Quarterback Statistics Commonly Misused

[Oldfan]

This thread is intended for bright, young Redskins fans who want to enrich the fan experience by being better-informed. I hope it helps.

Most QB stats are actually team stats.

In order to measure something, it first has to be isolated. If our objective is to measure the effectiveness of a quarterback, the team's won-lost record is useless in most cases because it measures:

A = the QB's effectiveness
B = the effectiveness of the O line
C = the effectiveness of the receivers
D = the effectiveness of the of offensive scheme
E = the effectiveness of the playcalling
F = the effectiveness of the running game
G = the effectiveness of the defense
H = the effectiveness of the special teams

If we were ranking two QBs on the Redskins, say Ramsey and Brunell, the won-lost stat can be used because we know enough about the B through H (B-H) factors to compare them. But, we can't properly use the won-lost records to rank QBs on different teams since the B-H factors vary so much. So, stats comparing Jason Campbell to, say Jay Cutler or Matt Cassel, are pretty much useless.

In this forum, posters frequently misuse statistics in making what I call an "argument by labeling." They might refer to "Jason Campbell's YPA" (yards per attempt), for example. The YPA is not a bona fide QB stat since it measures factors A-H. The stat is more properly used as a quick and dirty way to rank the team's passing game.

The sacks total involves factors A-F.
The completion percentage involves factors A-F.
The QB's interception total involves factors A-F.
The QB's touchdown total involves factors A-H.
The points per game stat involves factors A-H.
The quarterback rating involves factors A-H (it should be called the Passing Game Rating)

If Jim Zorn, who created the offense, would publish a report of his findings after reviewing the play-by-play video, we could create some useful stats on the performance of Jason Campbell. He could tell us whether an interception was the QB's fault, a receiver's, an O lineman or his own because of poor playcalling. If all offensive coordinators around the NFL would do the same, we would have some useful QB stats.

Many fans overrate the turnover stat. They will call the QB a "turnover machine" and follow with a TD - INT stat that is supposed to support their assertion. Turnovers have a specific value, just as TDs have a value in points. The only question is how much. I can't provide links, but two studies I've seen put the value of the average turnover at roughly four points. Logically, that seems about right. And, since extra points in the NFL are almost automatic, let's use seven points for the value of a TD.

So, with some simple math we can, for example, compare a team led by a gunslinger QB who threw 27 TDs (+189 points) and 18 INTs (-72 points) for a net of +117 to a team led by a game manager QB who threw 13 TDs (+91 points) and 6 INTs (-24 points) for a net of +67. We thus avoid overvaluing turnovers which leads to overrating conservative offenses with game manager QBs. [However, we should not conclude in this example that the TD - INT stats proved anything conclusively about the value of the QBs or the offenses.]

How important is the quarterback?

All fans agree that the QB position is the most important, but many fans seem to overrate the value. So, how important is the QB to winning? Let's use 100% to represent the whole and try to break down the factors.

In the following breakdown the coaching factor (schemes, techniques, playcalling) is my best guess. I have no studies to support my estimate. However, I have used the research done by the guys at footballoutisiers.com to support a 3-3-1 split in weighing the importance of the offense, defense and special teams. I have defense 34%, offense 34% and special teams at 11%.

21% = Coaching
34% = Defense
11% = Special Teams
12% = O line
12% = RB and receivers
10% = QB
----------
100% Total

I have the QB's value at 10% of the total team effort. That's a big number for one position, but obviously, it's a minor factor overall. Anyone thinking the QB should have far more weight would have to degrade the other factors on offense or the coaching to make their numbers work.

Matt Bowen recently called the Patriots offense the most quarterback friendly in the NFL. I agree with him. Some say that Belichick was lucky to get Tom Brady in the draft. That's certainly true; but it's also true that Brady was lucky to be drafted by Belichick, for had he not, he would not own those rings or be guaranteed a HOF selection.

When we hear fans declare that Tom Brady is a great quarterback, they probably have no basis for making that judgment because Brady can't be graded in isolation by stats and rings. If they said instead that the Patriots have been a great team with Tom Brady at quarterback, that statement would be obviously true. There are other ways to grade QBs, but the usual ways, using team stats and Super Bowl rings are not valid measurements. QBs can be graded on stuff you can see, but I won't get into that topic in this thread.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

But Of, we already know from many that the only real QB stat that matter's would be low INT's FAR outweigh TD's. :doh:

*The above was posted with tongue FRIMLY in mouth but with the highest degree of sarcasm intended. ;)

As to your post, interesting theories. I maybe's wouldn't put the overall swing on the QB as low percentage wise, but I appreciate the factors you considered to reach that.

Hail.

[KDawg]

So what you did, was make a bunch of arbitrary numbers up to prove that stats don't really prove anything?

[frostyj]

So what you did, was make a bunch of arbitrary numbers up to prove that stats don't really prove anything?

Cliffs notes version!

:logo: Hail!

[Oldfan]

As to your post, interesting theories. I maybe's wouldn't put the overall swing on the QB as low percentage wise, but I appreciate the factors you considered to reach that.

I'd be interested in your breakdown if you want to post it. However, my purpose with this was mostly to show that a much higher value on the QB would result in some ridiculously low values for other factors.

[bobzmuda]

Can you find the link to the "average turnover = -4 points" studies?

I wonder if they factor in the negative impact of having one fewer offensive drive in that as well.

[Dracula]

60% of all statistics can be used to prove anything

[frostyj]

Two stats i don't like. Ball is tipped either by the d-line or reciever and it counts against the QB. Also, Short throws 0-10yrds then the reciever gains 20+. The QB should only get credit from the LOS to the point where the reciever catches the ball.

[Oldfan]

So what you did, was make a bunch of arbitrary numbers up to prove that stats don't really prove anything?

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Will you elaborate?

[KDawg]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Will you elaborate?

You made up numbers.

This post would be just as valid if I said that Offensive play breaks down like this:

20% Field Position
20% Playcalling
20% Knowledge/Coaching
5% Receivers/Runningbacks
5% Offensive Line
30% Quarterback

There's no rhyme or reason to have any of those numbers, OF.

Furthermore, individidual stats at any position can be said to be team stats. When a runningback rushes for 1,500 yards, did they do all of that themselves?

Your point is strong as far as the "Stats definitely don't tell the whole story" of things. It's true. They help to paint the picture, but you'll never get a masterpiece out of it.

But I'm not sure why you even added the breakdown. It doesn't prove much of anything.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I'd be interested in your breakdown if you want to post it. However, my purpose with this was mostly to show that a much higher value on the QB would result in some ridiculously low values for other factors.

Not really ever considered it tbh, until your post, but plainly that; I'd place a higher overall value on the QB as opposed to the rest of the O, in this case the line and wide out's, as to what a good QB can get from other positions of lesser talent, besides the buck starting and ending with him. All ways are relative which ever way you chose to look upon it.

I think you've just about nailed the importance split as regards the three facets of football and coaching though, % wise.

Like I said man, interesting read.

Hail.

[panel]

You made up numbers.

This post would be just as valid if I said that Offensive play breaks down like this:

20% Field Position
20% Playcalling
20% Knowledge/Coaching
5% Receivers/Runningbacks
5% Offensive Line
30% Quarterback

There's no rhyme or reason to have any of those numbers, OF.

Furthermore, individidual stats at any position can be said to be team stats. When a runningback rushes for 1,500 yards, did they do all of that themselves?

Your point is strong as far as the "Stats definitely don't tell the whole story" of things. It's true. They help to paint the picture, but you'll never get a masterpiece out of it.

But I'm not sure why you even added the breakdown. It doesn't prove much of anything.

I think OL is a lot more than 5%

[IbleedBnG83]

The dumbest QB stat of all time...

Wins and Losses. Its one thing if the QB is deciding the outcome of the game. But it is the most involved team game today. Coaching/play calling, receivers, OL, defense etc, all take a huge part in the game.

Thats all I have to say about that.

[Oldfan]

Can you find the link to the "average turnover = -4 points" studies?

I wonder if they factor in the negative impact of having one fewer offensive drive in that as well.

Pete Palmer's study isn't online. It first appeared in his book: the Hidden Game of Football

I had a PDF with another full study at one time, but I can't find it online now.

Here's a link for you discussing the topic, though.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/08/expected-points.html

[Oldfan]

You made up numbers.

This post would be just as valid if I said that Offensive play breaks down like this:

20% Field Position
20% Playcalling
20% Knowledge/Coaching
5% Receivers/Runningbacks
5% Offensive Line
30% Quarterback

There's no rhyme or reason to have any of those numbers, OF.


Furthermore, individidual stats at any position can be said to be team stats. When a runningback rushes for 1,500 yards, did they do all of that themselves?

Your point is strong as far as the "Stats definitely don't tell the whole story" of things. It's true. They help to paint the picture, but you'll never get a masterpiece out of it.

But I'm not sure why you even added the breakdown. It doesn't prove much of anything.

The section about the importance of the QB does not degrade what came before -- which was primarily logic about QB stats. So, if you want to attack my logic, go right ahead.

The section about the importance of the QB was added because fans typically greatly overvalue QBs. You can post your numbers certainly, but if you tried to say that the QB was a factor worth 60% you would end up with some ridiculously low numbers for the other factors.

My approach keeps the value of the QB within a reasonable range. That's its purpose.

Try giving 30% to the QB while keeping to my list. You avoided giving value to the defense and special teams. That's cheating. <smile>

[KDawg]

I think OL is a lot more than 5%

For the record, I wasn't saying that was my breakdown. I was just throwing it out there to show how arbitrary the whole percentages thing was.


The section about the importance of the QB does not degrade what came before -- which was primarily logic about QB stats. So, if you want to attack my logic, go right ahead.

The section about the importance of the QB was added because fans typically greatly overvalue QBs. You can post your numbers certainly, but if you tried to say that the QB was a factor worth 60% you would end up with some ridiculously low numbers for the other factors.

My approach keeps the value of the QB within a reasonable range. That's its purpose.

So the numbers weren't necessary and didn't really prove much of anything. Ok. Like I said, your overall point was strong, but those percentages mean next to nothing.

[addicted]

But Of, we already know from many that the only real QB stat that matter's would be low INT's FAR outweigh TD's. :doh:

*The above was posted with tongue FRIMLY in mouth but with the highest degree of sarcasm intended. ;)

As to your post, interesting theories. I maybe's wouldn't put the overall swing on the QB as low percentage wise, but I appreciate the factors you considered to reach that.

Hail.

Pretty much agree here. The only thing I disagreed with was the low percentage placed on the QB. My feeling is the guy who touches the football more then anyone else on the field and who's decisions must affect everyone on the team either must factor in much higher then 10%, my own guess would be its more likely around 50%. The reason I say that is:

21% = Coaching (Could have the best coaching and play calling in the world but if the QB who is executing the plays consistantly doesn't make good passes or turns the ball over this team will likely lose much more then win)

34% = Defense (A bad QB who makes bad turnovers has a big effect on Defenses. If the QB turns the ball over on his 20 yard line he gives a very short field to his defense. The longer the opposing team has to go down the field the harder it usually is to score. A good QB is a friend to the defense, a bad one is its nemisis)

11% = Special Teams (A bad QB can put the Special teams in a very bad spot. Say the team starts at thier 20 and goes 3 and out and the QB takes a sack leaving the special teams to punt from its own endzone. This goes back to my point about the Defense)

12% = O line (Not all bad throws, sacks, or turnovers are caused by the Offensive line. A QB can still make mistakes with no pressure on him. I can see the correlation between a bad Offensive Line hurting the QB but to many QB's have made big plays when thier Olines were playing poorly for me to believe this is more important then the QB position)

12% = RB and receivers (I shouldn't have to say this but the QB hands the ball off to the running back, should he slip or fumble who's fault is that usually on? Wide receivers can be open and bad QB's can't get the ball where it needs to go so the WR can make a play. A WR can't pass himself the ball)

10% = QB (This number is too low. All of these things are connected in some fashion to this position. I believe the man who handles the ball the most besides the Center is the QB so that must put his percentage above the rest)

Otherwise really good post.

[addicted]

The section about the importance of the QB was added because fans typically greatly overvalue QBs. You can post your numbers certainly, but if you tried to say that the QB was a factor worth 60% you would end up with some ridiculously low numbers for the other factors.

Try giving 30% to the QB while keeping to my list. You avoided giving value to the defense and special teams. That's cheating. <smile>

Here's my own take on that:

10% = Coaching
25% = Defense
10% = Special Teams
15% = O line
10% = RB and receivers
30% = QB
----------
100% Total

I think that's a fair assessment.

