Quarterback Statistics Commonly Misused

[mnb123]

Now, try making them realistic while conforming to the formula supported by the study I cited. The offense and defense should be equally weighted and the special teams one-third of the weight of the offense or defense.

No numbers you could ever make up are realistic. You can't simply weigh the different aspects of a football team with any realism at all.

[Oldfan]

No numbers you could ever make up are realistic. You can't simply weigh the different aspects of a football team with any realism at all.

I think you're wrong. The estimate on the coaching value is weakly supported, but the relationships of the numbers from the 3 - 3 -1 ratios of offense, defense and special teams provide more restraints than you might realize until you give my approach a try.

[addicted]

Almost gave up on you Oldfan, glad to see the wait was worth it

Addicted, there are three arguments working against your position:

1. There is no logical basis. You can't say it's important to run the ball consistently on offense and then deny that it's equally important to stop the run on defense. You can't say that an efficient passing game is important and then deny that it's equally important to stop the passing game on defense.

In who's mind? In your maybe that's true but you took arguement against me saying in your ****eyed percentage pulling post that you didn't like me saying that the Offense which included QB, WR, RB, and Offensive Line was worth 55% don't you remember?

I proved to you how teams do with bottom 10 Defenses in regards to who gets in the playoffs. The reason I went with that arguements simple...playoffs mean the team had a successful year. If the Skins go to the playoffs this year every fan including you and I will think we had a successful season. So we can't argue my method of finding a measurable success meter.

With that I hate to repeat myself here but I showed you that teams with Bottom Offenses do not get in the playoffs in TODAY's NFL (2 out of 72 spots) where as teams with bottom 10 Defenses have a much higher rate of success getting into the playoffs (10 out of 72). That's a 4 to 1 ratio and a clear win for my arguement that offense today means more then Defense today.

I used a clearly defined measure and found out the truth. What started this between us is your research and you not agreeing that the Offense is much more important then the Defense. Your arguing that one can not exist without the other is flawed. 2 out of 72 is not equal to 10 out of 72 in my mind. You can argue otherwise but your wrong.

2. Your personal research uses the NFL yardage stat to rank offenses and defenses. Your method is simplistic. For example, your stats do not reflect takeaways by the defense or giveaways by the offense -- vital factors in ranking them. The DVOA stats, a more sophisticated statistic based on about 20 years of data, comes to the logical conclusion that offense and defense are equally important.

Is it now? Hmmm lets see....how many times has it been said here that the Redskins in 2008 had a top 10 Defense? Oh I don't know for sure but I'm sure that's in the 1000's.

When people grade defenses and offenses and say things like "Team A was ranked number 10 in the league" you do realize that its the yards for and yards allowed that is being judged correct? Me using that goes with standard protocol when judging defense and offense. If we used what your suggesting of takeaways the Redskins Defensively would go from #4 to 31st in Fumble recoverys and tied for 17th in INT's. Do you see how screwed up that is?

In addition your research is using 20 year old data which makes no sense to me. Has the NFL changed much in the last 20 years? Ummm unquestionably yes it has. Its changed every single year and placed an importance on keeping offensive players safe and allowing the game to produce more points. I can produce numerous articles if you wish proving this but I'll just give you one:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2008/07/31/a7c_dolphins_sider_0801.html

"Whenever the NFL changed its rules during the 18 seasons Bill Lovett worked as an official, the rules almost always benefited the offense."

Its not the same old NFL it was 20 years ago. There is no reason to believe that what was 20 years ago still goes today. I bet had they done this research over the last say 10 years it would no doubt have different results. I can't help it that you want to use antiquated information

3. Your results, based on yardage stats, can be logically explained. The offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage, but the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy.

