" grading That many do.😉

[K-9]

20 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, they certainly value the other stuff, as it's a ton of very specific information. But your guesswork about whether teams value the individual subjective player grading is just that, pure guesswork. In several articles coaches have been quoted as saying that the PFF player grades tend to be pretty close, but that if there's a difference on a guy that's enough for the interviewed coaches to go back and take another look at that guy and see if they've maybe missed something.

 

There's an element of subjectivity to any grading system based on film study of anything. And yet film study is part of the constant study and feedback done on nearly everything profitable or interesting and is industry standard nearly everywhere. For the simple reason that subjectivity can be minimized, not eliminated but minimized, with consistent standards and yes, consistent feedback on their output in much the same way the players are being studied. 

 

And yes they don't know what the coaches know, so their feedback isn't quite as accurate. But it can still be very accurate. If it weren't, nobody would study film. And yet they do.

I’ll just say this, teams and their coaches evaluate game film completely differently than the 60 “graders” employed by PFF. And perhaps the biggest difference is that teams have multiple dedicated evaluators, per position group, on both sides of the ball evaluating every play with the full context of each play in each game situation, vs. that single person at PFF evaluating every player at every position and operating without much context, if any at all.