10% = Coaching (It does happen sometimes where one coach clearly coaches and play calls better in a game then the other. We saw plenty of that with SS. However for the most part its the execution of the players themselves who make the difference with only slight edges given to what is called on the sidelines)

25% = Defense (This is grouped together as a whole and should be second only to the QB. Great Defenses will win you games however great QB play will win you games too and more likely you'll win more with great QB play then you will with great defensive play)

10% = Special Teams (Important part of the game but how often do these really play a part in the outcome of a game if its not in a negative light? When a team gets a ST TD it rarely happens. What is more common is a kicker missing a FG that plays an outcome on the game. Since this can be a nonfactor in games its importance can't be up there with Defense, Oline, and QB play)

15% = O line (Simply put bad Oline play will kill you. Much more then a bad special teams play, a bad coaching decision, or a WR who drops a pass or a RB who misses a 1st down by a yard more often then any of those factors having an outcome on a season)

10% = RB and receivers (Important? Yes, but when a WR drops a pass he usually gets a pass. When a RB fumbles he's more then 50% to collect the ball and not turn it over. Plus the reason we have 4 downs is because its expected that these players do not have that great of a success rate)

30% = QB (The person who touches the ball the most, the person who executes the coaches plays, the person who hands the ball off to the RB, the person who has to throw accurate passes, the person who must access what a Defense is doing, and the person who must feel a pass rush is in my mind the most important man on the football field. With a great QB like Payton Manning teams simply win more games then teams with average or bad QB's.)

[Oldfan]

So the numbers weren't necessary and didn't really prove much of anything. Ok. Like I said, your overall point was strong, but those percentages mean next to nothing.

The numbers are necessary. Those percentages are estimates, but I'd like you to try following my approach, rather than inventing your own. I used that approach for a reason, so you can't attack my reasoning by using a different approach.

[The Rook]

60% of all statistics can be used to prove anything


But only 70% of the time.







:helmet: The Rook

[Oldfan]

Addicted: Here's my own take on that:

10% = Coaching
25% = Defense
10% = Special Teams
15% = O line
10% = RB and receivers
30% = QB
----------
100% Total

I think that's a fair assessment.

For starters, your proportions (offense v. defense) are seriously out of line. You have the offense totalling 55% -- a value of more than double the defense (25%). In addition to the logical deduction that it's just as important to stop the other team from scoring as it to score, there is the DVOA study that I referred to in the OP which opposes your numbers:


The total quality of an NFL team is three parts offense, three parts defense, and one part special teams.

There are three units on a football team, but they are not of equal importance. Our DVOA ratings provide good evidence for this. The special teams ratings are turned into DVOA by comparing how often field position on special teams leads to scoring compared to field position and first downs on offense. After figuring out these numbers, the top ratings for special teams are roughly one-third as high as the top ratings for offense or defense.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics

[The Rook]

The dumbest QB stat of all time...

Wins and Losses. Its one thing if the QB is deciding the outcome of the game. But it is the most involved team game today. Coaching/play calling, receivers, OL, defense etc, all take a huge part in the game.

Thats all I have to say about that.

I agree that this can be one of the most misleading, now. However, when the QB's called their own plays, I think win/loss was a valid statistic. Not the end-all, but valid nonetheless.







:helmet: The Rook

[UK Redskins Fan]

They may be estimates but the OPs numbers seem pretty reasonable to me...and Lord know I don't often agree with Oldfan! 10% may seem low but it still makes the QB twice as important as any other player on the pitch.

To Addicted: It can't be right to have the QB as more important than the entire Defense since the Defense is surely as important as the entire Offense put together.

[Oldfan]

They may be estimates but the OPs numbers seem pretty reasonable to me...and Lord know I don't often agree with Oldfan! 10% may seem low but it still makes the QB twice as important as any other player on the pitch.

To Addicted: It can't be right to have the QB as more important than the entire Defense since the Defense is surely as important as the entire Offense put together.

Our attack on addicted's numbers demonstrates the value of the approach I used. One can argue with my estimates to a point, but if they try to go beyond a reasonable range, they will get tripped up.

[CPortJGibbs89]

But only 70% of the time.







:helmet: The Rook70% of the time statistics are right all the time.

[UK Redskins Fan]

Our attack on addicted's numbers demonstrates the value of the approach I used. One can argue with my estimates to a point, but if they try to go beyond a reasonable range, they will get tripped up.

If you take the coaching out of the equation I guess the most accurate way of assessing the importance of each unit would be to look at how much money the league as a whole spends on each position. Although I can't find anything like it i'd be surprised if no one had ever made such a study.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

If you take the coaching out of the equation I guess the most accurate way of assessing the importance of each unit would be to look at how much money the league as a whole spends on each position. Although I can't find anything like it i'd be surprised if no one had ever made such a study.

There goes Of's next thread idea. :silly:

Hail.

[Om]

If Jim Zorn, who created the offense, would publish a report of his findings after reviewing the play-by-play video, we could create some useful stats on the performance of Jason Campbell. He could tell us whether an interception was the QB's fault, a receiver's, an O lineman or his own because of poor playcalling. If all offensive coordinators around the NFL would do the same, we would have some useful QB stats.

Good post.

[eljeasel]

I do like reading your posts. Cant agree with the specifics, but alot of the general ideas I do agree with. Namely, using YPA and other team stats as individual stats and refusing to acknowledge the team nature of football I get behind 100%.

Your number systemIm not sure I agree with. The problem with giving % values is that it could be different for different teams. I dont think your post expressly contradicts that so lets not split hairs.

Nice post my man!

[SeanTaylorthePunterSlayer]

70% of the time statistics are right all the time.


Lol. Good one, Fantana...:hysterical:

Interesting thread...

[addicted]

For starters, your proportions (offense v. defense) are seriously out of line. You have the offense totalling 55% -- a value of more than double the defense (25%)

Yes I know this very well and I do think the teams win-loss success rate is mostly determined by how well the Offense does vs. how well the Defense does. I also don't believe that the 3 sides of the football are equally weighted or ever should be. I believe regardless of what that chart says that a team can overcome bad Special Teams play and bad Defensive play with a good Offense but can not overcome a bad offense. Which is why as you pointed out, I have the offense weighted like I do.

I know you can cherry pick and point out the QB's who scored a lot and there teams lost as much as we did but how many teams in this past decade outside of Maryland can you point to and say that they won almost every game because they had a superior Defense and had no offense? Not too many come to mind from the 32 teams besides Baltimore. Since I can't really think of any other teams like that you are talking about 1 out of 32 teams which is an anamoly, not the norm.



In addition to the logical deduction that it's just as important to stop the other team from scoring as it to score, there is the DVOA study that I referred to in the OP which opposes your numbers:


My belief is that a team can get over problems with special teams and defense easier then they could with an offense much more then they would if the offense was poor. I disagree that its as important to stop other teams from scoring as it is to score yourself. Here's some research for you to check out:

The 10 Worst Offenses in 2008:

23 San Francisco 49ers
24 Kansas City Chiefs
25 Buffalo Bills
26 Chicago Bears
27 St. Louis Rams
28 Seattle Seahawks
29 Oakland Raiders
30 Detroit Lions
31 Cleveland Browns
32 Cincinnati Bengals

Do you see any winners on that list? From the bottom 10 offenses in the league last year, 0 teams made it to the playoffs

Now check this out.

The top 10 offenses in the league for 2008:

1 New Orleans Saints
2 Denver Broncos
3 Houston Texans
4 Arizona Cardinals
5 New England Patriots
6 Atlanta Falcons
7 New York Giants
8 Green Bay Packers
9 Philadelphia Eagles
10 Carolina Panthers

Playoff teams are bolded and underlined so they stand out. From the top 10 offenses in the league last year, 5 teams made it to the playoffs

Now lets look at the other side of the ball

The 10 Worst Defenses in the league in 2008:

23 New Orleans Saints
24 Atlanta Falcons
25 San Diego Chargers
26 Cleveland Browns
27 Oakland Raiders
28 St. Louis Rams
29 Denver Broncos
30 Seattle Seahawks
31 Kansas City Chiefs
32 Detroit Lions

Playoff teams are bolded and underlined so they stand out. From the 10 worst defenses in the league last year, 2 teams made it to the playoffs

I take from that if you have a bad defense you can still win in this league. That's my point all along. Lets see if I am right

The 10 Best Defenses in the league in 2008:

1 Pittsburgh Steelers
2 Baltimore Ravens
3 Philadelphia Eagles
4 Washington Redskins
5 New York Giants
6 Minnesota Vikings
7 Tennessee Titans
8 Dallas Cowboys
9 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
10 New England Patriots

So from that list we have 6 playoff teams which is pretty impressive.

I come away with this....We had 5 playoff teams from the best offensive list and 2 from the worst defensive list. We have 6 playoff teams from the best defensive list and zero from the worst offensive list. I can't help but believe that my thought was correct, a team with a great offense can overcome a bad defense but a team with a great defense can not overcome a bad offense. That's why I don't think these two areas should be equal weight. This is just from last year. If you want to disprove it look at previous years.

2008 - No team ranked in 10 last spots in offense made the playoffs
2007 - No team ranked in 10 last spots in offense made the playoffs
2006 - 1 team was in the 10 last offensive spots and made the playoffs
2005 - 1 team was in the 10 last offensive spots and made the playoffs
2004 - No team ranked in 10 last spots in offense made the playoffs
2003 - No team ranked in 10 last spots in offense made the playoffs


In the last 6 years we've had 2 teams in the bottom 10 in Offense make it to the playoffs. If that doesn't tell you that the offense is more important then the defense or special teams then I don't know what else will.

[addicted]

Our attack on addicted's numbers demonstrates the value of the approach I used. One can argue with my estimates to a point, but if they try to go beyond a reasonable range, they will get tripped up.

Give me a minute and I will back up my posts. Research takes time brother

[Oldfan]

If you take the coaching out of the equation I guess the most accurate way of assessing the importance of each unit would be to look at how much money the league as a whole spends on each position. Although I can't find anything like it i'd be surprised if no one had ever made such a study.

You could use the franchise tag numbers, but I have a feeling that some of the marquee players in the NFL drive up those numbers based on selling jerseys and putting fannies in the seats and not on their value to the team effort.

[Oldfan]

Good post.

Thank you, Sir.

If you have the time, I'd be interested in your estimates. I assume my 10% estimate for the QB is far too low for you, but I'd be interested in which of the factors you would downgrade to cover the difference.

21% = Coaching
34% = Defense
11% = Special Teams
12% = O line
12% = RB and receivers
10% = QB
----------
100% Total

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Just a quick line to say thank you Of.

Although I may not always agree with your thoughts on certain things, (the progress of the O and the current QB springs to mind, smiles); one thing's for sure, your threads are always thought provoking, and real interesting to see someone thinking outside the box on many things that make perfect sense when you look at them.

For that Sir, you should be commended for adding a new slant to the rich and varied fabric of this place we call "home." :cheers:

Hail.

[Oldfan]

Your number systemIm not sure I agree with. The problem with giving % values is that it could be different for different teams. I dont think your post expressly contradicts that so lets not split hairs.

I didn't say it, but my estimates were meant to be a league average. The actual values would, most certainly, vary from team to team. The coaches scheme can emphasize or deemphasize the QB's role, for example, by altering the run/pass ratio.


Nice post my man!

Gracias, Amigo.

[Oldfan]

Just a quick line to say thank you Of.

Back atcha. Your posts are always worth reading even when you foolishly don't agree with me.:D

[addicted]

Really OldFan you don't want to respond to the guy who you said was wrong?

I'm doing some more research on this topic and to further drive home my point check this out:

2003 - 1 Team made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2004 - 4 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2005 - 3 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2006 - 1 Team made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2007 - 0 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2008 - 2 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list

Total 10 Teams out of possible 72 teams made the playoffs over the last 6 years with bad defenses. By comparrison 2 teams out of possible 72 teams made the playoffs with bad offenses. Guess we know they aren't equal now huh? I'll stop piling on now I promise.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Back atcha. Your posts are always worth reading even when you foolishly don't agree with me.:D

:rotflmao: Touche brother, and ty.

Hail.

[stevemcqueen1]

Also, Short throws 0-10yrds then the reciever gains 20+. The QB should only get credit from the LOS to the point where the reciever catches the ball.

Yeah but a big part of YAC comes from how the QB delivers the ball. If he throws an accurate, well-timed pass that places the ball just into your hands out front while you are in stride, you are going to have a far better chance at running with it--think the great Larry Fitzgerald touchdown at the end of the superbowl. That was a phenomenal throw.

[Oldfan]

Really OldFan you don't want to respond to the guy who you said was wrong?

I am responding to other posters as well. Your post is up next, but tell me first -- what stat are you using to grade offenses and defenses? What's your source?

[addicted]

Yeah but a big part of YAC comes from how the QB delivers the ball. If he throws an accurate, well-timed pass that places the ball just into your hands out front while you are in stride, you are going to have a far better chance at running with it--think the great Larry Fitzgerald touchdown at the end of the superbowl. That was a phenomenal throw.