I would like you to prove that yardage on offense does not equal points scored. Lets use the top three Offenses for the past 5 years and see where they ranked in that years total points scored to see if there isn't a corelation between the two:

2008

1 New Orleans Saints = #1 in scoring

2 Denver Broncos = #16 in scoring

3 Houston Texans = #17 in scoring

2007:

*1 New England Patriots = #1 in scoring

*2 Green Bay Packers = #4 in scoring

*3 Dallas Cowboys = #2 in scoring

2006:

*1 New Orleans Saints = #5 in scoring

*2 Philadelphia Eagles = #6 in scoring

*3 Indianapolis Colts = #2 in scoring

2005:

1 Kansas City Chiefs = #6 in scoring

*2 Seattle Seahawks = #1 in scoring

*3 Indianapolis Colts = #2 in scoring

2004:

1 Kansas City Chiefs = #2 in scoring

*2 Indianapolis Colts = #1 in scoring

*3 Green Bay Packers = #5 in scoring

2003:

1 Minnesota Vikings = #6 in scoring

*2 Kansas City Chiefs = #1 in scoring

*3 Indianapolis Colts = #2 in scoring

* = Playoff Team (12 out of 18 teams made the playoffs on that list which equals 66.66%)

So what does that mean? Yardage equals points. Any offense to be successful must score points. That's why my point is valid. If you have a great offense and terrible defense you can still have a good year. You can not prove that if you had a great Defense and a terrible offense that a team can have a great year unless you simply say 2 out of 72 proves that which in my eyes doesn't (2% vs. 66%)

[Passizle]

This is a pretty interesting debate. Thanks for the fresh look OF. Thanks to you for all the opposing data Addicted.

While its really impossible to tell or give a true weight to measure any aspect of the game (We miss things like weather, home field advantage, injuries, etc...) ONe thing that really opened my eyes in this whole debate (Thanks to addicted again) is that the motto "Defense wins Championships" still rings true. A good offense helps, but in the end, stopping teams from scoring seems to trump a teams being able to put up 40... especially if they cant stop you from putting up 40. I think this is clear example that can bring in the whole Cutler and Brees parts of the side story.

And to add a little more to the "defense", out of the teams shown by addicted (for 2008 anyway) the teams with the better defenses went further than teams with better offenses.

[Oldfan]

Addicted, I don't know if it's part of your debating strategy, but your counters are hard to follow. You quoted my first argument; then talked about everything but the argument I made.

All of the following is just repetition of your original argument and claims that you made your case and you're right:

In who's mind? In your maybe that's true but you took arguement against me saying in your ****eyed percentage pulling post that you didn't like me saying that the Offense which included QB, WR, RB, and Offensive Line was worth 55% don't you remember?

I proved to you how teams do with bottom 10 Defenses in regards to who gets in the playoffs. The reason I went with that arguements simple...playoffs mean the team had a successful year. If the Skins go to the playoffs this year every fan including you and I will think we had a successful season. So we can't argue my method of finding a measurable success meter.

With that I hate to repeat myself here but I showed you that teams with Bottom Offenses do not get in the playoffs in TODAY's NFL (2 out of 72 spots) where as teams with bottom 10 Defenses have a much higher rate of success getting into the playoffs (10 out of 72). That's a 4 to 1 ratio and a clear win for my arguement that offense today means more then Defense today.

I used a clearly defined measure and found out the truth. What started this between us is your research and you not agreeing that the Offense is much more important then the Defense. Your arguing that one can not exist without the other is flawed. 2 out of 72 is not equal to 10 out of 72 in my mind. You can argue otherwise but your wrong.

So, please read my first argument and try again. Do you have a counterpoint for the following?

Oldfan's #1. There is no logical basis. You can't say it's important to run the ball consistently on offense and then deny that it's equally important to stop the run on defense. You can't say that an efficient passing game is important and then deny that it's equally important to stop the passing game on defense.

Oldfan's #2. Your personal research uses the NFL yardage stat to rank offenses and defenses. Your method is simplistic. For example, your stats do not reflect takeaways by the defense or giveaways by the offense -- vital factors in ranking them. The DVOA stats, a more sophisticated statistic based on about 20 years of data, comes to the logical conclusion that offense and defense are equally important.

