1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Stats! Qbr 2014

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Galant, Mar 31, 2015.

  1. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You need "objective" evidence to claim the effects are equal and wash out.
     
  2. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Come on. You know what I mean. The correlations are weak when one is speaking of the percentage of the variance accounted for.
     
  3. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    True. Speaking theoretically only. Regardless, the correlations are what they are.
     
  4. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Sacks don't count as pass attempts when calculating QB rating. A pass wasn't thrown on those plays.
     
  5. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Dude.. no one is arguing the effects are weak. The data from the table show that too. I'm just taking statement after statement you make and pointing out it's either false or not supported by evidence. Why not just do this: let's all accept that we don't know the "real relationships" between sacks and QB performance, but whatever it is, as long as we're talking about passer rating, the effects are small relative to other factors, like YPA for example.

    No need to keep digging a hole dude :wink2:
     
  6. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    And that's all I'm saying. :)
     
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I was mistaken then. However, Tannehill still threw more TDs than Ints, so it doesn't make sense to think his half his sacks would have been INTs.
     
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Since we're playing the "imagine" game, then let's imagine that the Dolphin's oline wasn't a freaking sieve last season, and that Tannehill could actually have thrown balls without getting smashed just after, or while, he threw. Does anyone think that he may have thrown some better balls at times? The point is, pressure, specifically hits, do have an affect on the QB. There's no way of knowing how much it actually affects, because we don't have an alternate universe where we can see the exact same play occur, but without Tannehill getting hit or sacked. That's not the same as saying that pressure (hits/sacks) don't really affect QBs.
     
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Let's say we have a QB who consistently gets sacked if he doesn't get rid of the ball in under 3 seconds. Let's say that this same QB takes a hit on most passes that occur in 2.5 or less. Would you expect that QB to have a YPA over 7? I wouldn't. If your line can't protect for very long, then you are going to run a bunch of short passes on offense, so that your QB can actually get rid of the ball.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  10. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Again, the issue is how much they affect QBs, in comparison to other variables.

    Just because a forum full of people have watched a QB get sacked a great deal over the past two or three years, and come to believe his performance would've been much better had he been sacked a great deal less, doesn't mean the relationship between sacks and QBs' performance in the NFL is "strong."
     
  11. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There's no way for you to determine thye wouldn't affect his game strongly. There is however common sense that says he likely makes more plays if he's able to.
     
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Tannephins is just saying the variance accounted for by sack percentage is small. The effect you speak of may be real and seem strong, but the % of some final stat (whether it be wins or QB rating) it accounts for may still be relatively small.
     
    Tannephins likes this.
  13. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I think that Tannehill would have thrown for 6k yards, and 62 tds if his sacks were much lower. What I am saying, is that sacks/hits/pressures negatively impact a QB, and definitely can impact the sorts of plays that are called, and THAT can negatively impact aspects of a QB, such as ypa. I'm saying that when the Dolphins played the Jets, and they were able to rush 4 guys consistently, and get to Tannehill in under 4 seconds consistently, that THAT affects a QB, and it affects the plays that are called. It's a play by play situation. It may not bear out in season numbers, but play by play, or game by game, it can have an effect.
     
    Ducken and Fin D like this.
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Assuming you're responding to me, I fully understand what you said. I could just repeat the same answer I gave, but let me try differently. Everything you're saying is reasonable. But that doesn't quantify the % of some final stat sacks (or anything else) accounts for. So, let's say it affects YPA as you predict (probably correctly). Can you now tell me by how much?

    To determine how much, you need to do an actual calculation. Now I'll admit that calculation, which just looks at covariance, is limited in that it doesn't take into account any actual causal relationships (because you don't start off assuming you know what those are), and the result might very well be different if we knew what those were (the influence of sacks on QB performance might be calculated to be a lot greater if you could put in the actual causal relationships into the calculations.. or they might be weaker, who knows..), but calculating % of variance explained is the only quantified measure we have right now of how much of YPA sacks explain.

    It's not deep and isn't contradicting anything you're saying except your assumption about how much it affects YPA.
     
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I was actually referring back to Tannephins in post #52. But, like I've said a couple times, there really is no way to accurately, concretely identify by what amount sacks/hits/pressures in general affect a QBs performance. I just kinda get sick of Tannephins posting that the relationship is so small that it's meaningless. It's not meaningless. Everyone knows, the way you affect the great QBs is to get pressure in his face, and put him on his ***. Doesn't matter if it's a sack, just get the hits on him. Don't let him really step into his throws. It affects. I don't know how much, nor do I care. I just know it affects QBs.
     
