Hartline wants 5-6 million per season

And again you refer to me as "cherry picking" when I have mostly referred to ypc, ypa (target), targets, and QB rating which are common statistics while you have referred to low-risk, short-yardage, plays 20+, other player stats from other teams, etc...I get you had to climb high up the cherry tree to come up with your long cherry picked response b/c Manning's 12 TD, 2 int, 105.20 QB rating without Nicks as compared to his 14 TD, 13 int, 79.32 QB rating without Nicks left no choice.

This argument has gotten to point of absurdity. You used Nicks as an example of what great WR looks like and I assume why a $5-$6 million per contract is overpaying for Hartline. I pointed out for their "career" Hartline has averaged +.4 ypc and -.1 ypa compared with Nicks while playing with lesser QBs and $5-$6 per year is fair. Since then you have argued Nicks made Manning, Nicks makes Cruz, and Nicks determines whether NYG make the playoffs or not.

And now the insanity that "basic math" is not simply comparing ypc and ypa, but is much more complicated b/c I have to factor in whether the WR caught short passes or longer passes to determine whether ypc and ypa are even comparable...WTF? I GIVE! Whatever you are arguing you win. I can't compete with that. I have no idea how to factor in low-risk, short-yardage vs. higher risk, longer-yardage variables when determining the value of a WR when comparing YPC and YPA. Although, somebody should tell commissioner Goodell b/c when Hartline runs a 12 yard route and runs for 3 yards the refs give Miami a whopping 15 yards when marking the ball. And when Nicks catches a 3 yard pass and runs 12 yards before getting tackled the refs "only" give the Giants 15 yards. They obviously don't understand "basic math" and therefor aren't able to calculate that should worth more? Am I on the right track with this....

 

Is his intelligence supported by statistics? Don't think we have access to that data. We do have evidence of his productivity. From there everyone is left to draw their own conclusions as to how he achieved that level of productivity.

How is it a strange argument? Probably the most important thing to look for in a WR IMO.

 

Hartline played in the Pro Bowl?

 

I agree. Now, there is a stat pertaining to WRs and TD catches that would actually mean something.

 

Its obvious at this point, you're going to have to explain what you mean AND how you implemented your "control" of QB stats, if you want people to go with what you're saying.

 

He was an alternate, so his statement is not exactly dishonest.

 

How do define level of production? Because if its any TD/Yards/YAC/First downs per catch, he's one of the worse or average of all #1 WRs this year.

 

Yards per target. Expected points added. Most predictive measures of efficiency available as far as I can tell.

 

I agree.

 

I agree.
I am also getting sick and damn tired of a certain moderator deleting my previous replies in this post. Why not just ban me from the forum altogether if you don't like what I have to say?

 

The three attributes you've outlined are not able to be quantified, and his production is not so above average to see how these correlate to being worth a larger contract.

Would you say his route running, intelligence or awareness are better than that of Davone Bess? They both catch a similar number of their targeted passes.

And if the logic goes that a WR is not held responsible for scoring TDs because that is a product of the QB/system/playcall - wouldn't that also have to apply to where on the field they catch the ball? If it isn't their skill that lets them catch a pass in the endzone, it isn't their skill that allows them to catch a ball 5 yds down field or 15, right? So the average yard per reception for Hartline and Bess don't matter.

Davone Bess signed a 4 yr contract worth $9.35 million ($2.33 million per year). Can you explain how Hartline's intelligence, awareness, and route running are twice as good as Bess'?

 

Why yards per target and not per catch?

 

The expected points added part will be easy to figure for Hartline. 6 points per season.

 

Because per catch isn't really a measure of efficiency since it doesn't take incompletions into account. It essentially will skew toward players that specialize in deep routes.

 

But I thought we were arguing that Hartline creates chunk plays? He averages less YAC than Bess and now we're saying deep balls shouldn't count, either?

Again - what does Hartline provide that makes him worth DOUBLE what Bess makes?

 

Hartline is much better than Bess IMO. They both have a similar catch-rate, but Hartline's plays are made farther away from the LOS, which inherently is more difficult.

It absolutely is their skill that lets them catch a pass in the endzone, just like its their skill that allows them to catch a ball 15 yds down the field. What isn't their skill is where on the field the play started and what the play call is. The defense creating a turnover in the opponents red-zone is a lot more conducive to a TD than an offense starting inside its 20. Calling runs inside the 10 yd line isn't necessarily a reflection of a WRs ability.

