How Good Does Mac Have To Be To Get His Option Picked Up?

[rochrist]

PFF's grades -- for better or for worse -- are subjective. DVOA -- for better or for worse -- is objective.

Basic stats are historical artifacts. They are familiar but not necessarily better than advanced analytics.

There's nothing objective about DVOA, it's based entirely on subjective valuation of various situations. That's why they're on their seventh version and counting, they're still screwing around with the formulas.

 

[Kasmir]

Sadism?? Frankly it's bizarre that you think you're witnessing sadism on this forum.

It's what almost all psychologists say is the primary motivation of trolls like you.

You clearly delight in trying to dash the hopes of the true fans of this team.

You fit the profile. You are sadistic.

 

[TheRainMaker]

PFF told us Stephon Gilmore was a bad player when the Patriots signed him as a free agent in 2017… he had a bad player grade. Analytics are crap.

He also had a bad grade during the 2019 season (DPOY) on a Sunday Night game it said he was mediocre.

 

[Ring 6]

We don’t need advanced “analytics” when points, turnovers and basic stats tell the story.

PFF told us Stephon Gilmore was a bad player when the Patriots signed him as a free agent in 2017… he had a bad player grade. Analytics are crap.

You don’t even know what the statistic means and you called in crap.

Of course your detailed analysis says Drew Brees is the 3rd most clutch player ever based upon a stat you misused. Since he has the 2nd most losses ever is he the 2nd biggest loser ever? Since he has the 12th more Ints is he the 12th worst decision maker ever?

Pff isn’t analytics, it’s dudes watching tales and grading players. They do it poorly, but it’s far from the same thing.

 

[Kasmir]

There's nothing objective about DVOA, it's based entirely on subjective valuation of various situations. That's why they're on their seventh version and counting, they're still screwing around with the formulas.

Unlike PFF, the DVOA model doesn't rely on humans to make judgements about performance of individual players or teams. Unless a model is specifically tuned to engineer a particular result favoring a team or player, it is objective in that way.

A model can be both objective and not very useful. A subjective scoring system like PFF is subjective but might be still be very useful.

Objectivity is not equal to truth, nor is subjectivity necessarily wrong.

That Football Outsiders constantly works on their model isn't to improve objectivity, it is to improve utility.

 

[rochrist]

Unlike PFF, the DVOA model doesn't rely on humans to make judgements about performance of individual players or teams. Unless a model is specifically tuned to engineer a particular result, it is objective in that way.

A model can be both objective and not very useful. A subjective scoring system like PFF is subjective but might be still be very useful.

That Football Outsiders constantly works on their model isn't to improve objectivity, it is to improve utility.

The point is that humans are the one assigning the weighting factors to every single calculation.
(from their website) "Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12."

Ok, how MUCH more?

"Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. "

Again, haow much more?

"Several factors can differentiate one three-yard run from another. What is the down and distance? Is it third-and-2 or second-and-15? Where on the field is the ball? Does the player get only three yards because he hits the goal line and scores? Is the player’s team up by two touchdowns in the fourth quarter, and thus running out the clock; or down by two touchdowns, and thus facing a defense that is playing purely against the pass? Is the running back playing against the porous defense of the Raiders, or the stalwart defense of the Bears?"

See? Every single thing there requires being assigned a weighting factor in the calculation being done, and it's a human assigning the weighting factor.

It's not really any different from ESPN's QBR.

 

[Kasmir]

The point is that humans are the one assigning the weighting factors to every single calculation.
(from their website) "Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12."

Ok, how MUCH more?

"Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. "

Again, haow much more?

"Several factors can differentiate one three-yard run from another. What is the down and distance? Is it third-and-2 or second-and-15? Where on the field is the ball? Does the player get only three yards because he hits the goal line and scores? Is the player’s team up by two touchdowns in the fourth quarter, and thus running out the clock; or down by two touchdowns, and thus facing a defense that is playing purely against the pass? Is the running back playing against the porous defense of the Raiders, or the stalwart defense of the Bears?"

See? Every single thing there requires being assigned a weighting factor in the calculation being done, and it's a human assigning the weighting factor.

It's not really any different from ESPN's QBR.

Their model is not open source but it clearly has parameters set for the cases you mention.

You can certainly say that the DVOA model is arbitrary, incorrect or useless. You can criticize the decisions made to set parameters. But when it is run, the results it produces are objective in that they involve no weightings of teams or individuals by humans.

QBR is indeed another objective model although it is much less ambitious in that it only attempts to evaluate QB play. DVOA attempts to model all "box score" aspects of the game as they contribute to winning or losing.