There was a TD throw? All I saw was a guy and a girl sitting on a coach getting freaky :evilg:

[addicted]

I am responding to other posters as well. Your post is up next, but tell me first -- what stat are you using to grade offenses and defenses? What's your source?

Real easy, total offense and total defense from NFL.com and the list of playoff teams from those years. That any my own brain which aint much there most of the time, heh

[stevemcqueen1]

My belief is that a team can get over problems with special teams and defense easier then they could with an offense much more then they would if the offense was poor. I disagree that its as important to stop other teams from scoring as it is to score yourself.

There may be some truth to this but I don't see it in the way you support it. There is only a one team difference in your favor. If anything, it just shows that the NFL doesn't offer a big enough sample size for games in a season to create meaningful stats based on games won. I think that greater emphasis is placed on offense these days because the rules have been changed to give passing games historical advantages. The passing game has become the way to move the ball and win--not the rushing offense, and not necessarily defense (although it is still the best way to compensate for having a mediocre passing game). A great example of teams that are great through their passing game are Indy and New England. But both teams also have a defense that's good enough to stop another teams passing game and cover for when their own offense goes into lulls. This could explain why two other great passing teams - Denver and New Orleans, haven't achieved similar success.

But I think the real reason why so much emphasis has been placed on passing games in forums such as the draft and free agency, is because the three most important elements of the passing game incidentally are the hardest to find or take the longest to develop. I'm talking about the quarterback, #1 receiver, and blind-side offensive tackle. I firmly believe that those three positions are the most important single positions on any NFL roster.

You certainly need an entire offensive line to pass protect, and multiple receivers to throw the ball to, but your other players don't have to be nearly as good as the guys manning the three positions I described and that is why they are drafted so much higher.

And its great to have a fast-talented defense, but there is a lot of variation to what you can do on that side of the ball making it so that you can compensate positional deficiencies fairly well. You don't have to have a 280+ pound pass rushing monster playing right end like the Texans do--you can have a 250 pounder fulfill the same role in a 3-4. You can compensate for mediocre coverage with great pressure or vice versa. Defense is definitely a more holistic unit than the offense.

However, when one looks at almost all the great passing offenses, they have great players at the 3 positions I described.

[addicted]

There may be some truth to this but I don't see it in the way you support it. There is only a one team difference in your favor.

Wait how did you come to that? I posted 6 years of stats to support my assertion that bad defenses can be overcome league wide by a stronge enough offense. If the opposite were true then how come only 2 teams out of 72 spots made the playoffs that had bad offenses in the last 6 years? What is this about only a 1 team difference? Care to explain that? Where did you get that from?

10 teams with defenses ranked 23rd to 32 made the playoffs where as 2 teams with offenses ranked as badly made the playoffs in the same stretch? The evidence is right there, that sample is from the entire NFL and includes both confrences.



If anything, it just shows that the NFL doesn't offer a big enough sample size for games in a season to create meaningful stats based on games won.

Really? 10 out of 72 is 13.88%, 2 out of 72 is 2.77%. That's a definitive answer in my book with a 6 season sample.


I think that greater emphasis is placed on offense these days because the rules have been changed to give passing games historical advantages. The passing game has become the way to move the ball and win--not the rushing offense, and not necessarily defense (although it is still the best way to compensate for having a mediocre passing game). A great example of teams that are great through their passing game are Indy and New England. But both teams also have a defense that's good enough to stop another teams passing game and cover for when their own offense goes into lulls. This could explain why two other great passing teams - Denver and New Orleans, haven't achieved similar success.

I didn't argue that or even try to explain it. I will say I believe you are correct that the league is rewarding offenses today more then Defense with regards to its rules. That's why it simply didn't make sense to me to go back more then the last 6 years in my arguement. The leagues changed so much over the years with protecting offensive players its become an offensive league. My thought is they've done that based on years of studying fans watching behaviors. When two teams are moving the ball and scoring alot more people tune in and more moneys made. They lose money on boring games that are low scoring and have taken steps to do away with that.

In addition its a certainity that if you have a team that is both good offensively and defensively they stand a much greater chance to win it all. That's what people forget about Dallas when Vegas puts out odds they make it to the Superbowl at the second highest percentage behind the Patriots after there crappy year. Dallas with Demarcus Ware and company have a steller top 10 Defense and with Tony Romo has a potent top 10 offense. It isn't simply that vegas thinks people are more likely to bet on the Pukes, they aren't that stupid. They place these odds on the idea that the best overall teams on paper stand the greatest chance to make it to the Superbowl and they simply do not look at one side of the ball otherwise you'd see the odds for NO and Arizona much higher.



But I think the real reason why so much emphasis has been placed on passing games in forums such as the draft and free agency, is because the three most important elements of the passing game incidentally are the hardest to find or take the longest to develop. I'm talking about the quarterback, #1 receiver, and blind-side offensive tackle. I firmly believe that those three positions are the most important single positions on any NFL roster.

I agree with you on that. Why is it that the teams this decade with the most success: Patriots, Colts, and Eagles have the arguably best QB's in the game today? Because with the right signal caller that makes the right plays they are too hard to beat most weeks even with a majority of average players around them. Its no mistake that over the last 10 years the Superbowls been played by the best QB's in the game today.



You certainly need an entire offensive line to pass protect, and multiple receivers to throw the ball to, but your other players don't have to be nearly as good as the guys manning the three positions I described and that is why they are drafted so much higher.

Agree again with you here, you said it. I never said that the Oline wasn't important, to me I see it as the third most important aspect of a team. Only behind QB and Defense.



And its great to have a fast-talented defense, but there is a lot of variation to what you can do on that side of the ball making it so that you can compensate positional deficiencies fairly well. You don't have to have a 280+ pound pass rushing monster playing right end like the Texans do--you can have a 250 pounder fulfill the same role in a 3-4. You can compensate for mediocre coverage with great pressure or vice versa. Defense is definitely a more holistic unit than the offense.

I really hated that we weren't breaking down the importance of position more and going with Defense as a whole but you made me understand why and you are right. I believe with a top 10 Defense you can have a middle of the road offense and do well. I also think if both aspects of the team are middle of the road you can do well. I just don't think that you can have a bad offense and do much of anything in todays NFL simply with a great defense and when that happens its unusual (2 out of 72)



However, when one looks at almost all the great passing offenses, they have great players at the 3 positions I described.

No arguement there boss. Great post, only thing I don't get is your 1 team difference comment.

[Oldfan]

Addicted, there are three arguments working against your position:

1. There is no logical basis. You can't say it's important to run the ball consistently on offense and then deny that it's equally important to stop the run on defense. You can't say that an efficient passing game is important and then deny that it's equally important to stop the passing game on defense.

2. Your personal research uses the NFL yardage stat to rank offenses and defenses. Your method is simplistic. For example, your stats do not reflect takeaways by the defense or giveaways by the offense -- vital factors in ranking them. The DVOA stats, a more sophisticated statistic based on about 20 years of data, comes to the logical conclusion that offense and defense are equally important.

3. Your results, based on yardage stats, can be logically explained. The offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage, but the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy.

[mnb123]

This thread is just people making up a bunch of numbers off their heads.

Special teams- 90%
Defense- 5%
o-line- 1%
coaching- .5%
RB- 1%
QB- 2%
WR- .5%

[USS Redskins]

Who needs stats? Just watch the actual games... for example, I have seen all of Campbells starts the past 3 seasons. My opinion is that he sucks. He is mediocre at best and will not take this team to the promised land.
The Skins will be well suited to either getting Colt Brennan ready or if they have no faith in Colt, make the trade for Cutler.
The Skins WILL have a new starter for a QB for the 2010 season - no question.

[Oldfan]

This thread is just people making up a bunch of numbers off their heads.

Special teams- 90%
Defense- 5%
o-line- 1%
coaching- .5%
RB- 1%
QB- 2%
WR- .5%

You proved that you could make up unrealistic numbers and post them to equal 100%. That's a good beginning.

Now, try making them realistic while conforming to the formula supported by the study I cited. The offense and defense should be equally weighted and the special teams one-third of the weight of the offense or defense.

[UK Redskins Fan]

This thread is just people making up a bunch of numbers off their heads.

Special teams- 90%
Defense- 5%
o-line- 1%
coaching- .5%
RB- 1%
QB- 2%
WR- .5%

Yeah it is, but actually, assigning some kind of value to each position is important if you're trying to build a team. For instance, if you're willing to pay $12m / year for a top ranked DT how much should you be willing to pay a top ranked QB, a position that may be 2, 3 or 10 times as important to your team?

[mnb123]

Now, try making them realistic while conforming to the formula supported by the study I cited. The offense and defense should be equally weighted and the special teams one-third of the weight of the offense or defense.

No numbers you could ever make up are realistic. You can't simply weigh the different aspects of a football team with any realism at all.

[Oldfan]

No numbers you could ever make up are realistic. You can't simply weigh the different aspects of a football team with any realism at all.

I think you're wrong. The estimate on the coaching value is weakly supported, but the relationships of the numbers from the 3 - 3 -1 ratios of offense, defense and special teams provide more restraints than you might realize until you give my approach a try.

[addicted]

Almost gave up on you Oldfan, glad to see the wait was worth it


Addicted, there are three arguments working against your position:

http://www.masterninja.com/smartass/images/orily.jpg



1. There is no logical basis. You can't say it's important to run the ball consistently on offense and then deny that it's equally important to stop the run on defense. You can't say that an efficient passing game is important and then deny that it's equally important to stop the passing game on defense.

In who's mind? In your maybe that's true but you took arguement against me saying in your cockeyed percentage pulling post that you didn't like me saying that the Offense which included QB, WR, RB, and Offensive Line was worth 55% don't you remember?

I proved to you how teams do with bottom 10 Defenses in regards to who gets in the playoffs. The reason I went with that arguements simple...playoffs mean the team had a successful year. If the Skins go to the playoffs this year every fan including you and I will think we had a successful season. So we can't argue my method of finding a measurable success meter.

With that I hate to repeat myself here but I showed you that teams with Bottom Offenses do not get in the playoffs in TODAY's NFL (2 out of 72 spots) where as teams with bottom 10 Defenses have a much higher rate of success getting into the playoffs (10 out of 72). That's a 4 to 1 ratio and a clear win for my arguement that offense today means more then Defense today.

I used a clearly defined measure and found out the truth. What started this between us is your research and you not agreeing that the Offense is much more important then the Defense. Your arguing that one can not exist without the other is flawed. 2 out of 72 is not equal to 10 out of 72 in my mind. You can argue otherwise but your wrong.




2. Your personal research uses the NFL yardage stat to rank offenses and defenses. Your method is simplistic. For example, your stats do not reflect takeaways by the defense or giveaways by the offense -- vital factors in ranking them. The DVOA stats, a more sophisticated statistic based on about 20 years of data, comes to the logical conclusion that offense and defense are equally important.

Is it now? Hmmm lets see....how many times has it been said here that the Redskins in 2008 had a top 10 Defense? Oh I don't know for sure but I'm sure that's in the 1000's.

When people grade defenses and offenses and say things like "Team A was ranked number 10 in the league" you do realize that its the yards for and yards allowed that is being judged correct? Me using that goes with standard protocol when judging defense and offense. If we used what your suggesting of takeaways the Redskins Defensively would go from #4 to 31st in Fumble recoverys and tied for 17th in INT's. Do you see how screwed up that is?

In addition your research is using 20 year old data which makes no sense to me. Has the NFL changed much in the last 20 years? Ummm unquestionably yes it has. Its changed every single year and placed an importance on keeping offensive players safe and allowing the game to produce more points. I can produce numerous articles if you wish proving this but I'll just give you one:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2008/07/31/a7c_dolphins_sider_0801.html

"Whenever the NFL changed its rules during the 18 seasons Bill Lovett worked as an official, the rules almost always benefited the offense."

Its not the same old NFL it was 20 years ago. There is no reason to believe that what was 20 years ago still goes today. I bet had they done this research over the last say 10 years it would no doubt have different results. I can't help it that you want to use antiquated information



3. Your results, based on yardage stats, can be logically explained. The offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage, but the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy.

