Pounds Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The Preface The other day, Oldfan authored a thread entitled, "Offensive Scheme: Ball Control vs. Big Play." In it, both he and MassSkinsFan made some particularly poignant points about, not only differences in specific offensive philosophy and how they may come to bear, but also, the notions of a consistency factor and risk assessment as it relates to the differences in specific offensive strategy. All of the aforementioned left me wondering: through what lens is the quantifying and qualifying of good or bad as it relates to offenses, and players, namely QBs, therein, most appropriately viewed? Surely, such a comprehensive and all-inclusive statistic exists and, needless to say, a stat only has worth when it is shown to have a clear and direct relationship to wins/losses, or can wholly serve as an indicator for offensive/player performance. To find answers suitable to this end, I did some research… The Point From QB rating, to team rankings in passing and rushing, to sacks, NFL stats, for the most part, are stupid. That is to say, without a proper and pertinent context in terms of their application, they are absolutely meaningless. Allow me to explain; NFL coaches do not rely on QB rating as an adequate measure of QBs; they realize that this rating is an impure mark, convoluted by the performances of a QB’s teammates. No, in fact, QB rating better serves as a rating for passing attacks, than it does in measuring a QB’s effectiveness. Nor do coaches look at the passing and rushing rankings or totals of their team in assessing its performance. And I can guarantee to you that Greg Blache isn’t looking at the sack totals of his front four in assessing their worth to the defense in its totality. So here, and solely for the sake of this discussion as set forth by my preface, is the one stat that above all is most comprehensive and all-encompassing and one I believe better defines this notion of offensive consistency: net yards per pass attempt. By now, it should be clear that the NFL is a passing league. Balance struck between the run and passing game is achieved through, and made possible by, the success of the pass; in this sense, the Cardinals and their improbable Super Bowl run drove this point home, with gusto and, to a lesser extent, so too did the Steelers. Does not only net yards per pass have a direct correlation to winning at the NFL level, but it also serves as the most reliable indicator of how good or bad a QB is, as well as the auxiliary parts that surround him. Therefore, we can look at this figure to glean [mostly] the success of a QB and his team. Here are quotes offered on subject in a recent NFL.com article by Tony Dungy and Dick Vermeil: Vermeil on net yards per pass attempt: "Yards per pass attempt has one of the most direct correlations to the won-loss record. It covers a wide range (pass attempts, completions, sacks, net yardage) and it reflects on a lot of different things." Dungy on net yards per pass attempt: "It doesn't matter how often you throw, if you're throwing and having great success ... that's a determining factor. There are times in every game when you have to throw the ball, and if you're throwing it efficiently, you're going to win most of the time." More from Dungy regarding the impact of net yards per pass attempt and the ’06 Colts: "I know most people look at rushing (yardage) and the number of rushes. We didn't want to be where we were [regarding his defense’s ability to stop the run], but there are times that can be misleading ... In the long run, you're going to have to throw the ball efficiently to win in the NFL. That's just how the game is now." "We weren't that concerned about (the rushing stats) [those that the pundits vilified his defense and team for]. They're [opposing teams are] trying to keep our offense off the field by running the ball, and they're kicking field goals, and we're scoring touchdowns." *For the sake of this discussion, I’ll add that seven net yards per pass attempt is superlative, while seven-and-a-half is the sterling standard as defined by Dungy in the referenced article, with six yards serving as a baseline figure. The Numbers First, let’s cover the methodology. Net yards per pass is calculated thusly: net passing yards/(pass attempts + sacks allowed). It is important to note that the foregoing figure is more accurate than one based on gross passing yards, as, justly, sacks should be considered an attempt. Second, are the numbers. After demonstrating the aforementioned correlation between NYPPA (net yards per pass attempt) and winning, I’ll provide the numbers for the 2008 season. Here is the demonstration of the above-mentioned correlation between NYPPA and winning: the ’05 Steelers led the league in NYPPA and won the Super Bowl. The ’06 Colts led the league in NYPPA and won the Super Bowl. The ’07 Patriots led the league in NYPPA, went 16-0 in the process, but lost in the Super Bowl. Furthermore, three of the four teams to play in conference championship games in ’08 slotted between six and seven yards per pass attempt, the lone exception being the Steelers, who were .06 points away from six. Now, the figures for ’08: [u]Rank[/u] [u]Team[/u] [u]Attempts[/u] [u]Yards[/u] [u]Sacks[/u] [u]Yards Lost[/u] [u]YPA[/u] 1 Chargers* 478 4009 25 151 7.669 2 Saints 636 5069 13 92 7.668 