  16. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    If Tannehill had a good OL he would be the best QB in football ya stupids!
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think the loophole here is that Tannephins was only looking at sacks. I bet if you look at QB pressure, the effect is quite high. For what it's worth, I do know that PFF shows a huge difference in QB rating when comparing "with pressure" vs. "without pressure".. something like over 35 points passer rating difference. The "variance explained" due to QB pressure would probably thus be relatively high, and would likely dovetail with your (and my) intuition.

    btw.. will be interesting to see how Brady handles the AFC East d-lines. That's almost an "experiment" within itself.
     
    Ducken and resnor like this.
  18. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    That says nothing about whether it differentially explains Tannehill's performance, however, especially when you consider that 1) Tannehill wasn't pressured significantly more often than the average QB in 2014, 2) Tannehill's completion percentage "while under pressure" (PFF's stat) was nearly a half a standard deviation above the league average in 2014, and 3) Tannehill's QB rating improved over 10 points from 2013 to 2014, despite that these statistics revolving around pressure didn't improve in 2014.

    In other words, when these facts are considered, it's doubtful that pressure explains why Tannehill didn't perform better in 2014. Tannehill's degree of performance deficit while under pressure is likely to be no different from that of the average QB.
     
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Let's not forget the context of this debate. The question that started all this was what would happen to Tannehill's QB rating if the # of sacks were cut in half. So, you have to replace "sacks" with "pressures". None of the facts you point out answer that. Points 1 and 2 just tell us where Tannehill is now relative to other QB's, while point 3 is evidence Tannehill improved from 2013 to 2014. But none of this tells us how much effect cutting pressures in half would have on Tannehill's QB rating.

    What we need to do is exactly what I did earlier in calculating the regression line, but this time for "pressures" vs. QB rating. If you have the data for "pressures" for all the QB's listed in that table, I'll do the analysis.
     
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Tannehill improved in 2014...so no one is trying to prove that he didn't perform better. I think the initial sack statement was simply that the sack numbers are too high. That's all he meant. In other words, the good/great QBs don't take sacks. They scramble, they throw the ball away. I don't think he was saying that cutting the sacks in half would jump his overall statistics a whole lot.

    Where I am coming from, is more a psychological, even physiological response to pressure. Constant pressure and hits are going to negatively impact a QB. They are going to affect the plays that are called. I don't care if you can measure it with statistics or not. Again, I'll repeat, not all QBs who were under pressure were under the same sort of pressure. Does PFF change the pressure rating based on pressure coming at a QB from one being beat, versus three guys coming at the QB due to them all beating their guys? In other words, does PFF account for the Dolphins oline allowing 4 man rushes to get quick pressure as being different than say the Patriots oline giving up pressure on Brady when a team brought 6 guys in to rush?
     
    Galant likes this.
  21. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Given the data I mentioned, what would likely happen if you cut pressures in half -- across the league -- is that every QB's rating would increase to the degree that Tannehill's "adjusted" (minus half the pressures) QB rating would deviate from the league mean about as much as it does currently.

    In other words, pressure very likely isn't meaningful in explaining his performance relative to other QBs in the league.
     
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Wait.. did I miss something? What is Tannehill's "adjusted" QB rating? I don't see how you can infer that from the information you gave.
     
  23. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    The information I gave says that 1) he wasn't pressured significantly more than the average QB in the league, and 2) his completion percentage while under pressure was nearly a half a standard deviation higher than that of the average QB (in other words he performs better than the average NFL QB, in one important way, while under pressure).

    If we cut pressure in half across the league, how can Tannehill's "adjusted" QB rating (minus half the pressures) possibly be any more deviant from the league mean than it is currently?
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Who cares where Tannehill's "adjusted" QB rating would be relative to all other "adjusted" ratings. The question is what IS that "adjusted" QB rating. Like I said in post #61, the context of this debate has been how halving sacks (or "pressures" now) would affect QB rating. You said sacks have little influence. I pointed out "pressures" would likely have a huge influence. No information you've provided allows us to determine what the answer actually is.

    Oh.. on another note, even your contention that the "adjusted" rating would be similarly above the "adjusted" mean isn't necessarily true since a lot more goes into QB rating than just completion %.
     
  25. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Pressures indeed appear to have a much, much larger influence on QBs' performance than sacks.

    Again, however, when we look at the original context here (how much Tannehill would improve if things were "halved"), Tannehill's performance under half the frequency of pressure would likely improve only to the point that it made his performance just as deviant from the league mean as it is currently.

