The Official-Unofficial Statistics Argument-Discussion Thread

[RoethlisBURGHer]

Since the argument on how much stats mean when evaluating a player has spilled over into at least one thread that I know of, I have taken the liberty to make this thread. So please, keep your argument-discussion of this topic in THIS thread so it's not polluting other threads such as the post-game gameball thread.

Statistics don't tell the entire story. They don't tell heart, guts, will to win. They don't tell weather, the play of the players around you.

An example is the interception. A ball that bounces off of a receivers hands and gets caught by a defensive player goes down on the stat sheet as an interception thrown by the QB. Did the QB make a bad throw on that play? No, most of the time the WR failed to catch the ball on a good pass and the defensive player was lucky enough that the ball bounced to him.

And as for the KC Joyner guy, he's being spoken of like he's some type of demi-God. You ask us what are our credentials to judge a DB...I want to know what exactly his credentials are. Did he play football? Did he take classes in college to do this? Did he coach? Does he take into account Taylor's job on that specific defensive play call? Does he even know what Taylor's specific job was?

Ike Taylor plays CB in a very difficult scheme for one of the most genius defensive minds in football, all time. If it takes players who constantly work within this scheme and with Dick LeBeau and the other coaches years to get it down....then I don't think KC Joyner has the credentials to judge anyone.

You said that he judges by "in that players area"....but what exactly does he call the players area? Not every play call is zone, and what Joyner calls a player's "area" may not have been said player's zone in the play called.

I am sick of everyone being called a "football expert". There are stat geeks like Joyner, analysts like the guys on Fox NFL Sunday/NFL Live/etc. But these guys are not experts, IMHO.

If you want an expert, give me the guys CURRENTLY on the sidelines coaching the players. The coordinators coming up with plays to combat different offenses/defenses. Those are the experts, not talking heads on television or stat geeks.

I judge a players worth by his impact on the team, his stats to a point, his will to win, his heart, his overall play. All that must be taken into account IMHO, that's the only way you can really judge a player's worth and if he's truly any good.

[ShutDown24]

Originally Posted by RoethlisBURGHer

I am sick of everyone being called a "football expert". There are stat geeks like Joyner, analysts like the guys on Fox NFL Sunday/NFL Live/etc. But these guys are not experts, IMHO.

If you want an expert, give me the guys CURRENTLY on the sidelines coaching the players. The coordinators coming up with plays to combat different offenses/defenses. Those are the experts, not talking heads on television or stat geeks.

I judge a players worth by his impact on the team, his stats to a point, his will to win, his heart, his overall play. All that must be taken into account IMHO, that's the only way you can really judge a player's worth and if he's truly any good.

That's why former coaches make the best analysts and TV guys in my opinion. Don't laugh when I say Brian Billick, but he's the best Fox has this year. There are exceptions to that - John Clayton of ESPN really does know what he is talking about, as well as a few other non-football related writers/"experts". But, indeed - you or I is about as qualified as most analysts on TV to comment on the NFL.

As far as the statistics go... You are right about them not meaning anything. But at the same time, they are the best measurable we have of players. The problem I personnally think we have regarding stats is that we tend to look at the wrong ones.

For example, when judging a DB most people look at interceptions and passes defended. WRONG. What you need to be looking at is type of coverage played as well as the number of times opposition went in that players direction. Anyone can have a ball fall into their chest and get a pick, or have one bounce of their head and get a "pass defensed" stat for it. When a team doesn't throw the way of a corner or safety though, they aren't going to get those stats. Does that mean he's a bad player? No - if he is only looking at a couple balls a game (In man coverage or sometimes even otherwise) it means he's a very good one.

Let's go to tailback. What do most people look at? In my opinion YPA or average yards per carry. Again, that isn't judging accurately the strength of that player. Look at Steelreserve's arguement in the "Parker Bashing" thread from yesterday. What you want is consistancey with big play ability. SO you want a guy to go 3 - 5 yards everytime he touches the ball with the occasional huge run. What you don't want is a back that has zero yards on most of his attempts then gets most iof his yards on one long run. It is commonly misconcieved that Willie P is this kind of back, but that's not the point.

I could go on and on about stats and the wrong one's being used. But the point should be well recieved by now. Stats can be a great help when evaluating a player, you just have to use them right and take into consideration other factors.

[The Duke]

Can't wait for hizmi's reply

Ike Taylor plays CB in a very difficult scheme for one of the most genius defensive minds in football, all time. If it takes players who constantly work within this scheme and with Dick LeBeau and the other coaches years to get it down...

and just imagine if ike went to another team. he'd probably dominate most of the defensive schemes in he league. that tells you the kind of player we have

[stlrtruck]

You're both dead on. Stats are great, more so for fantasy football than anything else. But they do not measure the true value of the player.

