Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, fingers said:

 

My frustration stems from this thread in general not you specifically. That being said I do hate advanced stats especially in football. Richard Seymour is a hall of fame candidate and deservingly so. Please show me the advanced metrics that say so

There are no such metrics, and I never suggested there are any.

Others however do act like they have "advanced analytics" that might tell you X or Y when in fact it's well beyond anything statistics can show today. These groups (ESPN, Football Outsiders, etc..) however are peddling their proprietary "analytics" and their primary goal is to sell a product, not to advance the statistical analysis of football. If their primary goal was to advance the statistical analysis of football, they'd make their methodology transparent and subject it to critique by attempting to publish in scientific journals.

So you need to separate that kind of stuff from what I do, which is nothing more than applying standard statistical methodology in a reproducible way, though I admit that some of the stuff I post here might take some effort to reproduce. And from a statistician's point of view what I'm doing is almost too simple (I know it doesn't look at way lol).
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Corleone said:

5 more Pro Bowlers and 15 more Pro Bowl seasons in total.
At WR, Manning has gotten 17 total Pro Bowl seasons, while Brady has had just 6. 
Overall, I'd say Manning has had significantly more offensive talent to work with than Brady. 

Not counting Gronk at all in that analysis is a bit odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't everyone have something better to do on a Saturday afternoon than to visit message boards in order to hop on the daily routine of discrediting everything NE related? I mean really, there's got to be something better and more constructive to do on a Saturday...right?

Edited by ThreadKiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cashvillesent said:

There are no such metrics, and I never suggested there are any.

Others however do act like they have "advanced analytics" that might tell you X or Y when in fact it's well beyond anything statistics can show today. These groups (ESPN, Football Outsiders, etc..) however are peddling their proprietary "analytics" and their primary goal is to sell a product, not to advance the statistical analysis of football. If their primary goal was to advance the statistical analysis of football, they'd make their methodology transparent and subject it to critique by attempting to publish in scientific journals.

So you need to separate that kind of stuff from what I do, which is nothing more than applying standard statistical methodology in a reproducible way, though I admit that some of the stuff I post here might take some effort to reproduce. And from a statistician's point of view what I'm doing is almost too simple (I know it doesn't look at way lol).
 

Football Outsiders does an excellent job of explaining their methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corleone said:

I have no idea what to make out of this stat, but out of curiosity, I just looked up Brady vs. Manning in 50-attempt games...

**50 or more pass attempts**
--Brady: 13-7 regular season record; 6-2 postseason record = 19-9 total
--Manning: 4-13 regular season record; 0-0 postseason record = 4-13 total

McNabb also has a winning record in games where he threw 50+ times: 4 wins, 2 losses and 1 tie (1 loss was in the postseason).

But yes you're right that that's really rare. Generally, QB's throw a lot when they're relied on to help win a game they're losing in the 4th quarter and that usually results in a loss.

However, before one gets too excited about Brady in 50+ attempt games (as you point out 13-7 in regular season and 6-2 in postseason), note that Brady's win% is terrible in 55+ attempt games: 2-6 in regular season and 1-1 in postseason. So keep in mind that "50" isn't some magical threshold. Brady just does better until a slightly higher threshold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Corleone said:

Perhaps this was noted somewhere within the nearly 4 years and 65 pages of discussion on this topic, but if not...

I was curious as to the Pro Bowl offensive players Brady and Manning got to play with over the years. Now I'll be the first to say that I think that Pro Bowl selections in general need to be taken with a grain of salt. And also, you can argue that some of these Pro Bowlers wouldn't have been Pro Bowlers without Brady or Manning. But anyways, here are the facts:

image.png.f7c6752ee898dab525f741121791985c.png

 

10 minutes ago, BMcP said:

Not counting Gronk at all in that analysis is a bit odd.

Gronk has been listed the whole time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Corleone said:

 

Gronk has been listed the whole time.

I just meant when talking about Brady’s relative lack of receiving skill, I feel like he should be mentioned apart from the WRs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cashvillesent said:

McNabb also has a winning record in games where he threw 50+ times: 4 wins, 2 losses and 1 tie (1 loss was in the postseason).

But yes you're right that that's really rare. Generally, QB's throw a lot when they're relied on to help win a game they're losing in the 4th quarter and that usually results in a loss.

However, before one gets too excited about Brady in 50+ attempt games (as you point out 13-7 in regular season and 6-2 in postseason), note that Brady's win% is terrible in 55+ attempt games: 2-6 in regular season and 1-1 in postseason. So keep in mind that "50" isn't some magical threshold. Brady just does better until a slightly higher threshold.

