Shkspr Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 A team with a true talent level of a .500 will win 10+ games (and be a good candidate to make the playoffs) about 20% of the time. A team with a true talent level of .600 will win 10+ games 52% of the time. That's standard, easy to figure binomial distribution. So an improvement of 10% in the real talent level of a team makes a team two and a half times as likely to be a playoff team. By the same token, a jump in the true talent level of a team from .450 to .550 changes the chances of a team winning 10+ games from 10% to 36%. So if we lucked into a grade A quarterback? We'd be twice as good to three times as good, if you assume "playoff caliber" is good. FWIW, if you assume the 2007 Patriots chance of going 16 and 0 during the season was as likely as hitting a 20-1 shot, then you're arguing that they had a true talent level of 13-3. A 13-3 team has just as much chance of going 10-6 as it does 16-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Lucking into a grade a QB how? With a guy already on the roster? Or getting a guy in FA in his prime like Drew Brees? Getting a grade A QB would change everything about our team building process from here on out. You can stop searching for one in the draft when that happens. Your window officially begins and you start shifting your entire focus towards supporting that QB and filling out the roster with auxiliary pieces. It doesn't mean we'd necessarily win more games in year one. It means we'll have a realistic chance to win a Superbowl eventually during his window of effectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 A team with a true talent level of a .500 will win 10+ games (and be a good candidate to make the playoffs) about 20% of the time. A team with a true talent level of .600 will win 10+ games 52% of the time. That's standard, easy to figure binomial distribution. So an improvement of 10% in the real talent level of a team makes a team two and a half times as likely to be a playoff team.By the same token, a jump in the true talent level of a team from .450 to .550 changes the chances of a team winning 10+ games from 10% to 36%. So if we lucked into a grade A quarterback? We'd be twice as good to three times as good, if you assume "playoff caliber" is good. FWIW, if you assume the 2007 Patriots chance of going 16 and 0 during the season was as likely as hitting a 20-1 shot, then you're arguing that they had a true talent level of 13-3. A 13-3 team has just as much chance of going 10-6 as it does 16-0. Here, I began by assuming that we were a true six-win team quarterbacked at C minus level. Since our quarterbacking wasn’t bottom-grade, the full 10% improvement isn’t in play. So, I ballpark-estimated a one-win improvement (.375 to .438) if we lucked into a grade-A quarterback. So, let’s assume we would become truly a seven-win team with a grade-A quarterback. What are the chances of winning 10+ games and making the playoffs? Would you mind figuring that out for us? ---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 09:51 AM ---------- Lucking into a grade a QB how? With a guy already on the roster? Or getting a guy in FA in his prime like Drew Brees?Getting a grade A QB would change everything about our team building process from here on out. You can stop searching for one in the draft when that happens. Your window officially begins and you start shifting your entire focus towards supporting that QB and filling out the roster with auxiliary pieces. It doesn't mean we'd necessarily win more games in year one. It means we'll have a realistic chance to win a Superbowl eventually during his window of effectiveness. You are going beyond the scope of our topic. We aren’t trying to speculate on how we might find a grade-A guy, or how the acquistion might alter our plans.Everyone agrees that the QB plays the most important position on the field, but there’s a wide difference of opinion on just how important he is. When I estimate that he’s a 10% factor, they don’t realize that it’s a very big number for one position. Some think that Brady or Manning are worth four or five wins to their teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 It amazes me that anyone still attempts to have logical, intelligent discussions with Oldfan. I think that Oldfan just likes to initiate discussion on various topics. It gets different points of view out in the open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 It amazes me that anyone still attempts to have logical, intelligent discussions with Oldfan.Have you considered the possibility that those people are smarter than you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I think that Oldfan just likes to initiate discussion on various topics. It gets different points of view out in the open. +1, and I'm glad he does it, he's great at keeping a lively discussion going on the board when all else seems dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 A smart average (C+ to C-) QB behind a great O-line & with good receivers is better that B to A+ QB behind an O-line that stinks. The Redskins in reality never had a great QB during their Super Bowl years of the 1980s to early 1990s but they had great O-lines, great Receivers, & a power running game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I'll issue the same challenge to you as the others who made this claim. You could easily prove my estimate is garbage by using the same method and coming up with a much bigger number for the QB while keeping the other numbers realistic. So far, no one has answered the bell. I'm not going to make up numbers on my own to counter the made-up numbers that you made up. There is no way to quantify this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 