49ers individual performances 2009

Hey guys

I posted this in a different thread and it got some good feedback, so figured I'd start it's own thread and then, as the site updates each week I'll post our rankings in here for you all to see.

This site is run by some friends of mine.

www.profootballfocus.com



Here's a little info for you:

Quote:
Love Football?
If so then this is the site you've been looking for - we provide all the information on Pro Football you simply cannot get anywhere else. We go beyond the box score to find out what really happened during a game.

What we do ...
For every game we analyze and grade every player on every play to provide you with the most in-depth statistics you can find anywhere outside the team's film room. If you want to know how your RG performed as a run blocker or how your MLB did in coverage use the By Team or By Week tabs as a starting point to locate your games.

For every game we log which players are on the field on every offensive and defensive play AND what they do. Want to know how much your rookie WR played, how much help your LT got in pass protection from the TE or how your defense line up on 3-1? Once you've found your game, click on the Player Participation link at the bottom of each 'game box'.

49ers 2009 Home

49ers Offense Week 1 @ Arizona

49ers Defense Week 1 @ Arizona

49ers Special Teams Week 1 @ Arizona

49ers Kicking and Returning Week 1 @ Arizona

49ers Offense Week 2 v Seattle

49ers Defense Week 2 v Seattle

49ers Special Teams Week 2 v Seattle

49ers Week 2 Kicking and Returning v Seattle

Be good to hear your feedback on the results so far.

Pretty cool. It'd be better if we could see how they came up with the ratings for each player.

my brain exploded looking at that

Originally posted by chimp914:
Pretty cool. It'd be better if we could see how they came up with the ratings for each player.

Hey chimp, the ratingas are explained here for you:
Gradings explained

Quote:
Why do we Grade?
[Back to Top]
Quite simply to help us determine, in all facets of the game, who played well and who didn't. We want to understand not just how many yards a player gained or how many sacks they conceded but also how well they blocked, how effectively they rushed the passer or how they played in coverage. So, to this end, we measure not only a lot of additional information about the play such as Yards after Catch, Missed Tackles, Dropped Passes etc., we also analyze every player to determine if an Offensive Linemen made a key block, a Defensive Tackle stopped a Guard getting to the second level or if a linebacker kept outside contain on a run. We are not so much interested in how many tackles a Safety made but where he made them, when he made them and what obstacles he overcame to make them.

This allows us to do something that, to my knowledge, hasn't been done before; to present alongside the base statistics a grade for every player in every game that indicates his performance in a number of key areas:

Offense
Running
Passing
Pass Blocking
Run Blocking
Screen Blocking
Defense
Pass Rushing
Pass Coverage
Run Defense
What do we Grade?
[Back to Top]
We grade every single offensive, defensive and special teams play of every regular season and post season game. On each play we log a lot of additional statistical data such as the actual point of attack on a running play or the location a pass was thrown before we then analyze the play and grade the players. A typical line of analysis will include the player, his grade, if on this occasion there was a 1 on 1 confrontation (i.e. DLT vs. RT) the other player, his grade and a comment detailing why the grade was given for example:

"The DLT stunted around the DLE and was not picked up by the RT despite the RG taking the DLE cleanly, allowing the DLT to hit the QB just after he threw at 2.8 seconds"

Therefore we capture a lot more data than is currently displayed on the site but this provides us with a clear and easily accessible audit trail for all our analysis.

The site as it currently stands (August 2008) is effectively a demonstration site of the 2007 season with over half the regular season games and all the Post Season games completed. Note: we have only completed the Player Participation for Week 1 and the Post Season games as this was a "later" amendment to ensure normalization (see below) was as accurate as possible.

How do we Grade?
[Back to Top]
Each grade given is between +2 and -2 with 0.5 increments and an average of 0. A positive intervention in the game rates a positive grading and vice versa. Very (very) little draws a +/-2 rating. In fact the distribution of non-zero grades is like this:

+2.0 0.01%
+1.5 0.3%
+1.0 16%
+0.5 37% (unbalanced because of the way WRs and HBs are rated)
-0.5 24%
-1.0 22%
-1.5 0.5%
-2.0 0.01%

The grading takes into account many things and effectively brings "intelligence" to raw statistics. For example a raw stat might tell you a Tackle conceded a sack. However, how long did he protect the QB for before he gave it up? Additionally when did he give it up? If it was within the last two minutes on a potentially game tying drive it may be rather more important than when his team is running out the clock in a 30 point blow out.

The average grade or what we would typically expect of the average player is therefore defined as zero. In reality, the vast majority of grades on each individual play are zero and what we are grading are the exceptions to this. Rating a LT as anything other than zero for a successfully completed backside seal block on a DRE is going to a level of complexity beyond the scope of this site.

