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
Packers trade Worthy to Pats
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: 564183"><p>So, here's the link to Football Outsider's study:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/2013-adjusted-games-lost" target="_blank">http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/2013-adjusted-games-lost</a></p><p></p><p>One noticeable absence is the definition of "starter", however there are a few clues. First, "This data is only for the regular season." Second, the impact player examples in the opening paragraph were all starters at some time in 2013. I would conclude that players lost before the regular season opening day are not considered because they were never "regular season starters". As evidence, one example that comes to mind is Kevin Kolb. Buffalo signed him as a free agent, and he resided at the top of their depth chart until he fell down and go boom in training camp, evidently ending his career. He never played in 2013; he did not get counted as a lost starter in this study.</p><p></p><p>There are a lot of those guys around the league every year. Bulaga would have added 16 starter games to the Packer list; other teams would have had multiples.</p><p></p><p>Another seeming flaw in the methodology is illustrated in the Packer QB situation specifically cited in the article. In counting Packer QB AGL they cite the use of 4 QBs in the month of November. Really? I count at most two injuries for a total AGL of at most 8.x. Rodgers missed 7.x games and Wallace missed 0.x. Wallace was not coming back as a starter after that "injury" regardless. This data would seem to suggest some bunch of missed starter games accrued to Wallace as the backup that would have been called into service. That highlights the severe limitations of an "empirical" approach to something that requires a heavy dose of subjective adjustment based on detailed knowledge and insight deep into the roster of each team. There may not be a single human being on earth competent to perform that task, but that does not mean that's not where the real "intelligence" rests.</p><p></p><p>A second notable flaw in this methodology is the use of pre-game injury lists to quantify a player effectiveness adjustment. There is no consistency across the league in construction of these lists. Some teams like to load up the list with seemingly every hangnail to keep opponents guessing about who's playing and who isn't; other teams like to keep guys off the list if they're dinged up but expected to play so as not to expose vulnerabilities.</p><p></p><p>Those are just some of the critical flaws based on a few paragraphs of explanation and a few examples off the top of my head. Who knows what other faulty adjustments and assumptions lie beneath if anybody cared to pick through the numbers and compare them to the reality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's ironic you should mention that judgements about the quality of the starters is "nitpicking" since Football Outsides led with examples of guys THEY deem to be of note. That bit of snarkiness aside, of import is the notion that just because the quality of the lost players defies an "empirical" methodology that boils impact down to one number doesn't mean that the quality of the lost players is not immensely important in drawing conclusions. It's not nitpicking; it just defies these simple measurement techniques.</p><p></p><p>In short, taking the measure of any complex factor within a complex system by boiling it down to a single number based on things that can be measured to the exclusion of things that can't is at least inherently questionable and at worst deeply flawed.</p><p></p><p>The fact is I cannot conclude from this study if the Packers won/loss record was more inversely impacted by injury (other than Rodgers') than the average team around the league, and neither should anybody else. Studies such as FO's have the veneer of authority when in fact there are some obvious holes (as illustrated above) and who know how many others that are not so obvious.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I read that, I understand that, I agree with that (hoping we won't get ANY backup play this season). It just isn't inconsistent with my point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There were some things that were observable in the defensive fall off as soon as Rodgers went down without any defensive injuries of import in the immediate aftermath. For instance, the run defense went in the tank immediately. There are plausible explanations how these things are tied together, but that would be a matter for another thread.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Omitting the hiring of McCarthy was neglectful on my part. I like the way he runs things. He's still got some play calling issues but he's gotten better with the passing years and those glaring clock management gaffes have not been evident recently. In matters unrelated to the 3.5 hours between the coin flip and the gun, I have nothing but admiration for how he runs things. We're certainly fortunate to have him.</p><p></p><p>So, Thompson's signature achievements should be amended to (1) securing Rodgers, (2) hiring McCarthy and (3) conservative cap management. I would note that (1) and (2) were early in the regime (and were risky and controversial moves one might add). Leaders feel they can take some big chances when first installed...they'll have time to recover if they're wrong.</p><p></p><p>Thompson's grown to be quite risk averse until something blows up, then he jumps to a fix...the 2012 "all defense" draft (which included "reaches" whether anybody wants to admit it or not); the signing of Peppers (a classic "works on paper" free agent signing, the kind Thompson was previously credited with avoiding); drafting high picks indisputably for need in recent years, protestations to the contrary; the backup QB fiasco of last season after coming very late to the conclusion the guys were not on a sufficient development curve. Vince Young? Really?</p><p></p><p>As for the cap management, it's not clear to what degree that is steered by Thompson or whether Murphy and Ball deserve a large dose of credit. I seem to recall Thompson saying that Murphy gave him the go ahead player-budget-wise to extend Rodgers and Matthews when he did. It strikes me as a collective effort and an organizational philosophy not attributable any one person.</p><p></p><p>Right, I'm not a fan of Thompson; I'm not a hater either. While one can make a career out of a couple of home run decisions early on, I just don't see where he deserves the reputation as a "top 5" or "top 10" GM many choose to ascribe to him given the last few years worth of personnel decisions...less than stellar drafts and lack of value-plumbing in the free agent market.