Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.
This is the list he was referring to:
You can see the literal comparison of unadjusted passer ratings across eras. Can't "rank" someone without comparing.
What if he was only comparing to the current record holder or players from the same era?
Already answered that question. Let's not go in circles. Regardless, the comparison in that post was across all years.
Agree to disagree. I read his posts that acknowledged you can't compare across eras......
There's nothing to disagree on. This is the quote directly from his post:
That's a comparison across all years.
Along the lines of the above points, it’s certainly plausible that the surroundings he’s experiencing currently are light years better than the ones he had previously. That’s certainly not an untenable position.
What support do we have for the idea that his current surroundings in Tennessee are significantly better than the ones he had in Miami?
I don’t argue with Cbrad, I don’t understand 75% of his posts.
His knowledge in regards to stats are far beyond to sophisticated.
So are these:
So, agree to disagree.......
What support do we have that they are not?
I disagree with you diminishing what he's done, should he end the season with that record. I understand you can't compare eras specifically, but you also can't harness context...too many humans involved...it's not apples to apples because of statistics. In the absence of EXACT comparability (which is impossible), I'll take the fact that a number compares favorably and is an impressive accomplishment.
NOBODY claimed he's the GOAT QB of all time if he finishes with that record...but that's what you're acting like.
When the Hall of Fame rattles off player records and accomplishments at their induction...they don't include z-scores.
How about we compare approaches.
IF Tannehill finishes with a 2.48 z-score that's essentially identical to Matt Ryan's amazing 2016 season where he finished with a 2.47. I think everyone who saw Matt Ryan can agree that was damn impressive. In both cases it's top 0.66th percentile. So me saying we should use z-scores hardly diminishes what Tannehill will have done IF he ends this way.
But it puts things into proper context. Steve Young's record 1994 season with a z-score of 3.57 is to 0.02 percentile, which was even more impressive. So using z-scores in no way (IMO) diminishes what Tannehill is doing or might accomplish. It just puts things into proper context.
Someday they will.. just watch (or the equivalent adjusted stats).
Who's to say Steve Young would have the same numbers playing in today's game, where defenses are much more used to dealing with mobile QBs? Perhaps Young would not be as effective. There's literally no way of knowing either way. By adjusting like you do, you are making it a fact that he would do just as well today.
No I've told you this before. In NO case is there an assumption made that a QB from one era would perform with the same z-score in another era. Whether I use z-scores or adjusted ratings the ONLY thing being done is comparing each QB to his own era except that the numbers are all on the same scale. NEVER is the implication made that they would perform in a certain way in another era.
The scale is all that changes with z-scores or adjusted ratings. For example, if I have z-scores which implies the standard deviation is 1, I can change all z-scores to a year with mean X and standard deviation Y. That's all adjusted ratings are. So the scale changes but the comparison is always each QB to those he competed against.
In other words, using z-scores tells you how impressive a QB was relative to the competition he actually faced. But the scale is the same for all years which means you can compare across eras.
The issue is that there are competing explanations for the difference in his performance. If someone is going to propose that one of them has merit over another, then he should support that one with evidence.
Simply saying that his surroundings in Miami were bad says nothing about his surroundings in Tennessee. They could be no different (good or bad) in Tennessee for all we know, and then how likely would it be that his current surroundings explain the difference in his performance? Not very.
That is the implication. You're taking a rating from say the 80s. You're adjusting it to line up with current ratings, and then comparing say, Tannehill currently, to that adjusted score. So, you are currently saying that Tannehill isn't having historic numbers, as compared to adjusted scores. But Tannehill plays in today's league. So if we can't say that Young, for instance, would play just as well in today's game, against today's defenses that are very used to scheming against mobile QBs, then we shouldn't be adjusting at all.
Yet you propose NOTHING. You sit and argue semantics, but never actually make any real claims, so no one can prove you wrong.
And we know the surroundings are different. Fin D has unsuccessfully attempted to get you to answer the simple question about what things a team can do to minimize pass rush. Here's a simple difference: a coach that doesn't abandon the run game.
Last paragraph is not correct. Since you don't know how a QB would function in today's league, then it's meaningless comparing their ranking relative to their competition.
