BeastMode54 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm not sure if I ever saw this talked about, and if it has been then I apologize. First off, the numbers KC Joyner provided shows that when it comes to run blocking, even with his 11.5 sacks in 13 games, Peters is a beast. Second, I was wondering if a bulk of Peters sacks came when J.P. took over while Trent was out. Losman was prone to a lot of sacks for his constant scrambling, and I was wondering if Peters' inflated sack totals might have been due to Losman. Just throwing it out there because I was curious. Please don't kill me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsaikotic Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 one problem with Joyners #'s is that they were for run blocking only..he didn't mention anything about any of the teams o-lines pass blocking...from what I can remember, the worst sacks allowed where when J.P. was behind center..of course I can't remember the play that knocked out Edwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Peters cost us the Jets game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I don't care about another Peters thread, besides this is a KC Joyner thread really. Which leads me to the problems I have with this thread: 1. KC Joyner AND statistics are construed to have a rational relationship to each other. 2. Many of us have proven on multiple occasions at TSW that KC Joyner has no idea what he is doing when it comes to stats 3. All conclusions based on KC Joyner's statistical analysis are spurious at best. I am familiar with the latest installment of this nonsense, and once again, KC has shown that he has no idea how to demonstrate a correlation or a causation, how to set up constants vs. variables, and how to prove his theories by being able to reproduce his "patterns" and/or provide accurate predictions based on them. Specifically how do our RBs compare with other RBs in similar situation KC??? Historically??? How does a missed block away from the POA differ from a missed block at the POA? What coefficient do you assign to missed non-POA blocks to correct for that difference? Certainly you don't expect us to believe that both affect the outcome of a running play equally do you? There are so many more things...but seriously...why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I don't care about another Peters thread, besides this is a KC Joyner thread really. Which leads me to the problems I have with this thread: 1. KC Joyner AND statistics are construed to have a rational relationship to each other. 2. Many of us have proven on multiple occasions at TSW that KC Joyner has no idea what he is doing when it comes to stats 3. All conclusions based on KC Joyner's statistical analysis are spurious at best. I am familiar with the latest installment of this nonsense, and once again, KC has shown that he has no idea how to demonstrate a correlation or a causation, how to set up constants vs. variables, and how to prove his theories by being able to reproduce his "patterns" and/or provide accurate predictions based on them. Specifically how do our RBs compare with other RBs in similar situation KC??? Historically??? How does a missed block away the POA differ from a missed block at the POA? What coefficient do you assign to missed non-POA blocks to correct for that difference? Certainly you don't expect us to believe that both affect the outcome of a running play equally do you? There are so many more things...but seriously...why bother? Some of his stats are really good. Such as YPA and targets for receivers and corners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastMode54 Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share Posted May 12, 2009 I understand. My reason for writing this post had more to do with Peters as a pass protector than anything. I was just curious if he might have given up a bunch of sacks with Losman behind center, running around like an idiot in the backfield. A lot of people were basing his terrible season on these sack numbers alone (which I will not defend by the way) I was just curious if he gave up more of them with Losman. In that case, I give him a little more slack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm not sure if I ever saw this talked about, and if it has been then I apologize. First off, the numbers KC Joyner provided shows that when it comes to run blocking, even with his 11.5 sacks in 13 games, Peters is a beast. Second, I was wondering if a bulk of Peters sacks came when J.P. took over while Trent was out. Losman was prone to a lot of sacks for his constant scrambling, and I was wondering if Peters' inflated sack totals might have been due to Losman. Just throwing it out there because I was curious. Please don't kill me who knows I think the Peters issue will be resolved this year let's see how it goes with Philly then we will see who is right and who is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 In that case, I give him a little more slack you have to give him slack... about 400 miles of slack to get to philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Some of his stats are really good. Such as YPA and targets for receivers and corners. No. You can go back and look that up here. That is specifically one of the things we debunked here. This "analysis" was tripped up by that difficult concept to interpret : "what if the wind is blowing". He doesn't adjust his stats for weather....hence teams with QBs who play in domes/West