I

s it now? Hmmm lets see....how many times has it been said here that the Redskins in 2008 had a top 10 Defense? Oh I don't know for sure but I'm sure that's in the 1000's.

If most posters in this forum knew the first thing about statistics, my thread would not have been necessary. The NFL stats are fun for people who know little about stats.

If we used what your suggesting of takeaways the Redskins Defensively would go from #4 to 31st in Fumble recoverys and tied for 17th in INT's. Do you see how screwed up that is?

That isn't the way it's done. The DVOA is a weighted formula which takes into account several factors .

In addition your research is using 20 year old data which makes no sense to me.

You mis-read. I wrote "20 years of data." Think "large sample size" and more reliable statistics

Oldfan's #3. Your results, based on yardage stats, can be logically explained. The offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage, but the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy.

I would like you to prove that yardage on offense does not equal points scored. Lets use the top three Offenses for the past 5 years and see where they ranked in that years total points scored to see if there isn't a corelation between the two:

You are struggling mightily to prove a point that I have already granted. I said that "the offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage.." That's granted. The part that you won't be able to handle is another logical point: "...the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy." This explains why teams can win with defenses that rank low based on your simplistic yardage stats.

[Oldfan]

Passizle: This is a pretty interesting debate. Thanks for the fresh look OF.

You're certainly welcome.

ONe thing that really opened my eyes in this whole debate (Thanks to addicted again) is that the motto "Defense wins Championships" still rings true.

I think you need to read addicted's posts again. He is making a brave attempt to prove that offense is more than twice as important as defense.

I don't agree that "defense wins championships" either. Logically, scoring points is just as important as stopping the opponent from scoring -- the study from footballoutsiders.com, based on 20 years of data, supports the equality of the two units -- with special teams valued at one-third of the offense or defense. In other words, a 3 - 3 - 1 ratio between the units.

[Passizle]

You're certainly welcome.

I think you need to read addicted's posts again. He is making a brave attempt to prove that offense is more than twice as important as defense.

I don't agree that "defense wins championships" either. Logically, scoring points is just as important as stopping the opponent from scoring -- the study from footballoutsiders.com, based on 20 years of data, supports the equality of the two units -- with special teams valued at one-third of the offense or defense. In other words, a 3 - 3 - 1 ratio between the units.

Maybe I missed something. It would not be the fist time. That being said... according to his 2008 statistics alone (keeping it really simple here mind you) there are alot more top ranked defenes in the playoffs, than top ranked offenses.

Maybe I should take another looksee.

[KDawg]

My issues with your arbitrary numbers is within the percentages themselves.

The Redskins certainly don't follow a 3-3-1 ratio. Special Teams is much less than that, at least from what my eyes see.

Offense isn't quite weighted as heavily as defense, either.

For the 'Skins it's more like 50%-40%-10%, if you're just breaking it down by defense, offense and special teams.

I hate this ratio.

I'm a firm believer in the 33-33-33 ratio. All facets are equal.

Then to break each one down, each facet is dependant on another. So if I were going to break it down like you did, it would like something like this offensively (in my utopia):

Offense:

Positioning (Defense) 20%

Playcalling/Knowledge of the Playbook (Coaching) 30%

Special Teams (Field Goals/Punting) 10%

Receivers 7%

Backs 8%

OL 12%

QB 13%

And probably a little bit more complicated than that. Each position would break down into other categories too, such as coaching, footwork, knowledge, agility, etc.

But my numbers are arbitrary as well.

But again, I really do agree with your overall point. It's very strong.

[Oldfan]

KDawg: My issues with your arbitrary numbers is within the percentages themselves.