Again, it might be garbage in your opinion, but its results are objective wrt to players and teams.

 

[Wozzy]

PFF's grades -- for better or for worse -- are subjective. DVOA -- for better or for worse -- is objective.

Basic stats are historical artifacts. They are familiar but not necessarily better than advanced analytics.

Garbage... they still determine games based on points.

Points for, points allowed and turnovers are the most important stats in football.

After that third down percentage and goal line conversions are the next best stats.

Some made up stat created after the fact by some math nerd who never played the game is completely meaningless... it's staring at the screen until your pre-existing bias is confirmed.

 

[Wozzy]

You don’t even know what the statistic means and you called in crap.

Of course your detailed analysis says Drew Brees is the 3rd most clutch player ever based upon a stat you misused. Since he has the 2nd most losses ever is he the 2nd biggest loser ever? Since he has the 12th more Ints is he the 12th worst decision maker ever?

Pff isn’t analytics, it’s dudes watching tales and grading players. They do it poorly, but it’s far from the same thing.

Because it is crap.

Game winning drives isn't open to interpretation... that's why you look silly for saying Brees wasn't "clutch" enough.

 

[Wozzy]

What BB and Andy Reid think about analytics… not much.

"I'd prefer good players, good fundamentals and good execution," Belichick said, per D. Orlando Ledbetter of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

boston.cbslocal.com/2021/06/23/patriots-bill-belichick-dismisses-analytics-gm-summit-does-he-really-feel-that-way/

Belichick, during his weekly Friday press conference, was asked how big of a role analytics plays into the Patriots' day-to-day operations.

"Less than zero," Belichick said, via ProFootballTalk.com. "Analytics is not really my thing."

Belichick essentially said the same thing in 2016 when asked about analytics.

"You could take those advanced websites and metric them wherever you want," Belichick said less than three months before winning his fifth Super Bowl, an overtime win over Atlanta in Super Bowl LI. "I don't know. I have no idea. I've never looked at one. I don't even care to look at one. I don't care what they say ... All the metric pages and all of that, I mean I have no idea. You'd need to ask that to a smarter coach than me."

www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bill-belichick-says-he-puts-less-than-zero-stock-into-analytics-during-patriots-presser/

 

[Kasmir]

Garbage... they still determine games based on points.

Points for, points allowed and turnovers are the most important stats in football.

After that third down percentage and goal line conversions are the next best stats.

Some made up stat created after the fact by some math nerd who never played the game is completely meaningless... it's staring at the screen until your pre-existing bias is confirmed.

It is true that the only stats that matter are wins and losses.

All other stats including box score stats are only indirectly and un-obviously connected to winning and losing.

They are provided by the league for those who are curious about what details might have contributed to a win or a loss.

You are apparently totally happy with the traditional analytics you mentioned.

Many of us are not.

You may find new analytics useless and hence they are "garbage" for you.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

 

[Kasmir]

What BB and Andy Reid think about analytics… not much.

"I'd prefer good players, good fundamentals and good execution," Belichick said, per D. Orlando Ledbetter of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

boston.cbslocal.com/2021/06/23/patriots-bill-belichick-dismisses-analytics-gm-summit-does-he-really-feel-that-way/

Belichick, during his weekly Friday press conference, was asked how big of a role analytics plays into the Patriots' day-to-day operations.

"Less than zero," Belichick said, via ProFootballTalk.com. "Analytics is not really my thing."

Belichick essentially said the same thing in 2016 when asked about analytics.

"You could take those advanced websites and metric them wherever you want," Belichick said less than three months before winning his fifth Super Bowl, an overtime win over Atlanta in Super Bowl LI. "I don't know. I have no idea. I've never looked at one. I don't even care to look at one. I don't care what they say ... All the metric pages and all of that, I mean I have no idea. You'd need to ask that to a smarter coach than me."

www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bill-belichick-says-he-puts-less-than-zero-stock-into-analytics-during-patriots-presser/

Of course box score analytics of all kinds are of little interest to football teams. They all have massive ongoing investment in proprietary scoring of every player on every play and not just what they did but what they were supposed to do.

Because they have so much proprietary data, their only interest in box scores is largely a public relations one.

Some coaches have some mild interest in some new analytics as they might illuminate some game time decisions, but they are immersed in enormously important proprietary data about plays and players and that -- first approximation -- is all that matters to them.

Fans lack access to any of that data and only have box score data to go on (PFF's noble attempt aside).

So we have much more need for and hence interest in indirect analytic models than the teams have.

 

[rochrist]

Their model is not open source but it clearly has parameters set for the cases you mention.

