Okay, what are your theories for difference?

[Reaser]

As you can see in several other recent posts, I am not the only person interpreting your posts as that you are dismissing others' opinions

I'll walk people through it.

- Throwaway comment made by me about passer rating (and the 'advanced' statistics spawned from it): "was made by people who never took a snap from center" ... nothing about me, just a line about stats. (note: comment was not in response/quoted to or was in anyway made towards Turney, making the following even more odd) ...

- Turney predictably takes it out of context and talks about Favre taking snaps for some reason (Favre didn't create the statistic so it made no sense), and then tries to impress with very transparent "this is what I've done in football" (e.g. talked to a player during SB week) type stuff and he mentioned taking snaps a second time - again, for some unknown reason and completely out of context (as anyone with reading comprehension skills can see) ...

- Sarcastically, semi-clearly I suppose, I asked if he's taken snaps (since he took my throwaway line and focused on it) and listed my football 'resume' with the line "if we're posting football resumes for some reason" (such as Turney was trying to impress with) ...

- Turney's white knight - following the thread you can see he's quick to speak for John and defend him against the evils of multiple others - further takes the origins of the comment out of context and talks about Belichick taking snaps for some unknown reason. Perhaps he took the "Cheerleader" comment made by another member, a bit too literal?

Other peoples inability to follow along with a thread and/or keep things in context is not my problem nor am I overly concerned about it.

No, because i had a cup of coffee at the JUCO level it does not mean I've played in the NFL nor have I ever said that it does (can't see where that can be quoted?) I have practiced with a QB who was in - IR - the NFL and going through NFL style workouts and I've been coached by QB's who spent time in NFL training camps/practices, I've been at camps run by NFL coaches and so on. Football is largely football, so I've found, but that is my personal experiences and it can easily be kept to myself, instead of wanting to share it to teach others and/or show others what it was like.

I do like to hear about others experiences playing/coaching football - as I've posted anytime anyone else talks about their high school, college, sandlot, etc. playing days - but I personally like football, all levels, and like reading firsthand accounts about it. For one example, anytime there is a discussion about kicking I hope that our member who was an all-conference DIII kicker responds, because I find his firsthand knowledge of kicking to be fascinating, and educational. That, to me, is infinitely more interesting than say if someone who doesn't have a clue about kicking wrote an article about kicking, posted it here, and asked us for our theories for difference on why the stats tell him that kickers missed more extra points in 2015 than they did in 2014 . . .

[BernardB]

Bringing this thread back to Brady and stats, since that's what it's about.

Something I've always respected about Brady is his knowing stats don't matter, and his lack of care for stats. I remember a press conference when he was asked about passer rating and said it didn't matter and he didn't care about it. He's always had great answers when it comes to questions about stats and how he doesn't care about them and when asked about what stats matter to him he answers with, "wins", "score more points than the opponent" and the like. It's always come off as very genuine and I've always respected that.

Brady's been long consistent about it. It's a team sport, individual stats are meaningless, the goal is to win.

One could wonder if he's got that from Belichick, who himself has said "stats are for losers", and who himself has said multiple times and multiple variations of; the #1 stat is winning, and the #2 stat is scoring more points than your opponent. He also gives great responses on stats, especially to dumb questions (the usual from media) about stats. Though when he gets a question that interests him more I've seen him "open up" a little on stats though it's not really any different. Most important stat is winning, second is scoring more points than opponent. Any stat after those that he acknowledges - when he's not saying sacks are overrated as a stat, because they are - are ones that correlate towards winning and points (scored and against), common things such as red zone and 3rd down.

Either way, with the way he was in college and early NFL career I think Brady would have the same opinion on stats even if he wasn't in NE the entire time.

He has said on more than one occasion that there is only one stat that matters, winning. Interesting then to think what he would think about his passing stats being better (in years where league-wide passing stats were higher) in one group of years compared to another (years when passing stats league-wide were lower) ...

"Stats don't matter" and "Stats are for losers." Ok, got it. I need to stay away from these horrible things that sow confusion in weak minds (media types who ask all those dumb questions).

But wait, the above absolutist statement is later qualified (can an absolutist statement be qualified?---I guess so)---stats that are correlated with winning are good stats. Ok, got it. Stay away from the loser stats but greet with open arms winner stats. I can do that.

Looked up some old Brian Burke and find pass yards per attempt has a very high correlation with winning. Hallelujah, a winner stat. But wait, Burke goes on to say that including sack yards in the stat makes the correlation with winning even higher. Oh, that cannot be good, sacks are one of those loser stats.

[Reaser]

"Stats don't matter" and "Stats are for losers." Ok, got it. I need to stay away from these horrible things that sow confusion in weak minds (media types who ask all those dumb questions).

But wait, the above absolutist statement is later qualified (can an absolutist statement be qualified?---I guess so)---stats that are correlated with winning are good stats. Ok, got it. Stay away from the loser stats but greet with open arms winner stats. I can do that.

Looked up some old Brian Burke and find pass yards per attempt has a very high correlation with winning. Hallelujah, a winner stat. But wait, Burke goes on to say that including sack yards in the stat makes the correlation with winning even higher. Oh, that cannot be good, sacks are one of those loser stats.

You'd have to check with Brady and Belichick, since I was merely quoting them and passing along their line of thinking. Which I think is known, to everyone, anyways. Common knowledge that Belichick is famous for saying "stats are for losers". Not what I said, but what he publicly said.

Sacks, especially as an individual statistic, are overrated. My opinion, it's shared by others much smarter than I. You can find many coaches, GMs, scouts and players (including the player with the 'official' single season sack record, Strahan) saying that sacks are overrated.

No one said anything about sack yards?

Personally, I'd take Brady over Brian Burke but to each is their own.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

"Stats don't matter" and "Stats are for losers." Ok, got it. I need to stay away from these horrible things that sow confusion in weak minds (media types who ask all those dumb questions).

But wait, the above absolutist statement is later qualified (can an absolutist statement be qualified?---I guess so)---stats that are correlated with winning are good stats. Ok, got it. Stay away from the loser stats but greet with open arms winner stats. I can do that.

Looked up some old Brian Burke and find pass yards per attempt has a very high correlation with winning. Hallelujah, a winner stat. But wait, Burke goes on to say that including sack yards in the stat makes the correlation with winning even higher. Oh, that cannot be good, sacks are one of those loser stats.

If you're a studio head in Hollywood, box office matters. Theme, character, and symbolism don't matter. If you're a film critic, they matter, and box office doesn't.

If you're Bill Belichick, stats don't matter. "They're for losers" is understandable. Game film matters. Wins matter. If you're, say, Aaron Schatz, stats matter. That's your job.

I don't understand how this is controversial.

[Reaser]

If you're a studio head in Hollywood, box office matters. Theme, character, and symbolism don't matter. If you're a film critic, they matter, and box office doesn't.

If you're Bill Belichick, stats don't matter. "They're for losers" is understandable. Game film matters. Wins matter. If you're, say, Aaron Schatz, stats matter. That's your job.

I don't understand how this is controversial.

I see it as you simply applying common sense (too few do that in the world these days, on really any topic), but you're on a roll lately! Throughout this thread.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

If you're a studio head in Hollywood, box office matters. Theme, character, and symbolism don't matter. If you're a film critic, they matter, and box office doesn't.

If you're Bill Belichick, stats don't matter. "They're for losers" is understandable. Game film matters. Wins matter. If you're, say, Aaron Schatz, stats matter. That's your job.

I don't understand how this is controversial.

I see it as you simply applying common sense (too few do that in the world these days, on really any topic), but you're on a roll lately! Throughout this thread.

I have often been told that my ability to state the obvious is my greatest strength!

[mwald]

I don't understand how this is controversial.

I don't know that it is controversial, just misleading. The problem I have with guys like Burke and Aaron Schatz (not personally, just the approach) or most of the analytics guys is they are backwards looking.

They won't say that, though. In general, they say they crunch numbers to better understand how and why teams win. But you almost never see them make forecasts based on their numbers. Why? Because they've done it in private and get middling results. How do I know? Because I've crunched numbers to make forecasts on games that haven't been played and got middling results. Are there people that can crunch numbers better than me? I'm sure there are. Just like I know I can crunch them better than some others. AND...because guys that DO publish forecasts based on their numbers (like FiveThirtyEight with their ELO ratings) have middling results, basically coin-flip material. For most of the analytics crowd, it's just safer to stick with WHAT HAPPENED rather than WHAT WILL HAPPEN. You can't be proven wrong, especially when saying things like "regression analysis" makes you sound so right.

So it's his (or their) job, sure. There's a big analytics industry around football now because we live in the age of big data. And on some level, that's great. Anything that can thrive around the game reflects the health and popularity of the game. But that doesn't make it particularly relevant.

I view the numbers guys as dudes who can play up and down the frets all day on guitar but never manage to write a song anyone will play five years from now.

[BernardB]

"Stats don't matter" and "Stats are for losers." Ok, got it. I need to stay away from these horrible things that sow confusion in weak minds (media types who ask all those dumb questions).

But wait, the above absolutist statement is later qualified (can an absolutist statement be qualified?---I guess so)---stats that are correlated with winning are good stats. Ok, got it. Stay away from the loser stats but greet with open arms winner stats. I can do that.

Looked up some old Brian Burke and find pass yards per attempt has a very high correlation with winning. Hallelujah, a winner stat. But wait, Burke goes on to say that including sack yards in the stat makes the correlation with winning even higher. Oh, that cannot be good, sacks are one of those loser stats.

You'd have to check with Brady and Belichick, since I was merely quoting them and passing along their line of thinking. Which I think is known, to everyone, anyways. Common knowledge that Belichick is famous for saying "stats are for losers". Not what I said, but what he publicly said.

Sacks, especially as an individual statistic, are overrated. My opinion, it's shared by others much smarter than I. You can find many coaches, GMs, scouts and players (including the player with the 'official' single season sack record, Strahan) saying that sacks are overrated.

No one said anything about sack yards?

Personally, I'd take Brady over Brian Burke but to each is their own.

Strikes me as a little disingenuous on your part to cherry pick a quote like that and then say "hey, I didn't say it;" no you just quoted it in a different context.

Belichick, unless I misremember, read an economic journal article by David Romer, which to some extent, contributed to his being more aggressive on 4th down. The notion that Belichick is a statistical luddite, which your use of "stats are for losers" implies cannot be taken seriously. Oh, wait, he only uses winner stats.

[Reaser]

Strikes me as a little disingenuous on your part to cherry pick a quote like that and then say "hey, I didn't say it;" no you just quoted it in a different context.

Belichick, unless I misremember, read an economic journal article by David Romer, which to some extent, contributed to his being more aggressive on 4th down. The notion that Belichick is a statistical luddite, which your use of "stats are for losers" implies cannot be taken seriously. Oh, wait, he only uses winner stats.

It was in the context of wondering if that's solely where Brady's line of thinking comes from. Which I believe was pretty clearly stated. It was pondering whether Brady's view on stats (they aren't important to him, as he's said) was purely a product of Belichick or if Brady would think stats don't matter anyways. Since this thread is about Brady and stats. I don't know the answer, which is why it clearly stated: "One could wonder if he's got that from Belichick" ...

How you choose to interpret it is your choice. Clearly you think stats are important and want to defend stats because stats explain football to you. Good for you, and have fun with that.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

I appreciate that straw burns brightest when it's placed at the extremities, but there is a middle ground. Nobody suggested Belichick was a statistical luddite. Here's the relevant passage from the story:

Moss came under fire when he finished Sunday's game with just one catch and appeared to be a bit unfocused, prompting criticism that he was running lazy routes and giving up on plays.
Was it a bad effort or just a bad game? Belichick chooses to believe the latter.
"Everybody can't have high stats every week," he told the Web site. "It's impossible. We can always pick out somebody and say, 'What happened to them?'"
The coach made it clear that nobody will ever catch him evaluating his players based on their single-game stats.
"Stats are for losers," Belichick said. "The final score is for winners."
And Belichick has one more thing to say to the Panthers:
"That's a lot of conversation coming from a team that just lost another game."

It's pretty obvious what his position is. You might as well ask him about how they only rushed for 16 yards against the Jets.