Assessing Impact as well as Talent

by tdships on Apr 25, 2011 12:05 PM CDT

The debates have raged hot and heavy, fast and furious. BPA vs. Need, OT vs. DE vs. CB. FA strategy, etc.

Everyone has an opinion while most have reams of data and lacking that - innuendo to support it.

A side note on that. There are several well-informed posters that utilize in-depth metrics to advance or counter arguments for or against certain player choices. Aside from the famous 'lies, damn lies and statistics' quote I have always been left uneasy with reducing so many variable, intangibles to a formulaic expression. Recently read the following from PFR founder Doug Drinen explaining their Approximate Value metric:

AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV.

As I've stated many times, stats are highly illuminating, designed to reduce as much of the subjective to objective measurement as possible, the value of which is indisputable. But time and time again, I struggle with the use of statistical measure as an absolute expression in football. Especially for individual contributors. This seems to make the case that their true value is in relative assessment which I completely understand.

That out of the way, now onto the point of this exercise - take our Top 3 Draft 'choices' as they currently appear to be trending: OT, DE or CB. Assume for the purpose of this discussion, each player will become an upper tier/above average player - a solid contributor in Season 1, long-term, 2 contract starter. Let's not make them elite, but keep them where they are. My question: In this scenario, doesn't position impact and value over time become the overriding considerations? In addition to performing their own function at a high level, what other positions do they impact positively?

You could make the case any position makes it's entire unit better, so this is limited to the position it impacts most:

OT > QB - a better Tony Romo? Sign me up!
DE > LB - a better A Spencer? Good but not great.
CB > S - a better whoever? Actually, I'd rather have an Above Average S make my CB's better than the other way around. Hell, we even had average Safety's do that the past few years. That's the way PIT, GB, and to some extent BAL/IND are built, as was NE not that long ago. What do they all have in common - SB winners of the Last/Lost Decade, perennial playoff contenders. The Prime Time argument fails here as well, can't take a best of all-time and make that the baseline for the case. Unless you think Peterson compares favorably, then I'm all ears.

Care to argue not allowing the most important position on the team to perform better, or in our case, stay ambulatory for the whole season? I'm listening. Of course, the discussion returns to Talent - who presents at each position the best combination of short and ling-term upside, factoring as well as the potential to impact the whole for the greatest good?

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

But time and time again, I struggle with the use of statistical measure as an absolute expression in football. Especially for individual contributors. This seems to make the case that their true value is in relative assessment which I completely understand.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest
-Winston Churchill

?/ Eyeball test? Really? That is the basis for your argument? I can’t compete with that.
-jfdebois

Yes in foobtall when there is just as many intangibles as tangibles Eyeball test is a perfect way to determine a solution.

yes your right silly me for using stats and common sense when all i had to do was use my eyeballs.
-jfdebois

-exchange on BTB

statistics are the worst form of evaluation except for the eyeball evaluation

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Apr 25, 2011 12:53 PM CDT reply actions

HAHAHA

Probably why teams don’t waste time learning from watching game film (during the season for opponents and offseason for draft prospects)

"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry

by Kegbearer on Apr 25, 2011 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Can you just see RR telling the D

you guys " go look at so and so’s stats before next weeks game". Be prepared.

by pfloyd1 on Apr 25, 2011 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Watct the tape, man, watch the tape.

by pfloyd1 on Apr 25, 2011 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions

What did they do back in Deacon Jones days when there were no Stats?

by pfloyd1 on Apr 25, 2011 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

yuck yuck yuck … you’re pretty confident for a guy who’s almost certainly wrong

Can you just see RR telling the D you guys " go look at so and so’s stats before next weeks game". Be prepared.

Not saying this is a smart way to run a team. Not saying it’s how RR would run a team. But I’m saying that Mangini was the HC so that’s how Cleveland was run last year and what would have been expected of the defense.

http://www.slate.com/id/2274230/entry/2274686

Coach Eric Mangini has painted in large, intimidating block letters, strategically located around the Cleveland Browns facility. Players are expected to have all of these mantras memorized. During team meetings, Mangini will call on a player, who must stand up and face a dreaded interrogation. “There is a quote written above the door to the locker room, what does it say and who said it?” Better get it verbatim. “What coverage do the Titans like to play in the red zone on third-and-long vs. our 11 personnel group?” Better know it. “Why are we choosing to punt on fourth-and-2 from their 38, down by six points, going in to halftime, when we have a field goal kicker who is good from 55 yards?” Better know that one, too.

