Having the best division record doesn't mean you make the playoffs. The Bills had the same division record as the Pats last year but lost the division by 4 games.
Well, I have to admit the correlation isn't as high as I thought it would be but it's still decent. So first of all here's the data: https://i.imgsafe.org/0729497d50.png "Adjusted number of wins" on the y-axis just means I extrapolated the number of wins if the QB played all 16 games (some did, some didn't). There were a LOT of QB's that didn't play all 16 games, namely 15 out of 32 on your list (those 15 are the magenta diamonds, while the QBs that played all games are in green, and note that a few data points overlap and may appear as a single point). Correlation for all 32 is 0.25 while for those that started all 16 games (thus, excluding injured QB's and some rookies) is 0.29. Those numbers aren't great but they're not bad either. The 0.29 is in the range of correlation for completion percentage with wins.
Looks like a pretty weak correlation. From what I recall anything less than 0.3 is pretty weak. And it doesn't look like your plot is correct. I had 4 guys with 5 ratings and your plot only shows 3. Luck seems to be the one left off, but extrapolating his 2-5 to 16 games would give him 4-5 wins. That would presumably lower the correlation even more.
Some points overlap so they look like one point when there are really 2. The first two guys on your list (Rodgers and Wilson) both had 10 wins. But good catch on Luck! I calculated 2/5*16 instead of 2/7*16. The correlation for the total is down to 0.213, but the correlation for those that played 16 games is the same at 0.29.
To WIN your division you have to have a winning record in your division, extremely rare for a team to win their division and not have a winning record in their division, so division games are more important, but this is well known.
Looking back at my numbers for the correlation between team passer rating and team win%. * Team passer rating includes non QB passing, also reduces difficulties introduced when QBs play partial games. correlation is passer rating to win% raw: actual passer rating in that year adjusted: passer rating adjusted to 2015 standards. obtained by multiplying by 88.4 (2015 average) and then dividing by each year&s average (88.4, 87.1, 84.1, 83.8, 82.5, 82.2) 2015 raw: 0.461 adj: 0.461 2014 raw: 0.667 adj: 0.669 2013 raw: 0.694 adj: 0.697 2012 raw: 0.698 adj: 0.698 2011 raw: 0.803 adj: 0.805 2010 raw: 0.684 adj: 0684. Average of the year to year correlations Raw: 0.668 Adj: 0.669 Conclusion: Adjusting the figures from the actual figure to a figure adjusted to 2015 base does not change the correlation within the year. Correlation 2010-2015 raw: 0.662 Adj: 0.676. Conclusion: Using non adjusted figures lowers the correlation. Basically the slope is remaining at a similar level for each data run (season), but each season is shifting its data set a little to the right.
UPDATE OP is updated to include Andy Dalton in the >4 minute category. Correlation in that category is reduced.
I know that if you were criticizing the approach you would have told me right on page 1. I explain how I got my figures and what I did with them so that people can tell if I've done something wrong or overlooked anything. The main reason I haven't posted the original data is that there's too much of it (that plus I don't want to give it away for free to a journalist or blogger, and it's been a bit of work to collect it than arrange it for analysis). I adjusted because the average passer rating has gone up so much recently. So for the purposes of this thread it ended up not making a big difference, but definitely in 10 year+ samples it can make a difference. Especially when comparing frumpy old unadjusted for year passer rating against sexy new stats adjusted for year such as QBR or DVOA.
My personal theory, and I have no way of backing it up, is that the reason why HoF QBs have a better than 50-50 record in close games is about decision making skills. I don't think there is an appreciable difference between the physical execution of QB skills causing the difference (which is normally how pressure is described as affecting an athlete - tightening up). I think the very best QBs are making better decisions. Things like knowing when to throw to lead a receiver inbounds or lead him out of bounds, not throwing to the open receiver who is short of the required distance, eating the sack when the time is right etc. Peyton Manning would be my poster boy for a QB's on field decision making leading to a meaningful improvement in his 0-7 point game record. I know Tom Brady has a better record in these games, but Bill Belichek accounts for a big chunk of that.