That's the problem...you can't possibly harness the contextual relevance of ALL of their surroundings...therefore it's moot. You hear it all the time...Brady gets credit as being elite with a nobody receiving corps (even though Gronk and others have been elite in their system). Tannehill's doing it w/o a true #1 or elite receiver (Rice, Moss, etc.), backup TEs and rookies. It's IMPOSSIBLE to compare situations contextually to any level of certainty with any stats, with varying levels of skill-players and human error involved.
And sure...when they have a unicorn MC announcing the inductees?
I actually proposed something earlier in the thread and supported it with evidence. I said that this was the first time in Tannehill’s career that he was not designated the starter out of camp, and that he has to play significantly better than the person who was designated the starter to keep his job.
That’s one such competing explanation that I was talking about above. If the surroundings in Tennessee are no different than the surroundings in Miami, then the explanation I’m proposing is logically more plausible than one centering on his surroundings, because the one I’m proposing actually involves a significant difference between the past and the present, in terms of what Tannehill is experiencing.
This string is too damn funny.
It was raining yesterday but not today. My heads not wet.
Tennessee already had their starter in Mariotta. They weren’t going to trade for a QB to take his place but...Mariotta has been as fragile as the leg lamp in a Christmas Story. Tennessee trades for Tannehill because they knew they needed someone that could come in and do the job after Mariotta went down...again
I just don’t think they realized what a GREAT quarterback they were getting.
I've considered that myself and I have to believe it helped him. He went up there, not as the savior like Miami treated him, but as a pine-rider who would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was better, to be named the starter. Ran out of town for a low round draft pick because he wasn't starter material. I think it drove him.
Tannehill doesn't always show how much of a competitor he is...but if you watch close, it's plain as day. Just watch that play against Oakland, the INT, where he ran the guy down and laid the wood. Watch him AFTER he made the hit...he was pissed. The guy has fire, even if he's not on a Marino level with it.
They knew it before week 1 though...much of the staff wanted him to start...GM over-rode (based on some info from some Titans boards).
Why the hell does a person who literally only worries about "accuracy" always either refusing to give an answer or if he does, then never uses specifics?
This is why you were banned numerous times. You are clearly posting in bad faith.
But you're starting with a flawed, inaccurate premise, that the surroundings are not different. This is what I mean. It's been pointed out numerous times that your premise is wrong, but you hold to it, and keep repeating it, as if it has some sort of meaning.
Nobody (other than you) appears to be interested in explaining the differences in his performance.
It is also the first time he played on a team other than the Dolphins. It is the first time he wore powder blue in his uniform. It is the first time he had a flaming T on his helmet.
But he IS surrounded by a completely different team and coaching staff and playing in a different city, training in a different facility, living in a different house, taking a different route to work, etc, etc, etc.........
So, your explanation is illogical.
Because some of us watched him closely and didn't blame him for everybody else's shortcomings, and knew he was capable of this play...even if we can't back it up with stats.
No you just have to ask the right question. The question is: "How impressive is this passing stat relative to the rest of the league?"
The answer to that is provided to you by z-scores, and that's really what was being asked here. It's only if you go further and ask how well would Young play in 2019 or Rodgers in 1994 that one has to point out the z-score approach isn't sufficient.
All this is true, but that's equally problematic for unadjusted passer ratings as it is for z-score ratings. I'm arguing z-scores > unadjusted ratings. I'm not saying either perfectly captures QB ability.
One simply has to watch the arm talent and the success when the supporting cast is average to see that. I notice the "stats guys" never discuss the actual plays.
Then your stats are useless. What Tannehill is doing, relative to the entire league, is really damn impressive.
No, my stats are the best ones so far provided for quantifying how impressive what Tannehill is doing is. Like I said, top 0.66th percentile.
You're not getting that without z-scores.
What about his z-score?
I haven’t seen anyone say much of anything about the surroundings in Tennessee.
Including you and you were directly asked.
That’s sure fine. I don’t mind being the only one.
The reason the explanation is important however is because different explanations carry with them different likelihoods that his performance will be sustained, and that’s what we’re all talking about here on some level or another.
We've pointed out differences. I started with an easy one: commitment to the run game. Now you try.