first of all i want to say that I love advanced stats.  before PFF came along I used to pay for the yearly abstarct that Footballoutsiders produced.  They both have tons of good, useful information.  But unfortunately too many people just look at the subjective rankings, and those are garbage.

There are 2 CBs on a team.  Starter "A" plays most of the time because he does not mess up as often as his back up "B".  A messes up once every 10 plays while B messes up once every 6 plays.  Player A plays 70 snaps and messes up 7 times.  In the same game player B plays 30 snaps and messes up 5 times.  You know which player PFF says is the best CB?  Player B who played fewer snaps and messed up more often.

A CB who blankets his receiver and keeps the opposing QB from throwing to him gets a "zero" for that play.

So I would love to see some of the CB individual stats like "passer rating allowed", or "yards per target allowed".  These stats still don't give a CB credit for covering a receiver so well that he does not even get thrown at, but they are much more accurate than the flawed ranking system.

(03-21-2016, 11:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: first of all i want to say that I love advanced stats.  before PFF came along I used to pay for the yearly abstarct that Footballoutsiders produced.  They both have tons of good, useful information.  But unfortunately too many people just look at the subjective rankings, and those are garbage.

There are 2 CBs on a team.  Starter "A" plays most of the time because he does not mess up as often as his back up "B".  A messes up once every 10 plays while B messes up once every 6 plays.  Player A plays 70 snaps and messes up 7 times.  In the same game player B plays 30 snaps and messes up 5 times.  You know which player PFF says is the best CB?  Player B who played fewer snaps and messed up more often.

A CB who blankets his receiver and keeps the opposing QB from throwing to him gets a "zero" for that play.

So I would love to see some of the CB individual stats like "passer rating allowed", or "yards per target allowed".  These stats still don't give a CB credit for covering a receiver so well that he does not even get thrown at, but they are much more accurate than the flawed ranking system.

You keep saying you would like to see these stats.  Why don't you simply find a site that offers them and pay for the subscription?

(03-21-2016, 12:02 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: You keep saying you would like to see these stats.  Why don't you simply find a site that offers them and pay for the subscription?

The last time I checked Footballoutsiders had not released their full 2015 abstract.  And I though a few people here already subscribed to the PFF site.

But if no one has them I might go ahead and pay for PFF.

I feel like I should make a post here about crying over something.

PFF stopped using their standard grade system and went to some stupid number system.

(03-21-2016, 02:31 PM)J24 Wrote: PFF stopped using their standard grade system and went to some stupid number system.

And got rid of the stats that Fred is looking for, because why not?

They were truly unique in almost 100% of the things they do and were useful.

Now, they won't even disclose this unique stuff, EVEN THOUGH THEY STILL DO IT EVERY WEEK, by instituting some garbage, "ratings," crap.

Their writers suck now too; after being called out THREE times, in regards to Marvin Jones (they said that 2014 was his breakout year), they STILL did not correct their mistake.

As someone who earns my living doing statistics, I feel your pain and look at their data collection as obviously flawed (your points, and others). The problem of course is translating what you want to a real set of values that gets the job done (explain exactly how to do it, in addition to saying the current process is wrong), and the fact that very few people/organizations are willing to use the proper methodology or able to find someone competent to do it. It just becomes too difficult to do and/or for people to understand. There probably isn't much profit in doing it right, or at least not much incentive to do it better than they do it now. What they do meets their needs for making money, it is "good enough" people see it as having value, but dumbed down enough to have broad appeal and be understood. Doing it right would involve somehow measuring coverage itself, using per-snap proportions (your suggestion), or maybe controlling for QB pressure, talent of opposition, presence of safety help, etc. What about zone coverage? The hardest part is having human eyeballs turn the player's game into good data. I could see it happening, but with a whole lot more time invested in having people watch and code the games, or something like that.

Dre Kirkpatrick is still underwhelming.  I don't care what PFF, ABC, XYZ, or anyone else says.

(03-21-2016, 06:54 PM)jason Wrote: Dre Kirkpatrick is still underwhelming.  I don't care what PFF, ABC, XYZ, or anyone else says.

I don't think anyone here is saying he is even the best CB on our own team, but all this talk about him being the worst (or 4th worst or whatever) in the league us silly.

(03-21-2016, 04:17 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: And got rid of the stats that Fred is looking for, because why not?

They were truly unique in almost 100% of the things they do and were useful.

Now, they won't even disclose this unique stuff, EVEN THOUGH THEY STILL DO IT EVERY WEEK, by instituting some garbage, "ratings," crap.

Their writers suck now too; after being called out THREE times, in regards to Marvin Jones (they said that 2014 was his breakout year), they STILL did not correct their mistake.

I sent them a nice little email about how they totally ****** up, and got a reply. lol


Unfortunately, the realization and email didn't come until right AFTER i had re-upped.

I haven't been back since.

Interesting stat made up by Trident chewing gum.. 7 out of 10 dentists surveyed recommend Trident sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.. They don't say much about their patients who don't chew gum.