 

Who said deep balls shouldn't count? I'm saying that yards per completion doesn't include incompletions, so it doesn't measure efficiency. Yards per target includes incompletions, so it is a measure of efficiency. Hartline does create chunk plays. He doesn't do it with YAC:

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?year=2012&type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=119

 

He can run routes twice as far down the field

 

Yes but incompletions aren't always the WRs fault. And i don't agree with the second part, in fact I think your way does actually. Teams generally take more intermediate to short throws than deep shots in a game. That means the targets are fewer for the deep guys with more yardage, which would give the appearance they are more efficient.

 

The targets deep are fewer, but they are also more difficult. You have to factor in the risk/reward. Deeper passes will result in more incompletions than shorter passes. You can't have a mirage of efficiency.

 

That still isn't making sense to me. It would seem the best way to tell how efficient a WR is by basing it off catches, from a logic standpoint. There could be any number of reasons a ball isn't caught and most are not the WRs fault. If someone is a deep threat, that is illustrated by the catch as well for the possession WR, especially if things are weighted correctly.

 

I would love to know how you define those two things.

 

Bess plays a position that is typically easier to fill. Hartline is, in my mind, much more valuable than Davone Bess. Bess is nice, but he's not an outside receiver. Granted, his first three years, he had some production from the outside, but I think Hartline would be much more valuable to us than Bess. In a vacuum.

 

Not that it matters to me or anyone else, but there could be people who are going along with what I'm saying who are simply taking in the information and not responding.

As for the "control" you're talking about, it's called a partial correlation:

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/What_is_a_partial_correlation?

Again, the explanation is that when you control for TD passes overall, the correlation between winning and TD catches by wide receivers is nil. What that means is that TD passes in general predict winning, not TD passes to wide receivers, per se.

That argues against the idea that some wide receivers more than others have a unique ability to catch TD passes that contributes to winning. Whatever unique ability that exists in that regard, if it exists, is meaningless in terms of winning, so once again, I wouldn't be basing a whole lot of my wide receivers' pay on it if I were a GM.

And that gets us right back to the topic of the thread, which of course is how much to pay Brian Hartline.

 

That'd be great if he'd done it more consistently.

Bess had 60 receptions that traveled <20 yds in the air and 1 that traveled > 20 yds in the air.

Hartline had 57 that traveled < 20 yds in the air and 10 that traveled > 20 yds in the air.

And Bess averages more ypc on those throws under 20 yds. So you're paying a guy double for 10 throws a year - which aren't even TDs.

 

It doesn't have to be anyone's fault, it could just be degree of difficulty. A player could be thrown the ball 80 yds from the LOS 20 times, and only catch one. His ypc will be 80. I wouldn't say that is efficient though. A guy like Chris Givens is a good example.

 

How many completions >20 would you say warrant $5M?

 

And you implemented this how........

 

Golden rule: attack the post not the poster.

 

I have no idea what you mean by "implemented."

 

Fault does matter. Of those 20, maybe 19 are uncatchable, then what? Your way faults the WR for a QB problem.

Since you cannot accurately and objectively decide who's at fault for a drop, I'm not sure who you can count it. A guy like Chad Pennington is also a good example.

 

Really?

Sigh.

How did you factor in a control for your numbers?

 

My way measures the efficiency of the play. Efficiency can't be faked.

 

Yes, really. Do you honestly think that by this point I'm interested in making this anything but as clear-cut as possible?

You can do it yourself on this page with the data I posted earlier in the thread:

http://www.wessa.net/partcorr.wasp

"Data X" would be win percentage by team. "Data Y" would be total passing TDs by team, regardless of to whom they're thrown. "Data Z" would be TD receptions by wide receivers, by team.

Click "Compute" and see what it spits out.

 

I thought you were measuring the efficiency of the WR? Now its the play? How does measuring the efficiency of the play tell us anything about the WR?

 

Tells us what happened when the WR was targeted.

 

No it doesn't.

Again, if the QB throws a bad ball, or its tipped or he's hit as he throws, or the wind is bad, or the defense broke on the ball and got before the WR, or the WR was tripped, or held, or the sun hit him wrong, etc...that tells us NOTHING about the WR.

 

The outcome is the same.

 

I know, which is why it tells us nothing about the WR. To figure out efficiency of the WR would be to see if they were to blame for the play's success or failure and your way doesn't do that.

 

You are changing the conversation.

I asked what Hartline provided that was double that of Bess to make him worth double the salary. The point was raised that he provides routes further down the field. I pointed out that huge number of his catches are in the same area of the field as Bess (and he averages less yards on those catches). He had 10 receptions thrown over 20 yards to Bess' 1. He had the same number of TDs (meaning even on those plays down the field, they still were not scoring plays - which you've outlined as a skill a WR can have).

So I don't see how it has been proven that Hartline is worth double that of Bess.

Again - the burden is on the people who want to spend the money - not on those that do not.