Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
By Far: Our Weakest Position
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 517256"><p>Speak for yourself. And maybe for the writer of the story.</p><p></p><p>My initial reaction was, "how is it possible to account for wind speed?" If it's running north/south between the goal posts it helps, not hurts, provided the coach doesn't have his head up his a**. Gusting winds, and particularly swirling winds, are the real problems.</p><p></p><p>Then we have the statement: "[The MIT research paper] weighs each attempt based on its level of difficulty. Distance, weather, environment, altitude and other factors are included." My thought was "oh no, not another PFF-style tape review loaded with subjective unknows."</p><p></p><p>So, how about we actually look at the research paper? Did you do that?</p><p></p><p>1. First, this research cut off at 2011. Crosby's 2012 stats are NOT included. A big "whoops!" goes to the writer of the piece for not mentioning this important fact.</p><p></p><p>2. "Prior to statistical analysis most raw continuous explanatory variables (e.g., temperature in °F)</p><p>were converted into reasonable categorical variables (e.g., cold: < 50°F; warm: ≥ 50°F). This reduces model</p><p>complexity and improves ease of interpretation."</p><p></p><p>That assumption may make the job easier, but it's likely false because 40 degrees, for example, is not particularly unfavorable. Crosby will have more kicks in the 35 - 50 degree range than most kickers giving him an advantage over warm weather/dome kickers in the adjusted stats because of a false temperature bias.</p><p></p><p>These researchers had already cited prior research that the drop off in make percents is significant below 30 degrees vs. above 50 degrees. For anybody who has kicked a football, that prior research makes sense...kicking a ball in below freezing temps is WAY harder than kicking at 50 degrees, while kicking at 50 degrees is just a LITTLE harder than at 70 degrees. The way the researches considered temperature has in it an imbedded bias toward outdoor northern kickers...many November and December kicks in Green Bay take place in the 32 - 50 degree range, which is not particularly disadvantageous. The writers of the paper promise an explanation of their rationale in the appendix. It's vague and makes no effort to explain why their data is better than the prior research.</p><p></p><p>3. Lets look at wind. They cite earlier research that concluded there is too much noise in the data to draw conclusions. That makes sense. Checking historical data for wind speed at kickoff tells you nothing...wind can help or it can hurt...you'd have to evaluate how the goal post flags are moving before and during each the kick. Few have access to that kind of tape, and no bonafide statistician would take the time to study it because the conclusion on each kick is subjective.</p><p></p><p>But these guys went ahead and "studied" wind anyway. What did they find? Rather than rightly conclude that wind affects can't be measured in any practical way, they conclude (Appendix Figure A.3) that wind has virtually no affect! Wrong. Like I said, on average it balances out (sometimes it helps, sometimes it hurts), but to present it as non-factor is a false conclusion.</p><p></p><p>4. Here are the environmental factors they looked at in the order of affect (see Appendix):</p><p></p><p>- Altitude: Denver against the rest of the NFL. A non-factor for Crosby when measured against the other 3o teams.</p><p>- Temperature: I've covered why I think their criteria are bogus</p><p>- Field Surface: Artificial turf vs. everything else. How did they categorize Lambeau's hybrid surface, which happens to be a very good kicking surface, which coincidentally was installed for 2007, Crosby's rookie year? This is not detailed.</p><p>- Precipitation</p><p>- Wind (which I've already explained can't be measured in any practical way)</p><p></p><p>There are enough dubious assumptions in this report by idle mathematicians, perhaps stuck on campus during spring break, to question it's conclusions.</p><p></p><p>In short, I'll take basic stats combined with eye tests over dubious stats which nobody looks into past the media summary.</p><p></p><p>I maintain, adjusted for environmental conditions, Crosby's career record is about average and he was therefore overpaid prior to his pay cut. Combined with the fact he was coming off a dreadful slump (to repeat, 2012 was not included in this study), to think he should be replaced was sound thinking. TT took the middle road...cut his pay...which is better than doing nothing.</p><p></p><p>Evidence indicates he's a streaky, fair weather kicker. Let's hope there are no clutch kicks coming down the road in the final weeks of the season.