I would like you to prove that yardage on offense does not equal points scored. Lets use the top three Offenses for the past 5 years and see where they ranked in that years total points scored to see if there isn't a corelation between the two:

2008
1 New Orleans Saints = #1 in scoring
2 Denver Broncos = #16 in scoring
3 Houston Texans = #17 in scoring

2007:
*1 New England Patriots = #1 in scoring
*2 Green Bay Packers = #4 in scoring
*3 Dallas Cowboys = #2 in scoring

2006:
*1 New Orleans Saints = #5 in scoring
*2 Philadelphia Eagles = #6 in scoring
*3 Indianapolis Colts = #2 in scoring

2005:
1 Kansas City Chiefs = #6 in scoring
*2 Seattle Seahawks = #1 in scoring
*3 Indianapolis Colts = #2 in scoring

2004:
1 Kansas City Chiefs = #2 in scoring
*2 Indianapolis Colts = #1 in scoring
*3 Green Bay Packers = #5 in scoring

2003:
1 Minnesota Vikings = #6 in scoring
*2 Kansas City Chiefs = #1 in scoring
*3 Indianapolis Colts = #2 in scoring

* = Playoff Team (12 out of 18 teams made the playoffs on that list which equals 66.66%)

So what does that mean? Yardage equals points. Any offense to be successful must score points. That's why my point is valid. If you have a great offense and terrible defense you can still have a good year. You can not prove that if you had a great Defense and a terrible offense that a team can have a great year unless you simply say 2 out of 72 proves that which in my eyes doesn't (2% vs. 66%)

[Passizle]

This is a pretty interesting debate. Thanks for the fresh look OF. Thanks to you for all the opposing data Addicted.
While its really impossible to tell or give a true weight to measure any aspect of the game (We miss things like weather, home field advantage, injuries, etc...) ONe thing that really opened my eyes in this whole debate (Thanks to addicted again) is that the motto "Defense wins Championships" still rings true. A good offense helps, but in the end, stopping teams from scoring seems to trump a teams being able to put up 40... especially if they cant stop you from putting up 40. I think this is clear example that can bring in the whole Cutler and Brees parts of the side story.
And to add a little more to the "defense", out of the teams shown by addicted (for 2008 anyway) the teams with the better defenses went further than teams with better offenses.

[Oldfan]

Addicted, I don't know if it's part of your debating strategy, but your counters are hard to follow. You quoted my first argument; then talked about everything but the argument I made.

All of the following is just repetition of your original argument and claims that you made your case and you're right:


In who's mind? In your maybe that's true but you took arguement against me saying in your cockeyed percentage pulling post that you didn't like me saying that the Offense which included QB, WR, RB, and Offensive Line was worth 55% don't you remember?

I proved to you how teams do with bottom 10 Defenses in regards to who gets in the playoffs. The reason I went with that arguements simple...playoffs mean the team had a successful year. If the Skins go to the playoffs this year every fan including you and I will think we had a successful season. So we can't argue my method of finding a measurable success meter.

With that I hate to repeat myself here but I showed you that teams with Bottom Offenses do not get in the playoffs in TODAY's NFL (2 out of 72 spots) where as teams with bottom 10 Defenses have a much higher rate of success getting into the playoffs (10 out of 72). That's a 4 to 1 ratio and a clear win for my arguement that offense today means more then Defense today.

I used a clearly defined measure and found out the truth. What started this between us is your research and you not agreeing that the Offense is much more important then the Defense. Your arguing that one can not exist without the other is flawed. 2 out of 72 is not equal to 10 out of 72 in my mind. You can argue otherwise but your wrong.

So, please read my first argument and try again. Do you have a counterpoint for the following?

Oldfan's #1. There is no logical basis. You can't say it's important to run the ball consistently on offense and then deny that it's equally important to stop the run on defense. You can't say that an efficient passing game is important and then deny that it's equally important to stop the passing game on defense.


Oldfan's #2. Your personal research uses the NFL yardage stat to rank offenses and defenses. Your method is simplistic. For example, your stats do not reflect takeaways by the defense or giveaways by the offense -- vital factors in ranking them. The DVOA stats, a more sophisticated statistic based on about 20 years of data, comes to the logical conclusion that offense and defense are equally important.

I
s it now? Hmmm lets see....how many times has it been said here that the Redskins in 2008 had a top 10 Defense? Oh I don't know for sure but I'm sure that's in the 1000's.

If most posters in this forum knew the first thing about statistics, my thread would not have been necessary. The NFL stats are fun for people who know little about stats.


If we used what your suggesting of takeaways the Redskins Defensively would go from #4 to 31st in Fumble recoverys and tied for 17th in INT's. Do you see how screwed up that is?

That isn't the way it's done. The DVOA is a weighted formula which takes into account several factors .


In addition your research is using 20 year old data which makes no sense to me.

You mis-read. I wrote "20 years of data." Think "large sample size" and more reliable statistics

Oldfan's #3. Your results, based on yardage stats, can be logically explained. The offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage, but the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy.


I would like you to prove that yardage on offense does not equal points scored. Lets use the top three Offenses for the past 5 years and see where they ranked in that years total points scored to see if there isn't a corelation between the two:

You are struggling mightily to prove a point that I have already granted. I said that "the offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage.." That's granted. The part that you won't be able to handle is another logical point: "...the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy." This explains why teams can win with defenses that rank low based on your simplistic yardage stats.

[Oldfan]

Passizle: This is a pretty interesting debate. Thanks for the fresh look OF.

You're certainly welcome.


ONe thing that really opened my eyes in this whole debate (Thanks to addicted again) is that the motto "Defense wins Championships" still rings true.

I think you need to read addicted's posts again. He is making a brave attempt to prove that offense is more than twice as important as defense.

I don't agree that "defense wins championships" either. Logically, scoring points is just as important as stopping the opponent from scoring -- the study from footballoutsiders.com, based on 20 years of data, supports the equality of the two units -- with special teams valued at one-third of the offense or defense. In other words, a 3 - 3 - 1 ratio between the units.

[Passizle]

You're certainly welcome.



I think you need to read addicted's posts again. He is making a brave attempt to prove that offense is more than twice as important as defense.

I don't agree that "defense wins championships" either. Logically, scoring points is just as important as stopping the opponent from scoring -- the study from footballoutsiders.com, based on 20 years of data, supports the equality of the two units -- with special teams valued at one-third of the offense or defense. In other words, a 3 - 3 - 1 ratio between the units.
Maybe I missed something. It would not be the fist time. That being said... according to his 2008 statistics alone (keeping it really simple here mind you) there are alot more top ranked defenes in the playoffs, than top ranked offenses.
Maybe I should take another looksee.

[KDawg]

My issues with your arbitrary numbers is within the percentages themselves.

The Redskins certainly don't follow a 3-3-1 ratio. Special Teams is much less than that, at least from what my eyes see.

Offense isn't quite weighted as heavily as defense, either.

For the 'Skins it's more like 50%-40%-10%, if you're just breaking it down by defense, offense and special teams.

I hate this ratio.

I'm a firm believer in the 33-33-33 ratio. All facets are equal.

Then to break each one down, each facet is dependant on another. So if I were going to break it down like you did, it would like something like this offensively (in my utopia):

Offense:
Positioning (Defense) 20%
Playcalling/Knowledge of the Playbook (Coaching) 30%
Special Teams (Field Goals/Punting) 10%
Receivers 7%
Backs 8%
OL 12%
QB 13%

And probably a little bit more complicated than that. Each position would break down into other categories too, such as coaching, footwork, knowledge, agility, etc.

But my numbers are arbitrary as well.

But again, I really do agree with your overall point. It's very strong.

[Oldfan]

KDawg: My issues with your arbitrary numbers is within the percentages themselves.

I don't think that estimates that attempt to be reasonable ought to be termed "arbitrary."


arbitrary: Based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice

The coaching factor was tough to estimate, but not one that I selected on preference, impulse or caprice. I picked the mid-point between "this sounds high" and "this sounds low." Jim Zorn estimated that assistant coaches were 30% of the team effort -- now that sounds very high.

The 3 -3- 1 ratio for the units is backed with some solid evidence:


The total quality of an NFL team is three parts offense, three parts defense, and one part special teams.

There are three units on a football team, but they are not of equal importance. Our DVOA ratings provide good evidence for this. The special teams ratings are turned into DVOA by comparing how often field position on special teams leads to scoring compared to field position and first downs on offense. After figuring out these numbers, the top ratings for special teams are roughly one-third as high as the top ratings for offense or defense.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics


The Redskins certainly don't follow a 3-3-1 ratio. Special Teams is much less than that, at least from what my eyes see. Offense isn't quite weighted as heavily as defense, either. For the 'Skins it's more like 50%-40%-10%, if you're just breaking it down by defense, offense and special teams.

Okay, there's a misunderstanding here. The 3 -3 -1 ratio refers to the importance to winning as determined by statistical correlation. It is not a ratio of the weight that individual teams place on the strategic importance of their units. On that point though, I think our offense has suffered because of previously failed attempts to field a consistently successful passing game. So, we are a run-first team, and weaker offensively, by default not by plan.


But again, I really do agree with your overall point. It's very strong.

Good enough.

[Skin'Em84]

It's much simpler than that.

The team that wins the Super Bowl is the team that can control the pace of the game, the clock, and the ball. Regardless of the situation. In that order.

Regardless of whether or not you do it with a running game (old school football), defense (defense wins championships), or an effective short passing game (WCO, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady), those are the three things that must be done.

If you look at every Super Bowl team, there's always one or two outliers, but there is a much larger difference in the philosophies of each team except for controlling the pace, clock and ball.

Those three are generally intertwined anyways. Usually, controlling the pace is done by slowing it down, in which case the team tends to run/do short passes, and those control the clock, which on offense control the ball. There are some teams that have one (see 2000 Ravens) with a defense that set the pace and controlled the ball, and the running game controlled the clock.

Controlling the pace doesn't always mean slowing it down.Some teams have set a high pace and done well (Bills of the early 90s, Redskins of 1991, Old Raiders, all the flash in the pan offensive teams that run deep into the playoffs). However, team that relies on a high pace cannot stop, even to slow down and run the clock out (NE was very effective at that in their almost undefeated season, just couldn't keep it up in the Super Bowl).

It doesn't matter how you control the pace, the clock and the ball. It just must be done. The Giants do it by having 3 RBs and a platoon of pass rushers. Steelers have an amazing defense, a strong running game, and a QB that is amazing at extending the play and making the impossible conversion happen. Indianapolis have a strong short-medium passing game that keeps control, and a defense adept at getting the ball back to the offense one way or another. San Diego has Tomlinson and Sproles, and a defense (with Shawne Merriman) that is aggressive and attacks non-stop.

Edit: I apologize for the rambling nature of the post. I just typed in my train of thought.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

I think Addicted stands by his computer waiting for an OF thread.

BTW, good post and no counterattack from me.

[Oldfan]

BTW, good post and no counterattack from me.

Thank you.

[Thinking Skins]

Oldfan, you forgot the +/- epsilon, where epsilon ranges from 0 to 100.

[Oldfan]

SkinEm84: If you look at every Super Bowl team, there's always one or two outliers, but there is a much larger difference in the philosophies of each team except for controlling the pace, clock and ball.

Can you explain how you determined that Super Bowl winners control the pace of the game. What statistic would verify that?

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, you forgot the +/- epsilon, where epsilon ranges from 0 to 100.

Damn, I do that all the time.

[addicted]

So, please read my first argument and try again. Do you have a counterpoint for the following?

Oldfan's #1. There is no logical basis. You can't say it's important to run the ball consistently on offense and then deny that it's equally important to stop the run on defense. You can't say that an efficient passing game is important and then deny that it's equally important to stop the passing game on defense.

I thought I had made my point earlier on this. I am of the opinion that when you say Defense is equally as important to Offense that simply doesn't comput with the fact that so few teams made the playoffs with an offense that could not produce (lower 1/3rd in the league, ie. 2 teams out of 72 playoff teams the last 6 years). To put it another way if it were equally important as you say why didn't more teams with bad offenses make the playoffs in the last 6 years when compared to teams with bad defenses? You can't deny that the trend lays heavily in favor of bad offenses missing the playoffs when comparring to bad defenses. The pengalum swings in favor to the importance of offensive. If the defense was as equally as important then the numbers would be much closer and they aren't. The only logical explanation to me is that offensive production is more important to a teams success then defensive production. Does that make sense?

I am not saying that offense wins championships or defense wins it. We are in agreement with that completely. I am of the belief that when you grade which is more important be it:

Offense
Defense
Special Teams

I put it like this

Offense - 55%
Defense/Special Teams - 45%

I do not understand how you can look at the data and believe that its 33.3% equal. It's not


If most posters in this forum knew the first thing about statistics, my thread would not have been necessary. The NFL stats are fun for people who know little about stats.

It was posted that I look for threads you start and respond to them. In a way that is true. Lots of people start threads here but few are as educated and informative as yours. When I see your name attached to a post like this I enjoy reading it and discussing with you my thoughts. It's not as the other poster implied that I am interested in online forum stalking you or anything and you should know I enjoy a good debate and you and I like to "bring it". Your an asset to this forum.



That isn't the way it's done. The DVOA is a weighted formula which takes into account several factors .

You mis-read. I wrote "20 years of data." Think "large sample size" and more reliable statistics

Hmmmm well that's debateable. Are you implying that my numbers are incorrect or they are untrue in some respect? Do the research yourself. As for the 20 year old information my friend you did see my point that the NFL has changed considerably over the last 20 years. Do you not agree with this. Looking at trends that long ago really proves nothing, this is not the NFL we grew up with as kids anymore.