The "Rules" of Grading
[Back to Top]
Because of the nature of the roles, each position is graded in a slightly different way and the definitions for each run to many pages. Whilst I'm not going to explain exactly how we grade because to some degree that's our IP (Emphasis on P as opposed to I) and to another it's just extremely tedious, below are a few of the key principles we use when grading:

DON'T GUESS
If you're not 80% sure what's gone on then don't grade the play. The grades should stand up to scrutiny and criticism. It's far better to say you're not sure than be wrong. However, this is not an excuse for chickening out on making a judgment. What we definitely DO NOT do is raise or lower the grading because we're not sure. Giving -0.5 rather than -1 or -1.5 because you can't be certain what went on is wrong. The correct score is 0.

WE ARE NOT SCOUTS
We are not grading style or technique; just result. We aren't looking for players with potential who have been badly coached or grading on technique. We've all heard the terms knee-bender, stiff hips, inconsistent footwork or over-extension etc. but as far as we're concerned it doesn't matter whether you know what they mean or not. All we care about is the result; did that linemen make the block he tried to make. This is Professional Football and the talent level is high enough and consistent enough to generally assume that the player at least attempted to do what their assignment was on that play.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO APPORTION BLAME ON EVERY PLAY
On each play there is often a "winner". If the Defense holds an Offense on third and three to a one yard gain they are usually considered to have "won". It's possible that everyone on Offense carried out their assignments properly and the play still went wrong; that's not their fault. Sometimes the play is badly designed or sometimes the defense just does a great job. Ostensibly this site is looking at player performance, not that of the coaches.

GREAT PLAYERS SCREW UP TOO
One of the biggest annoyances to me over the years is commentators making excuses for players; well should we say "some" players. Oh it's Brett Favre so he couldn't possibly have overthrown the WR; Greg Jennings must just have run the wrong route etc. We look at each player as just a number rather than on reputation. We treat Walter Jones as Seattle #71 and see what comes out at the end.

ZERO (0.0) IS THE AVERAGE GRADE
If a player does something you would normally expect then this scores 0. If a LB makes an unblocked tackle 5 yards down the field or a linemen holds back a rusher for 4+ seconds. This is scored as 0. Grades are given as things which reasonably considered better or worse than average.

Normalization
[Back to Top]
Once we've got the raw grades we could leave it there but this would lead to a number of problems. For example, as an Offensive Lineman can only be negatively graded in pass protection the perfect score in the raw data is zero. However what if a lineman plays half the number of passing plays of another guy and they both score zero? What allows you to understand the second has done the better job? This is where Player Participation comes in; to fully understand how a player has performed we need to know how many plays they've participated in and what role they performed.

So when we look at, say, a TE we need to know how many plays they spent out in pass routes, how many times they blocked for the run and how many times they stayed in to block for the pass. To this number we then apply a normalization factor to set the AVERAGE player in that facet of the game to zero. To simplify, if you go to the by position tab and select TE the average grade for run blocking is zero, the average grade for pass blocking is zero and the average grade for pass receiving is zero.

The only exception to this is for the QB where every grade is raw and un-normalized. Why you ask? Well the process was going to be significantly more complex than for the other positions and as the QB generally came close to zero without normalization it seemed like the effort vs. reward equation wasn't too well balanced. I'll probably live to regret and change that decision.

What is Player Participation?
[Back to Top]
Once we realized we needed to normalize the data we wanted that normalization to be as accurate as possible and the only way to do that was to determine how many times each player was on the field doing a particular role. Unfortunately we found at a pretty early stage that due to the way the networks cover Special Teams plays we could only include offensive and defensive plays. However, that aside, what it gave us (and hopefully you too) was a much more complete insight into how various players were used, in what packages and in what situations. We therefore are also providing breakdowns of where each player played on each play and the role they performed (blitzing, blocking, coverage etc.). You can currently find this for each game in 2007 Week 1 and the 2007 Playoffs. Every game in 2008 will be covered.

What do the Grades mean?
[Back to Top]
In case you didn't read the section on normalization above (and frankly, why would you?) and came straight here the key thing to remember in that in all cases the grade for the average player is zero.

We color-code each grading to give you an immediate visual indication with a slightly amended traffic light system. Instead of Red, Amber, Green we went with Red, White and Green which we thinks stands out on the page a little better. Green is good (positive) and red is bad (negative). The higher the positive grading the better the performance and vice versa.