3 Falcons* 434 3440 17 104 7.40 4 Texans 555 4474 32 207 7.269 5 Panthers* 414 3284 20 130 7.267 6 Cardinals* 630 4874 28 201 7.10 7 Broncos 620 4545 12 74 7.07 8 Dolphins* 491 3761 26 129 7.03 9 Colts* 585 4180 14 86 6.83 10 Packers 541 4044 34 231 6.63 11 Cowboys 547 3988 31 199 6.56 12 Eagles* 606 4058 24 153 6.20 13 Patriots 536 3790 47 221 6.122 14 Giants* 491 3353 28 176 6.121 15 49ers 509 3724 50 305 6.116 16 Buccaneers 562 3788 32 169 6.09 17 Titans* 453 2903 12 83 6.06 18 Ravens* 433 3085 33 277 6.03 19 Vikings* 452 3217 43 261 5.97 20 Steelers* 508 3613 49 306 5.94 21 Jets 529 3516 30 213 5.91 22 Bills 479 3302 38 262 5.88 23 Jaguars 537 3620 42 288 5.75 24 Redskins 510 3291 38 266 5.52 25 Bears 530 3236 29 168 5.49 26 Chiefs 541 3358 37 229 5.41 27 Lions 509 3299 52 339 5.28 28 Rams 520 3265 45 321 5.21 29 Raiders 421 2639 39 270 5.15 30 Seahawks 474 2831 35 214 5.14 31 Browns 488 2541 24 157 4.66 32 Bengals 513 2677 51 271 4.27 *-denotes playoff teams Sixty percent of the teams in the top-10 league wide made the playoffs, while, somewhat surprisingly, only 53% of the teams in the top-15 made the playoffs and 55% of the teams inside the top-20 made the playoffs. The Redskin perspective The Redskins' ranking at #24 is 4% lower than the Jags' 5.75 NYPPA and 28% lower than the Chargers' figure of 7.669 NYPPA. Conversely, the Redskins' NYPPA mark of 5.52 is 29% higher than Cincinnati's lowly mark of 4.27 NYPPA. Suffice it to say the numbers suggest a QB and, generally, an offense in the bottom half of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I would suggest that the only stats that matter is the points scored, and points allowed. I would agree that YPA is perhaps the biggest statistic to measure offensive success outside of points, but it really comes down to points. An offense is only as good as the amount of points it scores. One other note, I do not necessarily think that YPA should be correlated with wins. Why? Because you ignore the other side of the ball. Teams like the Saints did not win a whole lot of games, but it certainly wasn't because of their offense. If they had even a decent defense they would have been in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always A Commander Never A Captain Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is interesting stuff, but it also doesn't mention 1st down completion percentage. A 3rd and long that goes for 9 yards but is just shy of the 1st down is a failed play despite the high YPA. Conversely, a quick slant that nets 5 on first down, which the WCO does. Has a low YPA but is a great 1st down gain. Then another 5 yard pass that gets a 1st down has another low YPA, but is still a great play. Stealing the numbers from the ESPN Insider NFC East thread on CB data, it goes like this for a pass play to be considered good. % of yards needed to move the chains. 45% of the yards on 1st down. 60% of the yards on 2nd down. 100% of the yards on 3rd down. I saw somewhere that McNabb had a much better QB rating then this other QB system that incorporated the above successful passes per down rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 ...through what lens is the quantifying and qualifying of good or bad as it relates to offenses, and players, namely QBs, therein, most appropriately viewed? Surely, such a comprehensive and all-inclusive statistic exists and, needless to say, a stat only has worth when it is shown to have a clear and direct relationship to wins/losses, or can wholly serve as an indicator for offensive/player performance. So here, and solely for the sake of this discussion as set forth by my preface, is the one stat that above all is most comprehensive and all-encompassing and one I believe better defines this notion of offensive consistency: net yards per pass attempt. By now, it should be clear that the NFL is a passing league. Balance struck between the run and passing game is achieved through, and made possible by, the success of the pass; in this sense, the Cardinals and their improbable Super Bowl run drove this point home, with gusto and, to a lesser extent, so too did the Steelers. Does not only net yards per pass have a direct correlation to winning at the NFL level, but it also serves as the most reliable indicator of how good or bad a QB is, as well as the auxiliary parts that surround him. Therefore, we can look at this figure to glean [mostly] the success of a QB and his team. Here are quotes offered on subject in a recent NFL.com article by Tony Dungy and Dick Vermeil: Vermeil on net yards per pass attempt: "Yards per pass attempt has one of the most direct correlations to the won-loss record. It covers a wide range (pass attempts, completions, sacks, net yardage) and it reflects on a lot of different things." Dungy on net yards per pass attempt: "It doesn't matter how often you throw, if you're throwing and having great success ... that's a determining factor. There are times in every game when you have to throw the ball, and if you're throwing it efficiently, you're going to win most of the time." Thanks for the link bro, great article.