The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[skinnyskins]

[/COLOR]They are not arbitrary. They are reasonable estimates.

You may question their reasonableness, of course; but no one else has, which I find significant.

That does not answer the question of how those specific numbers were derived.

And just because nobody else has questioned it, it does not make the numbers absolute. You of all people can appreciate that

This is important because it reduces the impact of the QB dramatically, according to your model.

[Oldfan]

That does not answer the question of how those specific numbers were derived.

And just because nobody else has questioned it, it does not make the numbers absolute. You of all people can appreciate that

This is important because it reduces the impact of the QB dramatically, according to your model.

I gave you satisfactory answers to your questions. I have nothing more to say on your point.

[skinnyskins]

I gave you satisfactory answers to your questions. I have nothing more to say on your point.

"Reasonable estimates" is the same as educated guess. Which is not really all that scientific. In earlier posts you have stated that it is impossible to determine the impact the coaches have on the performance of a team, yet here you have given coaches an exact number at 20%. You then go on to say that the offensive line and receivers contribute 50%. Asking why you chose those numbers is important.

You don't have to respond to this, but just because you create models with numbers does not make them anymore justified than simply saying, "I think the QB only contributes X amount to any given offense" If you can provide a scientific model that answers how you came up with those variables then fine, I will accept that. But, as the model stands now, adding 'estimates' to a model and coming up with 9.3% does not cut it for me, nor should it be accepted by others until all variables in the model can be accounted for.

[Oldfan]

...In earlier posts you have stated that it is impossible to determine the impact the coaches have on the performance of a team, yet here you have given coaches an exact number at 20%...

You're confused. I have in previous posts said, for example, that it's hard to determine how much a coach like Haslett is responsible for the defense's problem. That's a completely different concept than making a reasonable estimate of the weight of the coaching factor as part of the effort I offered in the OP.

Reasonable minds judge reasonable estimates. The fact that no one, including you, has said that my estimates are too high or too low is significant. That should tell impartial readers that those estimates are not way out of line.

I didn't present this as "scientific." I don't even know what you mean by that word in this context.

[skinnyskins]

You're confused. I have in previous posts said, for example, that it's hard to determine how much a coach like Haslett is responsible for the defense's problem. That's a completely different concept than making a reasonable estimate of the weight of the coaching factor as part of the effort I offered in the OP.

Reasonable minds judge reasonable estimates. The fact that no one, including you, has said that my estimates are too high or too low is significant. That should tell impartial readers that those estimates are not way out of line.

I didn't present this as "scientific." I don't even know what you mean by that word in this context.

It's impossible to give an accurate percent for the impact of the head coach vs. the QB, vs the rest for passing offense so I can't give an estimate. However, your estimate is influenced by your own bias against the importance of QBs so I would bet that your numbers are too high. If you can provide clarification for how you arrived at exactly 20% and 50% it would really help determine if this is a 'reasonable' estimate or not.

[zoony]

I'm 90% sure that this is arbitrary guesswork passed off as reasoned analysis. But only 10% of the time, on Wednesdays

[Oldfan]

It's impossible to give an accurate percent for the impact of the head coach vs. the QB, vs the rest for passing offense so I can't give an estimate. However, your estimate is influenced by your own bias against the importance of QBs so I would bet that your numbers are too high. If you can provide clarification for how you arrived at exactly 20% and 50% it would really help determine if this is a 'reasonable' estimate or not.

You are just throwing crap against the wall hoping some of it sticks.

You're an adult, pretending he doesn't know what a reasonable estimate is or how one goes about creating one simply to find something to argue about.

---------- Post added November-30th-2012 at 12:26 AM ----------

I'm 90% sure that this is arbitrary guesswork passed off as reasoned analysis. But only 10% of the time, on Wednesdays

If you were capable of finding flaws in my work, you wouldn't need to ridicule it.

[nonniey]

So an average of 66 palys a game involve passing? (Don't forget the Defense defending agaisnt the pass). I somehwat see your point but you go in the opposite direction and undervalue the QB.

[Oldfan]

So an average of 66 palys a game involve passing? (Don't forget the Defense defending agaisnt the pass). I somehwat see your point but you go in the opposite direction and undervalue the QB.

I have the opponent's 33 passes included in the 140+ total plays.

Do you have a reason to support your opinion that I'm too low or is that a feeling?

[KDawg]

However, your estimate is influenced by your own bias against the importance of QBs so I would bet that your numbers are too high.