How subjective is the Grading?
[Back to Top]
Many people say that as soon as you start grading then you bring subjectivity into your work and obviously, to some degree, that's true. However there's also subjectivity around whether a play was a QB run for negative yardage or a sack, if an assist on a tackle should be awarded and if a catch was dropped or not. Sure, you can come up with a set of rules to determine which is which, but in the end, at the borderline between one and the other, it's always subjective; it comes down to a judgment call. The real trick of grading is to define a clear enough set of rules, for each type of play, which the vast majority of the time the answer just falls out of. It becomes as easy as determining the dropped pass that hit the TE right between the numbers. Just like with a pure statistic there are occasions when the choice is difficult but the real difference is, if a guy is going to be upgraded or downgraded on a judgment call, we let it ride; we simply make the comment and then put in a zero.

Statistics in their raw form are always considered objective but in my opinion, with the small number of games played, very often unintelligent. If a QB throws 3 interceptions in a game but one came from a dropped pass, another from a WR running a poor route and a third on a Hail Mary at the end of the half, it skews his stats by far too great an amount to be useful.

How accurate are the Statistics and Grading?
[Back to Top]
As with any type of analysis we are always at the whim of the TV companies who seem to think showing a QB or HBs face right up until the snap somehow makes good coverage. We do the best we can but can't guarantee to cover every play. To this you can add human error both in terms of simple mistakes and also interpretation of definitions when grading. It is virtually impossible for two different analysts to identically grade the same game. That said we do regular checks and strive constantly to get consistency across all we do. That doesn't answer the question though does it?

My firm belief is that we are between 98-100% accurate in terms of statistics and Player Participation 80-90% accurate in terms of grading. However there are exceptions. Clearly we're not lucky enough to have the game film the teams use and hence anything to do with the Secondary, Receivers downfield and coverage is limited at best. I'd love to do some work on which receivers were open on which play against which coverages but for the moment that's a long way off.

I'll add something else to the mix too. Whilst we're pretty happy with our ranking for say TEs in terms of pass blocking, run blocking receiving etc. on an individual level we're much less happy about the "Overall" grades and indeed debated whether or not to include them. In the end we felt we should because at least we are providing food for debate. The reason I say this is because if you accept the pass blocking grade is accurate, how should this be weighted in comparison to their receiving grade amongst others? For example NFL Network recently did a list of top 10 TEs and to me it appeared that receiving was given a massive precedence over blocking. Either that or the people who put the list together had no idea about the relative merits of the gentlemen in question when it came to blocking and hence reverted to something they did have, i.e. receiving stats.


The future is probably to provide you with the facility to weight the grades yourself but let's enjoy the 2008 season first. In the meantime feel free to let us know how you'd weight the individual components and we'll put together an article using the best of these later on.

I think some of your grading is wrong, what do I do?
[Back to Top]
A little while ago I showed someone the site and he opined "you've got X near the bottom of your rankings and yet he went to the Pro Bowl so they must be wrong". Firstly I explained that we had just half of his games and unfortunately had coincidentally chosen some of his worst games so that may have a little to do with it. Secondly he WAS very poor indeed in most of those games so perhaps (just perhaps) it wasn't our grading that was wrong.

The truth is I'm really keen for someone to challenge the work on rather more legitimate grounds. I'd love for someone to say I also went through this game on a play by play basis and came up with some clear discrepancies in comparison to your work, can we discuss them? I think it's on that basis we get better and make the whole thing more accurate.

If you've done a play-by-play analysis then we'd be delighted to compare notes. You can contact us using the Errors choice in the Contact Us section.

Great site! Thanks for the link.

what the f**k i am looking at ! don't understand it ! don't understand it ! All i know is VD had 2 TD vs Vikes and he is getting better and hopfully Coffee and VD kill the Rams this weekend ! GO NINERS !

Originally posted by BrianUKNiner:

Originally posted by chimp914:
Pretty cool. It'd be better if we could see how they came up with the ratings for each player.

Hey chimp, the ratingas are explained here for you:

The stats these guys are using don't tell the whole story. I don't have the time (or desire) to run through their calculations to pinpoint where the problem is; however, it dosent take a statistision to tell anyone that Frank Gore was a better RB than Deshaun Foster or M-Rob last year. But look at what their stats say.

According to this site in 2008....

D. Foster was a better RB than Frank Gore; but, M-Rob and Shaun Ryan blow them both out of the water...
Allen Rossum and Zeigler were our best WRs. Bruce, Morgan, and Johnson were the worst WRs on our team.
Nate Clemens was one of our worst DBs.

Are these results from coaches film or what's aired on TV?

Either way, gotta respect the time and detail. I have a feeling we will be hearing of you guys more often.

Originally posted by D_Niner:
The stats these guys are using don't tell the whole story. I don't have the time (or desire) to run through their calculations to pinpoint where the problem is; however, it dosent take a statistision to tell anyone that Frank Gore was a better RB than Deshaun Foster or M-Rob last year. But look at what their stats say.

