The goal is to come up with a receiver grade, that is not impacted by QB skill level. There is a high degree of likelihood what I'm about to propose doesn't make any sense at all, as I am not a math guy and am attempting to bumblefVck my way through this. Feel free to shoot me down immediately, numbers people. Here's a baseline: [table="width: 800, class: grid"] [tr] [td]PlayerName[/td] [td]Comp[/td] [td]TD[/td] [td]TD/Comp[/td] [td]Yards[/td] [td]Yards/Comp[/td] [td]YAC[/td] [td]YAC/Comp[/td] [td]1stDn[/td] [td]1stDn/Comp[/td] [td]Fumbles[/td] [td]Fum/Comp[/td] [td]SCORE[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]J. Doe[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]10[/td] [td]0.1000[/td] [td]1000[/td] [td]10.0000[/td] [td]400[/td] [td]4.0000[/td] [td]75[/td] [td].75[/td] [td]0[/td] [td].0000[/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [td]4.0000[/td] [td][/td] [td]4.0000[/td] [td][/td] [td]4.0000[/td] [td][/td] [td]4.0000[/td] [td]0[/td] [td].0000[/td] [td]16.00[/td] [/tr] [/table] Here's Indy's top 2 receivers: Wayne = 16.51 Hilton = 19.01 Here's Seattle's Top 2 receivers: Rice = 15.81 Tate = 17.13 Now here's Miami's Top 2: Hartline = 12.76 Bess = 10.05 The first thing that jumps out at me is that I should probably penalize the #2 WRs a bit more, since the score is basically grading how much does one receiver do with the ball, but I'm not really comparing #1 to #2 so I'm not worried about it. Take the scores from each team's wr's and compare by team. Don't compare a #1's score to a #2's score. Also, I added a bonus to receivers who caught more than a 100 balls. I chose Comp/TD/Yards/YAC/1st Dn/Fumbles because I feel like those are proof the WR did his job on a given completion. Drops, INTs, Attempts, etc are all at least the same responsibility as the QB or more. The complaint has been that Tannehill doesn't have the same quality of WRs and that has hindered his play. If my stats show what I think they show (and they probably don't, again, I'm not a numbers guy) then that does seem like the case. Here's the list of all the #1's Over 100 Receptions Club: C. Johnson 18.72 A. Johnson 18.11 B. Marshall 17.68 W. Welker 16.70 R. Wayne 16.51 Between 50-100 Receptions Club: V. Jackson 20.92 D. Bryant 18.76 M. Crabtree 18.48 D. Thomas 18.41 P. Harvin 17.96 R. Cobb 17.54 M. Austin 17.47 M. Colston 16.92 V. Cruz 16.76 AJ Green 16.75 R. White 16.55 M. Wallace 16.51 M. Floyd 16.04 S. Smith 15.83 S. Rice 15.81 S. Johnson 15.78 A. Boldin 15.48 J. Maclin 15.43 J. Blackmon 15.37 D. Bowe 15.11 G. Little 14.62 J. Kerley 14.13 A. Roberts 14.06 K. Wright 13.89 L. Fitzgerald 13.77 B. Hartline 12.76 D. Amendola 12.57 Go ahead, flame away.
Of course this doesn't address the argument that WRs are limited by their QBs so no way of telling if Hartline/Bess would have had the highest rating if Luck or Wilson were throwing to them. And I am not saying that Hartline/Bess are better than Wayne/Hilton or Tate/Rice. If TDs play such a significant factor then how do you factor in a WR that gets a pass thrown to him 10 times in the end zone and another that only gets 2 opportunities? Using as an example, not citing an actual stat.
Again, if I figured my numbers right, it does factor that in....mostly. I'm not basing it off targets. These are based solely on the WR catching the ball and throws away anything that could be considered a QB problem.
I think you took a good try at quantifing a WRs value but I think your chart is incomplete. Im not sure how you would include the additional metrics that you would need. I think looking at if he was open on his routes and if he was being double covered would also speak to his value. Something to consider about comparing Miamis WRs to other teams is the amount of total targets RT has to throw too compared to other teams. Miami does not really have 3 WRs or 2 TE that can be thrown too on any given play. Defenses have less weapons to cover because the offense's limitations. Im not sure of a good way to factor that into a WR metric. I think you also need to factor in how many offensive plays the offense ran and how many were passing plays and then look at what percentage the WR was looked at to make plays. I think 3rd and long conversions and conversions made due to YAC.
I don't think those are necessary. Again, I wanted to account solely for WR skill. How covered a WR is could be any number of things from play calling to defensive formation. I'm not sure that factors into what I'm going for. I don't think any of that would show the skill of the WR.
