What is up with Hendrickson?

[BRM13]

(01-30-2023, 07:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Every time someone brings up pressures being great and sacks aren't necessary, I bring this up....



...sacks are worth so incredibly much more than any pressure. You lose yards, you lose a down, your QB takes a hit, your QB can fumble. It takes 5.75 hits/hurries to equal 1 sack.

The Bengals were 29th in sacks in 2022, and sure enough, they kept giving a one-legged QB all day long. The idea that you don't need sacks if you get some pressures just doesn't ever pan out.

The Super Bowl this year is the #1 sack team vs the #2 sack team. Protect your good QB, and sack the opposing QB.

Fair points.  Two things.  First, i was answering the OP about whether Hendrickson's production had declined.  My answer is it depends on which type.  Sacks yes, pressures not so much.  

Second, I don't think sacks are unnecessary or that pressures = sacks.  Sacks are clearly better, just like homeruns are better than singles.  Your chart says sacks are roughly 4 times better than a pressure.  Would you rather have 5 pressures or 1 sack?  Your chart says 5 pressures.  Hendrickson gets a lot of pressures, so he is still being pretty productive.  Of course, he'd be a lot more valuable if he turned a few more of those pressures into sacks.  Just like Pete Rose was productive, but he would have been more valuable if he'd turned a few of those singles into homeruns.

As Killer Goose noted above, sacks are correlated with pressures.  His numbers said that across the league about 17% of pressures turn into sacks, IIRC.  So, it wouldn't shock me if it was also true (I'm too lazy to look it up) that the #1 pressure team was playing the #2 pressure team in the Super Bowl.