Rob Gronkowski versus Jason Witten: Who had the better game?

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Just curious if there are any sabermetric types out there that want to attack this question. Who had a better game yesterday, in terms of giving their team a better chance to win? This is NOT based on observing the game, but rather, it is based on the statistics of these two players only. It also not based on Romo, Brady, supporting casts, coaching, or outcomes. It is more of a philosophical question. If you saw both of these stat lines and knew nothing about the game, which player's production would you presume led to a greater chance of victory?

Also, touchdowns are irrelevant for the sake of this analysis.

Rob Gronkowski- 13 targets, 8 receptions, 146 yards
Yards per target: 11.23; Yards per reception: 18.3

Jason Witten-- 22 targets, 18 receptions, 167 yards
Yards per target: 7.59; Yards per reception: 9.28

I began thinking about this last year before the Super Bowl when Giants fans argued that Victor Cruz was a better slot receiver than Wes Welker because his YPR and YPT was higher, leading them to believe that Cruz is more effective. I thought this was probably correct, yet I also thought there is something to be said for moving the chains more consistently by picking up more positive plays.

What do you think?

 

[mayoclinic]

The Pats won and the Cowboys lost, and Gronk was an integral part of the blowout win, so Gronk.

 

[Ring 6]

Just curious if there are any sabermetric types out there that want to attack this question. Who had a better game yesterday, in terms of giving their team a better chance to win? This is NOT based on observing the game, but rather, it is based on the statistics of these two players only. It also not based on Romo, Brady, supporting casts, coaching, or outcomes. It is more of a philosophical question. If you saw both of these stat lines and knew nothing about the game, which player's production would you presume led to a greater chance of victory?

Also, touchdowns are irrelevant for the sake of this analysis.

Rob Gronkowski- 13 targets, 8 receptions, 146 yards
Yards per target: 11.23; Yards per reception: 18.3

Jason Witten-- 22 targets, 18 receptions, 167 yards
Yards per target: 7.59; Yards per reception: 9.28

I began thinking about this last year before the Super Bowl when Giants fans argued that Victor Cruz was a better slot receiver than Wes Welker because his YPR and YPT was higher, leading them to believe that Cruz is more effective. I thought this was probably correct, yet I also thought there is something to be said for moving the chains more consistently by picking up more positive plays.

What do you think?

Gronkowskis team won, Wittens did not.
Stats accumulated while losing are not as good as stats accumulated while winning.

 

[mayoclinic]

Gronkowskis team won, Wittens did not.
Stats accumulated while losing are not as good as stats accumulated while winning.

The Pats won and the Cowboys lost, and Gronk was an integral part of the blowout win, so Gronk.

Near-simultaneous posts.

 

[Sciz]

Witten also dropped at least one pass in crunch time.

 

[oldrover]

Uh... Gronk had two scores, Witten zero. No contest.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This is NOT based on observing the game, but rather, it is based on the statistics of these two players only. It also not based on Romo, Brady, supporting casts, coaching, or outcomes. It is more of a philosophical question. If you saw both of these stat lines and knew nothing about the game, which player's production would you presume led to a greater chance of victory?

Also, touchdowns are irrelevant for the sake of this analysis.

Can anyone read?

 

[Kontradiction]

Just curious if there are any sabermetric types out there that want to attack this question. Who had a better game yesterday, in terms of giving their team a better chance to win? This is NOT based on observing the game, but rather, it is based on the statistics of these two players only. It also not based on Romo, Brady, supporting casts, coaching, or outcomes. It is more of a philosophical question. If you saw both of these stat lines and knew nothing about the game, which player's production would you presume led to a greater chance of victory?

Also, touchdowns are irrelevant for the sake of this analysis.

Rob Gronkowski- 13 targets, 8 receptions, 146 yards
Yards per target: 11.23; Yards per reception: 18.3

Jason Witten-- 22 targets, 18 receptions, 167 yards
Yards per target: 7.59; Yards per reception: 9.28

I began thinking about this last year before the Super Bowl when Giants fans argued that Victor Cruz was a better slot receiver than Wes Welker because his YPR and YPT was higher, leading them to believe that Cruz is more effective. I thought this was probably correct, yet I also thought there is something to be said for moving the chains more consistently by picking up more positive plays.

What do you think?

Based on your qualifications in this post, it's rather obvious to see that you're trying to lean posters toward voting for Witten.

 

[Deus Irae]

Whitten probably is the 'correct' choice, but stats will give different answers depending upon how they weight things. I'll just note a couple of things about Whitten's game, since I'm sure others here will cover the Gronk stuff:

Whitten had half of his team's receptions on just over a third of the attempts. Also, a lot of Whitten's targets/catches were on first down, which consistently put the Cowboys in good second down position.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

18 receptions in a game is very remarkable. Plus with 9+ yards per reception, should lead to a team effectively moving the chains. The only way to lose after that type of performance is to give the ball up.

