No, it's not, which is why I said "theoretically speaking." :up:
If Tanne breaks 20TD Passes: He is the REAL DEAL (I PROVE IT WITH ONE SIMPLE STAT)
- Thread starter LacesOutTanne34
- Start date
LacesOutTanne34
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
Im sorry but a QB who will get me "20 no problem" in his 2nd year with this team is a pretty good barometer....Now as they get older they need much more than that, its more just 1st/2nd year qb the stat backs up
LacesOutTanne34
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
ohhhh gotchya....Well yes, lets just say if it wasn't substantial I don't think you would have seen this post today lol. I just had a hunch about it and it turns out it was a much stronger correlation then I thought.
hoops
Tua time!
Not sure what rg3 got last year but people were all up his rear around here last year...and he blows
It's not a good indicator...doesn't mean tannehill won't be good though either...there are circumstances that play into all of this...short fields running games qb shelf life given the game they play development as a qb work study etc
LacesOutTanne34
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
1. Of course there is, but those are the numbers. You can disagree that's fine, but the numbers support the idea that good qbs in the nfl can throw for 20 in their first two years, whereas it is extremely unlikely to make it if you can't.
2. RGIII had exactly 20. I agree he hasn't been good this year...but, he is coming off knee surgery.
But I guess if i changed it to If Tanne breaks 21 so RGIII isn't included lol
hoops
Tua time!
..the numbers may indicate it I'm not a numbers tell all guy anyways as everyone knows...
But if it makes you feel better go for it...the qbs a stud to me already anyways
LacesOutTanne34
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
But here is the beautiful thing to this number....They don't predict a superstar, superbowls, wins etc...This stat is just a good predictor on whether the guy will be a "Solid/above average NFL starter."
Everything else that goes into it (that im with you on) determines if that "real deal" qb is going to be a Jay Cutler type or Eli Manning Type
I love how posters who have no clue what is going on think they look good criticizing shouright, who has brought forward some of the best and most relevant material to this site recently.
Anyway, this is a backfit exercise that places too much rigidity on a certain number and is therefore subject to convenient alteration. For example, let's say Tannehill finishes 2013 with 19 touchdown passes but later blooms to "real deal" status. In that case the author will quietly backtrack and change the 20 to 19. After all, there's nothing magical about 20. It's a round number and sounds cute at this point. The sample size isn't particularly high. So we can go back and switch to 19 if it serves our purposes, including someone we'd like to include. Then you go with 19 until somebody else barely falls outside, so you invent a category to narrowly grab him. All of this is very familiar. There are versions to predict the winner of the Super Bowl. Decades ago they had a handful of criteria then it explodes as inexplicable results force one alteration after another.
It's not without some merit. But the best formulas don't have an all-or-nothing cutoff point. For example, 7 yards per attempt is a good historical guideline but you don't spit on anyone who is slightly below that. Tom Brady twice won Super Bowls in seasons when he averaged 6.9 yards per attempt.
Anyway, this is a backfit exercise that places too much rigidity on a certain number and is therefore subject to convenient alteration. For example, let's say Tannehill finishes 2013 with 19 touchdown passes but later blooms to "real deal" status. In that case the author will quietly backtrack and change the 20 to 19. After all, there's nothing magical about 20. It's a round number and sounds cute at this point. The sample size isn't particularly high. So we can go back and switch to 19 if it serves our purposes, including someone we'd like to include. Then you go with 19 until somebody else barely falls outside, so you invent a category to narrowly grab him. All of this is very familiar. There are versions to predict the winner of the Super Bowl. Decades ago they had a handful of criteria then it explodes as inexplicable results force one alteration after another.
It's not without some merit. But the best formulas don't have an all-or-nothing cutoff point. For example, 7 yards per attempt is a good historical guideline but you don't spit on anyone who is slightly below that. Tom Brady twice won Super Bowls in seasons when he averaged 6.9 yards per attempt.
Kencoboy
Starter
It'll be interesting to see whether Tannehill can get 20, let alone 21. His modal number of TD passes per game is one, which argues for his attaining 20, though he had a game already in which he had zero, and obviously more than just one or two of those in the final five games would make the attainment of 20 much harder.
I won't bet on Tannehill in this area, because it can go either way, but I'll bet you a good amount of money on this: if Tannehill fails to reach 20, and this thread resurfaces in the offseason, you can bet you'll have a whole lot more people here paying a great deal more attention to those three guys in your sample who didn't get 20 but went on to be good.
LacesOutTanne34
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
I see your logic, but your missing the point slightly.
1. It's not about changing the number to under 20 to induct Tannehill if he flourishes. Tannehill would simply fit under the qbs who succeeded without hitting the criteria, keeping the ones who go about 20 at an astromically high number.
2. As brought up earlier this doesn't hold weight if you lower the number down because then the % of qbs who succeed without throwing 20 will be substantial enough to weaken the significance of the other. It is significant because a large # who didn't break 20 but had 15-19tds haven't made it. So you say oh "over 19" now instead of 3/21 its 5/21. And then a qb with 18 flourishes its 8/24 becoming less significant and so on
---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------
lol well if this holds true lets hope its Big Ben and not vick or alex smith
This issue is covered here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
...and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteristic
roy_miami
2020 cant get here soon enough
Its an interesting discussion but I wouldn't say he'll get it no problem. He's on pace for 22 right now but still has to go play in cold NY, Buffalo and Pittsburgh. I would set the over/under line at 19.5 right now.
Hopefully he gets to 23 somehow, the last QB to do that was Marino way back in 1998.