I don't think that estimates that attempt to be reasonable ought to be termed "arbitrary."

arbitrary: Based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice

The coaching factor was tough to estimate, but not one that I selected on preference, impulse or caprice. I picked the mid-point between "this sounds high" and "this sounds low." Jim Zorn estimated that assistant coaches were 30% of the team effort -- now that sounds very high.

The 3 -3- 1 ratio for the units is backed with some solid evidence:

The total quality of an NFL team is three parts offense, three parts defense, and one part special teams.

There are three units on a football team, but they are not of equal importance. Our DVOA ratings provide good evidence for this. The special teams ratings are turned into DVOA by comparing how often field position on special teams leads to scoring compared to field position and first downs on offense. After figuring out these numbers, the top ratings for special teams are roughly one-third as high as the top ratings for offense or defense.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics

The Redskins certainly don't follow a 3-3-1 ratio. Special Teams is much less than that, at least from what my eyes see. Offense isn't quite weighted as heavily as defense, either. For the 'Skins it's more like 50%-40%-10%, if you're just breaking it down by defense, offense and special teams.

Okay, there's a misunderstanding here. The 3 -3 -1 ratio refers to the importance to winning as determined by statistical correlation. It is not a ratio of the weight that individual teams place on the strategic importance of their units. On that point though, I think our offense has suffered because of previously failed attempts to field a consistently successful passing game. So, we are a run-first team, and weaker offensively, by default not by plan.

But again, I really do agree with your overall point. It's very strong.

Good enough.

[Skin'Em84]

It's much simpler than that.

The team that wins the Super Bowl is the team that can control the pace of the game, the clock, and the ball. Regardless of the situation. In that order.

Regardless of whether or not you do it with a running game (old school football), defense (defense wins championships), or an effective short passing game (WCO, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady), those are the three things that must be done.

If you look at every Super Bowl team, there's always one or two outliers, but there is a much larger difference in the philosophies of each team except for controlling the pace, clock and ball.

Those three are generally intertwined anyways. Usually, controlling the pace is done by slowing it down, in which case the team tends to run/do short passes, and those control the clock, which on offense control the ball. There are some teams that have one (see 2000 Ravens) with a defense that set the pace and controlled the ball, and the running game controlled the clock.

Controlling the pace doesn't always mean slowing it down.Some teams have set a high pace and done well (Bills of the early 90s, Redskins of 1991, Old Raiders, all the flash in the pan offensive teams that run deep into the playoffs). However, team that relies on a high pace cannot stop, even to slow down and run the clock out (NE was very effective at that in their almost undefeated season, just couldn't keep it up in the Super Bowl).

It doesn't matter how you control the pace, the clock and the ball. It just must be done. The Giants do it by having 3 RBs and a platoon of pass rushers. Steelers have an amazing defense, a strong running game, and a QB that is amazing at extending the play and making the impossible conversion happen. Indianapolis have a strong short-medium passing game that keeps control, and a defense adept at getting the ball back to the offense one way or another. San Diego has Tomlinson and Sproles, and a defense (with Shawne Merriman) that is aggressive and attacks non-stop.

Edit: I apologize for the rambling nature of the post. I just typed in my train of thought.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

I think Addicted stands by his computer waiting for an OF thread.

BTW, good post and no counterattack from me.

[Oldfan]

BTW, good post and no counterattack from me.

Thank you.

[Thinking Skins]

Oldfan, you forgot the +/- epsilon, where epsilon ranges from 0 to 100.

[Oldfan]

SkinEm84: If you look at every Super Bowl team, there's always one or two outliers, but there is a much larger difference in the philosophies of each team except for controlling the pace, clock and ball.

Can you explain how you determined that Super Bowl winners control the pace of the game. What statistic would verify that?

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, you forgot the +/- epsilon, where epsilon ranges from 0 to 100.

Damn, I do that all the time.

[addicted]

So, please read my first argument and try again. Do you have a counterpoint for the following?

Oldfan's #1. There is no logical basis. You can't say it's important to run the ball consistently on offense and then deny that it's equally important to stop the run on defense. You can't say that an efficient passing game is important and then deny that it's equally important to stop the passing game on defense.

I thought I had made my point earlier on this. I am of the opinion that when you say Defense is equally as important to Offense that simply doesn't comput with the fact that so few teams made the playoffs with an offense that could not produce (lower 1/3rd in the league, ie. 2 teams out of 72 playoff teams the last 6 years). To put it another way if it were equally important as you say why didn't more teams with bad offenses make the playoffs in the last 6 years when compared to teams with bad defenses? You can't deny that the trend lays heavily in favor of bad offenses missing the playoffs when comparring to bad defenses. The pengalum swings in favor to the importance of offensive. If the defense was as equally as important then the numbers would be much closer and they aren't. The only logical explanation to me is that offensive production is more important to a teams success then defensive production. Does that make sense?

I am not saying that offense wins championships or defense wins it. We are in agreement with that completely. I am of the belief that when you grade which is more important be it:

Offense

Defense

Special Teams

I put it like this

Offense - 55%

Defense/Special Teams - 45%

I do not understand how you can look at the data and believe that its 33.3% equal. It's not

If most posters in this forum knew the first thing about statistics, my thread would not have been necessary. The NFL stats are fun for people who know little about stats.

It was posted that I look for threads you start and respond to them. In a way that is true. Lots of people start threads here but few are as educated and informative as yours. When I see your name attached to a post like this I enjoy reading it and discussing with you my thoughts. It's not as the other poster implied that I am interested in online forum stalking you or anything and you should know I enjoy a good debate and you and I like to "bring it". Your an asset to this forum.

That isn't the way it's done. The DVOA is a weighted formula which takes into account several factors .

You mis-read. I wrote "20 years of data." Think "large sample size" and more reliable statistics

Hmmmm well that's debateable. Are you implying that my numbers are incorrect or they are untrue in some respect? Do the research yourself. As for the 20 year old information my friend you did see my point that the NFL has changed considerably over the last 20 years. Do you not agree with this. Looking at trends that long ago really proves nothing, this is not the NFL we grew up with as kids anymore.

You are struggling mightily to prove a point that I have already granted. I said that "the offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage.." That's granted. The part that you won't be able to handle is another logical point: "...the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy." This explains why teams can win with defenses that rank low based on your simplistic yardage stats.

No it is you who needs to understand what I am saying about this. Think about this for a moment. The point of a Defense is that they stop the other team from scoring. When a defense can not stop another team from scoring the more the defense is scored upon the worse the defensive ranking for that team. The lower 1/3rd ranking that is handed to defensive teams says two things:

1. They give up a lot of yards

2. They give up a lot of points

Stop here if you disagree with this. Ok if you don't lets move on.

You and I are disagreeing on one simple but significant thing. You believe that given a ratio and based on your research that you believe there is an equal weight of importance for Offense and Defense to which I disagree. The reason I disagree with this is simple

The offense scores points, its what they are supposed to do. If a Defense were to give up 5 TD's and 5 XP's and that opposing offense scores 6 TD's who wins? The offense does. Its for this very point why I believe we have teams making the playoffs with poor defenses and that when you have teams with poor offenses but good defenses they will not. If your defense gives up more points then the offense can score that team loses the game. I showed you earlier that out of the 72 playoff teams from the last 6 years, 10 teams made the playoffs with bottom 1/3rd defenses. Thier offenses were strong enough to make up for that shortcoming. Where as during this same time frame only 2 teams out of 72 spots were able to make the playoffs with bad offenses.

When you weight the importance of offense vs. defense you must take that into consideration. When you see a statitic like this I do not see how anyone can say that Defense and Offense are equals.

[Om]

Thank you, Sir.

If you have the time, I'd be interested in your estimates. I assume my 10% estimate for the QB is far too low for you, but I'd be interested in which of the factors you would downgrade to cover the difference.

