Metrics are for.... | Page 7 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Metrics are for....

Here's an analytic I would apply if I were GM: An O-linemen has never been the best player out of any draft class. So you should never select one with the first overall pick, probably shouldn't even take one in the top 3.
 
Here's an analytic I would apply if I were GM: An O-linemen has never been the best player out of any draft class. So you should never select one with the first overall pick, probably shouldn't even take one in the top 3.
I think there's a strong argument to be made for drafting highly only the players whose salaries count the most against the salary cap, on average. Obviously you increase your salary cap efficiency when you can field good players at important positions who are still under their rookie contracts.

Of course if numbers are viewed as simply "evil," then it's impossible to even consider ideas such as those, because you'd need numbers to figure out 1) whether they were plausible, and 2) if so, how to go about implementing them optimally.

In other words, if you have a "math phobia," you're going to be at a distinct disadvantage in running a team from the guy who doesn't.
 
7amy8a7a-1.jpg
 
Jay Cutler is responsible for more wins than TOM FREAKING BRADY..... HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's why metrics suck! I have never seen a football player more responsible for his team wins than Tom Brady... ESPECIALLY this season with all the moving parts. WOW
 
I have never seen a football player more responsible for his team wins than Tom Brady... ESPECIALLY this season with all the moving parts. WOW
Since you've already noted that we have no way of knowing whether you're right or wrong, I guess we can take that with a grain of salt. :)
 
Since you've already noted that we have no way of knowing whether you're right or wrong, I guess we can take that with a grain of salt. :)

I'd love to see what you think are the best metrics, or the most important ones. Not being sarcastic. Because all the ones I have seen make absolutely zero sense.
 
I'd love to see what you think are the best metrics, or the most important ones. Not being sarcastic. Because all the ones I have seen make absolutely zero sense.
I'd start here, with something strongly correlated with quarterback play, that also accounts for 44% of the variance in win percentage:

http://www.finheaven.com/showthread...New-GM-or-any-Other-Current-Hubbub&highlight=

This is essentially why teams stop at nothing to obtain the kind of quarterback needed to be highly competitive in the league. They have their finger on the pulse of that issue.
 
I'd start here, with something strongly correlated with quarterback play, that also accounts for 44% of the variance in win percentage:

http://www.finheaven.com/showthread...New-GM-or-any-Other-Current-Hubbub&highlight=

This is essentially why teams stop at nothing to obtain the kind of quarterback needed to be highly competitive in the league. They have their finger on the pulse of that issue.

The stats I care about most (besides points) are turnover margin, 3rd down offense/defense, redzone offense/defense. Penalties too, but the Ravens won the Super Bowl being the most penalized team. These are the things I think have weight. Not big on crazy formulas.
 
The stats I care about most (besides points) are turnover margin, 3rd down offense/defense, redzone offense/defense. Penalties too, but the Ravens won the Super Bowl being the most penalized team. These are the things I think have weight. Not big on crazy formulas.
You could actually weight those variables and determine how much of the variance in winning they account for, that is if you're not too adverse to the "crazy formula" that would result. ;)

You'd end up with something similar to this, but with different variables:

http://www.finheaven.com/showthread...-Dolphins-A-Statistical-Comparison&highlight=
 
You could actually weight those variables and determine how much of the variance in winning they account for, that is if you're not too adverse to the "crazy formula" that would result. ;)

You'd end up with something similar to this, but with different variables:

http://www.finheaven.com/showthread...-Dolphins-A-Statistical-Comparison&highlight=

I was just wondering if you had anything on each of those categories win % individually. I've heard if you win the turnover margin you win 80% of the time.
 
Bar stool types are shocked to be challenged. That's verified daily here. They are accustomed to screaming this guy sucks and that guy sucks and awaiting peer approval. That's how a modern day Steve Deberg-like Alex Smith and his lifetime pathetic 6.6 yards per attempt, just good enough to get you beat, is actually preferred above Colin Kaepernick and his 7.9 lifetime number and adjusted 8.1. It's rare for the second number to be superior to the first but the happy adjusters are wonderfully oblivious. Something in their system screamed suck so they stick with stuck. They don't even understand the criteria that places the second number above the first but none of that matters as long as the guy in the adjoining stool is equally bewildered.

Who won the SB last year?