I also think that stats are better suited for offense than they are for defense. While things like sacks and ints are great stats, the concept of the defense is to destroy the opposing offense by any means necessary. When you have a shut down corner you know the QB isn't going to throw his way often. Most likely the QB is going to try to find the LB coverage rather than the CB coverage.

The other problem with stats is they don't tell the true story of the game. For example, take the Houston game back in 2003 (I believe) when we destroyed them in every offensive statistical category, except the one that matters - the scoreboard!!!!

While I enjoy stats and they're fun to throw around and let other team's fans know that they're players suck, when it comes down to it, I'd rather have one player not have his A game (ala Ben in the Super Bowl) and win, then have a statisitical freak-a-zoid break records and not win!!!

[hizmi]

Originally Posted by The Duke

Can't wait for hizmi's reply

Don't you worry, it's coming

[steelreserve]

My favorite misleading statistic is how the Dolphins were among the best in passing defense last year, and the Raiders the year before. Is that because they had a shut-down defense? Or because they were always getting their asses kicked so badly that the other team just ran the ball on them all day?

[hizmi]

Article in the washington post from an FO writer:

Why Scouts Need Stats

"We don't worry about numbers here. Statistics are for losers." -- Redskins defensive coordinator Greg Blache. (D.C. Sports Bog)

"You've got some real good stats there. You know he's 3-0 as a starter; how about that?" -- Buccaneers head coach Jon Gruden, when asked about quarterback Brian Griese's low ranking in several statistical categories. (ESPN.com)

One of the most interesting storylines in "Moneyball", the Michael Lewis book that facilitated a statistical revolution in sports, was the ongoing war between the scouts and the stats guys -- the old school and the new school. That fight has calmed down in the baseball world with the success of Theo Epstein's Red Sox in recent years. Most MLB teams have a stat guy on staff, and some even listen to him. Football's a different story. While some teams have welcomed statistical analysis into their front offices, the opinions represented by Blache and Gruden are just as common. For those coaches, and with all due respect for their accomplishments, I'd like to offer the following three reasons why the new generation of football stats can be more helpful than they might expect.

1. Opponent adjustments are included.

This may be the most important part of the equation. Last Sunday, Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner threw 41 passes and competed 33 for 250 yards, two touchdowns and no interceptions. Chicago quarterback Kyle Orton completed 23 passes in 34 attempts for 304 yards, two touchdowns and no interceptions. Warner had the higher completion percentage (80.5 to 67.6), Orton the higher yards per attempt (8.94 to 6.10). Both quarterbacks' teams won their games convincingly -- the Cardinals 41-17 over the Bills, the Bears 34-7 over the Lions.

Who had the "better" day?

According to Football Outsiders' DYAR stat (Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement), Warner had the better day by far. Warner's total DYAR was 186 to Orton's 109. Why? Because the Bills have the better pass defense. Through four weeks, Buffalo's pass defense ranks sixth in DVOA, while Detroit's ranks dead last. Think of opponent-adjusted stats as the answer to a question, or the response to a statement.

Statement: "Kyle Orton had a wonderful game..."
Response: "...against the NFL's worst pass defense."

Teams pore over film to get a sense of which performances are real and which are mirages, but stats that take opponent strength into account make it easier for everyone to understand which is which.

2. Players are rewarded and penalized based on success and productivity.

To use another example, let's say that Clinton Portis and Brian Westbrook each ran 10 times for 50 yards and one touchdown in last Sunday's Redskins-Eagles game. They both had the same day, right? Well, that depends -- Portis could have had 10 different five-yard runs, seven of which gained first downs, while Westbrook could have had one 40-yard run and nine spinouts at the line of scrimmage, seven of which caused the Eagles to punt. If Portis extends drives and Westbrook kills them, DVOA and DYAR are going to account for that.

Again, teams with huge film libraries and expert coaches are generally going to know which players work best for them, but having the numbers based on drive success (the key to consistent scoring) available certainly can't hurt.

3. There are now specific numbers for positional units.

What numbers have there been for offensive lines? You can get a sense of how good a line is if the back running behind them is great ... unless that back is Barry Sanders, who probably depended less on his line than any back in history. Shaun Alexander was Sanders' opposite -- when his line wasn't working, neither was Shaun. There are infinite degrees of success in-between. How do we tell? Football Outsiders has Adjusted Line Yards, which separate the performances of backs and their lines. It's impossible to split positions in a team game like football, but taking play-by-play and game charting data allows us to get a better sense of which lines are performing up to (and beyond) expectations. In several recent Smarter Stats columns, we've talked about the numbers for positional groups that put a brighter light on team and individual performances.

There's no way to replace the scouting eye, and the statheads aren't trying to do so. There is no "Mega-number" that instantly defines performance -- you still have to train your eye and watch every down. But the more numbers we have to integrate with these performances, the better able we are to understand on-field value. That's true whether your job has you on the field, or torturing a spreadsheet.

http://views.washingtonpost.com/thel...eed-stats.html