Caution: SMY uses PFF as her source:
Mankins graded top guard of last three years - Extra Points - Boston.com
Mankins graded top guard of last three years - Extra Points - Boston.com
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I will never get why the media loves PFF so much when their stats are so blatantly flawed it isn't funny.
People -- reporters and otherwise -- love any stats and rankings you offer, and believe them because they're numbers. It's absolutely mindblowing how easily you can dupe people by putting numbers into your argument. (Joseph McCarthy's bogus "I have in my hand 57 cases..." speech wouldn't have struck the same persuasive chord if he'd just said "I have in my hand a list...")
In my own field I see people make headlines with wildly inaccurate and misleading stats all the time. Nobody ever questions them, because they're stats! They're concrete! Real live numerical facts!
People -- reporters and otherwise -- love any stats and rankings you offer, and believe them because they're numbers. It's absolutely mindblowing how easily you can dupe people by putting numbers into your argument. (Joseph McCarthy's bogus "I have in my hand 57 cases..." speech wouldn't have struck the same persuasive chord if he'd just said "I have in my hand a list...")
In my own field I see people make headlines with wildly inaccurate and misleading stats all the time. Nobody ever questions them, because they're stats! They're concrete! Real live numerical facts!
Just piss poor reporting on this. Does she like PFF because its free? I haven't seen any evidence of SMY stepping up from mediocrity any time soon.
Personally, I am not one who loves these sources that try to create their own value metrics. I am not a big fan of Football Outsider eventhough I think their metrics are far, far more accurate than PFF's metrics are. I guess in a way I respect sites for trying these value metrics, but I still think that football is not a sport you can measure purely on stats no matter how you weight the numbers.
I like how FO at least tells us what their metrics are. PFF doesn't reveal how they rate players, other than a few spoilers on their QB rating, which gives bonus points to throwing into double coverage
This is my new favorite line, so I'll use it again. I am as qualified to break news reports and the guys at PFF are to grade football players, so why is the Boston Globe not citing me when I say the lockout is over?
I agree wholeheartedly. PFF's inadequacies are well documented and SHOULD be common knowledge even to the local media The very fact she referenced PFF shows a kind of laziness and lack of the attention to detail have come to be SOP for most of the mediots around here. It shows the kind of agenda driven stories we are forced to deal with.
I'm not sure guys like Mike Reiss is THAT good, or does he just stand out because the competition is just SOOOOOO bad.
Pretty much. I feel like they grade quarterbacks like competitive divers, with a degree of difficulty factor, rather than rewarding a guy for finding the open receiver.Wait? The QB gets points for throwing into double coverage?!? Really?!? Many times even when a big play is made throwing into double coverage, it was a poor decision by the QB and he just gets lucky his receiver catches the ball. Personally, depending on the situation, I would deduct points for throwing into double coverage even if turns into a big play.
0.0 Base Play – Any throw you expect any player to make. Hitting a guy open on a 1 step slant with off coverage is 0 no matter how many yards it makes. It’s a smart decision but a throw that anyone could and should make.
+0.5 Base Play – Making a throw to beat single coverage to pick up a first down. Leading a receiver to allow him to gain YAC for a first down. Making a play with their feet (scrambling or moving in the pocket) to create an easy throw (the throw in itself may not be difficult, but he made it easy with his movement).
+1.0 Base Play – Beating tight coverage or splitting loose double coverage to pick up significant yardage/first down. Good deep throws will mostly (unless it’s wide open) get this grade, leading the receiver past deep coverage etc. Making space with their feet (see above) and making a “good” throw on the run.
+1.5 Base Play – Beating tight double cover, using your legs to beat tight single cover or loose double cover etc. Splitting double cover to lead a receiver deep etc.
(+0.5 bonus for plays made either at a crunch time or that have a pivotal effect on the game, e.g. touchdown to win the game, crucial 3rd down conversion to run out the clock, etc.)
Pretty much. I feel like they grade quarterbacks like competitive divers, with a degree of difficulty factor, rather than rewarding a guy for finding the open receiver.
Just piss poor reporting on this. Does she like PFF because its free? I haven't seen any evidence of SMY stepping up from mediocrity any time soon.
Pretty much. I feel like they grade quarterbacks like competitive divers, with a degree of difficulty factor, rather than rewarding a guy for finding the open receiver.
First, beating tight double coverage in most cases is as much or more the responsibility of the WR.
Second, some of these bonus points are definitely skewed for QBs with certain weapons. Beating tight double coverage, even for Brady, Manning, Brees, Rivers, etc., is far easier to do with a big WR (Moss in his prime, Megatron, Andre Johnson, etc.) than trying to do that with Smurf WRs (Branch, Welker) is far tougher because with big WRs you can throw it up there and let the receiver fight for the ball, but with smaller WRs the pass has to be near pinpoint accuracy.
I seriously wonder if the people at PFF really understand football. Some of their metric really tell me they have a very basic understanding of the game. I can see why Brady was ranked 33rd in their top 101 players of 2010 since he was penalized for things that were clearly outside his control. He just didn't have a deep threat who could take on tight double coverage and fight for the ball and his PFF numbers suffered for it.
Their grading system rewards a QB not reading the defense well, basically.
Not that they'd be any judge of that. Their amateur "scouts" can't read defenses either.
I That's true then he should be ashamedIn fairness to SMY, I have seen Mike Reiss use PFF stats himself.