- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 32,634
- Reaction score
- 23,169
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.He’s actually 4-8 against them.
Just clarifying, that’s all. Not meaning to nitpick. I can remember 4 off the top of my head:That’s odd, the site I took it from said the article was 6 months old. My bad.
Come on, man. He threw more potential touchdowns than potential interceptions according to PFF. The **** is wrong with you?That’s odd, the site I took it from said the article was 6 months old. My bad.
1. That was probably true when the grading was done by a group of hobbyists, but think about it Andy. They have managed to retain all 32 NFL teams. Do you think think those teams would have signed up if they DIDN'T know the methodology PFF NOW uses to grade individual players AND agreed with it.PFF has a good concept. Teams grade players on film all the time.
But from there PFF has many issues, including:
1) historically they aren’t very good at grading football players
2) they have a flawed method such as giving a QB more credit for thriving into heavy coverage and getting lucky with a completion than making the proper read and hitting a wide open receiver
3) they try to put a number on things that there isnt a number for, and use it to compare players wholly, such as the horribly flawed passer rating against
4) they do it know the play call of responsibilities yet assign credit or blame any way by guessing.
5) these and other flaws make their ranking inaccurate and sometimes flat out silly.
The concept has merit but the approach they use invalidates most of their results.
1. You do not know that they signed up to get the methodology. In fact you don’t know if PFF charges them next to nothing and gives them perks to sign up just to be able to say all 32 teams subscribe. You also don’t know they are signing up for evaluation rather than data.1. That was probably true when the grading was done by a group of hobbyists, but think about it Andy. They have managed to retain all 32 NFL teams. Do you think think those teams would have signed up if they DIDN'T know the methodology PFF NOW uses to grade individual players AND agreed with it.
2. That is you opinion and actually may be the case. But if it's common knowledge and it must be if you think it, teams and individuals are free to use or ignore it.
3. That is an issue for ALL math driven data. They are all looking to create a "number" to describe an "action", and given there are 22 different interactions going on every play the complexity is enormous. Those numbers are an ATTEMPTS to explain that vast complexity. So by definition they are ALL going to be suspect.
4. That's a reality we have all recognized as a central problem for these kinds of services. But for a knowledgeable grader you can often infer responsibilities based on how you see the play unfolding. You certainly don't get it right 100% of the time, but that's not what teams are looking for. Those grades are merely indications or trends, or tendencies depending on what the grades are for.
Like I said in the OP, going in, there are lots of areas where you can criticized their operations. But their JOB is to be right more than they are wrong. Ultimately, the success of what they bring to the table depends greatly on how the user interprets the data that is given.
5. You last statement is just bluster and hubris, otherwise how do you explain that 32 NFL teams as well as 6o college teams use their services. Are they all idiots. If what your last statement is true....then that's what they are.
I'm going to do my best to answer some of your responses to my approach. But be warned I am NOT going to get involved in one of your circular logic attempts to prove you are smarter than everyone else. But I'l make an honest attempt to respond here even though I know you aren't really intellectually honest enough to care whatever I write, because you are only geared to challenge and twist whatever I say to your own narrative. But here I go anyways, which probably denotes that there is a stroke in emanating in my near future.1. You do not know that they signed up to get the methodology. In fact you don’t know if PFF charges them next to nothing and gives them perks to sign up just to be able to say all 32 teams subscribe. You also don’t know they are signing up for evaluation rather than data.
2. Of you are free to ignore their flawed evaluations then that makes them useless. You can’t argue something isnt flawed by saying you are free to ignore it because then it has no value. In that regard at least.
3. Exactly. So what value does a made up number purported to express something it doesn’t really have?
4. Huh? Are you telling me that you think teams are abandoning scouting and evaluation and turning it over to PFF? What good is rating a player if you don’t know his assignment? It’s a wild guess.
You seem to be arguing PFF is good because while its methodology is extremely flawed what they are trying to do has inherent flaws.
Its like saying throwing darts at a stock sheet has value because while it’s inherently flawed you can just be free to ignore the results or recognizes that it may be based upon guessing at data.
Now I’m sure if you studied and evaluated their evaluations you would find it better than throwing a dart, but to accept the end result as accurate would be throwing a dart, given multiple levels of flaws.
5.
Have you looked at their rankings?
Tom Brady was a unanimous mvp ranked 20th by pff. The argument was he didn’t complete enough passes into tight coverage. That is not bluster or hubris it’s a flawed rubric. There are many other examples.
You seem to think that teams subscribing to their service is an endorsement of the quality if their ratings. It’s far from that. I listed many reasons above that it may not be that at all.
Like I said it’s a noble concept but it’s not being executed very well (and maybe it just can’t be)
I'm going to do my best to answer some of your responses to my approach. But be warned I am NOT going to get involved in one of your circular logic attempts to prove you are smarter than everyone else. But I'l make an honest attempt to respond here even though I know you aren't really intellectually honest enough to care whatever I write, because you are only geared to challenge and twist whatever I say to your own narrative. But here I go anyways, which probably denotes that there is a stroke in emanating in my near future.
Well the actual REASON I bothered to give you the link was something that was actually IN the article. They offered the opinion that all things being equal in today's game, you'd rather have good coverage than a great pass rush and they gave the Pats as the great exemplar on both sides.