ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Nice approach. A couple of things this approach would indicate. Branch is a bargain as the #4 option in the passing game. and would be very valuable as the #5 if we sign someone like Lloyd. Looking at B Lloyd's season when playing in this system (2010) would be interesting.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
A lot of work and thought went into that. Thank you.
My quibble is that you are mixing yardage indicators ("yds", "ypc", "yac") with percentage indicators, which latter you then have to adjust by multiplying by a factor of 10 to make them comparable to yardage. That seems artificial to me.
Also, I could figure out what you mean in all of your formulas except for "(10*20+/rec)." How does that read out?
Otherwise, I'll have to think about it a bit. You must have a very good database on the Receivers. Could you give us the source for your raw data so we can play around with it a bit?
Thanks again.
There are plenty of things to quibble with - and some things that would merit a term stronger than "quibble". I won't even for a minute try to "defend" these formulas as if they are really objectively accurate. It was, as I've said, just my way of trying to capture what receivers have done, and broken it up into different categories. That said, as I've said, I do think, when the numbers shake out, that it *looks* like what you'd suspect a really accurate listing would probably look like. So I'm probably not light years away from something useful.
To your "what is (10*20+/rec)" question, it's this... 20+ is the number of 20+ yardage pass plays. I divided that by the number of receptions. So take these three guys:
I can definitely send the group the excel spreadsheet I put together. I don't know how to upload it, though. If someone can give me the instructions for that I'd be happy to get it out there.
If you won't reveal your formula then this is useless. Which is a very supporting fact to your claim that you are not a statistician.
You might want to look upthread just a few posts.
I don't always read every post in a thread before I throw in my two cents, but generally that's on threads that are already pretty long. You posted what I quoted above in the 7th post of the thread and I had given my formulas in post #4. So.........might be worth a look-see.
But yes, it's very true that I'm not a statistician.
This was awesome, Ivan. Since a lot of people are taking about him, I'd be interested to seeing how Brandon Lloyd's numbers would look like. As a matter of fact, I'd be interested in seeing where the top ten FA WR's would fit into this formula you've developed.
Again, thanks a lot for the effort,.
I decided to update the lists with 32 being the minimum number of receptions instead of 48. The thought being that 2 rec a game still makes a guy a receiver that QBs throw to semi-regularly. Anyway, another arbitrary number, but hey, it's what it is.
Here's Brandon Lloyd, 2010 and 2011 (to satisfy both of these questions):
2011:
PR: 25.26 (#33 in NFL) - 2010: 40.38
ER: 25.75 (#68 in NFL) - 2010: 34.62
DR: 18.77 (#84 in NFL) - 2010: 25.79
TR: 107.92 (#44 in NFL) - 2010: 158.48
So Lloyd's 2010 season would have had him ranked here for 2011:
PR: #5
ER: #3
DR: #10
TR: #4
No matter how you slice it, that's an elite receiver.
Later today I'll do this for all of the top free agents and give you where they stack up.
Cursory as it may be, it sure does seem to indicate that Branch isn't yet road kill as some here seem determined to make him out to be and Welker is a top 5 WR overall, so while factoring in his impending AARP status as a soon to be 31 year old you might not really want to pay him as such for another 5 years. But top ten payment should be impossible to quibble with. FWIW that is presently calculated to have been $8.5M (this year's transition tag #) per over the last 5 years...and that # will undoubtedly increase over the next 3-4 seasons as new deals are done and the impending cap increase approaches. And that's before you even apply some formula that weights value to this team based on proven production in a complex system many otherwise accomplished and highly drafted WR's can't manage to grasp.
I don't always read every post in a thread before I throw in my two cents, but generally that's on threads that are already pretty long. You posted what I quoted above in the 7th post of the thread and I had given my formulas in post #4. So.........might be worth a look-see.
But yes, it's very true that I'm not a statistician.
You were a lot more polite to him than he deserved.
__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.
Here's Brandon Lloyd, 2010 and 2011 (to satisfy both of these questions):
2011:
PR: 25.26 (#33 in NFL) - 2010: 40.38
ER: 25.75 (#68 in NFL) - 2010: 34.62
DR: 18.77 (#84 in NFL) - 2010: 25.79
TR: 107.92 (#44 in NFL) - 2010: 158.48
So Lloyd's 2010 season would have had him ranked here for 2011:
PR: #5
ER: #3
DR: #10
TR: #4
No matter how you slice it, that's an elite receiver.
Later today I'll do this for all of the top free agents and give you where they stack up.
I am sure the method is not perfect, but I appreciate the effort put into this, and look forward to the next installment.
Lots of off season fun.
Another observation, the composite for the top receivers will reflect of course the quality of the QB, IOW Brady has a lot of top ranked targets, one suspects that Rogers and Breeze do also.