As I also pointed out, I have no idea what to make out of this stat. I looked it up out of curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BMcP said:

I just meant when talking about Brady’s relative lack of receiving skill, I feel like he should be mentioned apart from the WRs.

I mentioned WR's specifically, separately from the tables, because there is such a huge disparity there. At TE, both Brady and Manning have had similar total Pro Bowl seasons at their disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BMcP said:

Football Outsiders does an excellent job of explaining their methodology.

On the contrary, they're as non-transparent as ESPN. Consider their explanation of their key stat DVOA:

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#DVOA

 

There's not a person on this planet that through reading that could reconstruct DVOA. They don't show their formula for "success points" (they just give examples), they don't tell you how they arrived at those specific values rather than a different set of values (they just say "with mathematics and trial and error" lol), they don't tell you what the "baselines" for success points that they adjust to are, and importantly they don't tell you HOW they adjust for defense, down and location on the field, etc.. (they just say they adjust.. but how?.. magically obviously).

They are about as non-transparent as it gets. Just like ESPN. Remember.. transparency implies reproducible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cashvillesent said:

On the contrary, they're as non-transparent as ESPN. Consider their explanation of their key stat DVOA:

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#DVOA

 

There's not a person on this planet that through reading that could reconstruct DVOA. They don't show their formula for "success points" (they just give examples), they don't tell you how they arrived at those specific values rather than a different set of values (they just say "with mathematics and trial and error" lol), they don't tell you what the "baselines" for success points that they adjust to are, and importantly they don't tell you HOW they adjust for defense, down and location on the field, etc.. (they just say they adjust.. but how?.. magically obviously).

They are about as non-transparent as it gets. Just like ESPN. Remember.. transparency implies reproducible.

It’s a proprietary metric - I don’t think you should expect that they would just lay it all out for you. I give them credit for explaining their approach.

Edited by BMcP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Corleone said:

I mentioned WR's specifically, separately from the tables, because there is such a huge disparity there. At TE, both Brady and Manning have had similar total Pro Bowl seasons at their disposal.

I don’t know whether Julius Thomas, Ken Dilger, and a season of Dallas Clark matches even closely to Gronk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BMcP said:

I don’t know whether Julius Thomas, Ken Dilger, and a season of Dallas Clark matches even closely to Gronk.

Again, 4 PB seasons from those Colts/Broncos TE's, versus 5 PB seasons from Gronk. Obviously Gronk is way better than the guys Manning had. But by total PB seasons, the numbers are what they are. 

Overall, do you believe that Brady had better offensive talent around him than Manning did? Or think it was pretty much a wash?
Or would you agree that Manning had a significant edge?

Edited by Corleone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Corleone said:

 

Gronk has been listed the whole time.

That is such a ridiculous chart. Going by it, one would assume that Randy Moss was a worse receiver than Demarius Thomas, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cashvillesent said:

That is such a ridiculous chart. Going by it, one would assume that Randy Moss was a worse receiver than Demarius Thomas, for instance.

Wow.

It was clearly listed that Randy Moss had 1 Pro Bowl season with Brady. Not sure what was ridiculous about that fact.

Also, you do realize that Moss played just 2 full seasons with Brady, right? Do you want to give Brady credit for having Moss while Moss was with the Vikings?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Corleone said:

Wow.

It was clearly listed that Randy Moss had 1 Pro Bowl season with Brady. Not sure what was ridiculous about that fact.

Also, you do realize that Moss played just 2 full seasons with Brady, right? Do you want to give Brady credit for having Moss while Moss was with the Vikings?
 

 

He doesn't want to give anyone associated with the Patriots credit for anything lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Corleone said:

Again, 4 PB seasons from those Colts/Broncos TE's, versus 5 PB seasons from Gronk. Obviously Gronk is way better than the guys Manning had. But by total PB seasons, the numbers are what they are. 

Overall, do you believe that Brady had better offensive talent around him than Manning did? Or think it was pretty much a wash?
Or would you agree that Manning had a significant edge?

I think looking at the situation via the prism of the Pro Bowl is a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BMcP said:

I think looking at the situation via the prism of the Pro Bowl is a bad idea.

As I said in the original post, Pro Bowls are to be taken with a grain of salt. But I think when looking at the players, it's clear Manning had more to work with.

