User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6645 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The long dropped TD was thrown very short. Jackson had to basically stop and let the defenders reach him after he had run through them. That's mostly Young's fault.
You mean the one that went through his hands?
Anyways, that's not the one that irks Eagles fans the most, it's the alligator arms later in the game that killed any chance of him returning to our good graces.
Mike Francesa's theory on this is that Tebow is so inaccurate that he doesn't throw interceptions.
I haven't been watching enough to know whether there is merit in this. But I guess the theory is that if your receiver is at 10 o'clock and you misfire and throw it to 11 o'clock (the typical bad QB), it's going to get picked off. But if you misfire and throw it to 2 o'clock (Tebow), there's no defender there to intercept it.
Certainly a qb who throws less than the league norm offers fewer chances for interceptions. But the notion that a quarterback can avoid being representative of what we know to be the minimal turnover rate is just silly.
The interceptions will come. Just ask Michael Vick how things turned out over the latter part of 2010 and early 2011.
The examples are many.
Yesterday he sat on the ball with 30 seconds to go in regulation, content to go to OT instead of trying to get into FG range. And I think he was at his own 40; it's not like he was pinned on his own 5.
There are some really good NFL coaches -- the talent distribution for NFL head coaches is MUCH wider than the talent distribution for MLB managers -- but there are too many bad coaches who don't understand the value of a possession. It's one thing to sit on the ball heading into halftime -- that is stupid and drives me crazy -- but sitting on the ball heading into OT rises the incompetence to unfathomable heights.
There was also a team yesterday that punted on the opposing team's 40. It may have been Norv. I don't see the upside there, compared to just going for it on 4th down.
Again, Jackson had his defenders beat and had given his QB the opportunity for an easy big score. Instead, Young made it difficult by waiting such that Jackson didn't get the ball until he had stopped and was surrounded by defenders. Yes, none of the defenders actually got their hands on the ball, but they were there. Young needed to deliver his receiver the ball without all the traffic. The catch should still have been made, but ignoring the fact that Young made it that much harder is ridiculous.
I tend to agree, but considering that Jackson has done other things to consciously protect (and in other cases harm) his FA value, it can't be easily written off.
Maybe I blacked out while typing it but I don't believe you saw me excuse Young for that throw.
But I do become concerned when folks appear to be propagating the notion that a qb can consistently generate an extremely low interception rate. That belief has been disproven several times.
You're the one who said he was "considerably better" than Orton, and an "average QB". If you want to lump him in with Orton/Cassel/Grossmann/Henne and other assorted game managers, go right ahead.
I believe that's probably true, which is why I've tried to confine my remarks to how Tebow has played, rather than as an assessment of how good he'll be in the future. I've said he's done a decent job managing the Bronco offense this year, performing about at an average level of quarterback. I think both of those should be pretty non-controversial, and certainly far less ridiculous than a remark about the hilarity of him starting at QB in the NFL.
And you're the one who specifically took exception to my comment that he's done a decent job managing the Broncos offense. If you want to try to pretend otherwise, go right ahead.
I think he's played better than Orton did. You want to quibble over what constitutes considerably, knock yourself out.
It has, but Denver's offense is just so different that this could be an outlier.
As has been said before, the real test will be next season though, after teams have all off-season to evaluate film on the Broncos. The Wildcat worked great in 2008, okay in 2009, and then was nothing more than an occasional gimmick in 2010 and is now essentially out of the league. Surprise surprise, teams adjust when you give them more time to evaluate.
Interception rate is interception rate. The actual number of interceptions will be lower given fewer passes. But the interceptions will happen.
He's thrown one INT in 143 passes this year, and he certainly won't keep that up. But I wouldn't be surprised if his INT rate stays fairly low throughout his career.
I am fine with folks stating his rate will be low relative to the league. But he is highly unlikely to be some special outlier.
Too many elements beyond his control. Passes are tipped. Receivers fall down. Weather issues.