Some more correlations I should have put in the OP Correlation >4 minute to 0-7 games rating: -0.03 >4 minute rating to 4th Q rating: 0.26 4th Q rating to 0-7 games rating: 0.11 since 4th Q ans >4 minute ratings have a weak correlation which suggests they could be independent of each other I thought I would average them and see if that helps correlation with win% combined 4th Q and >4 with win % All QBs: 0.45 All QBs - Luck: 0.51 Correlation 4th Q to wins All QBs: 0.42 All QBs - Luck: 0.55
I would bet Andrew Luck is in the running for MVP this year, I find it pretty strange how many folks have jumped off the bandwagon..not me..There isn't 5 qbs that I would take over him moving forward...same guy, same skill set that everyone fell in love with, folks just didn't give him any transition period because of his immediate success and making the playoffs..dude is younger than ryan.
I think talent wise, Luck is way up there. My only problem with him is his decision making. He just tries to make too many big plays, which are naturally riskier than plays that might be better for the offense as a whole. His abilities are so good that he makes up for a lot of decision making errors with more big plays, which is why he's so good in close games, but I just feel that's putting an artificial ceiling on what he could otherwise achieve. I think you have to know WHEN to take risks and when not to, and I am pessimistic that he'll eventually learn this on his own or that this will someday be coached into him.
Did you notice something interesting? Correlation isn't transitive. That is, if A and B are correlated, and B and C are, that doesn't mean A and C are correlated at least as much as the weakest correlation between AB and BC (here: A = <4 minute, B = 4th Qtr, C = 0-7 games). Not to get too much into more advanced math here, but correlations are actually just cosines of angles between vectors in high dimensional spaces (this is why correlations go from -1 to +1 because cosines do), and there's actually a formula you can use to determine a lower bound for the correlation between A and C given those between AB and BC. Just for info: Corr(AC) must be at least as large as Corr(AB)*Corr(BC) - sqrt(1-(Corr(AB))^2)*sqrt(1-(Corr(BC))^2). In your case, the lower bound is -0.9311 so had you quoted anything lower than that I'd say you made an error haha! Anyway, using the formula, if Corr(AB) = Corr(BC) = 0.7, then the lower bound is essentially no correlation, giving you an idea of how large the individual correlations have to be to make your -0.03 wrong. OK enough math!!!
I think in his case you have a classic case of trying to do to much..and I think he had reason to take that philosophy..since entering the league I would guess that his run game is at or very near the bottom of the league..just terrible...
That's why I like my definition of 'clutch' - doing better than 50% in 50-50 situations. I can measure it, and at least at a simple level of analysis it has some correlation to achievements in the game. The disadvantage of my definition is that it only comes out in career numbers and there's no way to attribute individual seasons, let alone games, to it.
No it isn't. Its based on hype + perception + poor competition. With Luck, stats don't tell us the whole story its all about film. With Thill, forget film its all stats.
Yes, like no commitment to run game, bad oline, no audibles, coach who sabotaged him. Oh wait, that's Tannehill. Luck needs no excuses. He's accomplished things. He's played well. 4,761 yards. 7.7 ypa. 40 Tds. Only knock on that year is his high INT at 16. Cuts that down to 12 and that's elite territory.
It's fairly ridiculous to argue that, on the whole, Lucks situation has been as bad as Tannehill's. Luck SHOULD have performed better, given how much more complete and polished he was coming out of college. People want to compare their careers thus far, while trying to act like they were equal coming out. They weren't. Tannehill was well behind Luck developmentally coming out of college, and he went to a franchise that has been a complete trainwreck, from top to bottom, for the last four years.
I don't understand how you evaluate this situation, I understand matching variables with skillset and projecting production level, but you seem to not be able to distinguish individual skillsets and how they would produce if all parts were equal.. I know what your saying, basically its very difficult to get a read on tannehill because of the poor surrounding variables, but I know I can watch two separate skillsets and discern the differences just based on them, nothing else.. I think after seeing how things have played out since ryan entered the league and what cards he's been dealt he's done a pretty good job, but ultimately the weakness of our team exploited his biggest weakness..we've got to get better at both..Luck has showed me tangible consistent evidence that he doesnt have this weakness..he may throw a bit more ints dealing with it, but he's not gonna be the most sacked qb in the league even if his oline is as poor as ours.. Ryan has done pretty good, and I think he's gonna take a step up in his level of play, myself I will be looking for key attributes from him that don't involve a higher passer rating.