You are struggling mightily to prove a point that I have already granted. I said that "the offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage.." That's granted. The part that you won't be able to handle is another logical point: "...the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy." This explains why teams can win with defenses that rank low based on your simplistic yardage stats.

No it is you who needs to understand what I am saying about this. Think about this for a moment. The point of a Defense is that they stop the other team from scoring. When a defense can not stop another team from scoring the more the defense is scored upon the worse the defensive ranking for that team. The lower 1/3rd ranking that is handed to defensive teams says two things:

1. They give up a lot of yards
2. They give up a lot of points

Stop here if you disagree with this. Ok if you don't lets move on.

You and I are disagreeing on one simple but significant thing. You believe that given a ratio and based on your research that you believe there is an equal weight of importance for Offense and Defense to which I disagree. The reason I disagree with this is simple

The offense scores points, its what they are supposed to do. If a Defense were to give up 5 TD's and 5 XP's and that opposing offense scores 6 TD's who wins? The offense does. Its for this very point why I believe we have teams making the playoffs with poor defenses and that when you have teams with poor offenses but good defenses they will not. If your defense gives up more points then the offense can score that team loses the game. I showed you earlier that out of the 72 playoff teams from the last 6 years, 10 teams made the playoffs with bottom 1/3rd defenses. Thier offenses were strong enough to make up for that shortcoming. Where as during this same time frame only 2 teams out of 72 spots were able to make the playoffs with bad offenses.

When you weight the importance of offense vs. defense you must take that into consideration. When you see a statitic like this I do not see how anyone can say that Defense and Offense are equals.

[Om]

Thank you, Sir.

If you have the time, I'd be interested in your estimates. I assume my 10% estimate for the QB is far too low for you, but I'd be interested in which of the factors you would downgrade to cover the difference.

21% = Coaching
34% = Defense
11% = Special Teams
12% = O line
12% = RB and receivers
10% = QB
----------
100% Total
Can't do it, OF. I just don't see football teams divided up into neat, one-size-fits-all divisions to which you can assign degrees of "overall importance" like that. No two teams are put together the same, or rely on any one facet of the game the same way or to the same extent as another. And it fails to account for (examples only) quantifiable factors like roster turnover or regime change, or unquantifiable ones like confidence, chemistry or institutional momentum.

As you know, I do think that the right quarterback can totally change the equation on a team, far more so than any other one factor. I think that's been proven over and over, as we have discussed over and over. Just not sure it's the kind of thing that lends itself to a mathematical equation.

I was just commenting on the part of your post I found right on the money. :)


If Jim Zorn, who created the offense, would publish a report of his findings after reviewing the play-by-play video, we could create some useful stats on the performance of Jason Campbell. He could tell us whether an interception was the QB's fault, a receiver's, an O lineman or his own because of poor playcalling. If all offensive coordinators around the NFL would do the same, we would have some useful QB stats.

[AAARedskin]

I don't agree with the premise that a QB's WIN-LOSS record is almost useless. BULL. Sure, if it's only for 1 season and it's a known fact that the team's defense is ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, then the WIN-LOSS record can be suspect........but after say 26 starts or more on a team for a better than average defense, the QB's WIN-LOSS record is EVERYTHING.

[CTSkins413]

The section about the importance of the QB does not degrade what came before -- which was primarily logic about QB stats. So, if you want to attack my logic, go right ahead.

The section about the importance of the QB was added because fans typically greatly overvalue QBs. You can post your numbers certainly, but if you tried to say that the QB was a factor worth 60% you would end up with some ridiculously low numbers for the other factors.

My approach keeps the value of the QB within a reasonable range. That's its purpose.

Try giving 30% to the QB while keeping to my list. You avoided giving value to the defense and special teams. That's cheating. <smile>

OF, good post. (BTW) Don't bother trying to reason w/ the unreasonable; it's wayyyyyy to frustrating....
HAIL

[jthor99]

I didn't indulge in the writing, but is this the "Sabermetrics of Football" or to the QB position?

I'm a bit fascinated with baseball sabermetrics

[Oldfan]

Addicted, I think we've taken our debate on this as far as it can go. I think your position is based on nothing more than an anomaly in the simplistic yardage stat which can be explained by the "bend but don't break" defensive teams in the league who give up lots of yards but not a lot of points. You don't agree, but that's okay. It was an interesting exchange.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

this thread is also known as "how to look at stats in a way that jason campbell wont be held accountable for being mediocre".

and by the OPs logic, it is impossible to compare campbell to any other QB other than QBs who have played behind the exact same line/WRs/RBs/coaches/ETC, which at this point is absolutely nobody. LOL

i guess we'll never know if barry sanders was better than trung candidate. after all, they didnt have the same blockers, runningbacks coach, head coach, scheme, quarterback, wide receivers, defense, special teams, or mailing address.

[Oldfan]

Can't do it, OF. I just don't see football teams divided up into neat, one-size-fits-all divisions to which you can assign degrees of "overall importance" like that.

If I wrote that the average NFL team scored 22 points last season, it wouldn't be a problem for you, I'm sure. I should have explained in the OP that the percentages are an estimated average.

[Oldfan]

I don't agree with the premise that a QB's WIN-LOSS record is almost useless. BULL. Sure, if it's only for 1 season and it's a known fact that the team's defense is ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, then the WIN-LOSS record can be suspect........but after say 26 starts or more on a team for a better than average defense, the QB's WIN-LOSS record is EVERYTHING.

If you measure A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H together... it isn't a measurement of A. If you want to rank a QB, you need to isolate him from all the other factors.

[Oldfan]

OF, good post.

Thanks.

[Oldfan]

this thread is also known as "how to look at stats in a way that jason campbell wont be held accountable for being mediocre".

and by the OPs logic, it is impossible to compare campbell to any other QB other than QBs who have played behind the exact same line/WRs/RBs/coaches/ETC, which at this point is absolutely nobody. LOL

i guess we'll never know if barry sanders was better than trung candidate. after all, they didnt have the same blockers, runningbacks coach, head coach, scheme, quarterback, wide receivers, defense, special teams, or mailing address.

Get off that crap, BLC. Not every damn thread is about being for or against Jason Campbell. This thread is about the use of statistics. It should be debated on logic or not at all.

If you watched them both play and need statistics to determine that Barry Sanders was a better back than Trung Candidate, you need to find something to do with your spare time besides watch football.

I watched Jason Campbell play and thought he did alright last season and I expect him to do better this season, but I would trade him in a heartbeat along with two number one picks for Jay Cutler -- because I've seen him play too.

[Oldfan]

I didn't indulge in the writing, but is this the "Sabermetrics of Football" or to the QB position?

I'm a bit fascinated with baseball sabermetrics

This thread highlighted the QB position, but if you want to read some interesting sabermetric-type stuff on football, I'd recommend this site:

http://footballoutsiders.com/

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Get off that crap, BLC. Not every damn thread is about being for or against Jason Campbell. This thread is about the use of statistics. It should be debated on logic or not at all.

If you watched them both play and need statistics to determine that Barry Sanders was a better back than Trung Candidate, you need to find something to do with your spare time besides watch football.

I watched Jason Campbell play and thought he did alright last season and I expect him to do better this season, but I would trade him in a heartbeat along with two number one picks for Jay Cutler -- because I've seen him play too.


according to you, even if i watched them both play, their statistics are not comparable because of all the parameters which you have set. therefore it is impossible to compare two players at the same position because of all the variables that you have brought into play, your A-H. so comparing cutler to campbell is bunk because they both have so many variables around them.

so for instance, comparing ryan leaf to peyton manning is impossible because of all the variables. or my original example, trung candidate to barry sanders.

and i agree with you that i think trading for cutler is a good idea, but you have to admit that the parameters you set are way to constrictive in terms of comparing players performances. to the degree which you have gone, theres technically no way to compare players unless they are on the same team, for instance brunell and campbell in 06 (and even then one could argue by your rules that because one had portis and one had betts their performances are not comparable).

[Oldfan]

according to you, even if i watched them both play, their statistics are not comparable because of all the parameters which you have set. therefore it is impossible to compare two players at the same position because of all the variables that you have brought into play, your A-H. so comparing cutler to campbell is bunk because they both have so many variables around them.

That's exactly right. At this point, the kind of statistics offered by NFL.com have neligible value as measurements of individual performance and the team stats aren't much better. They are statistics for people who don't understand statistics.

You will get better statistics at footballoutsiders.com but they aren't very reliable either. The stats guys on that site will admit it; their numbers are a work in progress.

I grade QBs mostly on what I can see, just as a scout would do, but I also depend on the opinions of experts to verify my own.

[thedevilhimself]

It is funny when you start getting stats confused with oppinion . As Oldfansays you cannot really soley based on statistics compare two players in two different systems because there simply are too many variables .

You can compare the play of two people on the field because you can make a dynamic assesment of the players based on their environment at the time . Any asesment in that case is subjective and depending on the observer may be fair or biased . In one team is playing against a piss poor defense while the WR and RB are running wild and he has all the time in the world to pass you would expect more from a Qb for example than if the QB is playing on a piss poor team with a leaky offensive line stone hand reciever and RB who eaks out inches per carry .

The problem is people use stats - and I know I do - to try and validate thier oppinions . That would be okay if the stats were controlled and comparable but not so okay if you are bending incomparable stats to make your point .. That is like trying to compare the land speed of different mammals to the density of concrete because hey they are both number right ?

[thedevilhimself]

I still say Cutler isn't worth a trade . His attitude and arrogance will see him as a free agent in 2 years anyway . He would not be half the QB he is right now if not for Branden Marshell . Now he is a player .

[SkinsFanMania]

Actually I think the qb rating is so antiquated. If you notice on many occasions, the teams with the losing record have qb's with high ratings due to the fact that they have to pass a lot to catch up, therefor the qb has more yards.

This needs to be changed, now!

[Oldfan]

It is funny when you start getting stats confused with oppinion . As Oldfansays you cannot really soley based on statistics compare two players in two different systems because there simply are too many variables .

My thread was inspired by the common misuse of stats on both sides of the Cutler v. Campbell comparision. I love a good debate, but far too many posters are using cherry-picked, useless stats to unfairly trash one QB or the other. That's not real debate. It's just a stupid argument.

[stevemcqueen1]

I'm a firm believer in the 33-33-33 ratio. All facets are equal.

It would be disastrous to spend as much money on special teams as you do on offense or defense. You have to go with what the market dictates. Maybe in the grand scheme of things, a linebacker could be as important to a team as a QB or LT (I don't believe this its hypothetical), but you certainly don't pay them more than a comparable player at those other positions, and you certainly don't draft them ahead of a QB or LT (ahem Aaron Curry). You would be getting bad market value.

[SirClintonPortis]

I agree on a general level with what Oldfan posited in the opening post. This thread is a breath of logical fresh air.

[KDawg]

It would be disastrous to spend as much money on special teams as you do on offense or defense. You have to go with what the market dictates. Maybe in the grand scheme of things, a linebacker could be as important to a team as a QB or LT (I don't believe this its hypothetical), but you certainly don't pay them more than a comparable player at those other positions, and you certainly don't draft them ahead of a QB or LT (ahem Aaron Curry). You would be getting bad market value.

I never said anything about payscale.

Nor did I mean anything about payscale. It's a ratio of how important each facet is to success. I would spend almost as much time looking at special teams as I would offense/defense. In a way, you evaluate special teams when doing offense and defense anyways, as alot of those guys play other positions.

I'd also be spending much more of my resources on kicker/punter and ensuring we have a QB who is a decent backup QB and a great holder.

We have a great snapper, thank god.

[Confucius]

Good thread regardless where you stand on the spectrum of this argument.

I hate to potentially muddy the waters (who am I kidding - no I don't), but I wanted to throw something else out there. Two caveats - one, please understand this post is not a refutation of anyone's argument, just food for thought/debate. Two, I am not a statistician or mathematician - so please feel free to point out errors in my thought process or language/terminology.

Seems to me, one of the oft overlooked element any statistical argument comes from the inclusion of the absolute and finite. In this particular discussion, this becomes apparent in the absolute comparisons of one team to another when using the percentage approach, the comparison of offense to defense as if they come from the same mathematical foundation, and the assumption of larger sample size being the defining criteria for the validity of analysis.


-= Example 1 - Positional % of teams =-

I know OF and others have agreed that these percentages change from one team to another, and are variable based on criteria such as scheme, coaching, etc.

When determining a position or units percentage contribution - does it matter if we're talking about a percentage of what? Yes and no. If we're only picking from a defined and relatively consistent set of criteria - e.g. the Gibbs coached 2004 to 2008 Redskins - then I think the valuation method is fine. Our quarterback generally equals xx% of the team works for me.