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 517256"] Speak for yourself. And maybe for the writer of the story. My initial reaction was, "how is it possible to account for wind speed?" If it's running north/south between the goal posts it helps, not hurts, provided the coach doesn't have his head up his a**. Gusting winds, and particularly swirling winds, are the real problems. Then we have the statement: "[The MIT research paper] weighs each attempt based on its level of difficulty. Distance, weather, environment, altitude and other factors are included." My thought was "oh no, not another PFF-style tape review loaded with subjective unknows." So, how about we actually look at the research paper? Did you do that? 1. First, this research cut off at 2011. Crosby's 2012 stats are NOT included. A big "whoops!" goes to the writer of the piece for not mentioning this important fact. 2. "Prior to statistical analysis most raw continuous explanatory variables (e.g., temperature in °F) were converted into reasonable categorical variables (e.g., cold: < 50°F; warm: ≥ 50°F). This reduces model complexity and improves ease of interpretation." That assumption may make the job easier, but it's likely false because 40 degrees, for example, is not particularly unfavorable. Crosby will have more kicks in the 35 - 50 degree range than most kickers giving him an advantage over warm weather/dome kickers in the adjusted stats because of a false temperature bias. These researchers had already cited prior research that the drop off in make percents is significant below 30 degrees vs. above 50 degrees. For anybody who has kicked a football, that prior research makes sense...kicking a ball in below freezing temps is WAY harder than kicking at 50 degrees, while kicking at 50 degrees is just a LITTLE harder than at 70 degrees. The way the researches considered temperature has in it an imbedded bias toward outdoor northern kickers...many November and December kicks in Green Bay take place in the 32 - 50 degree range, which is not particularly disadvantageous. The writers of the paper promise an explanation of their rationale in the appendix. It's vague and makes no effort to explain why their data is better than the prior research. 3. Lets look at wind. They cite earlier research that concluded there is too much noise in the data to draw conclusions. That makes sense. Checking historical data for wind speed at kickoff tells you nothing...wind can help or it can hurt...you'd have to evaluate how the goal post flags are moving before and during each the kick. Few have access to that kind of tape, and no bonafide statistician would take the time to study it because the conclusion on each kick is subjective. But these guys went ahead and "studied" wind anyway. What did they find? Rather than rightly conclude that wind affects can't be measured in any practical way, they conclude (Appendix Figure A.3) that wind has virtually no affect! Wrong. Like I said, on average it balances out (sometimes it helps, sometimes it hurts), but to present it as non-factor is a false conclusion. 4. Here are the environmental factors they looked at in the order of affect (see Appendix): - Altitude: Denver against the rest of the NFL. A non-factor for Crosby when measured against the other 3o teams. - Temperature: I've covered why I think their criteria are bogus - Field Surface: Artificial turf vs. everything else. How did they categorize Lambeau's hybrid surface, which happens to be a very good kicking surface, which coincidentally was installed for 2007, Crosby's rookie year? This is not detailed. - Precipitation - Wind (which I've already explained can't be measured in any practical way) There are enough dubious assumptions in this report by idle mathematicians, perhaps stuck on campus during spring break, to question it's conclusions. In short, I'll take basic stats combined with eye tests over dubious stats which nobody looks into past the media summary. I maintain, adjusted for environmental conditions, Crosby's career record is about average and he was therefore overpaid prior to his pay cut. Combined with the fact he was coming off a dreadful slump (to repeat, 2012 was not included in this study), to think he should be replaced was sound thinking. TT took the middle road...cut his pay...which is better than doing nothing. Evidence indicates he's a streaky, fair weather kicker. Let's hope there are no clutch kicks coming down the road in the final weeks of the season. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
tynimiller
Latest posts
G
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: GleefulGary
Today at 3:30 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 1st Rd pick #25 Jorden Morgan OL
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 3:00 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 2:51 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: rmontro
Today at 2:03 AM
Draft Talk
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: AKCheese
Today at 12:51 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
By Far: Our Weakest Position
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top