( i really enjoy your threads) I don't know about all encompassing or if it even measures 'consistency' but i agree about YPA is one of the most useful stats, but i won't quibble. YPA seems like a good measure of a team's passing success and therefore a good measure of a teams offensive success because of the importance of the passing game in today's NFL. If there was a stat that combined Yards Gained + Red zone scoring efficiency i would pick athat as a quick and dirty stat to measure an offense's success. The article also mentioned Big, or "explosive," plays as a factor that concerned the surveyed coaches; i tried to bring up this concept in Oldfans thread. Although the article just mentioned Field position after kickoffs i think the larger category of special teams fits into 'hidden yardage'. That is an area where i thought we gave up a ton of yardage. (ARE subpar PRs, bad punts, missed field goals, penalties) *Remember the Chargers vs Colts playoff game? That punter Scrifes sp? was a freakin beast. The article also mentioned charting opposing teams tendencies (which is impossible to quantify) this imo would is the single greatest measure of a coordinators success; especially given the relative parity in the league. i bet these coaches are good at it... ..............hopefully............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Pounds, our opinions usually agree, but I think you're off the mark on this one. The YPA can be a useful, quick 'n dirty stat in supporting some very broad arguments, but it shouldn't be used to compare one team's passing game against another's or the merits of QBs. You mentioned what I called the consistency factor in your preface, but you didn't apply it to the YPA stat. My position is that all averages are deceptive when football stats are compiled mainly because football is a field position game. Team A with a 6.00 YPA is not as good as team B with a 6.00 YPA if a high percentage of A's gains was the result of big plays on long passes. As for measuring QBs, the YPA doesn't isolate the QB's play from the quality of his O line, his receivers, the scheme, or the playcalling; and it doesn't work in the percentage of long pass completions or the number of giveaways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 I would suggest that the only stats that matter is the points scored, and points allowed.I would agree that YPA is perhaps the biggest statistic to measure offensive success outside of points, but it really comes down to points. An offense is only as good as the amount of points it scores. While this is true and I agree, at least superficially, the point of the post was to find an indicator of good versus bad and how that relates to players and offenses, as a whole. Points are not an indicator; they are the outcome. One other note' date=' [b']I do not necessarily think that YPA should be correlated with wins. Why? Because you ignore the other side of the ball.[/b] Teams like the Saints did not win a whole lot of games, but it certainly wasn't because of their offense. If they had even a decent defense they would have been in the playoffs. Well, it is a stat that measures passing games, but despite the one-handedness of this stat it does serve as an indicator of wins as evidenced by this quote from the OP: the ’05 Steelers led the league in NYPPA and won the Super Bowl. The ’06 Colts led the league in NYPPA and won the Super Bowl. The ’07 Patriots led the league in NYPPA, went 16-0 in the process, but lost in the Super Bowl. Furthermore, three of the four teams to play in conference championship games in ’08 slotted between six and seven yards per pass attempt, the lone exception being the Steelers, who were .06 points away from six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I would suggest that the only stats that matter is the points scored, and points allowed. I once thought the same, but I've changed my mind. Last season, the Eagles were +127 in net points and won nine games. The Redskins were -31 and won eight, including two against the Eagles. It wasn't luck. After our 10-3 win, Andy Reid said that the Skins played the field position game better than they did. He was right. His offense depends on big plays. They don't play the field position game well which makes their offense inconsistent. If our offense shifts to second gear next season, we will own them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is interesting stuff, but it also doesn't mention 1st down completion percentage. A 3rd and long that goes for 9 yards but is just shy of the 1st down is a failed play despite the high YPA.Conversely, a quick slant that nets 5 on first down, which the WCO does. Has a low YPA but is a great 1st down gain. Then another 5 yard pass that gets a 1st down has another low YPA, but is still a great play. This is all true, but not really the subject of the OP. Anyway, over the course of a season, these numbers that you reference will settle, if you will, and balance-out. I'll put the subject of the OP into historical perspective: over the course of the last three seasons, the combined regular season record of the top-10 QBs in terms of NYPPA was 300-140; meaning QBs in the top-10 in NYPPA, over the last three seasons, won at 68% clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'll put the subject of the OP into historical perspective: over the course of the last three seasons, the combined regular season record of the top-10 QBs in terms of NYPPA was 300-140; meaning QBs in the top-10 in NYPPA, over the last three seasons, won at 68% clip. Something's wrong with your stats... 