I would also say ypt (yards per target) is better than ypc. Is the WR that runs deep routes and catches 50 of 100 balls thrown to him for 750 yards (15 ypc, 7.5 ypa) more valuable than the WR that runs shorter routes and catches 60 of 90 balls thrown to him for 750 yards (12.5 ypc, 8.33 ypa)? I think interceptions need to be factored in as well. When I think of WR I think in terms of how effective is the team offensively when the WR is being thrown to. If a QB throws 10 TD passes, but also throws 12 interceptions trying to get him the ball, I think that WR is less effective to his team than the WR that catches 7 TDs, but the QB only throws 4 interceptions trying to get him the ball. Interceptions + fumbles makes sense to me.
Just an example say its 3rd and 5 and RT throws it to bess for a 5yrd gain but misses that Hartline was wide open with a clean path to the endzone. Wouldnt that be something that Hartline should be given credit for?
I disagree. Per target & interceptions does allow for QB errors. By using targets & interceptions we are factoring in a QBs talent as well. I'm trying specifically to get away from that.
No, because it meant nothing in the game. I'm trying to factor a WR's talent by illustrating what he does with the ball. The only way to do that is base it off completions because regardless of what the QB does, if the WR catches the ball he did his job right and gives us a starting point.
I disagree but OK its your chart What about if using the same example I used above but only this time Hartline drew double covered and it allowed Bess to get open for the completion. Do you think that could be considered a value to his team even though he did not catch the pass?
So if a Luck is able to drive his team down the field and targets Wayne 10 times in end zone resulting in 4 TD catches whereas Tannehill drives the team down the field and targets Hartline in the end zone 3 times for 1 TD catch that is factored in? Not saying those are the actually stats...IDK what they are. Kind of like saying the FB that gets the ball from the 2 yard line in and scores 10 TDs while rushing for less than 100 yards is better than the RB that doesn't get the ball inside the 10 so only scores 4 TDs, but ran for 1,200 yards 4 TDs. Opportunities = TD...case in point Thomas/Decker went from 12 TDs in 2011 to 23 TDs this year with Manning throwing to them. I don't want to screw up the numbers and I assume you know the formula inside-out so could you run the numbers on Thomas/Decker last year and this year to see if, at all, QB makes a difference?
I guess it could, but I don't think there's a way to tally those up objectively. Again, my goal is to take the most objective stats that are almost solely dependent on a WR's skill. To do that I had to throw out stats that can't be objective and/or can't be attributed to someone else like a QB.
You seriously don't think the quality of QB affects "all" the WRs numbers? 2011: Dekcer: 44 catches, 612 yards, 8 TD Thomas: 32 catches, 551 yards, 4 TD 2012: Decker: 85 catches, 1,065 yards, 13 TD Thomas: 94 catches, 1,434 yards, 10 TD
I totaly respect what your trying to do and commend your efforts but yeah Im not sure you can use a formula to objectivily measure the value of a WR. I am really saying the same thing as Adam in terms of how do you measure opprotunities created or deprived. The QBR sort of covers that because the play always starts in the QBs hand so what he decides to do with it dictates the results to a big extent. A WR is at the mercy of the QB choosing to target him. I do think you can get a rough measurement of a WR using your chart.
2011 Decker scored 20.06 2012 Decker scored 17.53 I think that shows Decker is a good receiver, regardless of who is throwing to him.
Sure it affects the numbers, but does it say if the receiver is skilled or not? I don't think so. Yes they got more catches, i think that is the affect of the QB, but they did about the same thing with the ball in both years. Decker's stats about double with about double his receptions. Thomas' stats about triple with about triple his receptions. That tells me they are producing at the same ratio.
Which is why I'm only factoring stats that are about the ball not being in the QB's hand. That's why all the numbers I'm using are factoring in the ball being the WRs hand and what he does with it from there.
I dont want to speak for Adam but I think your making his point for him. It absolutely does not tell you how good of a reciever he is or isnt because his numbers are being affected by who is tossing him the ball. This is really the opposite side of the same coin that you and I argued with Shou about in his QBR thread. It takes two people to make a completetion so the QB has a direct influence on the WR's stats and vice a versa.
But its not showing that at all. Again, a better QB got Decker the ball twice as much, but his stats didn't triple, they doubled. That tells me what he does with the ball is the same regardless of who is throwing it to him.
I haven't done everybody yet maybe 11-12 #1's. Vincent Jackson lit it up with a 20.92. Consider that VJ had 2 less reception than Hartline, but 7 more Tds, 300 more yards, about 70 more YAC, and 13 more 1st downs, and no fumbles.