Coast...amazingly had a tendency towards better passing accuracy...who would have guessed? This is how Tavaris Jackson = "not as bad as you think" according to Joyner. Also that other chestnut...targets for wide recievers...dude, I'm not even going to start. You can look that up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 No. You can go back and look that up here. That is specifically one of the things we debunked here. This "analysis" was tripped up by that difficult concept to interpret : "what if the wind is blowing". He doesn't adjust his stats for weather....hence teams with QBs who play in domes/West Coast...amazingly had a tendency towards better passing accuracy...who would have guessed? This is how Tavaris Jackson = "not as bad as you think" according to Joyner. Also that other chestnut...targets for wide recievers...dude, I'm not even going to start. You can look that up here. I totally agree - it's the same reasons I think they should get rid of home runs- I mean they never take into account that players go against different pitchers, play in different stadiums, sometimes the sun is in there eyes, sometimes the crowd is louder than others, some times they have a good lunch and other times the lunch isn't as good, and some teams have excellent whirlpools and sometimes the massage therapist rubs you the wrong way- yeah dude what are people thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I totally agree - it's the same reasons I think they should get rid of home runs- I mean they never take into account that players go against different pitchers, play in different stadiums, sometimes the sun is in there eyes, sometimes the crowd is louder than others, some times they have a good lunch and other times the lunch isn't as good, and some teams have excellent whirlpools and sometimes the massage therapist rubs you the wrong way- yeah dude what are people thinking. Seriously though OC, we're not allowed to use statistics to critique our quarterback because we play in bad weather? What about Cutler in Denver, Favre in Green Bay? Or is it only Buffalo quarterbacks that deal with wind? Losman put together a decent statistical season, and he sucked. If Edwards is worth a crap, he'll be able to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I totally agree - it's the same reasons I think they should get rid of home runs- I mean they never take into account that players go against different pitchers, play in different stadiums, sometimes the sun is in there eyes, sometimes the crowd is louder than others, some times they have a good lunch and other times the lunch isn't as good, and some teams have excellent whirlpools and sometimes the massage therapist rubs you the wrong way- yeah dude what are people thinking. Seriously though OC, we're not allowed to use statistics to critique our quarterback because we play in bad weather? What about Cutler in Denver, Favre in Green Bay? Or is it only Buffalo quarterbacks that deal with wind? Losman put together a decent statistical season, and he sucked. If Edwards is worth a crap, he'll be able to do the same. No. You are not allowed to use statistics to waste our time telling us things we already know: Dome/Good weather QBs tend to have better passing stats...because they play in good weather. Who could have imagined that? Yes, we needed statistical analysis to tell us the obvious...thanks KC! Thanks billybob and Big Bad Boone! Let me know when you guys and KC complete your analysis of "QBs that are under 6'2" and their difficulty seeing over the line", or, "reasons why LBs can't cover Lee Evans", or, "Qbs that kneel with the ball and winning: a surprising connection, QBs that kneel the most are most likely to win!", or, "correlation between idiot posts at TSW and poor understanding of statistics". KC's other retarded habit: ignoring the obvious conclusion and replacing it with the nonsense conclusion, "based on the data". I.E. KC's conclusion in 2006: Tavaris Jackson and John Kitna are more accurate...and therefore better...than a lot of QBs in the league...because KC's "stats" say so. I think it's clear by now that this is not the case, and that the obvious conclusion, borne out by the 2007 and 2008 seasons, is that they both suck and their passing accuracy was misleading because it was padded by dome conditions. But yeah, go ahead and interpret what I am saying as: "duh, OC says we can't use stats cause dey have to be perfect", instead of what I am saying: statistical modeling is best left to those of us who know what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I don't care about another Peters thread, besides this is a KC Joyner thread really. Which leads me to the problems I have with this thread: 1. KC Joyner AND statistics are construed to have a rational relationship to each other. 