The Missing Pieces

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

Payton = Average and he is making elite $$$...

[Bolt-O]

well I was planning a trip to Disneyland and wondering if we should get a cheaper hotel on the outskirts and drive/park on site or just stay closer and hoof it- but then I thought "nobody walks in LA!"

I think you guys are going to a "Destination Unknown" on this thread.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

What do you know, Louis Vasquez is also, average...

[Highboltage]

This whole thread is just a "Mental Hopscotch".

[Steve]

Just about every blogger on ESPN has major issues with the various lists. You have part time role players who are pretty average being ranked ahead of some of the better players in the league. You also have the teams like Dallas, being ranked as one of the closest teams (zero players needed), yet they have no edge rushers (top pass rusher only had 6 sacks). PEople are finally getting the hint that the British guys at PFF don't know too much about football.

[homeless simpson]

before people start knocking that Denver has a lot of high paid average players, lot of Chargers players we're paying good money for are also in the average category. If PFF says it's true then it must be true: Gates is just an average player, while Branden Oliver is Good.....

[Mister Hoarse]

This whole thread is just a "Mental Hopscotch".

That sounds like a blend of indica, IPA, and single malt.

[Steve]

Do you believe the PFF grades or not?

If you do, then maybe what they did means something. But more and more, people are wondering what the hell the grades that PFF mean. If you don't believe their grades, does any of the stats or analysis that PFF did mean anything at all? I don't think it does, but that is just my opinion.

They seem to be able to identify is the few best and few worst players in the NFL. No one seems to really disagree with those grades. But that really doesn't mean anything, because you don't need stats to tell who those players are. Statistics would be valuable if you could use them to identify the middle ground, which seems to be just about everyone.

PFF really does try hard. They watch a huge amount of tape. They have a really meticulous system for doing the grading. But if their methodology is flawed, like I suspect it is, then it really is just a waste of time. It's not that I don't think everything they do is a waste. Some of their material seems to be kinda interesting. But since you don't know what they are doing, or how they are doing it, there is no way of knowing, which makes iit sorta of hack. It also bothers me that so many of the people employed by PFF are British and have never played american football before. I don't think they understand the statistics side as well as they think they do, which is common among the sports analystics types. They can calculate the numbers very precisely (mechanics/asthmatic), but the analysis is lacking insight.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

That sounds like a blend of indica, IPA, and single malt.

No sativa reb bull and Mia Thia's with a this stick chaser!

[bonehead]

Do you believe the PFF grades or not?

If you do, then maybe what they did means something. But more and more, people are wondering what the hell the grades that PFF mean. If you don't believe their grades, does any of the stats or analysis that PFF did mean anything at all? I don't think it does, but that is just my opinion.

They seem to be able to identify is the few best and few worst players in the NFL. No one seems to really disagree with those grades. But that really doesn't mean anything, because you don't need stats to tell who those players are. Statistics would be valuable if you could use them to identify the middle ground, which seems to be just about everyone.

PFF really does try hard. They watch a huge amount of tape. They have a really meticulous system for doing the grading. But if their methodology is flawed, like I suspect it is, then it really is just a waste of time. It's not that I don't think everything they do is a waste. Some of their material seems to be kinda interesting. But since you don't know what they are doing, or how they are doing it, there is no way of knowing, which makes iit sorta of hack. It also bothers me that so many of the people employed by PFF are British and have never played american football before. I don't think they understand the statistics side as well as they think they do, which is common among the sports analystics types. They can calculate the numbers very precisely (mechanics/asthmatic), but the analysis is lacking insight.

interesting....so what did you think of the engineer that broke down fumbling stats and put up the theory that it was almost impossible for the Patriots to improve from a middle of the pack fumbles lost team to basically the best in the NFL....it happened to coincide with the 2007 season when the teams were able to control their own footballs....I can find the link somewhere....StinkY????

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/ballghazi_the_new_england_patriots_lose_an_insanely_low_number_of_fumbles.html

You rang?

[Steve]

Could the Patriots be so good that they just defy the numbers? As my friend theorized: Perhaps they’ve invented a revolutionary in-house way to protect the ball, or perhaps they’ve intentionally stocked their skill positions with players who don’t have a propensity to fumble. Or perhaps, still, they call plays that intentionally result in a lower percentage of fumbles. Or maybe it’s just that they play with deflated footballs on offense. It could be any combination of the above.

First, the guy made a couple of statistical assumptions that I am certain are somewhat flawed. I am pretty sure that fumbles are not (strictly) a normally distributed random variable. There are a couple of other implicit assumptions which he doesn't layout, but basically the guy is right, there is something going on. Forget the percentages the guy quotes about how likely it is. There is no way to "really" know how likely the odds are, since there are too many things going on to really know. The important conclusion is basically correct, it is not happening by chance. it isn't even close.

I would also question the conclusion that the fumble rate for dome teams is due to weather. That may be part of it, but in some ways leather is actually more pliable and stretches when it gets wet. Plus, you could also look at teams like the Chargers and other fair weather teams have the better percentages. It may be due to the fact that teams playing in domes tend to play more spread offense, so there are fewer opportunities to get the type of hits to get the ball lose. The game is also much quicker and players are faster on artificial turf, so more likely to be in space, and that leads to fewer fumbles. Another factor is that teams inside are probably less prone to having sweaty guys getting the ball all wet. The climate control doesn't eliminate sweat, but it does reduce it greatly. And sweat would not be enough to saturate the leather, but would be enough to just coat the ball in a thin film or water, making it slick.

None of these change the general conclusion. You are still less likely to have fumbles in domes. Just that the cause may be different, and statistics cannot tell you the why, you have to get that from something else. It would have been interesting to see that data split out.

Now, a lot of of other NFL players have been coming up and saying they deflate the ball (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12...otballs-common), so the pats aren't the only team doing it. So, I don't think that is causing it to happen by itself. I don't doubt that the it does contribute, and maybe a lot, but if other teams are deflating the ball, then that alone isn't the cause.

You don't end up being that much better at something then the rest of the league by doing something a little bit better. Random chance will only take you so far. They are doing a lot of things differently, and the combination of things must be what is doing it.

The author lists a lot of thing that can (and do) contribute to fumbling percentages. Play calling, player technique, player discipline, and if you do all of those things, and all of those make it harder to fumble. Then if you deflate the ball some, then it makes those other things that much more effective.

The last thing, which the guy doesn't mention is getting players to intelligently do a better job of finishing their runs. Players lose a lot of fumbles being stripped when the other team either gets lower then the player during the tackle or when the player is stood up and the defenders just rip the ball out. NE players tend to finish their runs much more then a lot of teams do. Their ball carriers stay low, hit the defenders (even their receivers) and get down rather then spend a lot of time uselessly fighting for extra yards, when they have no leverage. It's not that NE players just go out of bounds, but they are smarter then the norm about it. They don't take a lot of direct hits and they just stay out of the situations that lead to fumbles. It also helps them stay healthier, since you don't have defenders just taking shots at an offensive player who is not going to get any more yards.

That is the kind of thing that football analytics can help teams with. Figure out stuff that can lead to real contributions. Does NE simply avoid players like Mathews who have ability, in favor of boring but consistent guys who may only average 4.0 yards per carry, but who never turn the ball over. A huge part of NE success is that they don't turn the ball over very much, and you win a ton of games that way, so it is worth studying some to figure out how and why fumbles occur, and what can be done to prevent them. Especially fumbles, since I would suspect that they can be almost totally eliminated.