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 564183"] So, here's the link to Football Outsider's study: [url]http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/2013-adjusted-games-lost[/url] One noticeable absence is the definition of "starter", however there are a few clues. First, "This data is only for the regular season." Second, the impact player examples in the opening paragraph were all starters at some time in 2013. I would conclude that players lost before the regular season opening day are not considered because they were never "regular season starters". As evidence, one example that comes to mind is Kevin Kolb. Buffalo signed him as a free agent, and he resided at the top of their depth chart until he fell down and go boom in training camp, evidently ending his career. He never played in 2013; he did not get counted as a lost starter in this study. There are a lot of those guys around the league every year. Bulaga would have added 16 starter games to the Packer list; other teams would have had multiples. Another seeming flaw in the methodology is illustrated in the Packer QB situation specifically cited in the article. In counting Packer QB AGL they cite the use of 4 QBs in the month of November. Really? I count at most two injuries for a total AGL of at most 8.x. Rodgers missed 7.x games and Wallace missed 0.x. Wallace was not coming back as a starter after that "injury" regardless. This data would seem to suggest some bunch of missed starter games accrued to Wallace as the backup that would have been called into service. That highlights the severe limitations of an "empirical" approach to something that requires a heavy dose of subjective adjustment based on detailed knowledge and insight deep into the roster of each team. There may not be a single human being on earth competent to perform that task, but that does not mean that's not where the real "intelligence" rests. A second notable flaw in this methodology is the use of pre-game injury lists to quantify a player effectiveness adjustment. There is no consistency across the league in construction of these lists. Some teams like to load up the list with seemingly every hangnail to keep opponents guessing about who's playing and who isn't; other teams like to keep guys off the list if they're dinged up but expected to play so as not to expose vulnerabilities. Those are just some of the critical flaws based on a few paragraphs of explanation and a few examples off the top of my head. Who knows what other faulty adjustments and assumptions lie beneath if anybody cared to pick through the numbers and compare them to the reality. It's ironic you should mention that judgements about the quality of the starters is "nitpicking" since Football Outsides led with examples of guys THEY deem to be of note. That bit of snarkiness aside, of import is the notion that just because the quality of the lost players defies an "empirical" methodology that boils impact down to one number doesn't mean that the quality of the lost players is not immensely important in drawing conclusions. It's not nitpicking; it just defies these simple measurement techniques. In short, taking the measure of any complex factor within a complex system by boiling it down to a single number based on things that can be measured to the exclusion of things that can't is at least inherently questionable and at worst deeply flawed. The fact is I cannot conclude from this study if the Packers won/loss record was more inversely impacted by injury (other than Rodgers') than the average team around the league, and neither should anybody else. Studies such as FO's have the veneer of authority when in fact there are some obvious holes (as illustrated above) and who know how many others that are not so obvious. I read that, I understand that, I agree with that (hoping we won't get ANY backup play this season). It just isn't inconsistent with my point. There were some things that were observable in the defensive fall off as soon as Rodgers went down without any defensive injuries of import in the immediate aftermath. For instance, the run defense went in the tank immediately. There are plausible explanations how these things are tied together, but that would be a matter for another thread. Omitting the hiring of McCarthy was neglectful on my part. I like the way he runs things. He's still got some play calling issues but he's gotten better with the passing years and those glaring clock management gaffes have not been evident recently. In matters unrelated to the 3.5 hours between the coin flip and the gun, I have nothing but admiration for how he runs things. We're certainly fortunate to have him. So, Thompson's signature achievements should be amended to (1) securing Rodgers, (2) hiring McCarthy and (3) conservative cap management. I would note that (1) and (2) were early in the regime (and were risky and controversial moves one might add). Leaders feel they can take some big chances when first installed...they'll have time to recover if they're wrong. Thompson's grown to be quite risk averse until something blows up, then he jumps to a fix...the 2012 "all defense" draft (which included "reaches" whether anybody wants to admit it or not); the signing of Peppers (a classic "works on paper" free agent signing, the kind Thompson was previously credited with avoiding); drafting high picks indisputably for need in recent years, protestations to the contrary; the backup QB fiasco of last season after coming very late to the conclusion the guys were not on a sufficient development curve. Vince Young? Really? As for the cap management, it's not clear to what degree that is steered by Thompson or whether Murphy and Ball deserve a large dose of credit. I seem to recall Thompson saying that Murphy gave him the go ahead player-budget-wise to extend Rodgers and Matthews when he did. It strikes me as a collective effort and an organizational philosophy not attributable any one person. Right, I'm not a fan of Thompson; I'm not a hater either. While one can make a career out of a couple of home run decisions early on, I just don't see where he deserves the reputation as a "top 5" or "top 10" GM many choose to ascribe to him given the last few years worth of personnel decisions...less than stellar drafts and lack of value-plumbing in the free agent market. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Staff online
Shaggy
Administrator
Members online
Magooch
Firethorn1001
Shaggy
Heyjoe4
Latest posts
H
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
Latest: Heyjoe4
14 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
39 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: Heyjoe4
55 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 2:37 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 2:36 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers trade Worthy to Pats
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
ShaggyAdministrator