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
Projecting 2015 season
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: 612265"><p>Not giving some additional weight to INTs is a distortion to some degree. I agree that a team level in any particular game, especially in the playoffs, leaning on ball hawking is a dubious proposition. But over the course of a season and when looking at individual players, INTs should factor in some way, otherwise the value associated with ball skills is diminished. There's the old saw that says some DBs became DBs and not wide receivers because they have bad hands. We see that when a DB drops a ball thrown right at him, a not so uncommon occurrence. (It seems more notable with LBs, but that's another story). TDs surrendered are not considered either, which seems counter intuitive. </p><p></p><p>There's an interesting caveat in this piece that goes to a point not previously discussed:</p><p></p><p>"We also report the number of targets that each cornerback faced, as well as a metric we call "estimated target percentage." This stat uses snap counts to estimate what percentage of possible targets were thrown at this player when he was on the field. The "possible targets" part of that metric <strong>leaves out</strong> the passes noted in the previous paragraph, as well as<strong> those passes listed with "Uncovered" or "Blown Coverage,</strong>" though the total of possible targets <strong>does include "Hole in Zone" passes.</strong></p><p></p><p>Uncovered and blown coverage passes are sensibly omitted if responsibility cannot be assigned according to the eye test. One would hope other purveyors of analytics take the same conservative approach, and don't just make a guess and force a responsibility. But somebody on the field usually often is to blame, even if it's impossible to tell without knowing the defensive call, acknowledging that at times the problem is the call, no the players. To some degree, players who more frequently blow an assignment so badly he can't be assigned blame will get away with a better rating than those that don't.</p><p></p><p>This also begs the question of how "hole in zone" passes are assigned responsibility whereas it is not with uncovered and blown coverage throws. That's a fine line. There are surely guys who are better in man than in zone; one supposes the argument for including "hole in zone" throws would not reflect a guy's weakness in zone. Nonetheless, there is a question here that goes to consistency and reliability in the stats based on the one analyst's "eye of the beholder" calls compared to another's when judging responsibility in zone.</p><p></p><p>One thing I like particularly in this approach is counting pass interference throws against the DB. Too much NFL data omits penalties.</p><p></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 612265"] Not giving some additional weight to INTs is a distortion to some degree. I agree that a team level in any particular game, especially in the playoffs, leaning on ball hawking is a dubious proposition. But over the course of a season and when looking at individual players, INTs should factor in some way, otherwise the value associated with ball skills is diminished. There's the old saw that says some DBs became DBs and not wide receivers because they have bad hands. We see that when a DB drops a ball thrown right at him, a not so uncommon occurrence. (It seems more notable with LBs, but that's another story). TDs surrendered are not considered either, which seems counter intuitive. There's an interesting caveat in this piece that goes to a point not previously discussed: "We also report the number of targets that each cornerback faced, as well as a metric we call "estimated target percentage." This stat uses snap counts to estimate what percentage of possible targets were thrown at this player when he was on the field. The "possible targets" part of that metric [B]leaves out[/B] the passes noted in the previous paragraph, as well as[B] those passes listed with "Uncovered" or "Blown Coverage,[/B]" though the total of possible targets [B]does include "Hole in Zone" passes.[/B] Uncovered and blown coverage passes are sensibly omitted if responsibility cannot be assigned according to the eye test. One would hope other purveyors of analytics take the same conservative approach, and don't just make a guess and force a responsibility. But somebody on the field usually often is to blame, even if it's impossible to tell without knowing the defensive call, acknowledging that at times the problem is the call, no the players. To some degree, players who more frequently blow an assignment so badly he can't be assigned blame will get away with a better rating than those that don't. This also begs the question of how "hole in zone" passes are assigned responsibility whereas it is not with uncovered and blown coverage throws. That's a fine line. There are surely guys who are better in man than in zone; one supposes the argument for including "hole in zone" throws would not reflect a guy's weakness in zone. Nonetheless, there is a question here that goes to consistency and reliability in the stats based on the one analyst's "eye of the beholder" calls compared to another's when judging responsibility in zone. One thing I like particularly in this approach is counting pass interference throws against the DB. Too much NFL data omits penalties. [B][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
First Round Pick #23 - Matthew Golden WR - Texas
Latest: gopkrs
Yesterday at 10:41 PM
Draft Talk
2025 NFL Schedule Release
Latest: Calebs Revenge
Yesterday at 10:20 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Isaiah Simmons is COMING
Latest: Calebs Revenge
Yesterday at 7:48 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
NFC North Predictions
Latest: Calebs Revenge
Yesterday at 6:12 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Da Bears new head coach!!!!!
Latest: Calebs Revenge
Yesterday at 4:42 PM
NFL Discussions
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Projecting 2015 season
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