Tim Tebow is 8-2 in 7 points or less games he started, including the playoff starts. One thing I noticed when looking at his stats from pro-football-reference is if you play any snaps at all they include it in the win/loss column, and Tebow had many games where he went in as a wildcat QB. Probably won't matter with the majority of QBs but something to keep in mind
Indy's oline has given up the most pressure the past 4 years (hurries, sacks, hits). Yet Luck's sack numbers are pretty damn good. Indy has given up the most QB hits (225) the past 4 years. The next highest is AZ, with 170. I would need more info (time to sack, is it because Luck is holding the ball too long, etc.) but it doesn't sound as if Indy's oline has been significantly better than ours. Nor has their run game. Maybe he's had had better coaching (and I know how you feel about Pagano there DJ). Quality of opponents is another factor. But they've had a huge fight between HC and GM, fired their OC. etc. It's not like he's had a stacked team.
There's another issue, apart from how they account for partial games. That sample is basically one season's worth of 0-7 games. Most QBs face around eight 0-7 games a season, sometimes up to 12 or down to 4, mostly in the 6 to 10 game range. I didn't mention it specifically before but The season to season variance is dramatic and can be huge. That's one of the reasons I had to look at larger long term data sets to find any type of signal.
As previously discussed, even if they were equal coming out Luck should have a better passer rating and record simply based on strength of division and average passing defense of the AFC South compared to the AFC East. Over Luck's career the league average has been 87.67. His in division defenses have allowed 90.62. Over Tannehill's career he has had the same league average of 87.67, but his divisional defenses have allowed a passer rating of 83.41. Short version of the math is that Luck's career passer rating should be 2-3 points higher than Tannehill's purely on the strength of the divisions.
Its the same argument you and I have always had Deej, you won't even acknowledge different types of pressure and their impact on the "escapability" of the QB. You don't acknowledge the importance of running the ball or being able to audible. You're not factoring any of that in. You watch a play and if the QB can't scramble away from whatever rush is coming at him you mark it against him. You say its difficult to get a read on Thill because of the surrounding variables, which is true, but for years you've argued as if you do have a read on him. So I don't know where the confusion is coming in. Barry Sanders didn't need a lane to run to. He could create his own. Emmit Smith, OTOH, generally needed a lane of some kind. Didn't have to be big, but it needed to be there. Its the same with QBs escaping the pocket. There has to be lane of some kind for most QBs to escape through. Its not a magic ability to teleport through bodies. There has to be an opening in the pass rush bodies and the oline bodies for a QB to physically step into. Thill, often had pressure up the middle thanks to ****ty guard play, which takes away his room to step forward. With the injuries (and shuffling) to both tackles, he often had the left and right taken from him at the same time. So, logically, when the front, left and right are taken from you, where exactly do you go?
There's also much less room to run when teams can rush only their front four, and can get quick pressure (under three seconds) from multiple angles. Now you're able to have linebackers spy on Tannehill to make sure he isn't running free and getting big yardage.
Not really the answers. The time to throw is up to the QB more than the o-line in many cases. If Brady/Rodgers see its a 3 man rush they'll stand there looking for an open receiver for as long as it takes. And Brady/Rivers/Manning seem to have a sense as to when the D is about to come after them and can get rid of it as fast as possible. So one QB could get rid of it in 1 second or 7 seconds on every drop back for an average of 2.7 seconds. And another QB could get rid of it at 2.7 seconds on 100% of drop backs. So the average time to throw will be exactly the same but how they get to that average is vastly different.
I see where we disagree, you think there has to be lanes to scramble effectively, I don't, anticipation of where the pressure is coming from by perpherially watching two things at once {one eye on your oline seeing who's getting beat, one eye down the field} is part of the art. I do understand how a good run game can take pressure off and reduce the exposure to the weakness, and I do understand how being able to audible can get him out of a bad looking front. Heres the thing, I think you don't measure the negative impact this weakness has on the team and your not bothered at all that this qb rarely takes off on his own to convert anything.. Of course better protection all around will give him a comfy pocket for which he can use his accurate arm to slice a defense up, my concern is it won't be enough to win it all, I always believe that on the way to a champ a qb has to be able to make plays, I mean the very definition of making a play at the position, which in the context Im talking about is not just with his right arm, making plays by the qb on the way to a champ I believe will come down to the players ability to avoid pressure, be smart and conscious, and make a positive play out of nothing, scrambling and throwing, or scrambling and running. right now, making a play out of nothing is not his forte, I think it will determine his fate and is why I think its the part of his game he needs to pay attention to the most.. I know we talk about it, but when I read your analysis I dont think your putting enough emphasis on his responsibility to make the team better.. now we know he isn't the most laterally gifted athlete so I get there is some engrained limitation but you cant trust the line all the time, you have to be aware of the pressure, be better..you cant expect just to sit back and win, you have to be versatile in how you win the down. with good protection I think ryan can win us 10 games and make the playoffs because he's got good arm talent, but I need more from his skill set and brain to win multiple champs..so I'm not interested long term if he cant figure it out..Once I see that conscientious effort to know what it takes to win from his position I will let it go..but at this point I haven't seen consistently enough recognition of when to bail the pocket and rest, or simple take off to convert..
That's garbage. There were many times last season that a 3 or 4 man rush was able to get pressure on Tannehill. 3 man rush was not at all a guarantee that Tannehill would have as long as he wanted to sit back and find an open receiver. People seriously don't seen to understand how terrible the oline has been.
All the talk about how horrible NE's OL was last year was overblown. Football outsiders had their OL ranked 2nd best in run blocking and 18th in pass blocking. If you add in the fact that their offense is based off of the quick, high percentage, short pass to RB's and TE's, or basically running the ball via very short passes, then their oline was perfect for them. The Dolphins, as an entire team from the HC down was a mess. Expecting anyone, sans maybe the kickers, to play well is asking too much. If you put Rogers or Brady on last year's team I doubt you make the playoffs too.
Even Brady and Rodgers will move around a little to buy time against 3 man rushes, but they don't panic and you notice them looking around to see where the rushers are at points during the play. But thats not the point, the point is "average time to throw" may not tell you anything at all about how well the o-line is playing. Because part of the QBs job is to throw it at the right time, and that time could vary from 1.5 seconds to 15 seconds depending on the situation. If I were scheming against Tannehill I would almost always rush 3 or 6, because I don't think he's very good at adapting to different pressure situations.
DJ, in all fairness, I don't think any QB has one eye downfield, and one eye watching his line. LOL. So, again, what you're really talking about is anticipation. It's one thing to know that you have a weak spot on the right side, and anticipate that pressure will come from there, so you can plan to react to that. It's something different to have a bad line that routinely allows pressure from multiple spots, and you can't plan how to react. I saw various examples of Tannehill trying to climb pockets, or roll out of pressure, only to get smacked in the middle when he tried to climb, or smacked on the other side when he tried to roll away from pressure. People like to focus on sacks where he didn't roll, but that could easily be a function of Tannehill not moving because he had nowhere to go. When you have four rushers, then the linebackers can shut down any routes out.
Alright can not help myself but I have to call the hyperbole police on you.... 2014 (Luck was healthy) here are the list of QB's who received the highest amounts of pressure per drop back with no blitz (your front 4 argument) 1.) Matt Ryan was pressured with no blitz a whopping 192 times! (He had 7 Tds and 3 INT) 2.) Carson Palmer 164 times 3.) Andrew Luck 158 times 4.) Eli Manning 151 times 5.) Tom Brady 147 times Ryan was pressured 129 times good for number 11 on this list. Also note if we break down % then this argument would get even uglier. So who REALLY has to deal with these situations you act like only Ryan has to deal with? "under three seconds" On these particular plays Ryan averaged 3.43 seconds to throw....good for 12th LB's spying Ryan Tannehill?? Not sure this has ever been their primary assignment. But as you can see I showed you thee situations you keep bringing up and evidence on why imo it is a poor excuse for his shortcomings. I will never deny Ryan has had garbage coaching and OL play, but some of you just want to exaggerate it enough to call it the "reason why" we are getting subpar play out of the QB position. Can we all just hold hands and cry to the clouds that "Ryan Tannehill AND his surroundings all need to improve for this team to get better"..its really that simple.
Why did you go with 2014 when I was talking about last season? We keep taking about the oline and coaching because a young, raw QB NEEDS a good oline and good coaching. Literally no one has ever argued that Tannehill is perfect and doesn't need to be better. We've simply argued that laying all the ills and losses of the Miami Dolphins at Tannehill's feet isn't fair or accurate. I don't understand how you guys think. Also, I'm super impressed that veteran QBS handled those situations better than a third year QB, who didn't come out of college even close to as NFL ready as those guys.
if you dont think certain qbs can do both, see where the pressure is coming from and make moves accordingly to that pressure while keeping eyes down field, you dont understand the art of the position.
