Quick Way to Assess Ryan Tannehill Statistically

[vt_dolfan]

I look at those stats...and go...

Well...if you think youd rather have some of those Qbs rated higher then Tannehill on that page....(Mike Glennon)...then...

Push's the pile to the center of the table....Manja.....all yours eat up!

 

[mega-fin-love]

I understand every word he says and still call it bull****. The thing about statistics is you can make them say whatever you want. It's up to the researcher to provide context to those statistics in a fair and objective way. Shouwrong doesn't do that. Add this to previous lies I've caught him in and the only conclusion I can come to is the dude is a joke...

Haha...is that a quote from The never Ending Story under your avatar?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

The problem with using stats as the sole measure of a player is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely separate individuals from the other players on the team or the circumstances under which they are asked to perform. I have no problem with using stats like this to rate the effectiveness of Miami's passing offense but as a sole measure of Tannehill, it's ridiculous. Some people will never get over the fact that it is a team game and stats are only useful to a degree. You have to understand the context.

I absolutely guarantee that when a coaching staff is evaluating players, THEY DO NOT QUERY pro-football-reference.com and then make personnel decisions based on the results. Why? BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE STUPID!

I really feel that that horse should be dead by now. It has had the crap beat out of it.

 

[Shouright]

The problem with using stats as the sole measure of a player is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely separate individuals from the other players on the team or the circumstances under which they are asked to perform. I have no problem with using stats like this to rate the effectiveness of Miami's passing offense but as a sole measure of Tannehill, it's ridiculous. Some people will never get over the fact that it is a team game and stats are only useful to a degree. You have to understand the context.

I absolutely guarantee that when a coaching staff is evaluating players, THEY DO NOT QUERY pro-football-reference.com and then make personnel decisions based on the results. Why? BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE STUPID!

I really feel that that horse should be dead by now. It has had the crap beat out of it.

That would make some sense if the players we consider to be the best of all time individually didn't also generally have the best stats of all time.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

I understand every word he says and still call it bull****. The thing about statistics is you can make them say whatever you want. It's up to the researcher to provide context to those statistics in a fair and objective way. Shouwrong doesn't do that. Add this to previous lies I've caught him in and the only conclusion I can come to is the dude is a joke...

"If you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness."

 

[finfan54]

I blame Sherman and being in shotgun so much even after the Ravens game when the light should have come on. But it didnt and we lost to Buffalo.

 

[Shouright]

I blame Sherman and being in shotgun so much even after the Ravens game when the light should have come on. But it didnt and we lost to Buffalo.

Most QBs' ratings suffer about as much in shotgun as does Tannehill's.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

There is a situational variable in play here. Shouright has only recently really stepped up his game in terms of the most relevant stats. I'm very impressed. These days I have considerably less energy to research than years ago. A couple of deaths in the family will do that. I'm content to rely on the old standby stats and systems to grind out small betting advantage than to try to stay ahead of the pack in terms of argument value. For example, sacks were not a part of the analysis when I began studying yards per attempt in 1987. I know little about it, similar to ignoring the salary cap because it didn't exist when I was a young fan.

Shouright apparently had a reputation around here before he dove fully into the stats. After all, these are basic categories. Is anyone seriously disputing the significance of net passing yards? Philbin referred to that basic concept in his opening presser after being named head coach.

If the identical data and analysis were being presented by another poster, even an outright newcomer, it would be received differently.

Kudos to shouright for taking the blows and persisting. The forum is a better place for it. It reminds me of political forums about a decade ago, long before Nate Silver surfaced. Several of us were presenting and debating math based formulas, ones aimed at incorporating political polls and situational variables toward a more accurate presentation of the state of the race than conventional wisdom allowed. That conventional wisdom always tilted closer to 50/50 than actual. People desperately want to believe in a toss up, when it's closer to 80/20. Same dynamic in play here.

Tannehill has plenty of skills. They aren't translating to performance. The sample size is becoming larger. At some point all the happy adjustments are overwhelmed by the bottom line. These numbers presented by shouright merely serve to highlight the vast gap between Tannehill's current level and the top quarterbacks in the league. That gap is far, far beyond what the subjective types want to concede.