I wonder if you can identify an elite target who works with an JAG QB by how much higher they rank than their peers. I have seen pitchers who had very good W/L record when their team was lousy, like Steve Carlton for example. I would guess Welker was ranked far higher than other Dolphin Targets when he played there.
My guess is a fair amount of separation between Lloyd and Royal on the 2010 Bronco's whereas Wallace has Brown, Miller, Sanders and Ward as targets.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
There are plenty of things to quibble with - and some things that would merit a term stronger than "quibble". I won't even for a minute try to "defend" these formulas as if they are really objectively accurate. It was, as I've said, just my way of trying to capture what receivers have done, and broken it up into different categories. That said, as I've said, I do think, when the numbers shake out, that it *looks* like what you'd suspect a really accurate listing would probably look like. So I'm probably not light years away from something useful.
To your "what is (10*20+/rec)" question, it's this... 20+ is the number of 20+ yardage pass plays. I divided that by the number of receptions. So take these three guys:
I can definitely send the group the excel spreadsheet I put together. I don't know how to upload it, though. If someone can give me the instructions for that I'd be happy to get it out there.
Excellent work!
I kinda like the separate performance categories and especially like the concept of evaluating things like 20-yard-plays and 1st-downs as a percentage of plays, rather than as a raw number.
Inspired by the pro-football-reference.com Average Value (AV) system, I've been trying to develop something like you have - not so much for ranking purposes as for trying to get a feel for the average career value of players compared to what they "cost" in terms of draft pick value (as per the Standard Trade Value chart). IOW, trying to answer the question, "What has been the typical difference in ROI between guy taken in the late first (around 640 ATV) versus a guy taken in the late second (around 280 STV) or a guy taken in the late 3rd (around 120 STV). In the long run, I was also trying to rate the relative strength (in terms of ROI) of each draft class by position.
I started with RBs, which is instantly way more complicated when trying to factor in receiving as well as rushing (and I haven't even begun to address KR/PR contributions). So, my system seems a bit more elaborate than yours - which is not to say that it's any more informative.
Anyway, some of the issues I've been wrestling with:
- fumbles should be a performance deduction, it seems, and a lost fumble should maybe be a bigger deduction - but how much bigger?
- catch rate (CR) should probably figure in somewhere, but perhaps needs to be balance against YPC since guys with higher YPC typically have lower CR than guys (like RBs, TEs and slot receivers) who are most often much closer to the LoS when targeted. HOWEVER, this seems even further complicated (in my always-over-thinking-it brain) by the fact that the YPC of some players is supported by relatively high YAC.
So, in addition to being a compliment, I guess this is sort of a warning about the danger of falling down the rabbit hole.
I kinda like the separate performance categories and especially like the concept of evaluating things like 20-yard-plays and 1st-downs as a percentage of plays, rather than as a raw number.
Inspired by the pro-football-reference.com Average Value (AV) system, I've been trying to develop something like you have - not so much for ranking purposes as for trying to get a feel for the average career value of players compared to what they "cost" in terms of draft pick value (as per the Standard Trade Value chart). IOW, trying to answer the question, "What has been the typical difference in ROI between guy taken in the late first (around 640 ATV) versus a guy taken in the late second (around 280 STV) or a guy taken in the late 3rd (around 120 STV). In the long run, I was also trying to rate the relative strength (in terms of ROI) of each draft class by position.
I started with RBs, which is instantly way more complicated when trying to factor in receiving as well as rushing (and I haven't even begun to address KR/PR contributions). So, my system seems a bit more elaborate than yours - which is not to say that it's any more informative.
Anyway, some of the issues I've been wrestling with:
- fumbles should be a performance deduction, it seems, and a lost fumble should maybe be a bigger deduction - but how much bigger?
- catch rate (CR) should probably figure in somewhere, but perhaps needs to be balance against YPC since guys with higher YPC typically have lower CR than guys (like RBs, TEs and slot receivers) who are most often much closer to the LoS when targeted. HOWEVER, this seems even further complicated (in my always-over-thinking-it brain) by the fact that the YPC of some players is supported by relatively high YAC.
So, in addition to being a compliment, I guess this is sort of a warning about the danger of falling down the rabbit hole.
Turnovers more often than not are an express connection to the gain or loss of points. Given that NFL kickers are now very reliable inside 50 yards, a team that provides a turnover once it has attained a first-down at its opponent’s 40-yard line can expect to lose at least three points because that team could expect to move into reasonable field goal range without attaining any more first downs.
Likewise, a team that receives a turnover inside its opponent’s 40-yard line can expect to gain three points without achieving even one first down.
Typically, one only thinks of 20 percent of the field—the “Red Zone”—as scoring territory. But turnovers transform 80 percent of the field into scoring territory in that when a turnover occurs a team is likely to either lose points or gain points without any further meaningful progress (i.e., a first down) unless the turnover occurs in the middle 20 percent of the field between the 40-yards lines.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
11Likes
Re: WR Ratings
Linear Mode
