Advanced Stats VS. Eye Ball Test

[Zounds]

Not at all. On a QB, I'm looking at all throws behind the line, 0-9 yds, 10-19 yds, over 20 yds. and left, right, and middle on all, along with who caught what and where. I'm looking at a QB being blitzed, and under pressure, performance in play action, and how he did depending on the time he had to throw, etc. Not TD passes.

Like I said, those are measurements, not statistical models to which the OP is referring to. Each one of the categories you mentioned would be an independent variable within a statistical model.

 

[Rev Kev]

Zounds - Yes you have it - but this is Brian Burke take and it likely applies to other team sports

 

[Sarnics13]

Then why is it that the players with the best stats, and ranked at the top with eyeball tests, are almost always the best players at their positions. I can go up and down the list, and there are few exceptions.

I also pay attention to stats, and I in no way think they are useless. I just have yet to see the equation that can truly determine the greatest likelihood of success of a particular player without including the supporting cast and other variables. I agree that they tell a story, I just don't think numbers on the page tell the WHOLE story. How many players have we seen perform admirably with a team, only to get traded and turn in to a beast.....and vice versa? Did they drink some magic potion or did all the other variables needed just fit in with the new team.....

Our Oline sucked big time last year, and several peoples stats suffered drastically because of it. You may think so, but I for one do not believe Lamar Miller (for one example) is nearly as inadequate as his numbers state. He was severely set back due to the poor play of others.

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

Stats enhance arguments. But relying simply on stats that "PFF says..." annoys me. Lots of things stats don't measure.

 

[flynryan15]

I thought stat threads were gone when gravity/shouright got kicked to the curb?

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

Interesting topic. Many fans believe they know best because they watch games, and go with what their eyeballs tell them. This is for most, not all, watching a game with food, drink, friends, and emotion. Yet, their eyeballs tell them everything.

When Philbin is asked about how certain players have played in post game, he always says he has to watch the tape but, fans know better and have no need to do this.

Let's take PFF for an example. Many believe they know nothing and are a waste at what they do. However, they take 10 hours to "eyeball" our team to grade each player on each play. No matter, fans watched the game, and, in some warped sense of reality, believe they know better. Amazing.

Ehh that opens another whole can of worms. I talked to several football coaches about that and watching a player without knowing what the scheme or assignment is can be misleading.

For example: Receiver A runs a crappy route, DB slips and quarterback extends the play out of the pocket, receiver catches the ball 40 yards down the field with no DB in sight. That would go down as a solid play for the team, but for the player not so good, even though the end result worked out. That's probably more of what Philbin means.

 

[where's th'fish]

Yes I see I believe (no pun) but Burke is also saying he can't find the metric or he would buy it - to gain the competitive advantage

in PFF talk they watch a player and grade from there (is Burke not saying) the advanced stat is to be created before the eyeball test does it not? do i make sense?

Yes, they watch before they grade, but it's still a more objective measurement than just watching. For example, if you watch alone, then what? What if you watch and understand correctly but without meaning to give a greater weigth to either the good or the bad? Maybe because of a preconception, you do/don't like the personality of the player, you do/don't like the team, maybe something else. I bet the very people who grade at PFF are sometimes surprised by the end results when they see a certain player higher than another.

In any case, the FO stats are less reliant on judgement than PFF's and that's more what I was thinking of when I wrote my post.

 

[CalDolFan10x14]

Where's Wildbill's sig when you need it?

 

[Rev Kev]

Yes, they watch before they grade, but it's still a more objective measurement than just watching. For example, if you watch alone, then what? What if you watch and understand correctly but without meaning to give a greater weigth to either the good or the bad? Maybe because of a preconception, you do/don't like the personality of the player, you do/don't like the team, maybe something else. I bet the very people who grade at PFF are sometimes surprised by the end results when they see a certain player higher than another.

In any case, the FO stats are less reliant on judgement than PFF's and that's more what I was thinking of when I wrote my post.

Just an example -> take a stunt where the RB is supposed to pick up the blitz what's the measurement tool? A lot of subjective stuff can happen on one way play, weather plays a part, people fall down, people mishandle the snap, broken play stuff almost every other down -> there is no metric

Baseball is a lot easier -> the pitcher throws his stuff to the catcher


That's what Burke is saying if there were a measurement tool in hockey he would buy it to keep it away from GMs -> Burke is saying there is no metric with 2 bits

 

[where's th'fish]

I'd agree as far as that, but I'll give you an example where metrics are useful, yet ignored: going for it on 4th down. Metrics strongly suggest coaches should go for it way more often than they do at present. In this case interpretation and context haver very little to do with it. In fact, I bet most people's gut would agree with this. And yet... there we are. NFL head coaches are extremely conservative in that regard.

 

[Rev Kev]

Yes that is a team metric though

 

[where's th'fish]

True, but people who reject advanced stats don't make that distinction. They reject them all. Arguably, they believe in their own gut when deciding on strategy just as they believe in their own eye when evaluating players. So I think when replying to Burke we should first establish the basic usefulness of metrics and then see how far they take us.

 

[So Be]

Ehh that opens another whole can of worms. I talked to several football coaches about that and watching a player without knowing what the scheme or assignment is can be misleading.

For example: Receiver A runs a crappy route, DB slips and quarterback extends the play out of the pocket, receiver catches the ball 40 yards down the field with no DB in sight. That would go down as a solid play for the team, but for the player not so good, even though the end result worked out. That's probably more of what Philbin means.

Good point, and agree. I can't see Phans having scheme and assignment in our lifetime. However, PFF does consider the plays in their grades. For example, the Hartline long TD, while left wide open does not get a VG grade but, Clay's screen pass where he willed his way to a first down does. Vernon getting a sack after being blocked for 4 seconds does not get a VG grade. Wake beating a double team to flush the QB into OV does.

 

[KTOWNFINFAN]

So you use PFF out of the convenience it provides, rather than their diligence. I don't really care what agents use, they would cite Armando if it could get them leverage, but they way some people tout the PFF grades in this forum as an absolute is beyond me.

No arguement there, but there are also some on here that will totally disregard it and tout nothing but their own "eye" test, while ignoring anyone or any stat that disagrees with their assessment. As others have said there needs to be a balance.

 

[KTOWNFINFAN]

You need both, you can't only use advanced statistics, especially in football. Stats are just numbers, and the numbers -and this is the key step everyone who doesn't understand advanced stats omits- need to be interpreted before they give any meaningful information.

On the other hand, advanced stats can help by providing objective evidence to balance out prejudice and preconceptions. For example, take one of those miserably bad OCs out there. Even the worst of those know more football than you do, so there's no way you could talk them conceptually out of their lousy gameplans, but if they paid attention to advanced statistics, they could see that they're not working.

In other words, everyone always think they're right, so if you stick to your eyeballs, there's no more headway to make. Each to his own stubbornness. Stats can help locate our blind spots and polish them. It's win-win.

It's wrong to feel threatened by stats. They're a tool, not HAL 9000. They're not here to take the place of the human brain in football, but to help it.

WOW very well said.