Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Reaser wrote:
And that is essentially all that current advanced football sites/blogs do. I'd argue that those types aren't even in the business of trying to get the best result and they're just profiting off the sport and the casual fans ignorance. But I don't want to insult any of the advanced stats guys, at least not intentionally. Good for them for finding a niche and as I said, the more people interested and talking about football, the better. What bugs me is they're purposely making people less educated about the sport, telling them, taking advantage of their ignorance, and making them think that stats tell the entire story (which is more of a complaint off our forums, since most here know there's more to the sport than scrolling through a spreadsheet.)

Well said. Unfortunately (for me), I'm not so diplomatic. The "Advanced" Stats industry is a misnomer if I've there ever was one. After all, how hard is it to predict yesterday's weather? I would take on the ten best "advanced" stats guys in the world in a contest to predict tomorrow's games. It's cleverness disguised as intellect; modern day carny hucksterism. There's a reason those guys focus on yesterday. Their retort might be that I (or people like me) can't do what they do. Wrong. I maintain databases, write SQL script, and create financial models and dashboards for a living. None of those things will help you forecast the NFL. It wasn't until I shed such ballast that I began to win.

Bob Gill wrote:

Reaser wrote:I will give credit for the best 4, best 7 and best 10. Stats aside, an interesting way to compare players and there's a certain "all things equal", in it. Though i would have chosen different years, the idea is good. Seems like it was something I saw in baseball though long before this guy? Though if he came up with it, good for him.

You might be thinking of something Bill James did in his second Historical Abstract. I forget the exact details, but he evaluated players by their total careers, their three best seasons (possibly three best in a row), and five best seasons, trying to get a balance between peak value and career value. The concept is certainly an improvement on the one-size-fits-all use of career stats.

I always thought James had it right in his first Historical Abstract when he had two lists, one for peak value and one for career value. If you are concerned with how Terrell Davis rates among the great running backs, you are talking about his peak value, and in this respect he probably ranks at or near the top ten. If, on the other hand, you are wondering where Curtis Martin ranks among the greats, you are probably more concerned about his career value, since he had a nice peak but maintained it for a long time, and Martin probably ranks at or near the top ten all time in career value. It's apples and oranges, and for that reason it is hard to compare a Terrell Davis to a Curtis Martin because at his best, Davis was a significantly greater RB, but over the course of his career, Martin was a significantly greater RB and Davis wouldn't be in the top 50 all time.

by NWebster » Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:23 pm
"Will he, yes...
"...The family name and playing in NYC will help as well. Maybe those draft day shenanigans were worth it after all, Rivers to me has been the better pure QB."

The magic and power of the capital of the world did not work for The Marlboro Man and it won't work for Eli.
Charlie and Perian were positively loved by The City and they loved it back.
Eli is simply the quarterback of the Giants. When he gets to Canton, it will be to watch his brother's enshrinement.
As for Rivers... indeed, he is far more worthy but, unfortunately, he plays in a town known more for the U.S. Navy
than for football and rightfully so. His Canton future might just follow that of Ken Anderson - worthy but overlooked.
Hopefully, not!

oldecapecod11 wrote:by NWebster » Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:23 pm
"Will he, yes...
"...The family name and playing in NYC will help as well. Maybe those draft day shenanigans were worth it after all, Rivers to me has been the better pure QB."

The magic and power of the capital of the world did not work for The Marlboro Man and it won't work for Eli.
Charlie and Perian were positively loved by The City and they loved it back.
Eli is simply the quarterback of the Giants. When he gets to Canton, it will be to watch his brother's enshrinement.
As for Rivers... indeed, he is far more worthy but, unfortunately, he plays in a town known more for the U.S. Navy
than for football and rightfully so. His Canton future might just follow that of Ken Anderson - worthy but overlooked.
Hopefully, not!

I don't think Eli gets in either, unless he somehow gets a third Super Bowl ring. He led two of the weakest SB winners of all time to upsets of the Patriots, but I just don't see any other bullets on his HOF resume. I think with three rings it would be hard to deny Eli.

If Rivers had the career he has already compiled plus two rings, you could probably make a good case for Canton upon his retirement, but without the rings, I think he will wind up in the HOVG.

Reaser wrote:I remember something about his 'new' passer rating. Wasn't it simply completions minus interceptions adjusted for era? Layne ranking 50th in best 7 seasons wouldn't be a surprise with his high number of ints. Though football and particularly playing the position of quarterback isn't simply stats and especially not just two stats.

Does his 'system' take into account play-calling? Essentially on the fly in-game game-planning (who to use and how to use them)? Being a large part of why his team won?