21% = Coaching

34% = Defense

11% = Special Teams

12% = O line

12% = RB and receivers

10% = QB

----------

100% Total

Can't do it, OF. I just don't see football teams divided up into neat, one-size-fits-all divisions to which you can assign degrees of "overall importance" like that. No two teams are put together the same, or rely on any one facet of the game the same way or to the same extent as another. And it fails to account for (examples only) quantifiable factors like roster turnover or regime change, or unquantifiable ones like confidence, chemistry or institutional momentum.

As you know, I do think that the right quarterback can totally change the equation on a team, far more so than any other one factor. I think that's been proven over and over, as we have discussed over and over. Just not sure it's the kind of thing that lends itself to a mathematical equation.

I was just commenting on the part of your post I found right on the money.

If Jim Zorn, who created the offense, would publish a report of his findings after reviewing the play-by-play video, we could create some useful stats on the performance of Jason Campbell. He could tell us whether an interception was the QB's fault, a receiver's, an O lineman or his own because of poor playcalling. If all offensive coordinators around the NFL would do the same, we would have some useful QB stats.

[AAARedskin]

I don't agree with the premise that a QB's WIN-LOSS record is almost useless. BULL. Sure, if it's only for 1 season and it's a known fact that the team's defense is ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, then the WIN-LOSS record can be suspect........but after say 26 starts or more on a team for a better than average defense, the QB's WIN-LOSS record is EVERYTHING.

[CTSkins413]

The section about the importance of the QB does not degrade what came before -- which was primarily logic about QB stats. So, if you want to attack my logic, go right ahead.

The section about the importance of the QB was added because fans typically greatly overvalue QBs. You can post your numbers certainly, but if you tried to say that the QB was a factor worth 60% you would end up with some ridiculously low numbers for the other factors.

My approach keeps the value of the QB within a reasonable range. That's its purpose.

Try giving 30% to the QB while keeping to my list. You avoided giving value to the defense and special teams. That's cheating. <smile>

OF, good post. (BTW) Don't bother trying to reason w/ the unreasonable; it's wayyyyyy to frustrating....

HAIL

[jthor99]

I didn't indulge in the writing, but is this the "Sabermetrics of Football" or to the QB position?

I'm a bit fascinated with baseball sabermetrics

[Oldfan]

Addicted, I think we've taken our debate on this as far as it can go. I think your position is based on nothing more than an anomaly in the simplistic yardage stat which can be explained by the "bend but don't break" defensive teams in the league who give up lots of yards but not a lot of points. You don't agree, but that's okay. It was an interesting exchange.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

this thread is also known as "how to look at stats in a way that jason campbell wont be held accountable for being mediocre".

and by the OPs logic, it is impossible to compare campbell to any other QB other than QBs who have played behind the exact same line/WRs/RBs/coaches/ETC, which at this point is absolutely nobody. LOL

i guess we'll never know if barry sanders was better than trung candidate. after all, they didnt have the same blockers, runningbacks coach, head coach, scheme, quarterback, wide receivers, defense, special teams, or mailing address.

[Oldfan]

Can't do it, OF. I just don't see football teams divided up into neat, one-size-fits-all divisions to which you can assign degrees of "overall importance" like that.

If I wrote that the average NFL team scored 22 points last season, it wouldn't be a problem for you, I'm sure. I should have explained in the OP that the percentages are an estimated average.

[Oldfan]

I don't agree with the premise that a QB's WIN-LOSS record is almost useless. BULL. Sure, if it's only for 1 season and it's a known fact that the team's defense is ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, then the WIN-LOSS record can be suspect........but after say 26 starts or more on a team for a better than average defense, the QB's WIN-LOSS record is EVERYTHING.

If you measure A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H together... it isn't a measurement of A. If you want to rank a QB, you need to isolate him from all the other factors.

[Oldfan]

OF, good post.

Thanks.