Yeah fair enough doing everybody would take lots of time. I would be intrested in seeing all the ones you do when your done.
Those stats don't really make your case. 2011 numbers were on pace to surpass yards and TDs from 2012.
So far: C. Johnson 15.72 R. Wayne 13.51 R. White 16.55 D. Thomas 18.41 B. Marshall 14.68 V. Jackson 20.92 W. Welker 14.70 D. Bryant 18.76 M. Crabtree 18.48 AJ Green 16.75 S. Smith 15.83 V. Cruz 16.76 S. Johnson 15.78
And Thomas? I would say your rating system is extremely flawed b/c it ignores targets and ypa. Decker only caught 44 passes out of 95 targets (46.3%) in 2011 vs. 85 of 123 in 2012 (69.1%).
You can say it, but its not actually correlating with anything. For example, is it any wonder why a WR might catch a higher percentage of balls thrown by Peyton Manning vs. Tim Tebow? As for Thomas: 2011 = 19.32 2012 = 18.41 Again, that shows Thomas' skill is the same regardless of who is throwing to him. Manning gave him more opportunities, but he used the opportunities at pretty constant rate. For what you're implying, his score would have to be significantly higher with manning then with Tebow. And if I used the two stats you want me to, they would be because then they are going to be partially based on QB talent, and manning is considerably better than Tebow.
Only b/c an extremely important statistic is being excluded when taking into account the effect a QB has on a WR which is targets. When taking targets into account: 2011: Dekcer: 44 catches, 95 targets, 46.3%, 612 yards, 6.44 ypa, 8 TD Thomas: 32 catches, 70 targets, 45.7%, 551 yards, 7.87 ypa, 4 TD 2012: Decker: 85 catches, 123 targets, 69.1%, 1,065 yards, 8.66 ypa, 13 TD Thomas: 94 catches, 141 targets, 66.7%, 1,434 yards, 10.17 ypa, 10 TD So if you adjust for TARGETS and each QB threw to them 100 times and rounding up: 2011: Decker: 46 catches, 644 yards, 8 TD Thomas: 46 catches, 787 yards, 6 TD 2012: Decker: 69 catches, 866 yards, 11 TD Thomas: 67 catches, 1,017 yards, 7 TD Decker/Thomas combined based on 100 throws to each WR: 2011: 92 catches 1,431 yards, 14 TD 2012: 136 catches, 1,883 yards, 18 TD
I don't think you're understanding the point of this. Targets is more about the QB then WR or at the very least, they have equal responsibility in that stat. You cannot factor targets into a WR score without the quality of the QB affecting the outcome. Your Denver example proves that. They caught a higher percentage of balls from the superior QB. Does that make sense?
Does anything more need to be said that this rating system is flawed that C. Johnson is ranked #10 out of the 14 listed and V. Jackson is 25% better than him?
He scored very little per catch. His YAC per catch is very low too. I think it shows that this year at least, he was the greatest possession receiver of all time.
Those stats you showed only inform us that Manning only improved the volume of the WRs stats, but NOT the efficiency. They were equally as efficient in 2011. 2012 they continued their efficiency, but under a better QB that efficiency lead to higher volume of stats.
I would say at this point your argument is interesting. What doesn't make sense to me is that Decker who got the opportunity to work with Manning became 13% worse in his 3rd year than he was working with Orton/Tebow in his 2nd year. And Thomas' play also decreased this year working with P. Manning...now that I find interesting.
Based on this formula, WR "A" could run 100 routes, dropped 50 passes, caught 1 ball for 50 yards and a TD and he would be deemed significantly more effective than WR "B" that ran 100 routes, caught 100 balls for 2,000 yards and had 20 TDs.
I think perhaps the difference in the offense from 2011 and 2012 are to blame for that. Under Tebow, they were running the option which allowed WRs less opportunities, but when the opportunities came, they often resulted in big plays. Under Manning, the offence is more conventional, and more opportunities with shorter passes and less explosive plays. Just IMO.
I think its because their workload increased dramatically as you pointed out. I htink just the fact that they got used more could have them wear down a bit efficiency-wise. Plus, I but together a cumulative stat and since there's a handful of numbers used, that percent change may not be drastic in each area. We could be talking about only a 3% dip across four stats, that wne added all up give us a 12% difference. Not really all that big a deal.
Now that is true. If you're saying he caught only 1 ball for 50 yards and it was 40YAC and it scored a TD, then that would show a score of a 100. I'd have to bake in a stop against this, like a minimum number of catches or something. Off the top of my head, I wanna say 30 catches should be the cutoff.