The "% of what" question really does matter though when we're talking about being able to assign this value across multiple criteria (e.g. all teams from 2001 to 2008). Take for example the Patriots (pick a year) vs. the Browns (again, pick a year :)) - when we start saying that the QB is 10% of the team, it insinuates some level of equality to the position across teams (and I realize while OF never said this directly, it might be assumed by some), such that Derek Anderson is responsible for 10% and so is Tom Brady.

If by some system we start to assign values to the teams relative to each other though (and these are completely made up, but we could use something like DVOA I assume), e.g. if the avg team has a value of 100, then the Browns might have a team value of 50 and the Patriots a team value of 150. Derek Anderson is then worth 5 and Tom Brady has a value of 15. We now have a methodology for comparing one player to another using some sort of semi-statistical evaluation. If we flip the two are we to assume Derek Anderson would still be worth 10% of the Patriots offense and maintain an individual value of 15? I don't know...thoughts?


-= Example 2 - The valuation of Offense and Defense =-

There is a defined, finite limit on how good a defense can be. I realize this may be overly simplistic, but a defense starts at zero, and aims to stay as close to zero as possible, allowing zero yards and zero points.

The offense on the other hand, starts at zero and aims to reach infinity. There is no defined limit to the success of an offense. So when Addicted stars doing his analysis, saying a good offense can overcome a bad defense, I do believe he actually has a theoretical leg on which to stand.

The more I think through this one though, I'm honestly not sure how turnovers, defensive touchdowns, offensive turnovers leading to field goals, etc. will ruin my thoughts on this - may completely blow me out of the water.


-= Example 3 - Larger sample sizes =-

At various points in this thread and others where statistics are discussed, the issue of what represents a valid sample size is usually brought up. In this thread, I believe it was OFs reference to DVOA being sampled across 20 years, hence making it more reliable.

More reliable in adjusting to the mean of the 20 years? Yes. More reliable in predicting the current situation? Not necessarily. For the answer to the 2nd question to be "yes" - we'd first have to prove that the current year is close to the mean of the past 20 years - something which I think is debatable. For large sample sizes to always be more accurate - an unchanging absolute value of whatever you're measuring (in this case - offense vs. defense importance ratios) must not change significantly over the 20 year sample size.

This is case of the sample size actually being too large to be accurate. Human life expectancy is a great example of this. You can skew stats however you like - taking the largest sample size possible (e.g. as long as we've been keeping census data) you'd arrive at a much lower # than just taking the past 10 years of census data - but most would agree that the current decade of census data, despite being a much smaller sample size, is a more accurate representation of the current situation. Again...thoughts?

[Oldfan]

I agree on a general level with what Oldfan posited in the opening post. This thread is a breath of logical fresh air.

Thank you, SCR.

[addicted]

Addicted, I think we've taken our debate on this as far as it can go. I think your position is based on nothing more than an anomaly in the simplistic yardage stat which can be explained by the "bend but don't break" defensive teams in the league who give up lots of yards but not a lot of points. You don't agree, but that's okay. It was an interesting exchange.

Your over simplifying and ignoring current thrends and statistics because you simply don't want to look in that direction and blowing off facts with the lame excuse of "bend don't break" which doesn't answer any real question I brought up and I see that as you just brushing this off and now ending the discussion.

While I agree good exchange but I honestly have no choice but to think a bit less of you now for not taking me on. You posted in this thread before I had a chance to answer you that you were certain my opinion was wrong and now you simply can't disprove it so your walking away. The next time you decide to hammer someone you might want to slow down and let that person respond, rushing like you did made you look foolish.

You've posted thank you and your welcomes tons of times on this thread but dismiss my opinion because you don't want to take it on. I do not feel as if you ever proved me wrong and you need to know that you've haven't won this debate with me. I am certain that the only reason you believe me to be wrong about this has to do with the study you read. Had you done your own research I can't see how you would come to that conclusion. Since you want to walk away I will accept that and move on.

[addicted]

First this was a fantastic post, thank you for sharing it with us.



-= Example 1 - Positional % of teams =-

If by some system we start to assign values to the teams relative to each other though (and these are completely made up, but we could use something like DVOA I assume), e.g. if the avg team has a value of 100, then the Browns might have a team value of 50 and the Patriots a team value of 150. Derek Anderson is then worth 5 and Tom Brady has a value of 15. We now have a methodology for comparing one player to another using some sort of semi-statistical evaluation. If we flip the two are we to assume Derek Anderson would still be worth 10% of the Patriots offense and maintain an individual value of 15? I don't know...thoughts?

I understand where you are going with this. My thought is that each teams positional value is depandant on who that team has on its roster. For example it is foolish to say that the Patriots success relys on the RB position but it wouldn't be foolish to say the Redskins success relys on the RB position. You simply can not say that every team values its positions the same. The Oakland Raiders, NY Giants, Washington Redskins, Tennessee Titans to name a few teams rely on the RB position much heavier then other teams like the Patriots, the Colts, the Saints, the Cardnials.

With that end in mind I believe that if you are going to do a situational team by team analysis you will find each percentage is different as you go team by team. So that to me asks the question, is it possible to assign the value of position league wide as Oldfan suggested.

To me the answer is yes you can but it wouldn't be easy to do. The way I would try and tackle this would be like this:

1. First you would need to know and the collect the following information:

a. Yardage average for each team per game.
b. The QB stat yardage per game
c. The RB stat yardage per game

Once you know that you would be able to determine the percentage of yardage per game each position was responsible for. For example and to keep this simple say the Redskins had an average of 220 yards per game offensively. From your research you find out that Jason Campbell averages 100 yards per game and Clinton Portis averages 120 yards per game. That would mean that on a 100 point scale Clinton Portis averages 60% of the teams yards and Jason Campbell averages 40% of the teams yards. You then would know for the Washington Redskins that the RB is relied on more heavily then the QB position is.

2. You'd do this for all of the 32 teams.

3. Next you'd need to do that for a set peroid of years. I'd do it for 10

4. Then you'd review the numbers and come to some conclusions. I believe what you'd find is that offensively the QB position normally produces at least 60 to 70 percent of teams offensive yardage on average. The WR's numbers are contained within the QB's numbers so they wouldn't be needed. If you find that the QB numbers are as I believe them to be, you will know how to grade the RB and the QB percentage wise.

The thing I wouldn't know how to guage to see what percentage of worth to a teams success would be the teams offensive line. Even if a QB is the highest sacked QB in the league in a season its still well within the realm of possibility that this QB could easily be producing 80% of his teams yards. So how would you judge that?



-= Example 2 - The valuation of Offense and Defense =-

There is a defined, finite limit on how good a defense can be. I realize this may be overly simplistic, but a defense starts at zero, and aims to stay as close to zero as possible, allowing zero yards and zero points.

The offense on the other hand, starts at zero and aims to reach infinity. There is no defined limit to the success of an offense. So when Addicted stars doing his analysis, saying a good offense can overcome a bad defense, I do believe he actually has a theoretical leg on which to stand.

The more I think through this one though, I'm honestly not sure how turnovers, defensive touchdowns, offensive turnovers leading to field goals, etc. will ruin my thoughts on this - may completely blow me out of the water.

I agree. Thanks for saying I have a leg to stand on, heh I know I do. I know that my analysis is correct. A potent offense can overcome a bad defense each and every year in the NFL where as a Defense/Special teams can not do so as easily. I don't think its possible to review Defenses and Special teams like that.



-= Example 3 - Larger sample sizes =-

At various points in this thread and others where statistics are discussed, the issue of what represents a valid sample size is usually brought up. In this thread, I believe it was OFs reference to DVOA being sampled across 20 years, hence making it more reliable.

More reliable in adjusting to the mean of the 20 years? Yes. More reliable in predicting the current situation? Not necessarily. For the answer to the 2nd question to be "yes" - we'd first have to prove that the current year is close to the mean of the past 20 years - something which I think is debatable. For large sample sizes to always be more accurate - an unchanging absolute value of whatever you're measuring (in this case - offense vs. defense importance ratios) must not change significantly over the 20 year sample size.

This is case of the sample size actually being too large to be accurate. Human life expectancy is a great example of this. You can skew stats however you like - taking the largest sample size possible (e.g. as long as we've been keeping census data) you'd arrive at a much lower # than just taking the past 10 years of census data - but most would agree that the current decade of census data, despite being a much smaller sample size, is a more accurate representation of the current situation. Again...thoughts?

That was the point I tried to make earlier. Looking back at data 20 years ago doesn't mean anything since the leagues changed so much since then. You should limit any research to today's NFL I believe to a maximum of 10 years but I prefered the last 6 seasons. Looking at data that old makes little sense to me.

[Oldfan]

Confucious,

Let's suppose that a car manufacturer commissions an extensive survey of new car buyers to determine the four most important factors that determine the car buying decision. The percentage of buyers making the factors their top criterion might look like this:

Factor A = 40%
Factor B = 30%
Factor C = 20%
Factor D = 10%
Total 100%

When we want to know the IMPORTANCE of the factors involved in anything, the 100% scale is useful.

From my OP: All fans agree that the QB position is the most important, but many fans seem to overrate the value. So, how important is the QB to winning? Let's use 100% to represent the whole and try to break down the factors.

So, we are talking about the importance of each factor I listed to winning football games.


There is a defined, finite limit on how good a defense can be.

Your point is not relevant because you are confusing the importance factor with the grading element. In my estimate, the importance of the defense to a winning effort remains at 34% whether the defense grades out as an A, B, C or D -- just as Factor A remains at 40% importance to the car buyer whether the manufacturer's car grades out as an A, B, C or D in satisfying Factor A.

And, just incidentally, you are mistaken on the grading. There is no logical reason to expect that a defense cannot be built to stop any offense no matter how good it is. The closer the offense gets to the infinite, the zero points defense potential rises to match it (the position of zero isn't fixed).


[Sample size] More reliable in adjusting to the mean of the 20 years? Yes. More reliable in predicting the current situation? Not necessarily.

It is just as important to stop the run as it is to have an effective running game.
It is just as important to stop the pass as it is to have an effective passing game.

Can you counter the logic of either of those statements?
Can you think of any reason that either of those statements won't remain true over time?

We have 20 years of data supporting what we could logically expect -- in winning football games, defense and offense are equal in importance.

[Confucius]

OK - that helps to explain it. Good analogy.

Seems like maybe you're talking a priori knowledge - e.g. logic would dictate if my offense is important your defense would be equally important - where I've moved into the realm of a postiori by bringing in the weighting of empirical trending (e.g. offenses are more productive in this era).

So even though my thought process was centered around a numerical output - it doesn't change the relative values (importance) of the input. In other words - Even though offenses now put up much higher numbers (and by correlation, make defenses seem less effective) - the relative % importance in the outcome of a game hasn't changed.

Think I gotcha.

[Oldfan]

Think I gotcha.

Good man.

[Confucius]

lol - thanks.

So now we know that logically speaking, in terms of importance in the game of football, because they are diametrically opposed, defense must equal offense. The actual % value can vary and is up for debate - but they must be equal.

That being said - when the game is played and there is a winner and loser - curious as to what would be a good logical/statistical/mathematical (or car analogical :)) way to explain it? I realize I'm potentially going off topic here - but this is one of the better threads of this type I've seen in a while.

Where I'm trying to go - is despite the equal importance - there was some inequality in efficiency and effectiveness for there to be a winner and loser. If we can find a way to put solid number theory on that, can we then derive the root cause of this imbalance, and maybe start to find a way to actually compare individual players. Or are we forever stuck in the loop of "no we can't b/c nothing is ever objective and exists in an independent vacuum"? (And honestly, being a fan of subjectivism I tend to say we're stuck in the loop :))

With that potential derailer thrown out there I'm out for a while. Looking forward to some responses.

[superozman]

Oldfan – I’d like to hop in this discussion, however, I am confused at what you are trying to convey. I have gathered the following:

1. You stated the QB stats commonly misused due to you’re A-H factors:
a. Sacks
b. Completion %
c. Interceptions
d. Touchdowns
e. Points per game
f. QB Rating

MY TOUGHTS – First I’d start with this quote – “So, stats comparing Jason Campbell to, say Jay Cutler or Matt Cassel, are pretty much useless” Really, honestly? Comparing stats between QB’s gives you your first gauge to delve deeper into the issue. Here’s my question to you. If you lived on the moon for the past 10 years. And I gave you QB STATS of QB Rating, Touchdowns, Interceptions, Completion percentage, Yards, and games played…Who would you pick as your top 3 quarterbacks looking at stats alone. Now tell me the 3 QB’s you chose would differ greatly if you looked deeper into everything. YOU CAN COMPARE.

I do agree with you, people do use too many arbitrary statistics for arguments. I hate that.