So, I'd say what Witten did was better for his team to win the game and I'd call him the fed ex- by air player of the week over Gronk.

But, Gronk got 2 touchdowns and had a better fantasy day and ultimately contributed more to a team victory and I won't be complaining.

 

[DaBruinz]

Just curious if there are any sabermetric types out there that want to attack this question. Who had a better game yesterday, in terms of giving their team a better chance to win? This is NOT based on observing the game, but rather, it is based on the statistics of these two players only. It also not based on Romo, Brady, supporting casts, coaching, or outcomes. It is more of a philosophical question. If you saw both of these stat lines and knew nothing about the game, which player's production would you presume led to a greater chance of victory?

Also, touchdowns are irrelevant for the sake of this analysis.

Rob Gronkowski- 13 targets, 8 receptions, 146 yards
Yards per target: 11.23; Yards per reception: 18.3

Jason Witten-- 22 targets, 18 receptions, 167 yards
Yards per target: 7.59; Yards per reception: 9.28

I began thinking about this last year before the Super Bowl when Giants fans argued that Victor Cruz was a better slot receiver than Wes Welker because his YPR and YPT was higher, leading them to believe that Cruz is more effective. I thought this was probably correct, yet I also thought there is something to be said for moving the chains more consistently by picking up more positive plays.

What do you think?

Well, first off, I believe you discounting the 2 TDs by Gronkowski automatically falls outside the bounds of any Sabermetric conversation. Sabermetrics puts a premium on actions that help the team win. Catching a pass for a TD does more to help the team win than just catching a pass.

I'd have to say that your whole premise is flawed.

 

[IllegalContact]

gronk won.....gronk had the better game
hoomanawanui won.....hoomanawanui had the better game

 

[PatsFanNM]

It's clear that you can't make a comparison like this without including spikes. If you include spikes, Gronkowski clearly had the better game.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Also, touchdowns are irrelevant for the sake of this analysis.

Why on Earth would touchdowns scored be considered an irrelevant statistic? Isn't affecting the scoreboard extremely important?

 

[Sivy]

Gronk is the most dominationg force in the entire NFL.


Dude is a straight up beast.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Gronk is the most dominationg force in the entire NFL.


Dude is a straight up beast.

...And he's looking a bit healthier these days

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Incomplete information. Sabermetrics-type analysis is tough for football, especially looking at the information you presented. At a minimum, add in catches resulting in 1st downs. Probably need stats like 3rd-down conversion catches as well. Also, catches that set up favorable down-and-distance follow-up plays.

Even after throwing in all of the above stats, things like the types of coverages each guy faced...perhaps tough to quantify...also needs consideration (e.g. Gronk's 2nd TD was a gift as nobody covered him...should that detract from his contest vs. Witten?).

Regards,
Chris

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Why on Earth would touchdowns scored be considered an irrelevant statistic? Isn't affecting the scoreboard extremely important?

Because Gronk versus Witten is irrelevant to this entire discussion, but no one is able to put aside their views of these particular players. And because I knew that if I added the two TDs, it would just get everyone sidetracked.

Here is the question:

Player A has 10 catches for 100 yards (on 14 targets)

Player B has 3 catches for 100 yards (on 7 targets).

Theoretically, which player's performance is better? It isn't about Gronk versus Witten or the Patriots and Cowboys. It's about gaining big chunks of yardage versus moving the chains consistently and controlling the clock with smaller gains.

 

[Deus Irae]

Because Gronk versus Witten is irrelevant to this entire discussion, but no one is able to put aside their views of these particular players. And because I knew that if I added the two TDs, it would just get everyone sidetracked.

Here is the question:

Player A has 10 catches for 100 yards (on 14 targets)

Player B has 3 catches for 100 yards (on 7 targets).

Theoretically, which player's performance is better? It isn't about Gronk versus Witten or the Patriots and Cowboys. It's about gaining big chunks of yardage versus moving the chains consistently and controlling the clock with smaller gains.

Player A fans: "Player A, because he caught more passes and helped move the ball more often."

Player B fans: "Player B, because he provided the kind of big gainers that make things much easier for offenses."

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Here is the question:

Player A has 10 catches for 100 yards (on 14 targets)

Player B has 3 catches for 100 yards (on 7 targets).

Theoretically, which player's performance is better?

The one that helped put more points on the board? How many catches for each were on drives that made the scoreboard move? That's not by any means a factor to ignore.