I'm not going to make up numbers on my own to counter the made-up numbers that you made up.There is no way to quantify this stuff. That's a cop out. Use the same structure, start with a significantly higher number for the QB and try to keep the other numbers in the realm of reason. If you can do it, you prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I think that Oldfan just likes to initiate discussion on various topics. It gets different points of view out in the open. He has really interesting ideas. He is just really bad at math. Who is the dude that came up with methodology for measuring QB success rate in the NFL? I liked talking with him more because there was some kind of actual methodolgy behind his madness. It may have been wrong; in fact, he admitted that it was likely wrong. But it was a place to discuss things. OF comes up with "QBs are not as important as systems." That is an interesting argument. And then he comes up with a half-assed methodolgy that he never tweaks. ---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 10:00 AM ---------- That's a cop out. Use the same structure, start with a significantly higher number for the QB and try to keep the other numbers in the realm of reason. If you can do it, you prove me wrong. Okay. QBs are 90 percent responsible for wins. Kickers are 5 percent. Home field advantage is 5 percent. Nothing else matters. Beat that, mother ****er. ---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 10:04 AM ---------- A smart average (C+ to C-) QB behind a great O-line & with good receivers is better that B to A+ QB behind an O-line that stinks. The Redskins in reality never had a great QB during their Super Bowl years of the 1980s to early 1990s but they had great O-lines, great Receivers, & a power running game. And they are pretty much the only team to use that formula successfully? It's entirely possible that Redskins' fans are really bad at figuring out the values of QBs, because what Gibbs did is the equivalent of discovering fusion. No other team has come close to replicating the "Eh...throw anyone behind center and it will all work itself out" approach. The only formula that really seems consistent is that you can win with an all-world defense and average QB. But even that seems to have worked only three times in 45 attempts. Giants with Hostetler Ravens with Dilfer Bucs with Johnson (who I actually think is much better than the other two) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampEm Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Name a QB who was passing leader, and super bowl champion in the same year and I will agree with this thread. ---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 11:09 AM ---------- Actually a good percentage of Passing Leaders do not even make the playoffs. Year Team pyd Player 2010 SDG 4710 Philip Rivers No postseason 2009 HOU 4770 Matt Schaub No postseason 2008 NOR 5069 Drew Brees No postseason 2007 NWE 4806 Tom Brady L - Super Bowl 2006 NOR 4418 Drew Brees L - Conference 2005 NWE 4110 Tom Brady L - Division 2004 MIN 4717 Daunte Culpepper L - Division 2003 IND 4267 Peyton Manning L - Conference 2002 OAK 4689 Rich Gannon L - Super Bowl 2001 STL 4830 Kurt Warner L - Super Bowl 2000 IND 4413 Peyton Manning L - Wildcard 1999 CAR 4436 Steve Beuerlein No postseason 1998 GNB 4212 Brett Favre L - Wildcard 1997 OAK 3917 Jeff George No postseason 1996 JAX 4367 Mark Brunell L - Conference 1995 GNB 4413 Brett Favre L - Conference 1994 NWE 4555 Drew Bledsoe L - Wildcard 1993 DEN 4030 John Elway L - Wildcard 1992 MIA 4116 Dan Marino L - Conference 1991 HOU 4690 Warren Moon L - Division 1990 HOU 4689 Warren Moon L - Wildcard 1989 GNB 4318 Don Majkowski No postseason 1988 MIA 4434 Dan Marino No postseason 1987 STL 3387 Neil Lomax No postseason 1986 MIA 4746 Dan Marino No postseason 1985 MIA 4137 Dan Marino L - Conference 1984 MIA 5084 Dan Marino L - Super Bowl 1983 GNB 4458 Lynn Dickey No postseason 1982 SDG 2883 Dan Fouts L - Division 1981 SDG 4802 Dan Fouts L - Conference 1980 SDG 4715 Dan Fouts L - Conference 1979 SDG 4082 Dan Fouts L - Division 1978 MIN 3468 Fran Tarkenton L - Division 1977 BUF 2803 Joe Ferguson No postseason 1976 BAL 3104 Bert Jones L - Division 1975 CIN 3169 Ken Anderson L - Division 1974 CIN 2667 Ken Anderson No postseason 1973 PHI 3219 Roman Gabriel No postseason 1972 NYJ 2816 Joe Namath No postseason 1971 SDG 3075 John Hadl No postseason 1970 SFO 2941 John Brodie L - Conference 1969 OAK 3302 Daryle Lamonica L - Conference 1969 WAS 3102 Sonny Jurgensen No postseason 1968 SDG 3473 John Hadl No postseason 1968 SFO 3020 John Brodie No postseason 1967 NYJ 4007 Joe Namath No postseason 1967 WAS 3747 Sonny Jurgensen No postseason 1966 NYJ 3379 Joe Namath No postseason 1966 WAS 3379 Sonny Jurgensen No postseason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 LKB ~ OF comes up with "QBs are not as important as systems." That is an interesting argument. That’s not one of mine. And then he comes up with a half-assed methodolgy that he never tweaks. Why tweak it? It’s fine as it is. Okay. QBs are 90 percent responsible for wins. Kickers are 5 percent. Home field advantage is 5 percent. Nothing else matters. If my estimate is crap, it should be easy for you to prove it. It would only take ten minutes. I’d bet you have tried and failed. The only formula that really seems consistent is that you can win with an all-world defense and average QB. But even that seems to have worked only three times in 45 attempts. Since you assume that any QB whose team wins a Super Bowl must be a super QB, the surprising thing about your statement is that you found three exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Name a QB who was passing leader, and super bowl champion in the same year and I will agree with this thread.