“if Jim Zorn…useful QB stats”. Whole-heartedly agree. However, it would be ridiculous to do…unless…you would propose to the NFL this job and you’ll do it under a volunteer basis haha. 



2. Overrated Turnover Stat
a. overrating conservative offenses with game manager QBs

I, IMHO, can definitely disagree with this – how can you UNDERrate the turnover stat??? Seriously. A good quarterback will PROTECT the football. If I look at stats, and see a QB, over time, consistently throws 20 tds, and has 17 picks and 3 fumbles a year…I don’t care if that means +60 in your terms set above, I don’t want a Quarterback coughing up the ball that much.

3. Importance of Quarterback (and other spots)
21% = Coaching
34% = Defense
11% = Special Teams
12% = O line
12% = RB and receivers
10% = QB

This is just your opinion. My opinion is it varies TOO MUCH per team to even attempt this. In a reply I know you stated as an average, but what the heck good is an average when the +- for a team to those percentages varies so greatly. And it varies per game. There is no point to your percentage rating, and IMHO proves nothing. And this seems to be the most discussed.

[jrockster21]

So what you did, was make a bunch of arbitrary numbers up to prove that stats don't really prove anything?

LOL.

Oldfan, you just spent a whole lotta time on nothing.

[Oldfan]

lol - thanks.

So now we know that logically speaking, in terms of importance in the game of football, because they are diametrically opposed, defense must equal offense. The actual % value can vary and is up for debate - but they must be equal.

That being said - when the game is played and there is a winner and loser - curious as to what would be a good logical/statistical/mathematical (or car analogical :)) way to explain it? I realize I'm potentially going off topic here - but this is one of the better threads of this type I've seen in a while.

Where I'm trying to go - is despite the equal importance - there was some inequality in efficiency and effectiveness for there to be a winner and loser. If we can find a way to put solid number theory on that, can we then derive the root cause of this imbalance, and maybe start to find a way to actually compare individual players. Or are we forever stuck in the loop of "no we can't b/c nothing is ever objective and exists in an independent vacuum"? (And honestly, being a fan of subjectivism I tend to say we're stuck in the loop :))

With that potential derailer thrown out there I'm out for a while. Looking forward to some responses.

I have no problem going off-topic at this point, but I won't have much to offer except my pessimism.

Football is the consummate team sport. The defense interacts with and influences the efficiency of the offense and special teams and vice versa. So, how do we isolate the efficiency of one unit from the others?

I think that an accurate ranking of the team units is a huge undertaking and only after we have those stats as a basis could we think about isolating individual stats which is far more difficult.

[Oldfan]

superozman: . If you lived on the moon for the past 10 years. And I gave you QB STATS of QB Rating, Touchdowns, Interceptions, Completion percentage, Yards, and games played…Who would you pick as your top 3 quarterbacks looking at stats alone. Now tell me the 3 QB’s you chose would differ greatly if you looked deeper into everything. YOU CAN COMPARE.

On the moon, I couldn't answer your question. You have given me worthless measurements. You might just as well have said that the volume of a room on earth is 80,000 cubic feet then asked: How high is the room?


“if Jim Zorn…useful QB stats”. Whole-heartedly agree. However, it would be ridiculous to do…unless…you would propose to the NFL this job and you’ll do it under a volunteer basis haha.

I offered that hypothetical to explain what would be needed to come up with useful QB stats.


I, IMHO, can definitely disagree with this – how can you UNDERrate the turnover stat?

Very easily. Turnovers are worth are four points, touchdowns are worth seven. In the TD/INT ratio, if you treat turnovers as equal in value to touchdowns, you have overrated them.


In a reply I know you stated as an average, but what the heck good is an average when the +- for a team to those percentages varies so greatly.

My purpose has been explained. Your question indicates you haven't grasped it. We are not concerned here with the question of how important Tom Brady is to the Patriots, we are concerned with how important are QBs to the team effort so what we want is an average.

[superozman]

On the moon, I couldn't answer your question. You have given me worthless measurements. You might just as well have said that the volume of a room on earth is 80,000 cubic feet then asked: How high is the room?

Completely missed my point haha. Lets rephrase. If I come back from the moon. And I am given just those stats for all the QB’s that played in that time and picked the top 3 QB’s, based on STATS alone. I would pick the same ones as a person with the most in depth analysis.






I offered that hypothetical to explain what would be needed to come up with useful QB stats.
Yea – those would be the best stats, I agree.




Very easily. Turnovers are worth are four points, touchdowns are worth seven. In the TD/INT ratio, if you treat turnovers as equal in value to touchdowns, you have overrated them.
No, because there are other VARIABLES besides points that your not including. If you want to look so in depth at stats, but then treat a value as set in stone, your disproving your original analysis. It’s not as simple as you say. What does your +4 take into consideration? Is +4 the average of all touchdowns/fg’s/no points that the turnovers have created. Does it include the fact of the TD’s/FG’s that COULD have been scored. Does it take into consideration the fact of turnover will change the pace of a game, mentally wear down a team? So your saying a 20/20 TD-Turnover ratio is +60? Terrible. So your saying 20 TD’s (140 points) doesn’t get Nullified until 35 turnovers are created? (140 points). Terrible.




My purpose has been explained. Your question indicates you haven't grasped it. We are not concerned here with the question of how important Tom Brady is to the Patriots, we are concerned with how important are QBs to the team effort so what we want is an average.

That’s why I posted, haha I haven’t grasped it at all. BECAUSE YOU CAN”T POSSIBLY PUT A NUMBER TO IT. If in a game you are playing the Patriots, your DEFENSE AND DEFENSIVE COACHING MUST stop the Patriots to win, so you would put a higher importance on that, and lower importance on the QB. If your playing the Lions, you can put a higher importance on the QB to win the game because your defense can slack against ORVLKERJFISKY. In emphasizing the QB you may throw 35 passes and put up 30 total points. However you can lower your importance on the QB, put a higher importance on the Defense, throw a total of 5 passes and win the game 10-0 because you dominated the defensive side of the ball.

[HBnotBlades]

This is a fantastic thread and I'm sorry that I've missed out on it for so long. There's some great discussion going on that usually has no place in your average extreme skins thread. Anyway...


superozman: . If you lived on the moon for the past 10 years. And I gave you QB STATS of QB Rating, Touchdowns, Interceptions, Completion percentage, Yards, and games played…Who would you pick as your top 3 quarterbacks looking at stats alone. Now tell me the 3 QB’s you chose would differ greatly if you looked deeper into everything. YOU CAN COMPARE.
On the moon, I couldn't answer your question. You have given me worthless measurements. You might just as well have said that the volume of a room on earth is 80,000 cubic feet then asked: How high is the room?

Oldfan, you're right in thinking that you can never compare QB's on an absolute, definitive scale, but you can't deny that the QB who has a higher rating, more TD's, completion %, etc. wouldn't have a higher probability of future success, even if placed with a different supporting cast. These are just measurements taken in the presence of noise, and in the case of the NFL, there is a very high noise level due to all the things that go into QB success. It's still possible to get meaningful data and the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings that were mentioned by Confucius are an excellent example of how to do this.


OK, on to one of the other topics...


So now we know that logically speaking, in terms of importance in the game of football, because they are diametrically opposed, defense must equal offense. The actual % value can vary and is up for debate - but they must be equal.


That being said - when the game is played and there is a winner and loser - curious as to what would be a good logical/statistical/mathematical (or car analogical :)) way to explain it? I realize I'm potentially going off topic here - but this is one of the better threads of this type I've seen in a while.

If we look at this problem on a game by game basis with both teams assumed equal at the start of the game, then yes, offense and defense (leaving out special teams now for simplicity) are equally weighted. The team with the most points wins, so if the offense scores more points than the defense allows, said team would obviously win. Team A's offense is by definition diametrically opposed to Team B's defense.

I also think you can look at this from a prediction perspective and compare the anticipated performance of offenses and defenses. Let's assign percentages to the performance of an offense or defense with the 0th percentile being that particular offense or defense's typical performance. Thus, the Lions defense 50% performance would be far worse than the Steelers defense 50% performance. I was inclined to use 0% as the mean (then using +/-), but everyone's talking about percentages adding to 100% so I'll stick with that theme. Although here, a 100% total would mean a perfect performance for both the offense and the defense and a bigger blowout than we've ever seen.

So if our offense performs at if average 50% level for a game against the lions, the defense may only have to perform at a 25% level for us to win. However if the offense performs at a 50% level against the steelers, we would likely need the defense to have an 80% exceptionally high level performance to win.

Really, I'm a big fan of the analysis using the DVOA statistics (which do break down by position). Using those, I'm sure its possible to break down the likelihood of winning a game when each position plays plays some percentage above or below its typical DVOA performance for a game. These would be different for every team as mentioned early on, because every team has a different score for each position. Really I think you could just normalized the DVOA scores to a scale of 100 and then you have your pie chart of importance by position for a given team.

However there's still the factor of coaching...

[Oldfan]

HBnotBlades: Oldfan, you're right in thinking that you can never compare QB's on an absolute, definitive scale, but you can't deny that the QB who has a higher rating, more TD's, completion %, etc. wouldn't have a higher probability of future success, even if placed with a different supporting cast. These are just measurements taken in the presence of noise, and in the case of the NFL, there is a very high noise level due to all the things that go into QB success.

I understand your point and it's valid. When using a particular stat, one question of course is how much is "noise" and how much is solid statistical evidence. And, if we could answer that, the next question would be -- how much noise level is acceptable before we reject the stat?

For the sake of argument, allow me to use my 10% estimate for the value of the importance of the QB position to winning football games. That would mean that the stats I listed in the OP were mostly noise. And, those are the stats commonly used in this forum.


It's still possible to get meaningful data and the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings that were mentioned by Confucius are an excellent example of how to do this.

I'm not arguing that better stats aren't possible. I used the DVOA to support part of my breakdown in the OP. I've been a regular visitor at the FO site for about four years. They have removed some of the noise from the team stats, but I'd feel guilty presenting the sites rankings as solid evidence on the value of QBs.

[Oldfan]

Completely missed my point haha. Lets rephrase. If I come back from the moon. And I am given just those stats for all the QB’s that played in that time and picked the top 3 QB’s, based on STATS alone. I would pick the same ones as a person with the most in depth analysis.

I doubt it, but you are making a claim that you can't prove, so it has no value as debate.


No, because there are other VARIABLES besides points that your not including. If you want to look so in depth at stats, but then treat a value as set in stone, your disproving your original analysis. It’s not as simple as you say. What does your +4 take into consideration?

Two studies were done, all the variables were taken into account. Both studies came very close to the same number (four) for the average turnover.

All turnovers don't result in TDs, so why would you question four points as an average? Four points in an NFL game is a heavy hit.


That’s why I posted, haha I haven’t grasped it at all. BECAUSE YOU CAN”T POSSIBLY PUT A NUMBER TO IT.

We disagree, but I see no point in hammering on it.

[Skin'Em84]

Can you explain how you determined that Super Bowl winners control the pace of the game. What statistic would verify that?

I know the onus of proof is on me, but while I gather stats, can you prove that they don't?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

i cant believe some of you think this is some sort of deep discussion. these numbers are all made up out of complete thin air and pretty much make it impossible to compare different players because of a set of arbitrary numbers. it looks "smart" at first glance, but broken down its complete hocus pocus. i mean, assigning percentages to certain facets of the game is such nonsense i dont even know where to begin.

again, by this rationale, its impossible to compare trung candidate and barry sanders. unless you wanna use make believe mathematics to arrive at some sort of fake conclusion.

i know the board is full of beating the jason campbell horse to a bloody pulp right now, but im shocked this passes as good discussion at the moment.

[Skin'Em84]

i cant believe some of you think this is some sort of deep discussion. these numbers are all made up out of complete thin air and pretty much make it impossible to compare different players because of a set of arbitrary numbers. it looks "smart" at first glance, but broken down its complete hocus pocus. i mean, assigning percentages to certain facets of the game is such nonsense i dont even know where to begin.

again, by this rationale, its impossible to compare trung candidate and barry sanders. unless you wanna use make believe mathematics to arrive at some sort of fake conclusion.

i know the board is full of beating the jason campbell horse to a bloody pulp right now, but im shocked this passes as good discussion at the moment.

The rationale is you can't compare Barry Sanders to Jim Brown. When stats are obviously that much better (Sanders vs. Candidate), there is no logical argument against it.

[Oldfan]

Here are a couple of interesting stats that give us an idea of how much the QB rating can be affected by factors other than the QB's own ability.

In 2006, Tom Brady had the worst set of receivers in the NFL on his side. In 2007, he had the best. How did it affect his QB rating?

2007 ... 117.2
2006 ... 87.9

That's a 33% increase in his rating.

------------------

In 2005 Jeff Garcia played for the Lions. In 2006, he moved to the Eagles, a better team.