Slightly off-topic, but I think how passing compilation stats (i.e. passer rating) are calculated and what 'system' a QB played in can somewhat skew historical perspective. We've already had this revolution in college. Guys like Hal Mumme and Urban Meyer developed simplified spread passing schemes that the defenses couldn't handle. I remember Omar Jacobs at Bowling Green had a year with like 40 TDs and 3 INTs during a time when a 20/10 split in college football was considered good. College defense still can't really stop these schemes, but now so many schools are using them that the passing numbers have become 'normalized'...guys putting up 30+TDs with single-digit INT totals are no longer outliers.

I don't know how prevalent this is in the present-day NFL where everyone runs the same stuff, but I think in earlier eras you had QBs greatly benefitting from stat calculations and systems. Ken Anderson led the NFL in passer rating in consecutive years...at the time he was the only QB who played in Walsh's offense, which produces QBs with high comp% and low int% due to the system...and two of the four main components of passer rating are comp% and int%. Was Anderson really that much 'better' than his peers (Bengals were 10th in offense in 1974, 9th in 1975...nice but not outstanding), or were his great stats somewhat a byproduct of playing in Walsh's offense during an era where low comp%'s and high int%'s were the norm?

To bring this back to Bobby Layne, I think its somewhat unfair to compare his stats to guys like Otto Graham, Norm Van Brocklin & Bob Waterfield. Those QBs benefited from the innovations of Paul Brown and Hamp Pool...spread sets, utilizing multiple WRs, pass protection concepts, etc. Layne operated in a more 'conventional' offense of that time period...3 RBs, closed ends, 1 WR, etc. Layne's stats on the face of it probably don't appear impressive...lots of INTs, low comp%. Look a little further, and you see Layne was an effective runner and placekicker (when used). To me, the biggest thing is that in 1949 prior to Layne's arrival, the Lions ranked in the bottom half of the league in scoring. When Layne took over as starting QB for the Lions in 1950, they ranked 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 1st, 8th, 2nd. They routinely outscored the Cleveland Browns in spite of Otto Graham putting up superior passing efficiency numbers when compared to Layne.

IMO, that is kind of my 'subjective' ranking of QBs comes in to play. A QBs job is to win games and score points. Impressive stats are a nice byproduct of this, but not always necessary. One of my favorite NFL Films lines is from the NFL Best Ever QBs (1981 edition, of course) when John Facenda says "Like all Tarkenton led teams, the Vikings could score...", which to me is a great compliment to give a QB.

Bryan wrote:I don't know how prevalent this is in the present-day NFL where everyone runs the same stuff, but I think in earlier eras you had QBs greatly benefitting from stat calculations and systems. Ken Anderson led the NFL in passer rating in consecutive years...at the time he was the only QB who played in Walsh's offense, which produces QBs with high comp% and low int% due to the system...and two of the four main components of passer rating are comp% and int%. Was Anderson really that much 'better' than his peers (Bengals were 10th in offense in 1974, 9th in 1975...nice but not outstanding), or were his great stats somewhat a byproduct of playing in Walsh's offense during an era where low comp%'s and high int%'s were the norm?

Good point. I wouldn't be surprised if what you suggest is true. And I feel pretty sure you're right about Bobby Layne. He and Anderson might be the best examples of how over-reliance on raw stats can confuse things. At least there's no doubt in my mind that Layne was the better of the two, no matter what "the numbers" might seem to say.

Bryan wrote:

Reaser wrote:I remember something about his 'new' passer rating. Wasn't it simply completions minus interceptions adjusted for era? Layne ranking 50th in best 7 seasons wouldn't be a surprise with his high number of ints. Though football and particularly playing the position of quarterback isn't simply stats and especially not just two stats.

Does his 'system' take into account play-calling? Essentially on the fly in-game game-planning (who to use and how to use them)? Being a large part of why his team won?

Slightly off-topic, but I think how passing compilation stats (i.e. passer rating) are calculated and what 'system' a QB played in can somewhat skew historical perspective. We've already had this revolution in college. Guys like Hal Mumme and Urban Meyer developed simplified spread passing schemes that the defenses couldn't handle. I remember Omar Jacobs at Bowling Green had a year with like 40 TDs and 3 INTs during a time when a 20/10 split in college football was considered good. College defense still can't really stop these schemes, but now so many schools are using them that the passing numbers have become 'normalized'...guys putting up 30+TDs with single-digit INT totals are no longer outliers.

I don't know how prevalent this is in the present-day NFL where everyone runs the same stuff, but I think in earlier eras you had QBs greatly benefitting from stat calculations and systems. Ken Anderson led the NFL in passer rating in consecutive years...at the time he was the only QB who played in Walsh's offense, which produces QBs with high comp% and low int% due to the system...and two of the four main components of passer rating are comp% and int%. Was Anderson really that much 'better' than his peers (Bengals were 10th in offense in 1974, 9th in 1975...nice but not outstanding), or were his great stats somewhat a byproduct of playing in Walsh's offense during an era where low comp%'s and high int%'s were the norm?