According to this site in 2008....

D. Foster was a better RB than Frank Gore; but, M-Rob and Shaun Ryan blow them both out of the water...
Allen Rossum and Zeigler were our best WRs. Bruce, Morgan, and Johnson were the worst WRs on our team.
Nate Clemens was one of our worst DBs.

Originally posted by D_Niner:
The stats these guys are using don't tell the whole story. I don't have the time (or desire) to run through their calculations to pinpoint where the problem is; however, it dosent take a statistision to tell anyone that Frank Gore was a better RB than Deshaun Foster or M-Rob last year. But look at what their stats say.

According to this site in 2008....

D. Foster was a better RB than Frank Gore; but, M-Rob and Shaun Ryan blow them both out of the water...
Allen Rossum and Zeigler were our best WRs. Bruce, Morgan, and Johnson were the worst WRs on our team.
Nate Clemens was one of our worst DBs.

You're comparing 246 snaps against 706 in the case of Foster and Gore, you can't really compare the two.

Look inside the x is better than z. Read the how it's done and you will see why it's graded that way. It's not simply a is better than b.

Originally posted by Joecool:
Are these results from coaches film or what's aired on TV?

Either way, gotta respect the time and detail. I have a feeling we will be hearing of you guys more often.

They're taken from TV and Gamepass.

Originally posted by Joecool:
Are these results from coaches film or what's aired on TV?

Either way, gotta respect the time and detail. I have a feeling we will be hearing of you guys more often.

I agree. I love this site and the key stats (on defense) of tackles, assists, sacks, QB pressures, etc. seem much more accurate then NFL.com for sure. If people can't figure these simple stats, f*getabout it. Sad.

Anyhow, when are weekly stats available each week? For instance, I'd like to review the Niners-Minnesota game stats from this past weekend (and cumulative as well).

I think the grading scale is the only issue you'll have with fans. For instance, Elvis Dumervil had 4 sacks in one game against the Browns but only got a score of 3.5 in Pass Rush and only 1.5 Overall. Perhaps the grading scale needs to be weighted based on each players responsibilities (e.g. RB = total yards from scrimmage, OLB's in the 3-4 = sacks/QB pressures, ILB's = total tackles, etc.).

Originally posted by D_Niner:
The stats these guys are using don't tell the whole story. I don't have the time (or desire) to run through their calculations to pinpoint where the problem is; however, it dosent take a statistision to tell anyone that Frank Gore was a better RB than Deshaun Foster or M-Rob last year. But look at what their stats say.

According to this site in 2008....

D. Foster was a better RB than Frank Gore; but, M-Rob and Shaun Ryan blow them both out of the water...
Allen Rossum and Zeigler were our best WRs. Bruce, Morgan, and Johnson were the worst WRs on our team.
Nate Clemens was one of our worst DBs.

I got that Shaun Hill is our best player! +15 baby! LOL

Originally posted by BrianUKNiner:

Originally posted by D_Niner:
The stats these guys are using don't tell the whole story. I don't have the time (or desire) to run through their calculations to pinpoint where the problem is; however, it dosent take a statistision to tell anyone that Frank Gore was a better RB than Deshaun Foster or M-Rob last year. But look at what their stats say.

According to this site in 2008....

D. Foster was a better RB than Frank Gore; but, M-Rob and Shaun Ryan blow them both out of the water...
Allen Rossum and Zeigler were our best WRs. Bruce, Morgan, and Johnson were the worst WRs on our team.
Nate Clemens was one of our worst DBs.

You're comparing 246 snaps against 706 in the case of Foster and Gore, you can't really compare the two.

Look inside the x is better than z. Read the how it's done and you will see why it's graded that way. It's not simply a is better than b.

Don't you think that should be calculated into the overall rating though. Anyone who watched the games would tell you that Frank was way better than Foster; but, based off of their calculations one would assume Foster is the better RB....

This site has a good collection of data but fails at statistics.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by D_Niner:
The stats these guys are using don't tell the whole story. I don't have the time (or desire) to run through their calculations to pinpoint where the problem is; however, it dosent take a statistision to tell anyone that Frank Gore was a better RB than Deshaun Foster or M-Rob last year. But look at what their stats say.

According to this site in 2008....

D. Foster was a better RB than Frank Gore; but, M-Rob and Shaun Ryan blow them both out of the water...
Allen Rossum and Zeigler were our best WRs. Bruce, Morgan, and Johnson were the worst WRs on our team.
Nate Clemens was one of our worst DBs.

I got that Shaun Hill is our best player! +15 baby! LOL

LOL... If you like that one, look at where Frank is rated amongst other 2008 RBs. (#121 out of 131)