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Apr 25, 2011 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions

You sure that's not a coach...

teaching his players about situational football and why you need to know what is happening to do the right thing? Is knowing what scheme another team likes to run in certain situations proof that Mangini is teaching his players statistics? Is knowing that you give the other team great field position and the ability to score before halftime and increasing their lead if you miss the FG 9which wouldn’t give you the lead anyway) really Mangini teaching statistics?

Situational football is actually another big reason why stats alone won’t tell you the full story…if they were up going into half time, do they kick that field goal? Is it really only about the down&distance-yardline-kicker’s leg-and percentage of covnerting a 4&2 or do some intangibles like momentum and the lead or playing home and away or whether they will be getting the ball after halftime have anything to do with that decision? Do you think a coach will make those decisions based only on statistics?

by Kegbearer on Apr 25, 2011 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions

hey that was me, you can credit me thanks haha

Ill stand by that too

by thebigham on Apr 25, 2011 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions

here, look at this?

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/17/1999154/combine-challenge

this is what’s so frustrating to me. See, my eyeballs aren’t bad. In fact they were more accurate than a couple of people who say they watch a ton of football. That’s not to brag. That’s to make the point that your eyeballs are seriously limited. People can’t even tell you the most fundamental things by eye like how high a player can jump or how fast he is.

There’s nothing wrong with my eyeballs. I played football, I watch football. I’m just congnizant of just how limited the eye is. If I can’t tell how high a guy can jump or how fast he is by eye, how in the world could I expect to discern far more complex performance like reaction/instinct and isolate individual performance from team performance by eye?

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Apr 25, 2011 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm all about eyeballs and spreadsheets?

Recognize the value and limitations of each, ultimately their utility when combined with some common sense. Let’s just all use our powers for good…

We live life forwards and understand it backwards

by tdships on Apr 25, 2011 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Wow

You, thebigham, jfdebois quoted alongside Winston Churchill by FiTT. He sure thinks highly of you three. Or that one of the most inspirational, persuasive and effective orators of the past century was just plain mistaken in his beliefs. You know, like democracy, the dangers of then-practiced “socialism” and fascism, things like that.

I prefer to think he thinks highly of you three and the man. But I could be wrong.

Weltschmerzen.
My $.02's worth $.00.

by tanstaafl on Apr 25, 2011 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions

HAHAHAHA

by Kegbearer on Apr 25, 2011 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions

But neither is definitive

Neither is absolute. I trust my “eyeballs/instinct” over stats especially on this subject. Why because guys like Romo or Foster wouldn’t have been in the NFL if not otherwise. You can’t measure the intangibles it takes to be a great football player.

by thebigham on Apr 25, 2011 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Please don't flatter this foolish stat/eyeball debate by pseudo-Churchillian quotation

They’re both suspect, misused and valuable if properly understood and applied.

Weltschmerzen.
My $.02's worth $.00.

by tanstaafl on Apr 25, 2011 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions

really, what’s misunderstood?

Seems simple to me. A system can be imperfect and still be your best option, if it’s less flawed than all the alternatives.

What’s complicated or hard to understand about that?

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Apr 25, 2011 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Absolutely nothing

But the debate may center on the less/least flawed part. What’s wrong with a combination of the best of each?

We live life forwards and understand it backwards

by tdships on Apr 25, 2011 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Seriously, FiTT? Look at the debates you have with people over what’s behind various stats, why some are misinterpreted, misapplied and all the rest. And you don’t see misunderstanding at the root? Seriously?

I’m stunned.

Weltschmerzen.
My $.02's worth $.00.

by tanstaafl on Apr 25, 2011 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I misunderstood. I thought you meant the Churchill quote is suspect and misused.