16 X 10 X 3 = 480 total games not 440. You labeled your stat a QB stat, but it sounds like a team stat to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOnPaper Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I would suggest that the only stats that matter is the points scored, and points allowed.I would agree that YPA is perhaps the biggest statistic to measure offensive success outside of points, but it really comes down to points. An offense is only as good as the amount of points it scores. One other note, I do not necessarily think that YPA should be correlated with wins. Why? Because you ignore the other side of the ball. Teams like the Saints did not win a whole lot of games, but it certainly wasn't because of their offense. If they had even a decent defense they would have been in the playoffs. I can appreiate the point you are getting at, but points do not tell the entire story. For example, we can't tell by just looking at the point totals if the defense made plays and forced turnovers and gave the offense good starting position. IMO, starting position is closely tied to the defense and subsequently point totals. So, for a more accurate reading of an offense, I think YPA is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Why are all the stats in the NFL compiled as averages? It would seem like things like the median and standard deviation are more relevant. Relating back to Oldfan's post about big plays vs ball control, we can easily see that the example he gave of 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 vs 0, 0, 0, 3, 2, 30, 2, 3 (not the same example but similar) they have the same averages, but have different medians and standard deviatians and the stats show what the (obvious) examples are constructed to display, that the first offense is better than the second one. It'd be nice if we had a little more advanced math than just sum / number to judge things by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Something's wrong with your stats... 16 X 10 X 3 = 480 total games not 440. The differences there lie in the number of games played per season. Not each of those 10 QBs played all 16 games in all three seasons. You labeled your stat a QB stat' date=' but it sounds like a team stat to me.[/quote']It can be both, depending on which you are measuring. In the OP, the large code body measures team NYPPA. The calculation is as follows: net passing yards/(pass attempts + sacks allowed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 It can be both, depending on which you are measuring. In the OP, the large code body measures team NYPPA. How does the same stat measure both team and individual performance? Let's, just for sake of this discussion, assume that the QB is exactly a 50% factor in the efficiency of the team's passing game. How would we know if we had a grade C quarterback with a grade A support system, a grade A quarterback with a grade C support system, or a grade B QB with a grade B support system, if all we have is a stat giving us a grade B result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Why are all the stats in the NFL compiled as averages? It would seem like things like the median and standard deviation are more relevant. I think the NFL publishes those stats to give average fans more to talk about as they do in baseball -- and the average fan doesn't understand much math beyond averages. I also think there are head coaches with limited math aptitudes basing strategies on questionable stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 How does the same stat measure both team and individual performance? The formula for the stat’s calculation is totally dependent on its application, allowing for this duality. Let's' date=' just for sake of this discussion, assume that the QB is exactly a 50% factor in the efficiency of the team's passing game.How would we know if we had a grade C quarterback with a grade A support system, a grade A quarterback with a grade C support system, or a grade B QB with a grade B support system, if all we have is a stat giving us a grade B result?[/quote'] To my knowledge, there is not one singular stat that grants us the kind of quantity posed in your question; at least, if it exists I'm not aware of it. Logic dictates that not just any run-of-the-mill QB in an average offense would be able to post a NYPPA in excess of a seven-and-a-half yards; that is rarified air that only top tier talents breathe. While this stat may not separate the individual components of an offense, it does shed some visibility on the efficiency with which not only a QB operates but also a team and correlates directly to wins/losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Well, as always, I appreciate your take, Oldfan; yours is an opinion greatly valued. Pounds, our opinions usually agree, but I think you're off the mark on this one. The YPA can be a useful, quick 'n dirty stat in supporting some very broad arguments, but it shouldn't be used to compare one team's passing game against another's or the merits of QBs. I disagree. Offenses that boast QBs with NYPPA of seven yards, or greater, have, over the course of the last three seasons, won 68% of their ball games. That it a pretty stark number, if you ask me and one that is even more momentous in the face of all the variable factors that delineate the pro game. Furthermore, I think reliance on NYPPA would support specific arguments. For instance, the Chargers passed the ball at a net yardage rate roughly 80% better than the Bengals and won 100% more games than the Bengals in the ’08 season. Logically, this is because the Chargers not only have the better team, but also the better QB and, as a consequence, a better passing attack. You mentioned what I called the consistency factor in your preface' date=' but you didn't apply it to the YPA stat. My position is that all averages are deceptive when football stats are compiled mainly because football is a field position game. Team A with a 6.00 YPA is not as good as team B with a 6.00 YPA if a high percentage of A's gains was the result of big plays on long passes.