Comparing Tannehill to Luck,

OK I see.. I must've missed that when you wrote it.

Yeah in that case I agree that passer rating alone won't give you the evidence.

 

The lack of basic football aptitude in this thread is comical.

 

Facts & numbers prove Thill has performed better than Luck, but none of that matters cause, you know, all GMs would take Luck over Thill...probably....we're guessing.

 

I'm sure some people saw it, and history shows they were right. The ones that said he was just a function of his defense or coaching or whatever were wrong.

 

how many times have you seen Luck convert a third down with his legs?

how many with ryan?

 

Hmm.. I think first thing to do is to see what the variance in W/L is for a relevant passer rating range in those years. Otherwise you can't say whether Luck is "outperforming" his passer rating. That is, the first thing is to see what passer rating really captures in terms of W/L for some range.

Since I happen to have the data handy from 2 posts ago and I don't want to do statistical tests, let me just graph the results for you.

So.. first of all the data are from those 3 links in post #78. And since not all QB's that started at least 8 games played 16 games, what's plotted below is # of expected wins (extrapolated over 16 games) vs. passer rating for 2012-2014.

http://postimg.org/image/5gi2jaie9/

As you can see, for a passer rating range of 80-90, you can get a huge range of extrapolated W/L, from 4 to 12. So what that's telling you is passer rating isn't a discriminating enough tool to see whether a QB is "outperforming" or not when within that range and the W/L record over 16 games extrapolated is between 4-12 (Luck was at 11). Where passer rating becomes useful is when you look at how the expected wins change over different ranges. That it's essentially a linear function means that in that respect it's a pretty good predictor.

 

Ryan threw for more yards as a rookie. Dan owns a career 86.4 rating, Ryan a 85.2. Most yards for a Dolphin rookie in a single game. Tannehill set the record for consecutive completions.
I'm not seeing anything there that says Dan is better than Tanny to be honest.

 

Gotta compare to what the norm was (it was also a different game in terms of the rules and how they were interpreted). Average passer rating back when Marino was a rookie was in the low 70's. Marino in his first 4 years had a 96, 108.9, 84.1 and 92.5 rating. That is AMAZING!

Oh, and don't forget his 48 TD's in his 2nd year that just shattered the previous record. Marino did things that were historically impressive early in his career. Only problem with Marino is he didn't demonstrate the longevity of someone like Brady.

 

Tannehill has all the gifts required to be a successful QB. Strong arm - check. Athletic - check. Smart - check. Whether or not he can bring his skill level up a notch is yet to be seen. I think Russell Wilson is the only better QB prospect the Dolphins had a shot at, without betting the farm.

 

That one we can quantify the probability of. You said there was a 68.8% probability of AFC South teams (other than Indy) losing. Assuming you randomly sample from a binomial distribution (a coin flip where the coin is weighted with 68.8% probability), the probability of Indy winning at least 17 out of 19 is 3.68% assuming Indy were an average team.

So all this is saying is Indy is with greater than 96% probability NOT an average team relative to its division rivals in those years.

 

I don't know.. you bring up a good question. But like I said in an earlier post, I wouldn't be surprised if the "you build your team to win your division" theory holds some water. One could test this by looking at the winning % of division winners vs. their division teams compared to winning % of division winners vs. non-division teams and see if there's a difference.

 

Gee, I wish we could build our team to go up against crap opponents every year too. That would make things much easier

 

Tannehill is not football smart though.

 

What stats show why the QB17 Dolphins are better vs the Pats(3-5) than we are vs the Bills(2-6), and also why we are just as good vs the Jets(3-5) as we are vs the Pats, when the Bills(29-35) and Jets(28-36) are clearly inferior teams, compared to the Pats(48-16), and why the Dolphins(29-35) aren't better vs the Bills and Jets.

 

I was being facetious

I completely agree with your last statement. His first few years were historic. After that, he was one of the best but not the greatest.

 

Miami's offense matches up better against New England's defense than it does vs the ones run by the Jets and Bills. Thats especially been true at home. Its difficult to quantify, but the Bills have just had our number, even though they've sucked vs the rest of the league for years.

 

While that's a valid theory, at least a partial theory, it is a theory, and therefor an opinion, not a statistical analysis, which was what I am specifically asking for.

 

-47.9 should cover it.


http://football-players.pointafter....yers-nfl-2015#28-Miami-Dolphins-Dallas-Thomas

 

You say you want an answer through statistics. Not sure one can provide that given the paucity of stats we have, but the first step is to see how likely/unlikely those events are if you assume the Dolphins are an average opponent of those teams (average opponent takes into account whatever effect that team has on its opponents so it's not a bad start).

Once again, you do a coin flip (with a weighted coin) and ask what the probability is of obtaining X wins out of N games for that coin. For NE, the weight on the coin is 0.75 = 48/(16+48), and the probability of an average opponent winning at most 3 out of 8 games is 88.6%. So the Dolphins having a 3-5 record against NE is highly likely if you assume the Dolphins are an average NE opponent and there's nothing really to ask there.

The comparable stats for the Bills is 9.14% and for the Jets is 23.7%. Normally, statisticians won't reject a hypothesis unless those numbers are less than 5%, but forget that for a moment and you see at least what needs to be explained here: The one real anomaly is how the Dolphins do against the Bills relative to how other teams do against them.

And maybe there's a simple explanation for that: our crappy OL vs. their great DL + a QB with not-too-great pocket presence.

 

Just read the Colts allowed the most QB hits in the last 4 year span (Miami second). Some advanced stats such as time to pressure, time to hit etc. would reveal more. But man, Luck's sack numbers are great compared to the hits they allow.

Question: Fantasyland. Indy offers Luck straight up for Tannehill. Who doesn't make the trade.

 

Following up on the "you build your team to win the division theory" w.r.t Indy having an abnormally large 17-2 record against the AFC South, the win % of a division winner from 2012-2015 against other division opponents is 75.5% while the win % of a division winner against non-division opponents is 68.1%.

So that is at least some evidence that division winners are built to win in their division more than they are against the rest of the NFL.

How does that change the likelihood of a 17-2 record? As I pointed out before the probability of an average opponent (68.8% win probability) of the AFC South winning 17 or more games out of 19 was 3.68%. Well.. the 68.8% win probability of an average AFC South opponent is eerily similar to the 68.1% win probability of a division winner against a non-division opponent. All I'm saying is that simplifies any analysis that attempts to "adjust" for a team being built to win a division (otherwise it's a more convoluted process).

Point is, we can calculate the probability now of an average division winner having a certain record against the non-division winning AFC South teams. It's the same calculation as before but replacing 68.8% with 75.5%. The result is that the probability of an average division winner having at least 17 wins against the AFC South teams is 12.1%.

I know 12.1% looks small, but given the really small sample size, no statistician would reject the hypothesis that Indy's seemingly abnormally good record against AFC South teams was due to random chance IF we adjust for whatever it is that helps a division winner beat other division teams.

Summary of several posts: none of the stats posted so far (including passer rating) are discerning enough to explain the variances in W/L in this case. Which just really goes back to saying it's maybe better to rely on the collective intelligence of experts in this case than try and figure out what's going on through stats.

 

Lmao

 

Comparing two qb's stats is meaningless because of the complexity of the sport. This isn't baseball where you can put a player on a different team and he'll produce the same as he's always been. We also cant easily quantify everything that happens on the football field. You can say tannehill has played as well as luck in their careers up to this point but when you actually watch them play you'd see luck is the better guy

 

However, reality can't be overlooked when dealing with stats Brad, the weighted coin theory falls flat when compared to reality, the Pats were 12-4 each of the last 4 seasons, so obviously 3-5 cannot be expected, because that would leave the Pats at around 10-6 every year, taking into account that they play good and bad teams as well as avg, so it all comes out in the wash, and 4 years is a solid sample size.

So since this is not theoretical, but based on actual data, the weighted coin theory has to be thrown out, since it is proven to be inaccurate in this example.

Since we play in the same division as the other teams, we are playing the same schedule, and our record is basically the same as the Jets and Bills, yet they have a better record vs us, when one would come to the conclusion that we should be going near 500 vs those teams, based on common opponents and nearly identical records.

So, we are still left wondering where are the stats to explain my original question(s).

 

That is complete bull.

yes the sport is complex, however you can compare two quarterback's statistics and find meaning.

 

No you're not understanding what I did. Probably my explanation wasn't good enough.

OK.. Pats have been 12-4 past 4 seasons, so they have a steady 75% win probability. The question I answered was NOT what the probability of exactly 3 wins out of 8 games is. I answered what the probability of at MOST 3 wins out of 8 is (so you win either 0,1,2 or 3, but not more).

Why did I do that? Because the probability of any specific record is relatively small. For example, the probability of winning exactly 3 out of 8 against the Pats if you randomly choose an opponent is 20.77%. The probability of winning exactly 2 out of 8 against them is 31.14%. Winning exactly 2 out of 8 is the MOST likely thing to occur, but it's not 100% as you see (and as should be obvious).

So what statisticians usually do is calculate the probability of a range of possibilities. In this case, winning at most 3 out of 8. And because the Patriots have been so steady at 12 wins per year past 4 years, the coin flip model is about as realistic as you can get, with no other information provided.

So, knowing that read my previous post again. There's nothing to explain w.r.t our record against NE, but the Buffalo record and to a lesser degree the Jets record might need explanation. I think the one I provided is the most obvious one based on an "eye test".

 

I think he was the greatest. he took average teams and at least made the playoffs. those teams were horrible on defense at times. 34 pts a game and you still lose , u g l y

 

Ok, so the coin flip theory is basically saying that we are doing about as well as can be realistically expected, which is pretty evident to most of us fans, which is part of my point, because why then are we 5-11 vs the Jets/Bills over the last 4 years, who have also been avg teams.

Keep in mind Brad, that I'm looking for a statistical analysis to explain it, as I have my own eye test theory, and that it's really an exercise, but I do appreciate you input.

 

I agree completely, I think a very strong case can be made that no QB has ever done more with less.

 

Funny, I just saw that as well.

 

Listen dudes, Tanne will not make it and be considered great until we see him on TV, on a national commercial ad, being a shill for some big s--tbag corporation, pedaling some s--tbag product.

 

Tannehill's segment with Gruden contradicts this statement.

 

OK.. well like I said I doubt there is any statistical analysis that will pin down a solution for you because you'll probably need stats they either don't publish or even record. In any case, the only way I see doing this is to take whatever stats you think are relevant and then calculate how many fewer wins one would expect given each stat.

For example, take sacks given up vs. Buffalo compared to what we normally give up. We gave up 184 sacks from 2012-2015, or 2.875 sacks allowed per game, or 23 sacks over 8 games. The total number of sacks given up vs. Buffalo in those years was 27, so that's 4 extra sacks. The question now is how do sacks relate to wins? They are negatively correlated at -0.28 to wins meaning each extra sack decreases the number of expected wins, but by how much I have no idea.

Figure that out and now you can redo the coin flip thing I did to see how much that changes the result. Do this for more and more stats until you get a result you think explains the win-loss record. One thing you'll have to be careful of is "double counting" the effects of two different stats that are really measuring the same thing.

Anyway, if you or anyone else wants to actually go get the relevant data for some hypothesis you have on this Buffalo anomaly and you need help analyzing it, I'm glad to help. But like I said, I doubt you'll find your answer through stats.

 

Meaningless was the wrong word but the fact of the matter is is that there are still so many variables that go into evaluating the skillset of two different players. You would be mislead into believing that tannehill is a slightly better qb than luck by looking at statistics

 

He doesn't have a cool name like luck that can be used as a double entendre