But forget about Pro Bowls if you'd like. Can you answer the questions posed? Which were...
Overall, do you believe that Brady had better offensive talent around him than Manning did? Or think it was pretty much a wash?
Or would you agree that Manning had a significant edge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Corleone said:

As I said in the original post, Pro Bowls are to be taken with a grain of salt. But I think when looking at the players, it's clear Manning had more to work with.

But forget about Pro Bowls if you'd like. Can you answer the questions posed? Which were...
Overall, do you believe that Brady had better offensive talent around him than Manning did? Or think it was pretty much a wash?
Or would you agree that Manning had a significant edge?

No.

Not sure.

Yes.  (See answer #1.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BMcP said:

No.

Not sure.

Yes.  (See answer #1.)

So we are in agreement :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BMcP said:

It’s a proprietary metric - I don’t think you should expect that they would just lay it all out for you. I give them credit for explaining their approach.

They didn't "explain their approach". I literally have no idea what their approach is. Do you?

All they did is say they solved a problem. They didn't say how. And that problem btw is an example of the type of problem you really can't solve with "advanced statistics" yet: how much to apportion credit among players for an outcome.

No.. DVOA is totally non-transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cashvillesent said:

They didn't "explain their approach". I literally have no idea what their approach is. Do you?

All they did is say they solved a problem. They didn't say how. And that problem btw is an example of the type of problem you really can't solve with "advanced statistics" yet: how much to apportion credit among players for an outcome.

No.. DVOA is totally non-transparent.

Yes.  Just read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BMcP said:

Yes.  Just read.

Are you serious? Wow.. you're the first person that claims to understand DVOA from that methods link. I think you're going to have to help me understand DVOA then because I've read it carefully and I just cannot.

btw.. I'm going to post this response here in this thread, but if this discussion continues we should move it over to that statistical methods thread since that's what it's there for (would fit right in and won't clutter this thread up with statistical methods discussion).

So let's just start off with the first thing I pointed out that was non-transparent: how they come up with "success points".

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#DVOA

 

We then expand upon that basic idea with a more complicated system of “success points,” improved over the past few years with a lot of mathematics and a bit of trial and error. A successful play is worth one point; an unsuccessful play, zero points with fractional points in between (e.g., eight yards on third-and-10 is worth 0.54 “success points”). Extra points are awarded for big plays, gradually increasing to three points for 10 yards (assuming those yards result in a first down), four points for 20 yards, and five points for 40 yards or more. Losing three or more yards is -1 point. Interceptions occurring on fourth down during the last two minutes of a game incur no penalty whatsoever, but all others average -6 points, with an adjustment for the length of the pass and the location of the interception (since an interception tipped at the line is more likely to produce a long return than an interception on a 40-yard pass). A fumble is worth anywhere from -1.7 to -4.0 points depending on how often a fumble in that situation is lost to the defense -- no matter who actually recovers the fumble. Red zone plays get a bonus: 20 percent for team offense, five percent for team defense, and 10 percent for individual players. There is a bonus given for a touchdown, which acknowledges that the goal line is significantly more difficult to cross than the previous 99 yards (although this bonus is nowhere near as large as the one used in fantasy football).

Note that they say they're using their own more complex methodology than what was used before. So we should at least have SOME idea of where all those numbers that seem quite arbitrary to me come from if it's (as you say) transparent.

For example, why did they add 3 points for 10 yards, 4 for 20 and 5 for 40? Why not a different set of numbers? For all I know those numbers were just made up because they "felt" right to someone (probably close to correct IMO). Or why is a fumble worth anywhere from -1.7 to -4.0 points? Again, seems totally arbitrary with no theory or method given behind how they came up with those numbers. Same goes for those red zone bonuses.

Or more simply: how would I go about figuring out approximately how many "success points" you get for 2nd and 6 at midfield?

So if you can help me understand that.. would be awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Corleone said:

As I said in the original post, Pro Bowls are to be taken with a grain of salt. But I think when looking at the players, it's clear Manning had more to work with.

But forget about Pro Bowls if you'd like. Can you answer the questions posed? Which were...
Overall, do you believe that Brady had better offensive talent around him than Manning did? Or think it was pretty much a wash?
Or would you agree that Manning had a significant edge?

Who had the better defenses throughout their careers is the better question.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cashvillesent said:

That is such a ridiculous chart. Going by it, one would assume that Randy Moss was a worse receiver than Demarius Thomas, for instance.

 

Reading is hard.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.