And yes, Russell Wilson stands out. He was great last year but has taken it to an entirely different level. Wilson has the ideal variance of pace and loft that I always prioritize. Tannehill is too much 4 iron or 6 iron. His driver (deep) and wedges (touch) need a ton of work.

 

[Locke]

Haha...is that a quote from The never Ending Story under your avatar?

It's a Bayside lyric, though I think they did take it from The Neverending Story...

 

[Locke]

"If you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness."

I'm not attacking the evidence. The statistics are what they are. I'm attacking your half-assed agenda-driven application of them. You've already proven yourself to be a liar, so why should you be trusted to be honest with something that's application is wholly reliant on someone's ability to be objective about it? Easy answer is you can't. You hide behind all those words that mega pointed out because you know that the average football fan doesn't know much about statistics. Those of us that do have a background in it have been calling you out on it since you started these abortions you pass off as threads...

 

[hoops]

There is a situational variable in play here. Shouright has only recently really stepped up his game in terms of the most relevant stats. I'm very impressed. These days I have considerably less energy to research than years ago. A couple of deaths in the family will do that. I'm content to rely on the old standby stats and systems to grind out small betting advantage than to try to stay ahead of the pack in terms of argument value. For example, sacks were not a part of the analysis when I began studying yards per attempt in 1987. I know little about it, similar to ignoring the salary cap because it didn't exist when I was a young fan.

Shouright apparently had a reputation around here before he dove fully into the stats. After all, these are basic categories. Is anyone seriously disputing the significance of net passing yards? Philbin referred to that basic concept in his opening presser after being named head coach.

If the identical data and analysis were being presented by another poster, even an outright newcomer, it would be received differently.

Kudos to shouright for taking the blows and persisting. The forum is a better place for it. It reminds me of political forums about a decade ago, long before Nate Silver surfaced. Several of us were presenting and debating math based formulas, ones aimed at incorporating political polls and situational variables toward a more accurate presentation of the state of the race than conventional wisdom allowed. That conventional wisdom always tilted closer to 50/50 than actual. People desperately want to believe in a toss up, when it's closer to 80/20. Same dynamic in play here.

Tannehill has plenty of skills. They aren't translating to performance. The sample size is becoming larger. At some point all the happy adjustments are overwhelmed by the bottom line. These numbers presented by shouright merely serve to highlight the vast gap between Tannehill's current level and the top quarterbacks in the league. That gap is far, far beyond what the subjective types want to concede.

And yes, Russell Wilson stands out. He was great last year but has taken it to an entirely different level. Wilson has the ideal variance of pace and loft that I always prioritize. Tannehill is too much 4 iron or 6 iron. His driver (deep) and wedges (touch) need a ton of work.

well at least you admit that...you wouldn't have last year...

 

[Locke]

There is a situational variable in play here. Shouright has only recently really stepped up his game in terms of the most relevant stats. I'm very impressed. These days I have considerably less energy to research than years ago. A couple of deaths in the family will do that. I'm content to rely on the old standby stats and systems to grind out small betting advantage than to try to stay ahead of the pack in terms of argument value. For example, sacks were not a part of the analysis when I began studying yards per attempt in 1987. I know little about it, similar to ignoring the salary cap because it didn't exist when I was a young fan.

Shouright apparently had a reputation around here before he dove fully into the stats. After all, these are basic categories. Is anyone seriously disputing the significance of net passing yards? Philbin referred to that basic concept in his opening presser after being named head coach.

If the identical data and analysis were being presented by another poster, even an outright newcomer, it would be received differently.

Kudos to shouright for taking the blows and persisting. The forum is a better place for it. It reminds me of political forums about a decade ago, long before Nate Silver surfaced. Several of us were presenting and debating math based formulas, ones aimed at incorporating political polls and situational variables toward a more accurate presentation of the state of the race than conventional wisdom allowed. That conventional wisdom always tilted closer to 50/50 than actual. People desperately want to believe in a toss up, when it's closer to 80/20. Same dynamic in play here.

Tannehill has plenty of skills. They aren't translating to performance. The sample size is becoming larger. At some point all the happy adjustments are overwhelmed by the bottom line. These numbers presented by shouright merely serve to highlight the vast gap between Tannehill's current level and the top quarterbacks in the league. That gap is far, far beyond what the subjective types want to concede.

And yes, Russell Wilson stands out. He was great last year but has taken it to an entirely different level. Wilson has the ideal variance of pace and loft that I always prioritize. Tannehill is too much 4 iron or 6 iron. His driver (deep) and wedges (touch) need a ton of work.

The analysis is what it is. He posts the numbers and says what they mean. He isn't wrong about the raw data. It's his application of them that has us annoyed. You can't look at Tannehill's YPA and know everything there is to know about him from that. It doesn't take into consideration a myriad of variables that effect that number and are out of his control. Is Tyson Clabo and Jonathon Martin getting walked back into Tannehill's face for the first 6 weeks of the season indicative of Tannehill's talent? Is it on Tannehill that Mike Wallace drops a pass in the bread basket on the Carolina 3 yard line? Is it Tannehill's fault that Mike Sherman refuses to run the football, giving Tannehill a significant number more attempts than his peers? I could go on, but you've shown yourself to be more than capable of understanding situational influences.

Bottom line is you can't look at a statistic and pretend to know the entire story of someone from it. Period. And that's exactly what Shouwrong tries to do. It's detestable from a statistician's point of view, and completely and wholly unacceptable from a researcher's. If I tried to do that on my dissertation, I would have been failed on the spot...

 

[fishfanmiami]

No stats are needed to see the deep ball is Tannehill's biggest problem.
Hitting a couple of wide open receivers that have gotten behind the defense would do wonders for Ryan's YPC. To me that's the obvious impairment to Tannehill moving up the QB rating regardless of what stats you use.

I have not given up on him but usually a QB has that skill or does not. I will say his pocket presence and footwork looked much improve vs NY.

 

[Shouright]

I'm not attacking the evidence. The statistics are what they are. I'm attacking your half-assed agenda-driven application of them. You've already proven yourself to be a liar, so why should you be trusted to be honest with something that's application is wholly reliant on someone's ability to be objective about it? Easy answer is you can't. You hide behind all those words that mega pointed out because you know that the average football fan doesn't know much about statistics. Those of us that do have a background in it have been calling you out on it since you started these abortions you pass off as threads...

"If you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness; if you can't attack the witness, bang on the table."

 

[Shouright]

The analysis is what it is. He posts the numbers and says what they mean. He isn't wrong about the raw data. It's his application of them that has us annoyed. You can't look at Tannehill's YPA and know everything there is to know about him from that. It doesn't take into consideration a myriad of variables that effect that number and are out of his control. Is Tyson Clabo and Jonathon Martin getting walked back into Tannehill's face for the first 6 weeks of the season indicative of Tannehill's talent? Is it on Tannehill that Mike Wallace drops a pass in the bread basket on the Carolina 3 yard line? Is it Tannehill's fault that Mike Sherman refuses to run the football, giving Tannehill a significant number more attempts than his peers? I could go on, but you've shown yourself to be more than capable of understanding situational influences.

I've done the analyses of the relationships among variables such as those and the ones related to Tannehill's play, elsewhere in the forum. Find them if you're interested. If not, no big deal. :up:

 

[Shouright]

Kudos to shouright for taking the blows and persisting. The forum is a better place for it. It reminds me of political forums about a decade ago, long before Nate Silver surfaced. Several of us were presenting and debating math based formulas, ones aimed at incorporating political polls and situational variables toward a more accurate presentation of the state of the race than conventional wisdom allowed. That conventional wisdom always tilted closer to 50/50 than actual. People desperately want to believe in a toss up, when it's closer to 80/20. Same dynamic in play here.

Not a problem. :up: