Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

by Bryan » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:07 am
"... So the 1986 Cardinals finish 79-82 and hit the fewest HRs in the league. But in the last game of the year, the Cardinals lose 8-5 to the Pirates despite hitting 3 HRs while the Pirates hit none. The conclusion to be drawn is that HRs have a poor correlation to wining, which is further enforced by Whitey Herzog saying "HRs are overrated"?.."

Before an attempt is made to see the relevance here, please decide if you mean "whining" or "winning" and, if it exists, where you saw the Herzog statement.
Thanks...

Bryan wrote:So the 1986 Cardinals finish 79-82 and hit the fewest HRs in the league. But in the last game of the year, the Cardinals lose 8-5 to the Pirates despite hitting 3 HRs while the Pirates hit none. The conclusion to be drawn is that HRs have a poor correlation to wining, which is further enforced by Whitey Herzog saying "HRs are overrated"?

I would think (hope?) that people would be smart enough to not view sack % as a 1-to-1 correlation with a QBs 'greatness'.

I 'get' the attempt at an analogy but putting aside that HR's put runs on the board while sacks don't score points (except in fantasy football and the occasional safety) and that there isn't a baseball equivalent to sacks - for it to be comparable to anything I've said you would need a seemingly endless supply of the greatest minds in baseball saying "HRs are overrated", you would need Barry Bonds to say "HRs are overrated", you would need multiple other players on the top 20 all-time HR list to say they're overrated, you would need HOF or World Series winning GM's to say "HRs are overrated", etc ... Instead of isolating one example out of many.

Though it's fine with me, we can strike the Cutler example.

... and people aren't making a 1:1 correlation with 'greatness' but they are making a 1:1 correlation with whether or not a QB was "good at 'avoiding' sacks", which frankly is asinine. Clear to me anyone using and/or putting stock in the QB sack % 'stat' have never been under center at any point in their lives, likely never coached anything football related - and since those two things are not requirements for football knowledge (but they help) - and more importantly lack an understanding of the sport of football especially related to as how/why sacks happen. Just my opinion though, but my opinion on sacks and sack related stats is shared by many of the greatest minds in football, so I'll defer to them. Such as Pro Football Hall of Famer Jim Finks: "Hurries are what count in a pass rush. Not sacks." Maybe someone can come up with a QB hurries % 'stat' to show what QB's are the 'best' at 'avoiding' being hurried

Sacks are overrated, period.

Sacks ARE overrated.

As are rushing yards, completion percentage, receptions, etc, etc.

If your point is that the game is too complex to break down to a single number - got you. But things like rushing TDs, etc fall in fundamental the same boat, how good was Jerome Bettis' game with 5 yards and 3 TD's. Well, having watched it, it was pretty cool, but not impressive.

Do I actually find myself alone on this entire forum in thinking that stats are interesting AND film is interesting. Must we be so binary in such a nuanced world. Seriously?

NWebster wrote:Sacks ARE overrated.

Do I actually find myself alone on this entire forum in thinking that stats are interesting AND film is interesting. Must we be so binary in such a nuanced world. Seriously?

Yes, yes they are.

Nothing wrong with stats - including irrelevant stats - until people use them to define things that the stat simply does not define (QB sack rate does not define how good a QB is at avoiding getting sacked, for example) or put an emphasis on a stat that the stat simply does not deserve (the importance of sacks, for example) ...

Accepting these flawed statistics as gospel or being acquiescent about them does a disservice to the collective knowledge of the larger football community and especially here, among football researchers and historians. Where I like to think our collective knowledge is more advanced than say talk radio or the local bar where one would talk about how player A sucks because he only has 3 sacks - while being oblivious to the fact that player A is being graded out as one of the best 3-4 DE's in the league. (ex. not specific to any player, but it fits)

Sorry Reaser but I disagree that it's valueless. To take the extremes, Peyton Manning's low sack rate is clearly indicative of a QB who studies, is decisive and a good decision maker. Other extreme, Rob Johnson, the film and the numbers align, he was tentative, nervous and frankly a pretty bad (for NFL starter standards) QB.

Disagree with any of th e above?

Now, are there QB's all along the spectrum in between, of course, and there are in those cases more nuanced versions of what I laid out above.

Now if you're insistent on not using numbers, don't look at your speedometer when you drive to work tomorrow, don't look at your watch before you head out of the house, don't check the temperature before you get dressed, you'll probably be fine, but each of those thing MIGHT inform you of something.

There is myriad evidence that OFFENSIVE QB sack rate is more closely associated with QB than OL. Marino and Manning played behind a mili on different OL combos and always got the ball off. Vick, Tebow, etc the same and never did. Do you think that going from Tebow to Manning a few years ago made the Broncos block better?

NWebster wrote:Peyton Manning's low sack rate is clearly indicative of a QB who studies, is decisive and a good decision maker.

Now, are there QB's all along the spectrum in between, of course, and there are in those cases more nuanced versions of what I laid out above.

So Rex Grossman studies more than Aaron Rodgers and is more decisive and a better decision maker? Derek Anderson is better at those things than Len Dawson ever was? Elvis Grbac > Steve Young?

The names are largely random, you can say "look at Manning and Marino at the top of the list! The stat obviously makes sense!", the top 2 names on the list do not define the list or the stat. Pull a name out of thin air and he can end up anywhere. Mark Malone 18th BEST all-time! in avoiding sacks, he was great. Ken Anderson 112th, we all know he was garbage?

Nice stat. Very valuable. Summed up best by the Seahawks ranking dead last (because Wilson doesn't study isn't decisive and isn't a good decision maker) in sack % in 2013. I'll take that Super Bowl win.

Nice stat. Very valuable. Summed up best by the Seahawks ranking dead last (because Wilson doesn't study isn't decisive and isn't a good decision maker) in sack % in 2013. I'll take that Super Bowl win.[/quote]

As well you should. Ring rings ring. Jim Plunkett is Peyton Manning. Trent Dilfer is Aaron Rogers. Your Stat is just as rediculous. I'm a Steeler fan and love Big Ben, he's not an HOF QB, not with two rings and a third appearance.

To close the circle, Chalet Haley should not be an HOFer we had to invent counting rings for D Lineman because of him.

You don't like wins and losses but your argument comes down to I'll keep these rings. Your boy Mark Hasselbeck outplayed Ben in the Super Bowl. That game (remainder of career aside) did not make a Ben better. But "I'll keep the ring". Really?????

Again, the stat does NOT define whether a QB is good or not at avoiding sacks. As anyone who's actually ever played QB knows, sacks are not 100% of the time the QB's fault. This stat doesn't account for that fact. Therefore the stat is flawed from the jump.

I'm already quoted as saying QB's getting W/L is ridiculous, I said the Seahawks ranked dead last (because logically it would be a team stat) and as a fan I'll take the Super Bowl win. If the stat is important as it's being made out to be then the Seahawks wouldn't have been the best team in the NFL that season.

It's not 'my' stat, it's not a stat at all. It was very clearly a statement from a fan of the Seahawks.

Reaser wrote:Again, the stat does NOT define whether a QB is good or not at avoiding sacks. As anyone who's actually ever played QB knows, sacks are not 100% of the time the QB's fault. This stat doesn't account for that fact. Therefore the stat is flawed from the jump.

I'm already quoted as saying QB's getting W/L is ridiculous, I said the Seahawks ranked dead last (because logically it would be a team stat) and as a fan I'll take the Super Bowl win. If the stat is important as it's being made out to be then the Seahawks wouldn't have been the best team in the NFL that season.

It's not 'my' stat, it's not a stat at all. It was very clearly a statement from a fan of the Seahawks.

Lung cancer statistics don't account for the fact that 100% of all cases are not related to smoking. Nothing in life accounts for 100% of anything, so why bother measuring POTENTIAL underlying causes of things. Obviously all insurance companies don't know what they're doing when they ask if you're a smoker or not, that doesn't account for 100%, what would account for 100% of QB sacks taken (thi nj k I already covered that) or lung cancel victims - we all acknowledge it's not 1 thing but the QB is a BIG contributor.

NWebster wrote:what would account for 100% of QB sacks taken

we all acknowledge it's not 1 thing but the QB is a BIG contributor.

Not sure what the rest has to do with football so I'll skip by that, nor has "we all acknowledge" been the case at all. For you, yes, you've acknowledged that is it not one thing - others have phrased the stat as if it's 100% a QB stat (it is not.)

Aaron Rodgers (84th all-time in QB sack % - behind Jay Schroeder) was deemed to have been responsible for 11 of the 31 sacks that GB gave up when he was in the game last season. That's closer to a third, not 100%, not 90%, not 80%, not 70%, not 60%, not even 50%, of sacks that go 'on' the QB, in this example. "BIG" . . .

I 'get' the "nothing is 100%", my thing is then don't phrase it as 100%. Don't say "(Insert QB) IS good at avoiding sacks" then slap a flawed and largely irrelevant number after saying so. Don't phrase it as an absolute. Don't give it meaning that it does not have and common football knowledge says that it does not have.

Say "I've watched (insert QB) and he seemed good at avoiding sacks, here's a made-up stat that doesn't really mean anything but it may support what I've seen with my own eyes so I'm sharing it." ... Sort of like how most stats are used: "(Insert DE) was great at rushing the passer. He had (x amount of) sacks." Now sacks are overrated as many great defensive minds will tell you (and that I've indisputably shown throughout this thread) but if the stat/number supports the claim, then great, go for it. Sack rate supports Manning and Marino, for example. Not much else after that and I also do not see this huge 'it's clearly on the QB and not OL' evidence - though I've never cared about the stat so have only looked at a few QB's who have switched teams and I see when they go from a terrible team to a great team their QB sack % is lowered (shocking) which isn't surprising at all and doesn't lead to evidence of sacks being solely on the QB, at all - but I already know that sacks aren't solely on the QB so ...