Tweet
Originally posted by Lone Bolt
View Post
1
). A
big bias is that there simply are not many people large and athletic enough to play OL in the NFL who don't have 33 inch arms. The sample size of the less than 33" arm crowd is probably not as big as you think just because most men large enough to be 300+ pounds and athletic are probably at least 6'3" or so, so most will have 33" arms already
2
). The premise of the 33" arms is that there is a hard limit player ability to succeed without the arm length thing. 2
In an ideal world, a single example of a person who has shorter arms disproves it.
Same as it was for DE before that was debunked. 3). To what degree are teams cutting street FA BECAUSE they have 33" arms and never giving them a chance?
4). Most NFL players have reached their full height in college. If the arm length thing is not going to change much.
5). Your point about looking at grades prior to being drafted by using the PFF grades from college has merit, but is somewhat flawed. They have only recently started doing those grades, so there is no body of work to look at. but to be really objective you would have to do a LOT of factors, especially the overall size and strength of the player, since that is not independent of arm length. Those types of statistical studies are very, very, very difficult to do.
6). Objective methods might be better served for this study that a statistical regression. In fact is might be tough to do a statistical study on this one at all.
We know in baseball and other sports, analytics was largely introduced to remove biases, not to introduce them.
Also, it looks like he used excel to do the math, so you might want to consider the link below. That doesn't include the number of "hidden" flaws in the "experiment" where the person doing the number crunching doesn't set the experiment up correctly. Almost
Comment