[/quote']Well, the consistency factor you mentioned served to springboard me into making the OP. It’s application to the consistency factor, in the OP, is alluded to, although I didn’t implicitly draw a parallel. But, it is a valid point you make here and one worthwhile in addressing. I’m gonna give it the ol’ college try and you tell me where I’ve gone astray: as an average, NYPPA serves as a rate of consistency. If a coach knows he has a QB that throws the ball for seven-and-a-half yards a pop, on average, he can better mate his game plan and play calling to match what his passing attack can accomplish on a down-to-down basis. As for measuring QBs' date=' the YPA doesn't isolate the QB's play from the quality of his O line, his receivers, the scheme, or the playcalling; and it doesn't work in the percentage of long pass completions or the number of giveaways.[/quote']You’re mostly right here. However, the net figure takes into account sacks and the number of yards lost as a consequence. So, in a sense, we can gauge and quantify the play of the o-line. In its totality, a high NYPPA suggests a good offense. But, no single stat exists that allows for the perfect view of each component of an offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Pounds: The formula for the stat’s calculation is totally dependent on its application, allowing for this duality. Nah. Seems to me you are measuring A and B together; then labeling it a measurement of A when you want it to be A and B when you want it to be B. To my knowledge, there is not one singular stat that grants us the kind of quantity posed in your question; at least, if it exists I'm not aware of it. There is none. Logic dictates that not just any run-of-the-mill QB in an average offense would be able to post a NYPPA in excess of a seven-and-a-half yards; that is rarified air that only top tier talents breathe. Tom Brady broke most of the QB records for QBs in 2007. Was it because he was a better QB than the 2006 version of Tom Brady or because he had a much better group of receivers to throw to? How good would his stats have been if he had played for the Redskins (you pick the year)? While this stat may not separate the individual components of an offense, it does shed some visibility on the efficiency with which not only a QB operates but also a team and correlates directly to wins/losses. YPA is much better used as a team stat than as a QB stat, but a .68 correlation isn't good enough to make it a dominant stat. Points scored by the offense has a .72 correlation according to the 2007 edition of the Pro Football Prospectus and I don't think points scored is a reliable stat for ranking offenses because the consistency factor is not accounted for. Furthermore, I think reliance on NYPPA would support specific arguments. For instance, the Chargers passed the ball at a net yardage rate roughly 80% better than the Bengals and won 100% more games than the Bengals in the ’08 season. Logically, this is because the Chargers not only have the better team, but also the better QB and, as a consequence, a better passing attack. Now, if you try comparing the Chargers to the Patriots, Giants or Steelers, you will see how unreliable your stat is. I’m gonna give it the ol’ college try and you tell me where I’ve gone astray: as an average, NYPPA serves as a rate of consistency. If a coach knows he has a QB that throws the ball for seven-and-a-half yards a pop, on average, he can better mate his game plan and play calling to match what his passing attack can accomplish on a down-to-down basis. An average tells us nothing about the rate of consistency. That is why it can't be used as a reliable ranking of a passing game. A big play offense averaging 7.5 yards would get blown out by a ball control team averaging 7.5 because it would be sitting on the bench for most of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'Em84 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 What about if someone makes a scatter plot with all the plays yardage on it. We can see all the outliers that way, LOBF the thing, see the average, mode, median and all that. Someone gives me a link with all the numbers easy to access, I'll do it right now. I'm not working today, and have some spare time and Excel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 What about if someone makes a scatter plot with all the plays yardage on it.We can see all the outliers that way' date=' LOBF the thing, see the average, mode, median and all that. Someone gives me a link with all the numbers easy to access, I'll do it right now. I'm not working today, and have some spare time and Excel.