He has the quarterback graded out as the most important position on the field. Roughly 10% of a team's total make up. Furthermore, he's also given room to expand that number due to the fact that a quarterback who is in a system that depends on their throwing and/or running more could have a higher percentage value. I don't believe that's undervaluing the position in the least. There are 22 starters on offense and defense, 1 punter, 1 kicker, 1 long snapper. So there are roughly 25 "standard" positions on a NFL roster. (Note: I'm not counting special teams, as most of those players aside from the three major specialists are backups on offense and defense).

Of those 25 "standard" positions, he has given the quarterback a weight of ROUGHLY 10% (or more). That means that for 24 positions there is 90% left to contribute. And that's if you leave coaching and scheme out of the equation. Leaving coaching and scheme out (even though we all know they matter) means that every other individual position would be worth roughly 3.75% on a standard team.

The quarterback far out values any other position. By almost 7%. And again, that's not taking coaching and scheme into consideration.

I'd say it's a reasonable assessment. I'm not going to say anything about how he arrived at what numbers. I don't know that I agree with all of it, but I also know that I don't know how I could possibly disprove his thoughts and I believe his numbers to be at least reasonable.

I'm 90% sure that this is arbitrary guesswork passed off as reasoned analysis. But only 10% of the time, on Wednesdays

Not sure how this helped further discussion in the least...

I mean, I guess I see what you're getting at. You believe his numbers are arbitrary. But, then, what would you suggest he do to make those numbers not arbitrary? Any solutions on how to find the exact number? Or any reason why his educated guess work should be thrown out?

[darrelgreenie]

Overall I agree with you (OF) but I think there should be a range of QB impact. And I have no idea of how to account for this but... won't the total number of plays on defense be effected by the efficiency and design of the offense? Which would give certain QBs/offense greater % impact then others. (and the combined difference on offense/defense have an effect on the special teams and vice versa) The quality of QB play will have an impact on the defense by making their total number of plays higher or lower on consistent basis.

[KDawg]

Overall I agree with you (OF) but I think there should be a range of QB impact. And I have no idea of how to account for this but... won't the total number of plays on defense be effected by the efficiency and design of the offense? Which would give certain QBs/offense greater % impact then others. (and the combined difference on offense/defense have an effect on the special teams and vice versa) The quality of QB play will have an impact on the defense by making their total number of plays higher or lower on consistent basis.

I think it could be reversed, too, though DG. The total number of plays on offense could be effected by the efficiency and design of the defense. It's truly a symbiotic relationship. It gives credence to other theories such as the "red light, yellow light, green light" defensive theory.

[darrelgreenie]

I think it could be reversed, too, though DG. The total number of plays on offense could be effected by the efficiency and design of the defense. It's truly a symbiotic relationship.

I agree, and I have no idea how that can be accounted. But, if all things were equal on defense some QBs make lives easier for their defense then others.

[Oldfan]

...I mean, I guess I see what you're getting at. You believe his numbers are arbitrary. But, then, what would you suggest he do to make those numbers not arbitrary? Any solutions on how to find the exact number? Or any reason why his educated guess work should be thrown out?

Here's a definition of the word arbitrary:

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

My numbers aren't arbitrary.

My work wouldn't pass muster if I offered the result as a reliable stat. My goal was to counter the absurd estimates of value for QBs offered by the media and sopped up as expert opinion by typical fans. My creation is a dull knife; but it's plenty sharp enough to slice through baloney.

---------- Post added November-30th-2012 at 09:35 AM ----------

Overall I agree with you (OF) but I think there should be a range of QB impact. And I have no idea of how to account for this but... won't the total number of plays on defense be effected by the efficiency and design of the offense? Which would give certain QBs/offense greater % impact then others. (and the combined difference on offense/defense have an effect on the special teams and vice versa) The quality of QB play will have an impact on the defense by making their total number of plays higher or lower on consistent basis.

Try to keep in mind that the value of the position and the quality of the QB are two distinct numbers. We are only concerned with the value of the position in this thread.

Also, bear in mind, that the 10% is an average of 32 teams. So, yes, if you were to try to expand my work beyond its original objective, and apply it to individual teams, then those factors you mention would come into play. I really don't think I've given you a sharp enough tool to use for that purpose.

[skinnyskins]

You are just throwing crap against the wall hoping some of it sticks.

You're an adult, pretending he doesn't know what a reasonable estimate is or how one goes about creating one simply to find something to argue about.

Questioning how you created variables in your model is not crap. But, this is your model so if you're happy with it then fine. It's just not how I would go about creating a QB value model.