2. Many of us have proven on multiple occasions at TSW that KC Joyner has no idea what he is doing when it comes to stats 3. All conclusions based on KC Joyner's statistical analysis are spurious at best. I am familiar with the latest installment of this nonsense, and once again, KC has shown that he has no idea how to demonstrate a correlation or a causation, how to set up constants vs. variables, and how to prove his theories by being able to reproduce his "patterns" and/or provide accurate predictions based on them. Specifically how do our RBs compare with other RBs in similar situation KC??? Historically??? How does a missed block away from the POA differ from a missed block at the POA? What coefficient do you assign to missed non-POA blocks to correct for that difference? Certainly you don't expect us to believe that both affect the outcome of a running play equally do you? There are so many more things...but seriously...why bother? Your conclusions are just as spurious as Joyner's. But his are based on data. What people almost invariably mean when they say that someone's analysis is nonsense (but without giving any reason why it is flawed) is simply that they disagree with the conclusions rather than the analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 No. You are not allowed to use statistics to waste our time telling us things we already know: Dome/Good weather QBs tend to have better passing stats...because they play in good weather. Who could have imagined that? Yes, we needed statistical analysis to tell us the obvious...thanks KC! Thanks billybob and Big Bad Boone! Let me know when you guys and KC complete your analysis of "QBs that are under 6'2" and their difficulty seeing over the line", or, "reasons why LBs can't cover Lee Evans", or, "Qbs that kneel with the ball and winning: a surprising connection, QBs that kneel the most are most likely to win!", or, "correlation between idiot posts at TSW and poor understanding of statistics". :blink: KC's other retarded habit: ignoring the obvious conclusion and replacing it with the nonsense conclusion, "based on the data". I.E. KC's conclusion in 2006: Tavaris Jackson and John Kitna are more accurate...and therefore better...than a lot of QBs in the league...because KC's "stats" say so. I think it's clear by now that this is not the case, and that the obvious conclusion, borne out by the 2007 and 2008 seasons, is that they both suck and their passing accuracy was misleading because it was padded by dome conditions. But yeah, go ahead and interpret what I am saying as: "duh, OC says we can't use stats cause dey have to be perfect", instead of what I am saying: statistical modeling is best left to those of us who know what they are doing. This is a typically flawed attack. Look at one particular conclusion that an analysis throws up and say that because of that one conclusion, obviously everything else is wrong. Joyner's numbers are thoughtful and interesting. The way to attack it would be to provide a link to what he says rather than just provide your biased paraphrase. Then to show other stats or facts which would tend to disprove the thesis, not just one particular small conclusion out of the hundreds or thousands produced by the method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Statistics can only tell so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Quint Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Somebody find that old thread and end this, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm not sure if I ever saw this talked about, and if it has been then I apologize. First off, the numbers KC Joyner provided shows that when it comes to run blocking, even with his 11.5 sacks in 13 games, Peters is a beast. Second, I was wondering if a bulk of Peters sacks came when J.P. took over while Trent was out. Losman was prone to a lot of sacks for his constant scrambling, and I was wondering if Peters' inflated sack totals might have been due to Losman. Just throwing it out there because I was curious. Please don't kill me See here for videos and analysis of Peters's sacks. You'll see clearly which ones Losman was in for. You'll also see that 11.5 is just wrong, a ridiculous guess, and that it is simply impossible to say with certainty how many were Peters's fault. Interesting stuff. http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread....le+Peters+sacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Who's Peters? Oh yeah, he's an Eagle now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conch Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Remember statistics are for losers. get over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Your conclusions are just as spurious as Joyner's. But his are based on data. What people almost invariably mean when they say that someone's analysis is nonsense (but without giving any reason why it is flawed) is simply that they disagree with the conclusions rather than the analysis. Unfortunately for you, that is not case here. Sorry to disappoint, but my views on this represent the very "variance" away from what you say is invariably meant. And, look buddy there are pages and pages devoted to this already. Do we really have to dig up the entire thing? I frankly don't remember what the original point was 2 years ago, when KC first embarked on his "fun with statistics" amateur kit. Then as now, I stopped caring the second I realized that the methods used to derive his supposed stats were based on sub-standard math. I do remember that I didn't care what conclusions he was trying to draw, or what it might have meant +/- for the Bills, after I realized that a monkey throwing crap at a bingo board was a more reliable source of raw data. Christ where are DC Tom and Ramius when you need them? They have written 100s of pages on statistical methodology here ad nauseum, but the one time you need them to provide a link for my lazy ass, they are nowhere to be found. All that 3.5 stuff for nothing. Also, I might have time later today to dig this up and also provide a formal critique(read: shred KC's ass once again) of the new stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts