Ryan Tannehill 2013: QB Pressure, Completion %, Deep Passing, & YPA Statistics | Page 19 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Ryan Tannehill 2013: QB Pressure, Completion %, Deep Passing, & YPA Statistics

Holy ****, I've haven't seen this much of an all-consuming sexual fixation since Hinckley's on Jodie Foster!!!

In consideration of your obvious fantasies, can we now assume, based on your name change that you see yourself as "the bottom"??


k9yi6e-1.jpg

lmao

This is one of your best yet, vaark
 
Would like a similar thread with all these fancy net ypa and wpa and correlations, standard deviations, or years 1 and 2, in comparison to ryan tannehills year one and two, for the following quarterbacks:

Tom brady
Aaron rodgers
Peyton manning
drew brees
And phillip rivers...

Please.
Why don't you get to work on that and tell us.
 
No. YPA is yards divided by attempts. YPA with sacks counted as dropbacks would be yards per dropback, not yards per attempt. My terms are clearly defined. Yards per dropback is different and I didn't calculate it.

Edit - I just calculated it, and the correlation that way is 0.532, when you do dropbacks instead of just total attempts. So it indeed appears that getting sacked more has a moderate correlation with worse YPA and worse YPD.
I think you're confusing YPA with net YPA, once again. YPA is passing yards divided by pass attempts, not passing yards minus sack yards divided by attempts.
 
I think you're confusing YPA with net YPA, once again. YPA is passing yards divided by pass attempts, not passing yards minus sack yards divided by attempts.

I'm not confused at all. I'm showing what the YPA would be if you gave back lost sack yardage, and the correlation between the YPA drop and sacks taken. Pretty simple, I think :idk:
 
I'm not confused at all. I'm showing what the YPA would be if you gave back lost sack yardage, and the correlation between the YPA drop and sacks taken. Pretty simple, I think :idk:
But why would you "give" sack yardage to something that's based on nothing but passing yards and pass attempts? The sack yards were never "taken" from that statistic (YPA) to begin with.

If you "give" sack yardage to YPA, you're in effect treating sack yardage as though it was completed passing yardage, whereas we have no idea whether plays that ended in sacks, had the sacks somehow been avoided, would've resulted in completed passes, or if so, of what passing yardage.
 
Why don't you get to work on that and tell us.

Your the stat master. Come on i even asked nice. I also asked nice for some work on our defense an 3rd and long.
I cant get you to come up with colorful tables, for anything that may contradict your opinion for some reason.
 
You must've replied while I was typing the rest of my post!! I obviously agree with all of these points.

To simplify matters it makes sense to consider a basic situation in which the score, field position and time remaining are neutralized.

First possession of the game. 3rd and 15 from your own 40. QB #1 throws a safe short pass with some YAC that picks up 12 yards, forcing a punt. QB #2 takes a shot down field and throws an incompletion. QB #1 improved his YPA while QB #2 reduced his YPA. The point is that there is no way to tell whether QB #1 is a better player than QB #2, and vice versa. Either QB's strategy could turn out to be best in the long run.

I don't mean to be overly complicated, but it seems that football can be viewed as a Markov Chain stochastic process, and perhaps that's what these advanced DVOA analyses are emulating.

Another example of viewing football as a Markov Chain would be to examine the expected number of points when you have 4th and goal from the opponent's 2 yard line. You have roughly a 100% chance for 3 points by kicking the field goal. That needs to be compared with the chance at 7 points by going for it plus the expected number of points when you fail to score a TD due to the advantage of having the opponent start on its own 1 yard line. I'm sure there must be articles about this.



The bigger relationship is between down and distance and drive efficiency or points, not YPA. I suspect there are many things at play. Things tend to cancel each other out. For example, a 14 yard pass on 3rd and 15 looks great for your YPA but doesn't continue the drive. An incomplete pass on 3rd and 15 also stops the drive but hurts the YPA. Where they happen on the field is also important. If you have 3rd and 15 and you are 5 yards from FG range, a 5 yard pass might result in a FG rather than a punt.

Finally the time in the game and the score matter also. What is considered a successful play on 3rd and long varies. When down by 6 with 1 second to go on 3rd and long your own 20, only an 80 pass is meaningful.
 
You must've replied while I was typing the rest of my post!! I obviously agree with all of these points.

To simplify matters it makes sense to consider a basic situation in which the score, field position and time remaining are neutralized.

First possession of the game. 3rd and 15 from your own 40. QB #1 throws a safe short pass with some YAC that picks up 12 yards, forcing a punt. QB #2 takes a shot down field and throws an incompletion. QB #1 improved his YPA while QB #2 reduced his YPA. The point is that there is no way to tell whether QB #1 is a better player than QB #2, and vice versa. Either QB's strategy could turn out to be best in the long run.

I don't mean to be overly complicated, but it seems that football can be viewed as a Markov Chain stochastic process, and perhaps that's what these advanced DVOA analyses are emulating.

Another example of viewing football as a Markov Chain would be to examine the expected number of points when you have 4th and goal from the opponent's 2 yard line. You have roughly a 100% chance for 3 points by kicking the field goal. That needs to be compared with the chance at 7 points by going for it plus the expected number of points when you fail to score a TD due to the advantage of having the opponent start on its own 1 yard line. I'm sure there must be articles about this.
They are, and the correlations between QBs' DVOA in 2013 and their YPA statistics are as follows:

YPA = 0.81
Adjusted YPA = 0.90
Net YPA = 0.87
Adjusted net YPA = 0.94

So despite the complexity offered by DVOA in terms of accounting for a panoply of the kinds of situational variables mentioned above, using YPA statistics doesn't change the percentage of the variance accounted for a great deal.

In fact, adjusted net YPA differential is more strongly correlated with winning (0.84) than is points scored on offense (0.73).
 
But why would you "give" sack yardage to something that's based on nothing but passing yards and pass attempts? The sack yards were never "taken" from that statistic (YPA) to begin with.

If you "give" sack yardage to YPA, you're in effect treating sack yardage as though it was completed passing yardage, whereas we have no idea whether plays that ended in sacks, had the sacks somehow been avoided, would've resulted in completed passes, or if so, of what passing yardage.

Sack yards are part of YPA because sack yards are deducted from the QB's passing yardage. So the sack yards are indeed completed passing yardage that have been taken away.
 
Sack yards are part of YPA because sack yards are deducted from the QB's passing yardage. So the sack yards are indeed completed passing yardage that have been taken away.
What are you basing this on?
 
Gravity,

With respect to DVOA and the like, are these statistics totally independent of the team's efficacy in other phases of the game? Suppose Tannehill faces twice as many 3rd down and 10+ yards to go instances versus the average QB or the top QB's? I am assuming DVOA rewards a completion that results in a 1st down more than completions which do not. If so, is Tannehill being penalized under the assumption that he is facing more adverse down and distance situations than other QB's? And I am assuming that if he is put in these worse situations by being sacked more and having an ineffective running game, that the DVOA does not reflect that he is not responsible for being in more of these situations, for the most part.



They are, and the correlations between QBs' DVOA in 2013 and their YPA statistics are as follows:

YPA = 0.81
Adjusted YPA = 0.90
Net YPA = 0.87
Adjusted net YPA = 0.94

So despite the complexity offered by DVOA in terms of accounting for a panoply of the kinds of situational variables mentioned above, using YPA statistics doesn't change the percentage of the variance accounted for a great deal.

In fact, adjusted net YPA differential is more strongly correlated with winning (0.84) than is points scored on offense (0.73).
 
Gravity,

With respect to DVOA and the like, are these statistics totally independent of the team's efficacy in other phases of the game? Suppose Tannehill faces twice as many 3rd down and 10+ yards to go instances versus the average QB or the top QB's? I am assuming DVOA rewards a completion that results in a 1st down more than completions which do not. If so, is Tannehill being penalized under the assumption that he is facing more adverse down and distance situations than other QB's? And I am assuming that if he is put in these worse situations by being sacked more and having an ineffective running game, that the DVOA does not reflect that he is not responsible for being in more of these situations, for the most part.

Obviously not! As the site's staff keep reminding everyone, the DVOA of any single player does not represent a judgment on the player, but simply gauges his performance. For example, it's a well-known fact that OL blocking is key to an RB's DVOA, so that an RB's DVOA is actually a reflection of the performance of the entire team as far as running the ball. The difference with RBs is that you can compare two or more backs from the same team and DVOA will tell you how good each is relative to the other.

Applied to Tannehill, every staffer and the usual posters -very smart and knowledgeable people, most of them- know a QB doesn't play on an island, that the OL and the receivers and RBs all have a role to play in explaining the DVOA of a QB. Take Mike Tanier, a former staffer at FO and currently at Sports on Earth. Last week he wrote a piece about Ireland and in passing explained what most everyone knows, that if anything Tannehill has been doing pretty darn well so far despite his bad DVOA.

I also think FO it's a great place to start learning how to apply statistics correctly to the game of football, as there are many caveats that need to be considered, and you can't just yield stats and correlations like a club and expect to derive something meaningful.

As far as the 3rd and long example, on the other hand, no, the fact that you face more of those situations is not of particular interest. Every QB is rated according to a baseline, that is, what the "replacement level" QB would do on 3rd long (which is not much). In other words, the bar isn't very high in those situations, since you're not expected to convert very often.
 
my mistake, sacks take away from team passing yardage, not individual
Hey, not a problem. We're all human. I actually greatly appreciate the type of contribution you provided to the thread. :up:
 
Back
Top Bottom