Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Wodwo:
This is another example of a bad attempt to use "advanced" statistics in evaluating NFL players.
Defense and special teams also score points. They also effect field position. I wonder how many games are actually won by special teams.
It's just way more complicated than that. Plus, it just sounds stupid to say that winning a game 20-17 is somehow better than 49-0.
Sorry, this stuff just bugs me sometimes. It's not directed at you.
LOL...harsh but true! Whenever I crunch numbers for negotiations or any other purpose I find it necessary to set a limit of how many variables considered (and hours doing so). They can go on forever! If you out variable the opponent you generally win. Over time the variables can be weeded out as extraneous, but judging a QB or offense you have twenty two moving pieces with unlimited individual and team variables. But it's much easier to say one player failed! So much easier to understand!
It's pretty simple math really and straight to the point. You score more points your going to win, you give up more points your going to lose. That's why I posted that, it proves just how simple it actually is. It's not rocket science.
What annoys me is this 2-25 idea. That's when all the complicated variables and "twenty two moving pieces" stuff comes in. Your using games from 2005 and 2006 when our defense sucked, and Alex was still 21 years old playing crappy football. That accounts for half of those losses people talk about. Those losses have no bearing on how Alex is playing today, nor does it take into account that our defense didn't even have Patrick Willis yet and VD was a rookie. Using games from 2006 when we got blown out by the Chiefs 41-0 and San Diego 48-19. So those games are all on one player? Has nothing to do with this entire team kind of sucking at the time?
So the stat we are discussing in the first place is the flawed logic with infinite variables. My point was that it's pretty simple that if TEAMS put up 24 pts, they are more than likely to win. Now I could make that "advanced" and prove that it's right, but again, it's pretty straight forward.
Wasn't criticizing you but we all can have fun with stats as long as they are taken for what they generally are...flawed. I love the old George Bernard Shaw quote, "If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion."
But, I agree with your conclusion that the argument was flawed and I recall who has used that argument ad nauseam on this site to criticize a former QB.
[ Edited by dtg_9er on Nov 26, 2013 at 7:03 AM ]