---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 11:09 AM ---------- Actually a good percentage of Passing Leaders do not even make the playoffs. If you base "passing leader" only on yards, sure. If you base "passing leader" on QB rating, then Drew Brees did it in 2009...(lead the league in highest passer rating and won the SB) Besides, what's the importance of a QB being a passing leader and winning the SB in the same year? More telling would be how many QBs who have lead the league in passing have also won a SB? Lining both up in the same year is irrelevant. More telling would be how many QBs who have won a SB were also a top 5 QB in the league that year? Because most years the top 5 QBs aren't separated by some significant amount in terms of rating, yards, Tds, etc, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 If my estimate is crap, it should be easy for you to prove it. It would only take ten minutes. I’d bet you have tried and failed. Your estimate is made up. It's like me saying winning basketball is 18 pecent shooting guards, 20 percent center, 14 pecent shoe contracts, 10 percent coaching, and paternity suits make up the difference. How do I counter made up numbers? If it is so easy, counter your own argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 It's like me saying winning basketball is 18 pecent shooting guards' date=' 20 percent center, 14 pecent shoe contracts, 10 percent coaching, and paternity suits make up the difference. How do I counter made up numbers?[/quote'] That made me lol. Love this topic. Now if i can just get some free time at work to read the whole thing id love to comment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dro89 Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 If we lucked into a grade-A quarterback, how much difference would it make? i see wut you did thur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Swampem, just looking at 2010-2000 on your list. 70% of them made the playoffs and 30% made it to the superbow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampEm Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Swampem, just looking at 2010-2000 on your list. 70% of them made the playoffs and 30% made it to the superbowl. 0% in the last three years though. What I am getting at is that the QB does not make the entire team. There are other ways to win it. The same sort of stat holds true for the NBA. No regular season scoring leader has won the NBA championship in the same year since Shaq did it in 1999-2000. Of course every team would take Kevin Durant, etc etc, however it doesn't guarantee you a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 You’re making a dumb request. If I had offered a logical argument, would you ask me to prove that it’s logical? I love that you said "IF" you had offered a logical argument lol ...At least you're admitting that your argument is not logical. I gave you what I’m calling a reasonable estimate and I explained my method. What makes it reasonable besides the fact that YOU think it's reasonable? And your "method" isn't explained...what you did was take your estimates and treat them as fact and then draw conclusions from them. You have yet to explain why a QB will ONLY be responsible for 10% of a team's success. Again, if you had, you would have re-quoted it as a response, if for no other reason than to prove me wrong beyond measure. Instead, you've only said it's not your responsibility TO explain it lol. It’s not up to me to prove that it’s reasonable. :rotflmao:...No, it's not up to the person presenting an argument to prove that the argument is a reasonable one lol ... If you think it isn’t, proving it should be a snap if you can handle seventh grade math. I've done so...twice, I might add lol :yes:... Use the 3 - 3 - 1 ratio for offense, defense, special teams. Why? If it's flawed, why use it? Have your estimate total 100%... And there's where you screw up. Your flawed logic insists that the percentages equal 100, when there's zero reason it needs to be. Well, unless you're working backwards and are starting off from a position that says there's no way of telling how many extra wins a team will have from one season to the next. We KNOW AS FACT that teams often have more than 100% win improvement. We KNOW AS FACT that teams often have more than 200% win improvement. We KNOW AS FACT that teams have even had more than 300% win improvement. So "have your estimate total 100" is flawed logic at its core. and see if you can come up with a much higher estimate for the QB without reducing the other positions to unreasonable levels. That's the thing: you don't HAVE to reduce the other positions at all if you don't stick to the "must equal 100%" mantra...put another way, let's say this: A Grade-A quarterback can add 50% more wins...a Grade-A coach can add 30% more wins...a Grade-A defense can add 40% more wins... But wait, Califan...that's 120%!! That doesn't make any sense!! Yes, it does. What it means is that the "Grade-A" QB/coach/defense can add "x" percentage more wins to a team. So that means adding a Grade-A QB to a team that, say, goes 6-10 can add roughly 3 more wins...if they ALSO have a Grade-A coach that could add as much as another 1-2 wins...if they ALSO add a Grade-A defense, that can add another 2 wins... So having a Grade-A QB, a Grade-A coach and a Grade-A defense to that 6-10 team could increase that team's win total by as much as 7 games. And breaking out the calculator since I barely know 7th grade math ...that is a win increase of: 117%!! Almost matches up perfectly to my logic. But as has been said by too many people in too many posts, there is no base percentage that can be assigned to positions. I'll