I did a whole thread that revolved arond that point here recently, but it seems that didn't pass the "common sense" test for some, either. :)
Of course it might just be the case that the understanding of some issues requires uncommon sense.
Is Having (or Taking) More Time to Throw the Ball Overrated?
- Thread starter Shouright
- Start date
Of course it might just be the case that the understanding of some issues requires uncommon sense.
As I expected once i dropped this data into my own excel spreadsheet it was apparent that the r squared values suggested moderate association with regard to time to throw and time to sack, meaning there are other factors at hand and/or the sample size is too small. The r squared for the data is .6 a moderate correlation.
There is also no correlation between QB rating and time to throw. The r squared for that data set when compared to one another is 0.007. With regard to time to throw and completions under 2.6s there is a strong correlation with the r squared value equal to .76 (moderately strong) and with throws over 2.6s there is little correlation to completions with an r squared of .007 (weak).
What that all means is time to throw is a great indicator for pass attempts that are under 2.6s but a poor indicator for judging what happens on plays extending beyond 2.6s, there are simply too many variables at that point to use one number to place a qualitative measure on one play with numerous variables.
There is also no correlation between QB rating and time to throw. The r squared for that data set when compared to one another is 0.007. With regard to time to throw and completions under 2.6s there is a strong correlation with the r squared value equal to .76 (moderately strong) and with throws over 2.6s there is little correlation to completions with an r squared of .007 (weak).
What that all means is time to throw is a great indicator for pass attempts that are under 2.6s but a poor indicator for judging what happens on plays extending beyond 2.6s, there are simply too many variables at that point to use one number to place a qualitative measure on one play with numerous variables.
What does "r squared" mean to you, and how do you, personally, compute it?
AquaInferno
Pro Bowler
It didn't pass the common sense test because you left out a ton of variables. Variables that shot your theory to hell and that when brought up, you dismissed them as not being important or worse yet didn't even address because you couldn't.
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to drop by a thread that has actual picture evidence showing exactly how little time Tannehill has in the pocket to try and defend your opinion vs pulling numbers out of thin air. A new one was posted today. Then again, you can't, so you won't.
You must be joking. Yes the QB rating on that one chart is lower for more time but we don't know about scrambles, broken plays, reduction of accuracy for long throws, covered receivers, down and distance to go, final play to score, so on. Less time on the pass can correlate with a quick slant, screen, and other quick reads that lend themselves to a competing but maybe not many yards or first down. None of the data posted has anything to do with the quality or outcome of the play.
I love data like the next guy, even focused on consumer behavior trend analysis in undergrad, but you must see the whole picture so you're not blinded by the occasional insanity of the numbers.
My point- the data from the OP isn't a causation but rather a correlation. Hope those nuances weren't lost on you and you grasp that.
I think if you polled the average NFL fan and asked them if QBs' ratings were higher on throws before 2.6 seconds, or throws after 2.5 seconds, the vast majority would likely choose the latter, thinking perhaps that "more time" to throw would equal a higher QB rating. This isn't the case, however.
And they do that for neither the pre-2.6-second pass plays, nor the post-2.5-second pass plays, yet the QB ratings for the latter, when the QB has and takes more time to throw, are significantly lower.
Think about that for a moment, however. How can having more time to throw be a good thing, if taking that time is not?
Now, I suspect that some minimum amount of time is necessary for a successful play, but how can having extra time beyond that point be a good thing if taking it isn't? Wouldn't having that extra time be just as overrated as taking it, if in fact taking it is overrated? What good is extra time you shouldn't be using?
PFF doesn't distinguish these two stats by time to throw, but I can say that total passing yards is correlated with QB rating on throws before 2.6 seconds at 0.24, and with QB rating on throws after more than 2.5 seconds at 0.58. Overall YPA is correlated with QB rating on throws before 2.6 seconds at 0.64, and with QB rating on throws after 2.5 seconds at 0.59.
If by "having time" you meant the time variables in the OP (to attempt, to throw, to be sacked, to scramble), YPA correlates no more strongly than 0.11 with any of those, and yards correlates with all of them negatively, most strongly with time to throw, at -0.63.
Yards correlates with percentage of dropbacks under pressure at -0.65, and YPA correlates with it at -0.27.
It seems that YPA is independent of a whole lot of things, somehow.
Wow, how did I miss this gem of a thread?rating doesn't equal quality of play or urgancy of situation. Think of E Mannning in the SB to Tyree. Had and made a boatload of time and eventually one of the most important throws in NFL history. Ask him to get that off in 2.5sec - Pats win. Make sense?
That play did nothing to harm his QB rating. For what point would that be an appropriate example?
Archaeopteryx
Active Roster
Thanks. I appreciate that you took the time to check it out.
Not a problem. One variable they do distinguish by the 2.5 second mark may shed some light on the difference in QB rating, however, and you can see this for yourself in the OP:
There isn't a single QB in the league who has a better completion percentage after 2.5 seconds than he does before 2.5 seconds, and in fact the average difference is 12.5 percentage points worse after 2.5 seconds. And that ranges all the way from 1.8 percentage points worse (Philip Rivers) to 25.4 percentage points worse (Michael Vick). Ryan Tannehill isn't significantly different from the league average in that regard.
So with that, I'd say it's very highly unlikely (if not impossible) that YPA improves after the 2.5 second mark, since YPA has much to do with completion percentage. It's hard to get any yards on an attempt when it isn't completed, of course. :)