    ...or were we wanting to halve only Tannehill's pressure, while leaving everybody else's the same? ;)
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yes, look at plc001's post in post #5. He is talking only about halving Tannehill's sacks, not the entire league's!
     
  27. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Ah, well hell, we might as well, eh? After all, we're Dolphins fans! :lol: ;)

    Sure, let's cut Tannehill's sacks down to a number that's 1.23 standard deviations below the league mean, while leaving everybody else's the same!
     
  28. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,070
    22,827
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    You could actually make a strong case for taking Ben over Manning or Brady last year. definitely over Manning.
     
  29. plc001

    plc001 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,085
    1,758
    113
    Jun 22, 2008
    Jesus Christ... quit trying to sound smart. All I'm saying are the sacks taken by Russell Wilson and below averages much higher then those above Russell wilson... take the 20 plays average them out across the other categories representative of how tanned played all year and then see what his score is... I could give a damn about average sacks taken in the league when you see many teams are getting far fewer, particularly those by qbs ranked higher. For Christ's sake... all I'm trying to say is give tanne a offensive line worth a damn and you'll have a better qb... stat-wise. and chill with the passive aggressiveness... junks is annoying.
     
  30. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    The fact that Tannehill improved a great deal from 2013 to 2014, with no measurable improvement in his offensive line in terms of pressure surrendered, suggests that there are variables that are far more influential than offensive line play in Tannehill's performance. His own individual development -- which has nothing to do with anyone or anything but him -- is probably the most influential one.

    If you would've polled the forum at the end of the 2013 season and asked the members how they thought Tannehill would perform in 2014 if the Dolphins' offensive line didn't improve at all in the frequency of pressure it surrendered, the overwhelming majority would've likely expected no significant improvement. Yet his performance improved significantly, despite that the offensive line actually surrendered pressure on nearly 5 percent more of his pass dropbacks.

    What that would've told you is that people here are off-base with regard to the variables they're considering to be influential in Tannehill's performance. His individual development is considered less influential than it really is, while his surroundings (his offensive line, his receivers, his coaches, etc.) are considered more influential than they really are.
     
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's a statement you really cannot make. I think you'd be surprised at how many people would have actually expected him to improve, even if his oline didn't. I expect him to play better next season, even if his line is just add bad.

    Also, that he improved despite oline play isn't proof that he wouldn't have shown even better improvement if he'd had good oline play
     
  32. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    Right, it's only proof that there are highly influential variables at play that have nothing to do with the offensive line.
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Well, to play devil's advocate, you can't really know his influential those other variables are, since you don't know what his performance would have been with a good oline.

    See the circle we're going in...
     
  34. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    The fact that his performance improved significantly in the absence of improvement of the offensive line says that there are variables other than the offensive line that are highly influential. The point is only that his performance hardly hinges on the offensive line. It's entirely possible, for example, that the offensive line performs similarly in 2015, and another variable(s) accounts for yet another 10-point increase in Tannehill's QB rating.
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Sure, I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm saying you can't prove it. For instance, I could say that with a better offensive line, Tannehill would have thrown for 6k yards, 45tds, 4 ints. I couldn't be proven wrong, but that wouldn't make me correct. Just the same, you can't be absolutely, 100% sure that the oline doesn't play a bigger part, simply because there is no way of knowing what Tannehill's progress COULD HAVE BEEN had he had a good offensive line through his first three years. Clearly Tannehill has been successful in spite of his oline, but we have no idea by how much.
     
  36. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    I'm not saying anything about how much. I'm simply saying that his improvement obviously didn't depend completely on the improvement of the offensive line, because the offensive line didn't improve.
     
  37. Pandarilla

    Pandarilla Purist Emeritus

    14,282
    5,005
    113
    Sep 10, 2009
    Boone, NC
    Stats can cause cancer...
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't think anyone is arguing that his improvement depended at all on his line. The argument is that there is no way of knowing how much better he would have looked behind a competent line. If you improve behind a terrible oline, stands to reason that you'll look better behind an oline that allows you more than 2.5 seconds to throw, and doesn't let you get hit on almost every dropback.
     
  39. Tannephins

    Tannephins Banned

    1,818
    572
    0
    Dec 23, 2014
    What if, in contrast to conventional wisdom, the impact of offensive lines on QB play throughout the league is negligible? How much better do you think a QB would look then?
     
  40. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    So, if we remove the offensive line then it won't make any difference to a QB?
     
    resnor likes this.

Share This Page