Random WC Weekend Thoughts

[makewayhomer]

It has nothing to do with health, it has to do with attempts.

A great performance for 25 attempts will grade out about the same as a decent performance with 45 attempts.

health comes into play when you miss games, since DPAR adds up all the games

also, DPAR represents actual value added, which has to count for something, instead of just giving Roeth equal credit, even though he throws a LOT less passes than other top qb's.

while you need to realize that DPAR will be helped by throwing more passes, those additional stats should still count for something. It's not fair to discount them by saying what Roeth would have done with a similar number of attempts as other quarterbacks, because those additional attempts by other guys represent actual value added, instead of hypothetical value.

from FO:

The problem is that DVOA doesn't take into account the value of a player being involved in a greater number of plays, even if his performance is league-average. A player who is involved in more plays can draw the defense's attention away from other parts of the offense. If that player is a running back, he can take time off the clock with repeated runs. And most importantly, nearly every player is a starter for a reason: he is better than the alternative.

Let's say you have a running back who carries the ball 300 times in a season. What would happen if you were to remove this player from his team's offense? What would happen to those 300 plays? Well, the player would not be replaced by thin air. This is why you have to compare performance to some kind of baseline; two yards is not two yards better than the alternative. On the other hand, while comparing players to the league average works on a per play basis, it doesn't work on a total basis because a player removed from an offense is not generally replaced by a similar player. Those 300 plays will generally be given to a significantly worse player, someone who is the backup because he doesn't have as much experience and/or talent.

so, DVOA gives you how well a guy does per play, while DPAR gives you "a better representation of a player's total contribution to his team on all his plays"

they are both useful

 

[makewayhomer]

and more on topic for this thiread. I think Garrard is an interesting guy to look at for DVOA/DPAR.

his DVOA was 2nd in the league this year, behind only Brady. but his DPAR was 5th, nearly tied for 6th.

Manning, Favre, and Brees finished ahead of him in DPAR b/c of a combination of a) they stayed healthier and b) their teams relied on them more. had he started 16 games, he would have finished ahead of Favre and Brees in DPAR, but still behind Manning.

 

[Oswlek]

health comes into play when you miss games, since DPAR adds up all the games

also, DPAR represents actual value added, which has to count for something, instead of just giving Roeth equal credit, even though he throws a LOT less passes than other top qb's.

while you need to realize that DPAR will be helped by throwing more passes, those additional stats should still count for something. It's not fair to discount them by saying what Roeth would have done with a similar number of attempts as other quarterbacks, because those additional attempts by other guys represent actual value added, instead of hypothetical value.

from FO:

The problem is that DVOA doesn't take into account the value of a player being involved in a greater number of plays, even if his performance is league-average. A player who is involved in more plays can draw the defense's attention away from other parts of the offense. If that player is a running back, he can take time off the clock with repeated runs. And most importantly, nearly every player is a starter for a reason: he is better than the alternative.

Let's say you have a running back who carries the ball 300 times in a season. What would happen if you were to remove this player from his team's offense? What would happen to those 300 plays? Well, the player would not be replaced by thin air. This is why you have to compare performance to some kind of baseline; two yards is not two yards better than the alternative. On the other hand, while comparing players to the league average works on a per play basis, it doesn't work on a total basis because a player removed from an offense is not generally replaced by a similar player. Those 300 plays will generally be given to a significantly worse player, someone who is the backup because he doesn't have as much experience and/or talent.

so, DVOA gives you how well a guy does per play, while DPAR gives you "a better representation of a player's total contribution to his team on all his plays"

they are both useful

I never said that DPAR isn't useful, just that I think DVOA is more representative of the true play.

And the line that you quoted doesn't really alter my thinking. Of course DPAR is "a better representation of a player's ... contribution"! It includes all of his plays!

The danger with relying solely on DVOA is not between full-time position players in different schemes (although that obviously needs to be factored in) it is between full-time and part-time players; having LdT with a lower DVOA than Michael Turner, for example.

That said, I do think that Roeth is a loose cannon who seems unlikely to hone his skills into true greatness. I just don't think he reads defenses well enough to be considered truly elite. But I still think DVOA is better than DPAR when comparing full-time players.

 

[Oswlek]

and more on topic for this thiread. I think Garrard is an interesting guy to look at for DVOA/DPAR.

his DVOA was 2nd in the league this year, behind only Brady. but his DPAR was 5th, nearly tied for 6th.

Manning, Favre, and Brees finished ahead of him in DPAR b/c of a combination of a) they stayed healthier and b) their teams relied on them more. had he started 16 games, he would have finished ahead of Favre and Brees in DPAR, but still behind Manning.

Manning had a very un-Manning-like middle of the season. Garrard was consistently (until this past week, anyway) a very solid QB.

 

[makewayhomer]

Manning had a very un-Manning-like middle of the season. Garrard was consistently (until this past week, anyway) a very solid QB.

yeah. I mean a lot of Peytons troubles were obviously related to the fact that his offense was torn to tatters by injury, and he had to adjust to that.

 

[makewayhomer]

But I still think DVOA is better than DPAR when comparing full-time players.

I see where you are coming from. in terms of skill...maybe DVOA, but in terms of value, then DPAR is better.

I still think, though, that a more a player plays, the more his DVOA will go down b/c he is more tired, opponents focus on him more, etc.

picture a QB whose team has the best rushing attack of all the time. they never really need to throw, but do to mix it up sometimes. meanwhile the D is totally keyed on the run. a decent QB in this system will probably have a great DVOA, but this is a bit artificial b/c the defense is not concentrating on him. I think this is Roeth/Garrard, in an extreme example. if the run offenses were worse, the defense would pay more attention to the QB, the QB would have to throw more, and the QB's DVOA would probably go down (but his DPAR up).

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

The pocket is supposed to be the QB's home, his comfort zone. At least for 2007, Roethlisberger looked his best outside the pocket. Granted his OL gave him many reasons to get outside the pocket, but if a guy doesn't look his best inside the pocket then his reputation should take a hit. Especially if we're talking about HOF worthiness down the road.

Regards,
Chris