To bring this back to Bobby Layne, I think its somewhat unfair to compare his stats to guys like Otto Graham, Norm Van Brocklin & Bob Waterfield. Those QBs benefited from the innovations of Paul Brown and Hamp Pool...spread sets, utilizing multiple WRs, pass protection concepts, etc. Layne operated in a more 'conventional' offense of that time period...3 RBs, closed ends, 1 WR, etc. Layne's stats on the face of it probably don't appear impressive...lots of INTs, low comp%. Look a little further, and you see Layne was an effective runner and placekicker (when used). To me, the biggest thing is that in 1949 prior to Layne's arrival, the Lions ranked in the bottom half of the league in scoring. When Layne took over as starting QB for the Lions in 1950, they ranked 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 1st, 8th, 2nd. They routinely outscored the Cleveland Browns in spite of Otto Graham putting up superior passing efficiency numbers when compared to Layne.

IMO, that is kind of my 'subjective' ranking of QBs comes in to play. A QBs job is to win games and score points. Impressive stats are a nice byproduct of this, but not always necessary. One of my favorite NFL Films lines is from the NFL Best Ever QBs (1981 edition, of course) when John Facenda says "Like all Tarkenton led teams, the Vikings could score...", which to me is a great compliment to give a QB.

Really great point Bryan! I'm a numbers guy myself, but they do sometimes lie. And the fact is - anybody working in business will know this - employees respond to incentives. The moment something is measured it can be incentivised.

Rupert Patrick wrote:
I always thought James had it right in his first Historical Abstract when he had two lists, one for peak value and one for career value. If you are concerned with how Terrell Davis rates among the great running backs, you are talking about his peak value, and in this respect he probably ranks at or near the top ten. If, on the other hand, you are wondering where Curtis Martin ranks among the greats, you are probably more concerned about his career value, since he had a nice peak but maintained it for a long time, and Martin probably ranks at or near the top ten all time in career value. It's apples and oranges, and for that reason it is hard to compare a Terrell Davis to a Curtis Martin because at his best, Davis was a significantly greater RB, but over the course of his career, Martin was a significantly greater RB and Davis wouldn't be in the top 50 all time.

Some interesting observations here. I'm more interested in coaches than players because I think they have more impact on who wins and loses, but similar principles could apply. Since there was a recent thread about Mike Shanahan, let's use him as an example. As times goes on, Shanahan's star has dimmed. But at one point it's probably safe to say he was viewed as the best coach in the league. Now, years later that seems like a presumptuous statement. But that is a problem with historians - no shot, I consider myself one - in that truth can get distorted in hindsight. If we were to enter a time machine back to 1998, take a poll, he'd almost certainly have come out on top of many peoples' lists. In that regard, one way to evaluate a coach (or heck, a player) would be to ask "was he ever at one point in his career considered the top of his peer group?" Regarding coaches it'd be easy to retort with, "Well sure, any coach who wins a Super Bowl is probably going to top a list like that just because they won and it's fresh in everyone's mind." Yes, but not always. Gary Kubiak (fairly or unfairly) has gotten nary a whiff of credit for the Broncos winning the Super Bowl this year. Brian Billick, the day after the Ravens won the SB in 2000 and ever since, was never really given any credit. So asking that question could be one way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Apologies if this post seems more suited for the Shanahan thread, but it seemed appropriate here given Rupert's (and James') observation.

Bryan wrote:IMO, that is kind of my 'subjective' ranking of QBs comes in to play. A QBs job is to win games and score points. Impressive stats are a nice byproduct of this, but not always necessary. One of my favorite NFL Films lines is from the NFL Best Ever QBs (1981 edition, of course) when John Facenda says "Like all Tarkenton led teams, the Vikings could score...", which to me is a great compliment to give a QB.

Cut the 'quote' to save space but great post! Especially the college point, which you can go even further back with Houston.

Also agree with Bob and nice to see at least two others that know Layne was good - the old forums were the worst when 'advanced stats' guys would pop in and essentially say: "Bobby Layne sucked, look at his stats." ...

I don't want to put it in quotes because I don't remember the exact phrasing but Johnny Unitas in the 90's said something along the lines of: you can shove the stats, stats don't put the ball in the endzone and stats don't win games.

The exact words he used aside, the message always resonated with me. Confirmed what I was being taught up to and during that period by other respected football figures.

mwald wrote: In that regard, one way to evaluate a coach (or heck, a player) would be to ask "was he ever at one point in his career considered the top of his peer group?"

Whenever there's a "HOF Criteria" thread, for players. Literally, first line I post is always "was he ever the best at his own position?" ... So yes, doing it that way applies to players, too.