Unless, of course, folks really are going to claim some divine intervention.
P.S.
And really, does anyone REALLY believe that Tebow is any more concerned about interceptions than any qb NOT named Favre? Really? Tim Tebow takes EXTRA SPECIAL CARE?
I really find that hard to believe.
There was also the Jets game a few weeks ago; they ran the worst 2 minute drill I've ever seen to end the game. No urgency, throwing the ball over the middle for 5 yard gains, etc. I understand Norv isn't the QB, so he wasn't throwing the ball, but I have to think the coach has some influence there.
Didn't he also call a TO, then challenge a play, which he lost, burning 2 time outs?
Not if the game is being played differently than everyone else. For example if you had a team throwing an incredibly high percentage of screen passes, you would have a very low interception rate.
In Tebow's case, as Tom says, if the receiver isn't open he'll just tuck it and run. FWIW his INT rate in college was 1.6%.
Offensive points per game:
Orton: 21
Tebow: 19.3
Tebow's average is slightly skewed by the two overtime games. In regulation, it's Orton 21, Tebow 18.3.
Even better.
Unlikely. But once the data set fleshes out we will find out what is and is not.
And you base this on what exactly? Yes, a 0.7 interception percentage is likely unsustainable. Things like tipped balls and receivers falling down happen to anyone. If he attempts 20 passes next week and throws 2 INTs, he'll be at 1.8%, which is Aaron Rodgers' career rate (and is also Tebow's right now).
You're only looking at outcomes, you have to look at the process that gets you there. If Tebow is only throwing passes where the chances of an INT are slim, he's of course going to have a low percentage of INTs.
And a sub 1.0 INT percentage for a season has happened before.
I am not speaking to a single season.
And I already granted that he may well be at the lower end of the curve for INT rate.
But I have a lot of doubt he will not be some special case.
Right now we don't have enough games to know anything. It's all conjecture.
We shall see.
Yeah, that move drove me crazy, but only because I have Vincent Jackson on my fantasy team. If I was an actual Chargers fan I would have been throwing things at the TV.
What is sad is that Norv will probably get another head coaching job despite repeated demonstrations that he is not a good coach.
And I already spoke to the Brady season. And others like it. Sure they happen.
I took exception to you calling him an average quarterback, and I still do, and have offered plenty of data to support that. He is comfortably outside of the top 20 by any reasonable metric that isn't "count the W's!!!".
You want to quibble over what constitutes comfortably, knock yourself out.
The offense has been on the field basically one possession more a game but that has more to do with the defense stiffening up over the last 6 games and the defense creating turnovers. Despite having a few more minutes and not coughing the ball up as much as Orton did or as the team did overall in Orton's starts Tebow's offense is scoring less points and simply doing less. They went 5-1 for the most part because of their defense and believe the defense scored two TD off interceptions and set the Broncos up with great field position numerous times during his starts. Give Tebow Orton's defense and they wouldn't really be better over those 4 games.
Then you might want to consider quoting the post you actually object to, rather than the one where I said he did a decent job managing the offense. Consider this an opportunity... (-:
And, of course, I still disagree. I think, all things considered, he's a played as an average quarterback. Whether he is one or if he's playing above his head remains to be seen.
He's 19th* in passer rating (well, he would be if he qualified). I'm sure it's not the best metric, but it isn't Count the Ws either.
* Rather than just include Tebow, I also counted John Skelton, who rates ahead of him but has thrown half as many passes.
I did specifically quote average quarterback from you. I didn't put it in quote tags, because I wanted to use it in a sentence. But there are quotation marks round it and everything...
And Skip Schumaker led MLB last year in SO/9, doesn't make him a good pitcher.
Not in the post that started the debate. I could provide a link for you, but it's on the previous page so it shouldn't be hard to find.
If he doesn't qualify under the passer rating metric, then he doesn't qualify under any of them.
As it is, I included a guy who has thrown half as many passes as him as rating above him in the metric, just to avoid any kind of assertion of cherry picking. But if you're going to drop a Skip Schumaker, I guess trying to engage in an honest argument with you was a waste of my time.
True. But it does contain an explanation as to why QBR is not a good metric to evaluate Tebow with, which is why I didn't feel like repeating myself when you brought it up. Maybe you should go back and reread it.
The best analogue is McNabb. From 2000 through 2009, McNabb qualified for the QB Rating leader in nine seasons. In those seasons, his interception rate was always between 1.5 and 2.4 percent, inclusive. (His one short season, he had a 2.5 interception percentage.) He was in the top 6 in the NFL in fewest interceptions 8 of those 9 seasons, and 8th in the other one. I don't know what Harvey's is picturing, but I'd call him a reliably low-turnover quarterback.
I think McNabb has always been the blueprint for Tebow. Make up for your general inaccuracy by throwing a good deep ball and taking no chances on short and medium stuff. McNabb didn't throw timing patterns and back shoulder stuff like the elite QBs, and he was famous for missing low on short throws, but the plus side of all that was he was pretty turnover proof. Also, because of his mobility, he could fall back to scrambling when pressured, rather than putting up a risky pass. I don't know if Tebow will be as accurate deep as McNabb was, but his career has taken the interesting turn in that his rushing is being actively encouraged, rather than discouraged as it was for Donovan.
I don't think Harveys was suggesting that guys can't be low-INT QBs. Only that there is a threshold INT rate, and numbers below that simply can't be sustained. Both those positions seem pretty reasonable.
Against Oakland last week, yes he did.
One the game? Cook you are illiterate.
I'm rooting for the Saints, but I feel bad for Scott.
And their team rankings are out, and they talk specifically about Denver. They say the defense hasn't really improved.
Their formula seems to have KC having just a good a chance (31%) as the Bears (33%) and the Lions (32%) have of beating the Packers. I wonder why there's such an odd result. They only thing that makes sense is that they think the Packers have a significantly greater chance of pulling Rodgers in the last two games than in the game against KC.
I'd feel a lot cockier about this line in the piece:
Denver's offense has improved more than Denver's defense, and the biggest reason for the improvement really is Tim Tebow.
If it didn't come just a few inches below this:
Team Rank
HOU 1
GB 2
Do they have a significant talent gap between the conferences? That would go some of the way (besides HFA) toward answering your question and mine about the rankings of the top two teams.
The NFC has won 3 more games than the AFC, but I'm not sure what it would be after adjusting for scheduling. Certainly not enough to outweigh the vast difference between KC (DVOA of -23.7%) and the Bears (21.9%) and Lions (9.3%).
KC is the only road game for Green Bay among those three.
They must have one hell of a home field advantage in that formula.
The 1996 Packers had a differential of 456-200 for the season. GB has already surrendered more points in 11 games than that squad.
Sure this Packer scores more often but I am more impressed by a team that holds opponents to 12.5 games than 20. And though today's rules favor offense the 1996 team seems better to me. And the 1996 had better special teams though 2011 are pretty good.
Anyway, while I get everyone's numbers fundamentally I see this Packer team as having been a bit fortunate that things have fallen in place for an undefeated season to date. The numbers and talent base don't support that level of success.
13-3? Sure.
Quibbling? Sure
Just giving my two cents.
Is that metric supposed to suggest that a replacement level NFL QB would have run for over 100 yards if you gave him the carries that Tebow got last Sunday? Because if that is the claim, it seems pretty ridiculous.
I'm pretty skeptical of the value of statistical analysis with respect to individual players in the NFL context and I would think it's very hard to compare Tebow's rushing skills versus his peers because the number of NFL QBs who have run the plays that he is running (in the last 40 years) can be counted on one hand. My sense of that DYAR number is that it is treating Tebow's runs as though they were like the majority of NFL QB runs which tend to be on busted plays and probably- because of the way sacks are treated- have a higher average than running plays from a regular back (though I'm just guessing here.) Does anyone have a better understanding as to how that rushing DYAR number is being calculated?