write that again just to get the point across once more... There is no base percentage that can be assigned to positions in terms of increased wins. What you keep saying is that if you flap your arms really fast, you can fly. What we keep saying is that flapping your arms real fast will not make you able to fly, that there's more to it than that. What you keep saying is to prove it by jumping off a cliff and showing it won't work. What we keep saying in return is jump off the cliff yourself and prove that it will. When someone actually does so and falls instead of flying, you claim they didn't flap their arms right and that you still haven't been proven wrong lol. I think I can speak for most on this thread and say that what "percentage" a Grade-A quarterback played in any given team's win improvement during any given year will vary so wildly that it's asinine to try and affix a standard percentage value that applies across the board. And no, I’m not going off-topic to give you a list of grade D QBs. Translation: "If I give you a list of Grade D QBs it will most likely show how flawed my argument is, so I'm gonna leave that aspect vague so that I can continue arguing my flawed stance." Here's a hint for anyone else thinking there's some validity to OF's assertions: when someone postulates a theory but refuses to give you data to test the theory with, that usually means they know it won't hold up. It also means that he himself didn't accurately enough test his theory, which was obvious anyway lol...my guess is that the Grades A-D will be as arbitrarily assigned as the percentages were. Cali, you can cherry-pick an exception but it won’t disprove a general rule. And, you can cherry-pick an exceptional jump from 3-13 to 13-3 but it won’t disprove an estimate based on Probability. Can you explain what makes it an exception? I'm betting you can't, and won't. Your model was flawed from the get-go. Did the Colts actually improve by ten games in one year? Surely they didn’t, because they were back to six wins two years later. Omg lol!! :ols:... You do realize, of course, that you still need to explain where those wins came from if the team was not "really" 13-3 that year. You already said luck plays no part in the equation. So what could have possibly made the team improve their win total that much? They didn’t get back to the 13 game level for six years. They don't need to "get back to the 13 game level"...Your equation was NOT about consistency...it was to explain the increased number of wins any given team could expect by having a Grade-A performance at QB in any given year. If you want some consistency, though, let's use the 1998 Rams :thumbsup:... 1998 Rams: 4-12 1999 Rams: 13-3 2000 Rams: 10-6 2001 Rams: 14-2 The 3-13 to 13-3 was an anomaly. Some improvement is likely, but there was most likely a combination of bad luck in the 3-13 season and good luck in the 13-3 season added in. Did you already forget that you said luck plays no role? Hell, I even quoted you saying so in the post you're responding to ... You: "A 10% improvement would raise it to .550 or 8.8 wins. With the luck factors canceling out, that’s probably 9 wins." Of course you contradicted that aspect later: You: "Moreover, the scores of the games that might swing would simply be a matter of luck." Either "luck factors" cancel out, or they do not. You don't get to pick and choose when they serve your purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 You can say it, but it's not true. But when you say it, it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 +1, and I'm glad he does it, he's great at keeping a lively discussion going on the board when all else seems dead. -1 lol...I don't think he does it to initiate lively debate...I think he does it to stir the pot by picking a viewpoint that he knows ahead of time people will not agree with, presenting the viewpoint couched in numbers and percentages that don't really apply and can't be proven either way...then spends 95% of his posts telling people to "prove me wrong" and then skipping over viewpoints that do just that and focusing on posts that allow him to continue defending his original thought process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Either "luck factors" cancel out, or they do not. You don't get to pick and choose when they serve your purpose. No no no Cali, you have to multiply that by .92 to have the luck cancel out, don't you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 It appears as though the consensus feels that it is impossible to determine the affect that a franchise quarterback will have on a team based on grades and percentages. I have never quoted myself before but it seems as though it still applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 No no no Cali, you have to multiply that by .92 to have the luck cancel out, don't you know? D'oh! :doh:...I forgot to carry the 2, didn't I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 0% in the last three years though. What I am getting at is that the QB does not make the entire team. There are other ways to win it. The same sort of stat holds true for the NBA. No regular season scoring leader has won the NBA championship in the same year since Shaq did it in 1999-2000. Of course every team would take Kevin Durant, etc etc, however it doesn't guarantee you a winner. No one is saying that. They're trying to come up with a percentage of the QB's worth to equate to more wins. ---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 12:42 PM ---------- IEither "luck factors" cancel out, or they do not. You don't get to pick and choose when they serve your purpose. Didn't want to quote the whole thing, but Great Post!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.