What you said makes no sense when talking about Denver WRs in 2011 and 2012. I guess you were referring to Phin Ds formula for rating WRs. As to that I'll say that any formula designed to rate WRs and/or QBs individually will forever be flawed by the fact that QBs and his pass catchers have a symbiotic relationship. The success of one always depends on the success of the other. You will never come up with a formula that lets you know how talented a pass catcher is regardless of who is throwing to him. The best you can do is do something like this, where you can quantify some aspects of the pass catcher's game, but it will never be perfect.
Again, assuming my formulas make sense, (which is still a big if) I think this shows the unimportance of WRs for a team unless their skill is far below everyone else's, as ours appear to be. i mean a lot of teams have at least a couple of competent WRs and at least slightly above competent. We don't. We have 2 competent WRs and that's it.
A for effort but any ranking that has Reggie Wayne as only a little better then Bess clearly has a defect in it.
Well, that defect I mentioned in the OP, you can't use what I've done as is to gauge a #1 vs a #2. I have to figure out a way to deal with that. #2's always have higher numbers than their number #1s which means there should be a constant that I could use to knock down the #2's across the board. Compare Bess to Hilton and Tate.
Whatever I say, it always makes sense if you don't think about it. Sometimes, even if you do. I am keeping an open mind. I look forward to seeing more stats to see how reliable it is.
Right, but what you can do is an additional analysis that controls for the quality of QB play and then looks at how receivers compare to each other after removing the variance associated with QB play. It won't be "perfect," but it'll be better than any one person's opinion about the receivers.
I disagree a little. I think something like this might be better than the average fan's opinion across the board but not necessarily better than a given person's opinion.
I think a scout or rafael or alen might have been able to tell you these things. Regardless, I think this and things like it are part of a picture. I know from watching BMarsh last year that he dropped a lot of balls. I know a lot of those were on him. I cannot objectively quantify it though, but they should still be part of the overall painting.
Better than the average person in the vast majority of cases, yes, but of course they're still human and susceptible to error, so the question is, how do you know when people like them are wrong?
I think you can see it on the field to a certain degree. We are talking about things with waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to many variables. So many variables in fact that you have to factor in human error in just the collection of the data on those variables. Again stat scores and scouting combine to give you the whole picture. They can certainly check each other but you need both for the whole picture.
Our Wrs are so bad, people create formulas and hypothesis in attempt to make them look good. I heart it
Wait what? You think what I showed makes them look good? It shows they are among the worst in the league. Its a little early to be drinking.
The point doctor, is the obsession by many to justify WR play. Just posses two eyes and some football IQ and you can narrow the top 20-25 receivers in this league quite easily.
You two are assuming i disagree with you. Im simply making a statement on the constant "stats" of a Wr. Do it with rbs why font ya
You haven't made a real statement that makes any sense in any meaningful way in regards to this thread.
And that's ok, id rather say nothing "meaningful" in uour opinion than say something idiotic like......ummm ummm
Not sure why I keep hoping you'll bring something to the table other than the tired old **** casserole you always bring.
What FinD did in this thread is called a "Boxscore" analysis. it is the same as "Wins Produced" for Basketball. (a little less sophisticated.) Main point being...this is a very good stat analysis.
what you do now is get this same analysis and do it for 2011, but expand it to the top three target guys on each team at WR, and then get an average per target in each category for all three and then all of them combined. Compare it to this year. Then you will know if our WR corp was as productive as it was the year before, and you will see Marshall's "boxscore" value.
My problem is my numbers are higher for #2's and I suspect #3's. I'm thinking about deducting 5 total points from #2's by way of - 1.5 for TDs & Yards each and -1 for YAC & Ist Dwns each. the other issue I have is past the #1, I see a lot of TE and a RB or two. Should they have an even bigger penalty?
I think what you want to do here is determine first how wide receivers contribute to winning. What do they do, specifically, that is strongly correlated with wins. Then you take what quarterbacks do that's strongly correlated with winning, and you statistically control for that and see what it does to the correlation between the wide receiver stat and winning. If the wide receiver stat is still strongly correlated with winning (and it may not be), then you can determine how any wide receiver performs with regard to that stat compared to the average receiver. The further above average a receiver, obviously the better he is, and the more he contributes to winning independent of the play of his quarterback.
I don't think so. Again, my only goal was to find a way to score WRs with the QB's ability being as small as factor as possible. I don't think its possible to do something similar for a QB. That's why you and I have had arguments. I don't think there's a handful of stats that will accurately score a QB's skill and not be impacted by the receiver's skill. I feel like I was successful, because Denver's receivers scored similarly with Manning & Tebow as their QBs. Now, I agree that QB is far and away the most important person on the field which also makes him the biggest predictor of success for the team. However, in looking at the numbers of all the #1s on the OP (I updated it since last night BTW) it seems to me that WR isn't all that important overall to a team or QB, UNLESS they are dramatically lower than most everybody else.
To determine "penalties", you should use the average target disparity for every team between the #1, #2, and #3 target guys and average it across the league. there is your penalty for each "tier" of WR. for RB's, and TE's you have to take them across the board as well, but you dump the top 10% and the bottom 10%, as they will skew the numbers since it is a small sample (only 35 or so active target getting TE's in the NFL)
That's easy enough to do by statistically controlling for QB stats and seeing what happens to the WR stats.
Goddamn this stat bull**** is too much like work. That will take me days and that not factoring in masturbation and taking dumps.
Yeah but then we're making stuff up. I wanted to use what they actually produced. A football game is organic and controlling the QB stats won't give us the truest story.
Sure, but in the end, we still don't know how much the quarterback contributed to the WRs' performance, and therefore you have no way of knowing how to grade receivers independently.
I think my score shows that as best as possible. The stats I used to get my score are all stats based on the QB having already done his job. I am 100% confident in the stats I used. I'm considerably less confident than that, that my scores are factored up properly. The stats I used are almost entirely based on receiver skill.
