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.
1. No I do not know the the financial arrangements that PFF has with the NFL, but NEITHER do you. I can INFER that they are they are making enough to pay 500 full time employees, most of whom have college degrees. They aren't hobbyists anymore. And your comment that they give their info to the NFL for little or free is an OPINION worthy of Ben Volin (sorry for the insult) Because it doesn't match the facts. If the NFL isn't paying for the services where are they coming up with the MILLIONS of dollars of fixed costs alone.
The second issue you didn't really address in #1 was about the methodology used to grade players. This was probably why I responded in the first place. Every team uses SOME kind of perimeters to grade an individual on any play. It is only common sense that ANY team interested in that grading service would NEED to know how they come up with the grade . And while it might not be how the individual team would do it, they CLEARLY must have found it reasonable enough or they wouldn't have bought the service.
2. If the data is as obviously flawed as you profess, why would anyone PAY to get it. Again how do you pay 500 white collar workers every month for YEARS, if what you say is true. SOMEBODY must think its worth something.
3. Finally something interesting to talk about. I guess we are talking about the very difficult ATTEMPT to quantify the sometimes random events of a football play NUMERICALLY. But often that's what mathematicians do. They make the ATTEMPT with the hope that what they produce will have enough truth that it aids in their clients' decision making.
We have all snickered on one hand at the varied incarnations of the QB rating to make a point, while on the other hand use it like a hammer to defend or attack a position. The point is that these numbers are just tools. The often carry a ring of truth in them, but are subject to vast ranges of interpretations.
For example, the instance you gave about Brady being marked down because he wasn't throwing into "tight windows". It's a great example of a flaw in the process that PARTICULAR year, btw what year was that? IIRC it was in '12, 13 or 14. But back a while. 2 points. While the number is clearly not the final arbiter of how a QB performs. For the most part guys who have good days have higher numbers than guys who don't.
But in a sense that example kind of makes my point. Do you want to bet that in 2019 QB's are NOT being punished for throwing to open receivers. You see, it seems you are trying to make your point by pointing out a flaw that may have occurred a while ago and deemed it to be the final picture of what will ALWAYS happen in the future. I;m sure that over the years PFF (and others) are constantly adjusting their numbers and parameters.
4. Now that was interesting and worthy of a fuller discussion that I'd be happy to have with you or anyone else. What follows is just BS. Here is an example of your over the top argumentative crap that you stoop to just for the sake of arguing
No I did NOT profess that the NFL is turning over all its "scouting and evaluations and turning over to PFF". I didn't infer it. I didn't even imply it. It was simply a figment of your imagination, and an example of why I mentioned "intellectual honesty" earlier. This is just you wanting to start an argument
In the rest of this number you yammer about how I think PFF Is good while its methodology is so clearly and obviously flawed. Its the central point of your entire rant, which is clearly and obviously flawed. How can that be when people who know a LOT more than you or me are paying the a LOT of money for their services. They aren't doing it because they believe the info they get is going to be right 100% of the time, but because they believe it will help them be right more times than not.
5 The drivel you wrote in #5 (outside of the Brady example which was interesting) is just more of the same crap and I'm getting bored. So I'll end it here and bemoan the time I lost writing it.
BTW- in crafting your response to this just answer 2 simple question with any kind of logic and I'll immediately change my position to yours.
1 Why did 32 NFL teams and 60 college teams purchase their services if they didn't think they'd get useful data.
2. Where is the money coming from to pay a MONTHLY multi-million dollar nut?