You can certainly say that the DVOA model is arbitrary, incorrect or useless. You can criticize the decisions made to set parameters. But when it is run, the results it produces are objective in that they involve no weightings of teams or individuals by humans.

QBR is indeed another objective model although it is much less ambitious in that it only attempts to evaluate QB play. DVOA attempts to model all "box score" aspects of the game as they contribute to winning or losing.

Again, it might be garbage in your opinion, but its results are objective wrt to players and teams.

I think you're misunderstanding what the word objective means in this context.

 

[crawhammer]

It's what almost all psychologists say is the primary motivation of trolls like you.

You clearly delight in trying to dash the hopes of the true fans of this team.

You fit the profile. You are sadistic.

If I were the Admin of this MB then this is type of post I would ban first. Calling me sadistic. FU pal, you don't know **** about my life or what I'm like. I don't have the slightest ****ing clue of anything about you personally so I wouldn't be so ****ing arrogant to go off the rails and label you in a harsh manner. I'm as much or more a fan of the team than you. Being a true fan doesn't require kissing the ass of everything the franchise, GM, head coach, or owner ever does. And "dashing the hopes"? Are you that soft where a differing opinion or unfavorable view crushes your dreams of the team? ************, I have way better things to do than getting you back on your Prozac. I'm just one of many members here who mostly offers opinions on a game. You don't have to agree with them or even read them. That's how this works, I can't make you read, or reply to, or agree with anything. It's your choice.

 

[Kasmir]

I think you're misunderstanding what the word objective means in this context.

I think you believe objectivity is good and subjectivity is bad. I don't believe anything that simple. PFF is a subjective system and DVOA is an objective model. That's a truthful characterization, but says *nothing* about whether they are useful, let alone whether there results are true or false.

 

[Kasmir]

If I were the Admin of this MB then this is type of post I would ban first. Calling me sadistic. FU pal, you don't know **** about my life or what I'm like. I don't have the slightest ****ing clue of anything about you personally so I wouldn't be so ****ing arrogant to go off the rails and label you in a harsh manner. I'm as much or more a fan of the team than you. Being a true fan doesn't require kissing the ass of everything the franchise, GM, head coach, or owner ever does. And "dashing the hopes"? Are you that soft where a differing opinion or unfavorable view crushes your dreams of the team? ************, I have way better things to do than getting you back on your Prozac. I'm just one of many members here who mostly offers opinions on a game. You don't have to agree with them or even read them. That's how this works, I can't make you read, or reply to, or agree with anything. It's your choice.

Sorry, you act much more like a troll than a fan. I can't recall you ever saying anything positive about the present state of the team. It's 100% negativity and endlessly argumentatively too.

So prove me wrong: what do you like about the team and its prospects?

 

[Wozzy]

It is true that the only stats that matter are wins and losses.

All other stats including box score stats are only indirectly and un-obviously connected to winning and losing.

They are provided by the league for those who are curious about what details might have contributed to a win or a loss.

You are apparently totally happy with the traditional analytics you mentioned.

Many of us are not.

You may find new analytics useless and hence they are "garbage" for you.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

Points, turnovers, 3rd down and goal line stats are directly related to winning and losing.

Analytics aren’t related to anything, they’re made up nonsense that place value based upon whomever is creating the fake stat.

 

[Wozzy]

Of course box score analytics of all kinds are of little interest to football teams. They all have massive ongoing investment in proprietary scoring of every player on every play and not just what they did but what they were supposed to do.

Because they have so much proprietary data, their only interest in box scores is largely a public relations one.

Some coaches have some mild interest in some new analytics as they might illuminate some game time decisions, but they are immersed in enormously important proprietary data about plays and players and that -- first approximation -- is all that matters to them.

Fans lack access to any of that data and only have box score data to go on (PFF's noble attempt aside).

So we have much more need for and hence interest in indirect analytic models than the teams have.

We’re moving an inflated pig’s bladder down the field in an attempt to get it in the end zone… not launching a rocket into space and landing it on Mars.

 

[Kasmir]

We’re moving an inflated pig’s bladder down the field in an attempt to get it in the end zone… not launching a rocket into space and landing it on Mars.

The NFL is a $20 billion annual revenue business that 72% of Americans follow. NASA has a $25 billion budget and I'd guess less than 72% of people care about it.

 

[Wozzy]

The NFL is a $20 billion annual revenue business that 72% of Americans follow. NASA has a $25 billion budget and I'd guess less than 72% of people care about it.

It doesn’t change a damn thing about the sport.

Points scored/allowed isn’t an antiquated stat, neither is turnovers… the very notion is absurd.