[/quote'] I don't know of a source for the numbers you'd need in the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 What about if someone makes a scatter plot with all the plays yardage on it.We can see all the outliers that way' date=' LOBF the thing, see the average, mode, median and all that. Someone gives me a link with all the numbers easy to access, I'll do it right now. I'm not working today, and have some spare time and Excel.[/quote'] Well, you could go into the nfl.com file for each game, read the play by play and compile the stats yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 ...Logically, this is because the Chargers not only have the better team, but also the better QB and, as a consequence, a better passing attack. I kinda agree with Oldfan on this one. YPA is much better used as a team stat than as a QB stat I agree a QB with a good YPA is having a better season then a QB with a lower YPA. I don't think that the YPA stat seperates a QB's contribution from that of their o-line, receivers, or playcalling etc. Imo there aren't many good measures of individual players ability because football is very much a team dependent sport. I’m gonna give it the ol’ college try and you tell me where I’ve gone astray: as an average, NYPPA serves as a rate of consistency. If a coach knows he has a QB that throws the ball for seven-and-a-half yards a pop, on average, he can better mate his game plan and play calling to match what his passing attack can accomplish on a down-to-down basis. Oldfan, I gotta agree Pounds on YPA as an overall stat for the success of the passing game and as the passing game goes so goes the offense. But, Pounds i disagree with how it might effect the play calling. I don't think people look at YPA as an actual per pass gain, but rather an overall measure of the passing game. What i mean is that when looking at YPA it is reasonable to consider that teams with higher YPA have more explosive passing attacks or get more 'chunk' then teams with lower YPA. An average tells us nothing about the rate of consistency. That is why it can't be used as a reliable ranking of a passing game. A big play offense averaging 7.5 yards would get blown out by a ball control team averaging 7.5 because it would be sitting on the bench for most of the game. Oldfan, again i think this is an extreme example, i don't see how a 'ball control' offense could have the same YPA as a 'big play' offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Oldfan, again i think this is an extreme example, i don't see how a 'ball control' offense could have the same YPA as a 'big play' offense. Of course it could, but at the same YPA, the ball control offense would be much superior to the big play offense. That's why the YPA is a deceptive stat. I would just hazard a guess that three equal, average quality passing games of the different types would have YPAs that looked something like this: Ball control: 5.75 Tweener: 6.25 Big play: 7.00 That's why I say the ball control offenses which help their defenses are underrated and the big play offenses that don't play the field position game well and help their defenses contain the opponent are overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Nah. Seems to me you are measuring A and B together; then labeling it a measurement of A when you want it to be A and B when you want it to be B. Like I said, the large code body in the OP is a measure of team NYPPA. If I wanted to measure a particular QB, however, all I have to do is take his net passing yardage/(pass attempts + sacks allowed). The formula can be applicable to both teams and players; the resulting calculations are in no way intertwined. An average tells us nothing about the rate of consistency. That is why it can't be used as a reliable ranking of a passing game. A big play offense averaging 7.5 yards would get blown out by a ball control team averaging 7.5 because it would be sitting on the bench for most of the game. Upon further review, I am off the mark, but I think I'm on the right path. I'm gonna rework this and restate the thesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Thanks for the link bro, great article.( i really enjoy your threads) You're welcome, Darrel and thanks for the comment. Imo there aren't many good measures of individual players ability because football is very much a team dependent sport. This fact along with the variable factors that define football makes the compilation of any meaningful fact precarious and, in many people's eyes, casts a dubious shadow over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 If I wanted to measure a particular QB, however, all I have to do is take his net passing yardage/(pass attempts + sacks allowed). I don't know why you'd want to create that stat. If you do this, you will get a measurement of the performance of Matt Cassel, executing plays called in the Patriot scheme, protected by the Patriots O line, throwing to Patriots receivers. And, you will get a measurement of the performance of Jason Campbell, executing plays called by Jim Zorn in the Redskins scheme, protected by the Redskins O line, throwing to the Redskins receivers. But, you won't have a measurement that will allow you to fairly compare the performances of the two QBs in isolation. So, of what use is your stat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.