2006 ... 95.8
2005 ... 65.1

That's a 47% increase in his rating.

[Oldfan]

I know the onus of proof is on me, but while I gather stats, can you prove that they don't?

Nope. I have no idea how that could be done.

[Skin'Em84]

If you go on Football Outsiders, there's drive stats. If you look at the net drive category, you can safely assume that the amount of average net yards can be used to get a rough estimate of the time of possession (I can't find a TOP stat on whole seasons, lack the patience to add it up, since TOP is usually the stat used to determine who was setting the pace.)

From 2008 Super Bowl Winners and back - Year, Team, avg net yards a drive, ranking in league
2008 Steelers 20.6yds #1
2007 NY Giants 4.5yds #7
2006 Indianapolis 7.27yds #2
2005 Steelers 5.07yds #4
2004 Patriots 5.95yds #4
2003 Patriots 1.94yds #14
2002 Buccaneers 6.39yds #2
2001 Patriots -.86yds #8
2000 Ravens 4.03yds #1
1999 Rams 11.03yds #1
1998 Broncos 6.33yds #5

It's also useful to note, 2007 NE lead the way with 15.2, and in 2001 the Rams lead with 14.14.

This doesn't account for teams getting hot at the end of the year (see 2007 Giants). Time of possession for the whole season would also help.

[Oldfan]

The rationale is you can't compare Barry Sanders to Jim Brown. When stats are obviously that much better (Sanders vs. Candidate), there is no logical argument against it.

The YPC isn't that much better: Barry Sanders 5.0, Trung Candidate 4.6

Which of these backs is better?

Clinton Portis, 2003 with Denver 5.5 YPC or

Clinton Portis, 2004, with Skins, 3.8 YPC

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The rationale is you can't compare Barry Sanders to Jim Brown. When stats are obviously that much better (Sanders vs. Candidate), there is no logical argument against it.


so who decides what is "logical" and what isnt? pretty silly to throw around that word. technically by the rules posted by oldfan, i could argue that had trung candidate had all of the same A-H as barry sanders, he could potentially have been as good, so we'll never truly know, therefore they cannot be compared.

it leaves out the overall opinion based on stats, that one was good and the other sucked. barry sanders was awesome because he was barry sanders, not because his oline/coaching staff/scheme/etc. trung candidate sucked because he sucked, not because his oline/coaching staff/scheme/etc. this whole equation takes away the idea that some guys are just good at their positions, and some guys arent.

whos to say that had trung candidate been on the lions for all those years in place of barry sanders that he wouldnt have succeeded? i personally think he would have failed, because his stats sucked and he sucked. but using the A-H variables, one could argue that he could have been a hall of famer.

which is complete nonsense.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The YPC isn't that much better: Barry Sanders 5.0, Trung Candidate 4.6

Which of these backs is better?

Clinton Portis, 2003 with Denver 5.5 YPC or

Clinton Portis, 2004, with Skins, 3.8 YPC


its easier when you look at the same player because you know what theyre capable of in different systems. this is a logical argument because you can throw other variables around as long as one is constant.

for example, if campbell went to the packers and threw 30 TDs for a few years, one could say that potentially it was our receivers here, or our system, and they would definitely have a legit argument.

looking at portis' career in dc, its easy to see hes always been the same awesome runningback, he had a scheme in denver that allowed him a higher YPC, which is the usual typical bronocs MO, or at least it has been.

[mwj473]

The YPC isn't that much better: Barry Sanders 5.0, Trung Candidate 4.6

Which of these backs is better?

Clinton Portis, 2003 with Denver 5.5 YPC or

Clinton Portis, 2004, with Skins, 3.8 YPC

Try it the other way around. Same team, different player

2007

Jason Campbell 77.6 rating 5-7 record (Does not include game he got hurt and Collins came in and won it)

Todd Collins 106.4 rating 4-1 record (Includes Chicago game when Campbell got hurt & includes playoff game)

Does the comparison of those 2 QB = 10% when they all had the same A-H?

[Oldfan]

looking at portis' career in dc, its easy to see hes always been the same awesome runningback, he had a scheme in denver that allowed him a higher YPC, which is the usual typical bronocs MO, or at least it has been.

The point that you're either missing or don't want to admit is that you can't tell a damn thing about Trung Candidate, Barry Sanders or Clinton Portis from looking at those YPC stats.

If I had given you the stats, without identifying the backs, you would have been clueless as to their abilities. If I had given you Portis's stats in Denver and those here and shown them as RB One and RB Two, you would have identified one as a potential HOF guy and the other as a medocre putz.

[Skin'Em84]

The YPC isn't that much better: Barry Sanders 5.0, Trung Candidate 4.6

Which of these backs is better?

Clinton Portis, 2003 with Denver 5.5 YPC or

Clinton Portis, 2004, with Skins, 3.8 YPC

I know your making a point, but its flawed. It's useless to compare just one stat of a player to another. If you use that argument, I can just reply with the
Sanders - 1300yds in 1990
Candidate- 1095 yds from 2000-2003.



so who decides what is "logical" and what isnt?

Logic decides what's logical and what isn't. To push everything to the farthest extremities of reason and say "its not true because it's false in this instance" is absurd. There are always exceptions to rules.

[onnie007]

The OP is correct. These stats are not truly known outside of the team. Even reporters and analysts are giving educated guess as to what they saw on the field or film room based on general football principals and facts. They don't know the playcalls and thus don't know each player's specific assignment. The coaches know and go over these plays with the players in team and position-specific meetings and give them grades. So unless the a team decides to give the public this private info to accompany the statistics, the stats aren't used accurate by the average fan and even tv analysts.

[Oldfan]

Try it the other way around. Same team, different player

2007

Jason Campbell 77.6 rating 5-7 record (Does not include game he got hurt and Collins came in and won it)

Todd Collins 106.4 rating 4-1 record (Includes Chicago game when Campbell got hurt & includes playoff game)

Does the comparison of those 2 QB = 10% when they all had the same A-H?


As stated in the OP, when comparing two QBs on the same team, the B-H factors are the same , or at least close enough, to make a valid comparison. But, you are confused on the 10% number which is the average importance of the QB position regardless of who plays it. It isn't a grade of the QB's abilities.

[Oldfan]

I know your making a point, but its flawed. It's useless to compare just one stat of a player to another. If you use that argument, I can just reply with the
Sanders - 1300yds in 1990
Candidate- 1095 yds from 2000-2003..

So, you proved that Barry Sanders was better because he carried the ball more often?:D

I don't know Sanders career yardage stats, but if we used that to measure ability, I'd bet that there are several lesser running backs with higher totals because a) Barry played for a lousy team and b) he retired when he still had some good years ahead.

[mwj473]

As stated in the OP, when comparing two QBs on the same team, the B-H factors are the same , or at least close enough, to make a valid comparison. But, you are confused on the 10% number which is the average importance of the QB position regardless of who plays it. It isn't a grade of the QB's abilities.

I understand the 10%, but can you honestly say based on the stats that I gave you that the importance of that 1 position on the field was only 10% of the entire team?

There is a very large different in those numbers. You originally stated that you don't like to compare wins-losses to QB play, but how else can you explain the large descrepancy in the W-L % when all variables are the same except the QB position?

[Oldfan]

If you go on Football Outsiders, there's drive stats. If you look at the net drive category, you can safely assume that the amount of average net yards can be used to get a rough estimate of the time of possession (I can't find a TOP stat on whole seasons, lack the patience to add it up, since TOP is usually the stat used to determine who was setting the pace.)

From 2008 Super Bowl Winners and back - Year, Team, avg net yards a drive, ranking in league
2008 Steelers 20.6yds #1
2007 NY Giants 4.5yds #7
2006 Indianapolis 7.27yds #2
2005 Steelers 5.07yds #4
2004 Patriots 5.95yds #4
2003 Patriots 1.94yds #14
2002 Buccaneers 6.39yds #2
2001 Patriots -.86yds #8
2000 Ravens 4.03yds #1
1999 Rams 11.03yds #1
1998 Broncos 6.33yds #5

It's also useful to note, 2007 NE lead the way with 15.2, and in 2001 the Rams lead with 14.14.

This doesn't account for teams getting hot at the end of the year (see 2007 Giants). Time of possession for the whole season would also help.

I really don't have a good grip on your theory, but I'll play the Devil's Advocate for you with some criticism of what you have offered here.

1) I have never heard anyone offer a logical explanation for why the Super Bowl should have its own special characteristics. It's an NFL football game. So, if you have a good theory, you need to explain why your theory doesn't apply to regular season games because, otherwise, you leave us dealing with a small sample size, just 11 games in this case, for no reason. If your theory does apply to regular season games, then we should be working with a much larger sample.

2) It seems that you want to use the TOP stat to do double-duty. It not only will determine which team controlled the clock, it will be assumed that it also controlled the pace. This is pretty weak as evidence.

3) You also want to assume that the average net yards = TOP control. This is weak because quick-strike offenses score pretty fast and don't do very well with ball control.

With an 11 game sample size, you will need very strong proof which you don't yet have.

[bigyim]

Really OldFan you don't want to respond to the guy who you said was wrong?

I'm doing some more research on this topic and to further drive home my point check this out:

2003 - 1 Team made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2004 - 4 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2005 - 3 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2006 - 1 Team made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2007 - 0 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list
2008 - 2 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list

Total 10 Teams out of possible 72 teams made the playoffs over the last 6 years with bad defenses. By comparrison 2 teams out of possible 72 teams made the playoffs with bad offenses. Guess we know they aren't equal now huh? I'll stop piling on now I promise.

2 points, to challenge your assertion:

1. whereas a bad offense can be aided by a great defense, through turnovers, field position and time of possession, great offenses only aid terrible defenses with the latter 2...and, oftentimes with an explosive offense, they're not terribly helpful in the TOP department, either.

2. We're talking about importance of QB to the team as a whole, not the offense as a whole. therefore, you need to limit your culling of stats to passing offenses, in order to prove your original point.

[Oldfan]

I understand the 10%, but can you honestly say based on the stats that I gave you that the importance of that 1 position on the field was only 10% of the entire team?

There is a very large different in those numbers. You originally stated that you don't like to compare wins-losses to QB play, but how else can you explain the large descrepancy in the W-L % when all variables are the same except the QB position?

First, the 10% was an estimated average. I'm not going to try to defend that number in one specific instance.

However, I will point out that you didn't have just the QB's ability involved, you also had specific knowledge of Al's coaching scheme in play. One QB could run it, one couldn't; so there were two factors interacting.

If you think the QB position is more important, rework my numbers using the same format that I used in the OP. I don't think you can give the QB too much more weight and keep all the other factors in a reasonable range -- but give it a try.

[Oldfan]

The OP is correct. These stats are not truly known outside of the team. Even reporters and analysts are giving educated guess as to what they saw on the field or film room based on general football principals and facts. They don't know the playcalls and thus don't know each player's specific assignment. The coaches know and go over these plays with the players in team and position-specific meetings and give them grades. So unless the a team decides to give the public this private info to accompany the statistics, the stats aren't used accurate by the average fan and even tv analysts.

That all makes sense. Thanks for the input.

[superozman]

I doubt it, but you are making a claim that you can't prove, so it has no value as debate.

Your making a claim you can't prove in your percentages. Thank you


Two studies were done, all the variables were taken into account. Both studies came very close to the same number (four) for the average turnover.

All variables weren't, sir. They can't take in account the mental aspect of a turnover. Trust me, no one on this board would say a 20 TD/ 20 Turnover QB is good.


All turnovers don't result in TDs, so why would you question four points as an average? Four points in an NFL game is a heavy hit.

I know they don't all result in TD's, i said that. And you can't live and die by the number 4, because THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVERY GAME. It's a good average, but once again it doesn't take in the factors of the MENTAL aspect of the game. and in a game, (ESPECIALLY THE REDSKINS ;) 4 points is a lot haha)



We disagree, but I see no point in hammering on it.


Good enough sir!

[Oldfan]

Your making a claim you can't prove in your percentages.

No. I've made estimates of known factors. An estimate isn't a claim that needs to be proved. You can challenge it with your own, if you'd like. Go ahead.


All variables weren't, sir. They can't take in account the mental aspect of a turnover. Trust me, no one on this board would say a 20 TD/ 20 Turnover QB is good.

I'm challenging the majority of this board on their misuse of stats, so I should trust you that they'd disagree on one? No, I don't think so.

The turnover studies proved the expected. Turnovers have a value that varies depending upon where they occur on the field. At the plus one or minus one yardlines, they are worth about six points. The value decreases gradually to about three points at midfield.

The computation can and did account for all factors. The teams scored X points if they were plus one in turnovers, they scored y points if there was no turnover advantage. The average of x - y = 4

EDIT: Here ya go, my friend. I found a link to support the four-point turnover value.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/how-many-points-turnover-worth