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Apr 25, 2011 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions

Churchill’s democracy quote’s not suspect, though it’s bastardizations may be, regardless of an issue’s side it gets done for. Here and elsewhere.

It’s an effective statement format. The man knew the language and how to use it.

Weltschmerzen.
My $.02's worth $.00.

by tanstaafl on Apr 25, 2011 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions

There is something to be said...

About how a player that doesn’t get any highlight stats supports those that do and considering this when building and managing a team. However, I don’t think the difference between an OL and DL player is that great. While offensive star positions like QB and RB, WR, TE – ok everyone on the offense – are very dependent on the OL, the entire defense would collapse if the DL didn’t do their job.

by Kegbearer on Apr 25, 2011 1:04 PM CDT reply actions

Just to chip in on this little statistics debate

I have always found it extremely ironic that many of the people who demean the use of statistics love to quote things like points per game and yards per game to make their points. That is always funny to me because those are statistics. They just happen to also be the statistics that are the least isolating and most like those that Mark Twain is cited as criticizing.

Common exchange:

Poster 1: The 2009 defense was definitely really good. You could see it on the field.

Poster 2: There are a lot of efficiency statistics that would say the opposite.

Poster 1: Oh yeah, then how did they give up the 2nd least amount of points in the league?

My point is that I feel the biggest problem is that there is this large desire to use big, broad and flawed statistics because they are simple and supposedly are all that matter. However in doing so, people are actually advocating for the use of statistics; just not the good ones.

If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels

by Creasy729 on Apr 25, 2011 2:53 PM CDT reply actions

Hold on..

I think you are using the extreme example to make someone who uses stats but not as a primary resource look like a hypocrit and an idiot.

Most people that talk about the need to properly use, interpret, and analyze available stats aren’t saying they are useless or to never use them, just use them understanding the intangibles and factors that aren’t recorded in the stats. Romo’s td-int ratio wasn’t very good – but did you see Miles and Roy tip the passes for INTs and the ridiculous heel kick INT that Witten was involved in?

You can even use the more “intelligent” advanced statistics for football and still misinterpret the outcomes if they are taken out of context or used to predict the next season without taking into account the changes that have occured that aren’t in the stats – new coach, older players, etc.

Like taan mentions above, it’s not about which single one is better to use (frankly, if anyone says only use one and never the other they have lost the point) it’s about combining the two to better understand what is really happening. If anyone thinks they should only use one then this is a different debate we need to have.

by Kegbearer on Apr 25, 2011 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think you should use only one.

But I have always felt, and continue to feel, that many of the same people who abhor advanced statistics are in fact pretty hypocritical when they use these broad, but more well-known stats to back their arguments. You can see it constantly and once again goes to show that many people refuse to understand that there is a hierarchy when it comes to statistics. Some are better than others. Some are worse than others. Yet most people stick to the broad and often most flawed ones, while they abhor any sort of advanced statistic because “it just doesn’t capture the game” as if yards per game or points per game ever did.

And yes, you are right, statistics must be used correctly and in context. However, to act as if the eye-ball test is any different is certainly incorrect. Both should be used to evaluate a football team’s play, but I am getting tired of the refrain by some people that “stats don’t matter in football.” They most certainly do, and while not every statistical conclusion requires agreement, it’s awfully dangerous just to dismiss such conclusions simply because they don’t use (or match) the eye-ball test.

If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels

by Creasy729 on Apr 25, 2011 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Whereas I'm ok with using only one...

It’s called Wins.

The rest are interesting but somewhat less meaningful to me personally.

Weltschmerzen.
My $.02's worth $.00.

by tanstaafl on Apr 25, 2011 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions

Stats are fun to talk about but

you can make numbers say whatever you want them to say……and use them to back any disagreement, but that doesnt make the numbers or the argument right :-)

In the end the W-L in SB, heck and really just the W in SB is the only number that really matters….the rest is just stuff that folks here and in the media use to tell the story that they want to tell at that time

He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
"Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name"

by BigBad Joe on Apr 25, 2011 3:15 PM CDT reply actions