What happened to Kaep's YPA this season as compared to last? Are we to believe that his YPA will continue to plummet next year? If not, why not?

You also ignore the biggest issue with Kaep, his inconsistency. That is why he will only succeed with a great team surrounding him. When he is bad, he is really bad. His YPA in losses was 4.58.

All the BS about YPA, why do you never predict failure for Andrew Luck? This is why you and all the Angry Deniers have no credibility. You are blatantly dishonest in your assessments. Luck's YPA was 0.05 higher than Tannehill's this year and 0.13 for their careers. Why is he not doomed? Until you can answer that STFU.
 
Who won the SB last year?

What happened to Kaep's YPA this season as compared to last? Are we to believe that his YPA will continue to plummet next year? If not, why not?

You also ignore the biggest issue with Kaep, his inconsistency. That is why he will only succeed with a great team surrounding him. When he is bad, he is really bad. His YPA in losses was 4.58.

All the BS about YPA, why do you never predict failure for Andrew Luck? This is why you and all the Angry Deniers have no credibility. You are blatantly dishonest in your assessments. Luck's YPA was 0.05 higher than Tannehill's this year and 0.13 for their careers. Why is he not doomed? Until you can answer that STFU.

Why was YPA not a predictor of how Tom Brady would be? Or how was Marinos second year YPA almost 2 yards above his lifetime average. Also of course Drew Brees second season YPA was a great predictor of future success.
 
A Mike Mayock sentence goes something like this: Tape, tape, tape, kid, kid, tape, kid, tape, tape kid, tape, tape.

And that's all you need to know.

Mayock has been a boon to the type who somehow think it's a revelation to look at tape. As in, look at me, I'm watching the same thing as everyone else.

Perhaps we should throw a parade.

Fixation on tape is laughably simplistic. The high error rate in scouting is largely due to obsession with tape while ignoring the peripheral variables and how to weigh them. But I concede it won't change. Guys in this era are brainwashed to rely on tape, just like college football fans are now paralyzed to evaluate a team minus strength of schedule.

Two horses can be dead even at the top of the stretch. But how they got there and their likelihood to win the race, or subsequent races, can be vastly different. If you know the pedigree and the surrounding details, you understand that. It's not a surprise when there's a 7 length gap at the wire. But the goof with the binoculars and no background in the sport is cheering for the red saddlecloth and little else. If he sees Ryan Tannehill and Johnny Manziel looking roughly the same in a Texas A&M uniform late in their careers, he concludes they are parallel and their pro potential is roughly the same, if not advantage Tannehill. Heck, draft each one of them in the 8 spot. Disregard that one guy has been a special playmaker all his life while the other has been a perennial tease.

Tape lies all the time when conventional wisdom is the principal ammo of the beholder.

Bar stool types are shocked to be challenged. That's verified daily here. They are accustomed to screaming this guy sucks and that guy sucks and awaiting peer approval. That's how a modern day Steve Deberg-like Alex Smith and his lifetime pathetic 6.6 yards per attempt, just good enough to get you beat, is actually preferred above Colin Kaepernick and his 7.9 lifetime number and adjusted 8.1. It's rare for the second number to be superior to the first but the happy adjusters are wonderfully oblivious. Something in their system screamed suck so they stick with stuck. They don't even understand the criteria that places the second number above the first but none of that matters as long as the guy in the adjoining stool is equally bewildered.

futurescout is talented but he makes basic mistakes. Like yesterday when he announced that Cameron Wake has many top years left since he was inactive in his early 20s. That's happy adjuster caliber. Walrus properly scolded. Now the onslaught on numbers. I remember when I was new to Las Vegas and bet strictly on line of scrimmage mismatches. I scoffed at the eccentric nerds who were babbling about situational bias, and some vague concept of value. I threw away my stubbornness, studied what I'd previously dismissed, and prospered. Let it happen to you.

In the meantime, make sure you never speculate. :lol:

It's not the tape that lies, it's the interpretation that lies. Tape is tape, it's what's there, it can't lie, the interpretation is what does the lying

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
 
Why was YPA not a predictor of how Tom Brady would be? Or how was Marinos second year YPA almost 2 yards above his lifetime average. Also of course Drew Brees second season YPA was a great predictor of future success.

None of the Angry Denier clowns will even try to answer these questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom