Ryan Tannehill

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

Amazing how you find a way to credit Watson and discredit Tannehill when reviewing 1st and 2nd half performances.

Tannehill SHOULD have had 4 TDS on the day. Watson had 2 red zone ints that should have cost them the game.

The Texans would have lost that game if it weren’t for a missed FG and red zone fumble (perfect pass from Tannehill) for the Titans.

"Should have" or "would have" has to be equally applied to everyone if you go down that path, not just for one QB. So if you don't like drops by WR's, then you have to remove all drops for all WR's for all QB's, not just for one QB and leave the drops for the other QB in place.

Until you start doing that it's not a fair comparison. Where are the similar "should have/would have's" for Watson?

"cbrad wrote:

I don't have the win probability graph for the game, but to 99% probability the Watson INT will have caused a bigger change in win probability because of its timing. Even if the momentum shift or the change in expected points added (EPA) was identical (not saying they are.. this is just a hypothetical) the timing alone makes the one late in the game far more important – fewer chances to undo the damage.

Obviously win % chance is going to change the deeper into the game you go, that doesnt mean the points you gajned/lost are more important later at all.

If the Titans scored 14 points in the first 30 seconds they arent actually worth any more than if they scored 14 points with 30 seconds left.

You're determining win probability based on the time left in a game which is fine, but every play within a game has equal value in the end.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Obviously win % chance is going to change the deeper into the game you go, that doesnt mean the points you gajned/lost are more important later at all.

If the Titans scored 14 points in the first 30 seconds they arent actually worth any more than if they scored 14 points with 30 seconds left.

You're determining win probability based on the time left in a game which is fine, but every play within a game has equal value in the end.

Except that we're not talking about the value of the points scored. We're talking about the value of the PLAY, which is what win probability captures. The same play could lead to the same points, or even EPA, while having vastly different value based on its timing within the game.

"cbrad wrote:

Did you just post that because it sounded cool to you because it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the current discussion. We're talking (mostly) here about what happened on "tape". At least I watched the entire game and am basing what I'm saying on that.

Also.. if you look at the ton of posts over the last few weeks showing all kinds of stats that I pointed out weren't properly adjusted, those were mostly "Tannehill-positive" stats, not negative ones. So I don't think your post is reflecting the nature of the discussion much.

Yeah, I'm very concerned with being cool and liked. That's why my posts are always so sweet and for everyone.

Also did you just say the positive stats that weren't;t properly adjusted, as if that doesn't prove my point?

"cbrad wrote:

What?? Tannehill's INT occurred early in the 2nd quarter and the Titans would have been up 7-0 had it been a TD. Hardly anything "determined" based on that. Compare that to Watson's INT at the end of the 3rd quarter in the endzone. That would have allowed Houston to go up by 14 with one quarter to go. No question which was more important: Watson's INT.

No way- if the receiver held the ball in the endzone....Titans score 7 and take 7 off the board since the red-zone drive didn't happen. Even if Watson missed the INT later and the Texans scored, they still lose the game by 4 points.

The fumbled TD was CLEARLY the biggest swing play of the game. To put it in math terms, 14 > 7. =)

"cbrad wrote:

Except that we're not talking about the value of the points scored. We're talking about the value of the PLAY, which is what win probability captures. The same play could lead to the same points, or even EPA, while having vastly different value based on its timing within the game.

Except you are talking about points, because you are talking about potential point swings in a game caused by interceptions.

Again, it really doesnt matter when a play happens. Even if you throw an INT in the endzone to lose a game by 6 points, it's no worse than throwing that same INT in the first quarter costing yourself or giving the opponent points.

"cbrad wrote:

"Should have" or "would have" has to be equally applied to everyone if you go down that path, not just for one QB. So if you don't like drops by WR's, then you have to remove all drops for all WR's for all QB's, not just for one QB and leave the drops for the other QB in place.

Until you start doing that it's not a fair comparison. Where are the similar "should have/would have's" for Watson?

Feel free to show me a sure thing TD pass dropped/fumbled by one of Watson’s receivers today so we can apply it.

"KeyFin wrote:

No way- if the receiver held the ball in the endzone....Titans score 7 and take 7 off the board since the red-zone drive didn't happen. Even if Watson missed the INT later and the Texans scored, they still lose the game by 4 points.

The fumbled TD was CLEARLY the biggest swing play of the game. To put it in math terms, 14 > 7. =)

Wait what?? Now you're telling me that even if the Texans scored and went up by either 14 or at worst 10 to start the 4th quarter that the Texans would guarantee lose by 4 points?? Where are you getting this stuff? I think this is all fantasy you're talking about.

In both cases there was a huge momentum change and a drive that led to a TD by the other team. That part isn't different. What IS different is that one occurred early in the 2nd while the other occurred right before the start of the 4th quarter. HUGE difference in importance, and as I've been telling Alex that will almost certainly show itself in the in-game win probability.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Except you are talking about points, because you are talking about potential point swings in a game caused by interceptions.

Again, it really doesnt matter when a play happens. Even if you throw an INT in the endzone to lose a game by 6 points, it's no worse than throwing that same INT in the first quarter costing yourself or giving the opponent points.

No I'm talking specifically about the value of the play. And the Watson INT is the more important one in terms of which one affects the final outcome more. Remember, that's what this whole discussion is about: which PLAY is more important for determining the outcome.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Obviously win % chance is going to change the deeper into the game you go, that doesnt mean the points you gajned/lost are more important later at all.

If the Titans scored 14 points in the first 30 seconds they arent actually worth any more than if they scored 14 points with 30 seconds left.

You're determining win probability based on the time left in a game which is fine, but every play within a game has equal value in the end.

Not necessarily. If a team is ahead by 30 points with three minutes left to play for example, a touchdown by either team at that point in the game is almost worthless in terms of its change in win probability for either team.

This is where the term "garbage time" comes from, because plays made during that part of the game are non-impactful.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

Feel free to show me a sure thing TD pass dropped/fumbled by one of Watson’s receivers today so we can apply it.

Looking at the tape again that INT was not a "sure TD pass" by Tannehill. The receiver had the ball knocked out at the 1 yard line, and if you look at the play it looks like if the WR caught it he would probably have been tackled at the 1 yard line.

"cbrad wrote:

Wait what?? Now you're telling me that even if the Texans scored and went up by either 14 or at worst 10 to start the 4th quarter that the Texans would guarantee lose by 4 points?? Where are you getting this stuff? I think this is all fantasy you're talking about.

In both cases there was a huge momentum change and a drive that led to a TD by the other team. That part isn't different. What IS different is that one occurred early in the 2nd while the other occurred right before the start of the 4th quarter. HUGE difference in importance, and as I've been telling Alex that will almost certainly show itself in the in-game win probability.

There was no score. RT threw a TD pass, which makes it Titans 7-0. However, the receiver fumbled that pass into a waiting defender's arms and it was ran back 90 yards, which ultimately created 7-0 Texans. That one play swung the scoreboard by 14 points...the Titans lost by 3.

With the red zone INT for the Titans, it prevented 7 points. It did not, however, set the Titans up in the red-zone for an easy score. So I'll say once again, 14 > 7.

"Fin D wrote:

Also did you just say the positive stats that weren't;t properly adjusted, as if that doesn't prove my point?

Those positive stats were often posted as "the answer" as you put it. They weren't posted as being "inconclusive" or an "anomaly". So yes I don't think what you said accurately characterizes what was posted.

"Whatever it is
I think I see
becomes an indictment of Tannehill to me"

"cbrad wrote:

Those positive stats were often posted as "the answer" as you put it. They weren't posted as being "inconclusive" or an "anomaly". So yes I don't think what you said accurately characterizes what was posted.

The "were NOT properly adjusted" stats?

"KeyFin wrote:

There was no score. RT threw a TD pass, which makes it Titans 7-0. However, the receiver fumbled that pass into a waiting defender's arms and it was ran back 90 yards, which ultimately created 7-0 Texans. That one play swung the scoreboard by 14 points...the Titans lost by 3.

With the red zone INT for the Titans, it prevented 7 points. It did not, however, set the Titans up in the red-zone for an easy score. So I'll say once again, 14 > 7.

First of all RT didn't throw a TD pass. I just looked at the tape again and that's probably down at the 1 yard line. You're right about the difference in distance. That would weight the value of that play more towards the RT INT using expected points added. But win probability is still heavily weighted towards time remaining so I'm still predicting the Watson INT was more important.. can't tell with certainty until we actually see that stat (can't find it right now for this game).

"Fin D wrote:

The "were NOT properly adjusted" stats?

Correct.

"cbrad wrote:

Correct.

And you don't see how that makes my point?

"Fin D wrote:

And you don't see how that makes my point?

No I don't. You said they were "anomalies" or "inconclusive". You didn't say they were "not property adjusted". The stats aren't anomalies or inconclusive per se. It's that they weren't adjusted properly for era (for example).

"cbrad wrote:

No I don't. You said they were "anomalies" or "inconclusive". You didn't say they were "not property adjusted". The stats aren't anomalies or inconclusive per se. It's that they weren't adjusted properly for era (for example).

So improperly adjusted stats are now....conclusive? Cool.

"cbrad wrote:

Looking at the tape again that INT was not a "sure TD pass" by Tannehill. The receiver had the ball knocked out at the 1 yard line, and if you look at the play it looks like if the WR caught it he would probably have been tackled at the 1 yard line.

I disagree. The hit dislodged the ball and the receiver went down trying to recover it. Had he properly secured it, he recovers/absorbs that hit and scores.

In any case that was a perfectly executed play by Ryan Tannehill. The ball placement could not have been any better. That should have been a TD.

"Fin D wrote:

So improperly adjusted stats are now....conclusive? Cool.

No that's an error in logic. A stat is neither "conclusive" or "inconclusive" on its own. Those words apply to arguments using stats, and adjusting stats for era won't change that. For example, saying Tannehill is ranked X or Y relative to others using either adjusted or unadjusted stats is just a true statement and is neither "conclusive" nor "inconclusive" per se.

Wrong word to apply here IMO.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

In any case that was a perfectly executed play by Ryan Tannehill. The ball placement could not have been any better. That should have been a TD.

Tannehill was definitely not at fault I agree. And whether that pass would have been a TD or not, it's highly likely the Titans get a TD there.

"cbrad wrote:

No that's an error in logic. A stat is neither "conclusive" or "inconclusive" on its own. Those words apply to arguments using stats, and adjusting stats for era won't change that. For example, saying Tannehill is ranked X or Y relative to others using either adjusted or unadjusted stats is just a true statement and is neither "conclusive" nor "inconclusive" per se.

Wrong word to apply here IMO.

hahahahahahahahaha ok man.

Tannehill over Watson today! Let's see how he does at Houston. But according to my eyes, stats and fantasy.. I don't see how anyone can say he wasn't the better QB today.