BenJarvus Green-Ellis says hello.
Here's their explanation, although it's not much of an explanation.
If they're more talented than other teams on both sides of the ball, wouldn't more possessions be more likely to result in a win?
Without wading through that whole thing, I take it he's actually being compared to all runners.
It is worth noting that's it's above average rather than above replacement.
I wouldn't necessarily argue with any of that. But taking all that into account, I can't agree with a system that has them ranked below Houston.
I don't think we have a representative sample of undefeated teams to argue what is and what isn't the correct point differential for an undefeated team. But it's not like they're sluggish in point differential. At their pace, they would be third best since 2000 - 2007 Patriots and 2001 Rams are better (Rams by 6 points, Patriots by 90+). Both lost the Super Bowl.
You could ask at the site. Or email Aaron Schatz, he always seemed like a nice guy to me, he'll probably answer.
What it comes down to is whether or not you believe Green Bay has the 26th best defense in the league.
It's not quite like WAR -- Tebow fumbled, for example, and that's probably worth -30 DYAR right there. In addition it's defense-adjusted, and they have San Diego as the #30 defense in the country. Note that he had 67 yards on 22 carries. Against an average defense, he'd have what, 30 yards? On 22 carries? That sounds sub-replacement to me.
The system puts a lot of value on getting first downs, converting third downs, and avoiding negative yardage plays, and Tebow did poorly on all those metrics. On the other hand, it does seem to have helped Denver running backs, so you have to consider the entirety of the team context.
No, it's above replacement. DVOA is value above average.
That's not entirely clear.
The QBR formula also puts a ton of value on not throwing interceptions.
I really haven't looked at much of the research that drives advanced stats in football, but the more I think about it, the more DVOA seems like WPA: very context dependent and much more concerned with telling us what happened, not giving us an idea of what will happen in the future.
Brees did throw 22 picks last year.
------
Not really. It used to be DPAR ("P" = points), which was less confusing, since you couldn't compare it to actual yardage.
(For this exercise, I'll ignore the "D" in DYAR, which stands for "defense-adjusted".)
Someone mentioned the fumble. Turnovers are worth something like -45 yards (this goes back to The Hidden Game of Football, and studies by Burke at Advanced NFL Stats and by guys on the P-F-R blog have come up with similar figures). Fumble recoveries are 50/50, so Tebow's counts as roughly -22.5 "value" yards.
Tebow had 67 raw rushing yards. Subtract the 22.5, you're at 43.5 total. He accumulated that on 22 carries. That's slightly less than two yards of value per carry.
Now, since Tebow had -41 (D)YAR, FO is saying a replacement QB, on 22 carries, would have 84.5 yards (provided he did not fumble). This seems to make sense; that's still less than four yards per carry.
Bringing the "D" back into it, the Chargers (Tebow's opponent) have a poor rushing defense (2.8% DVOA, or 2.8% worse than an average run defense, 22nd in the league). So FO isn't even saying that a replacement, against an average defense, would have 84.5 yards.
------
With regards to the Packers' unexpectedly low DVOA rating and ranking -
FO's numbers often under-predict wins for teams with truly elite QBs (the individual QB stats are pretty accurate, though). The Manning-led Colts consistently outperformed their DVOA-derived expected wins (along with their Pythagorean wins). It's likely that, due to the time-management aspect of football, a great QB can be worth more raw wins than statistics would suggest.
Brees made some mind boggling bad decisions for a QB of his level last year. Just in Falcons games alone he was making throws that rookies make, such as chucking the ball down the middle of the field as you are falling forward trying to escape a sack.
Whoops. Thanks.
But how do you know that? If the numbers don't add up at the team level, why do you trust them at the individual level?
It's similar to the problem I have with WAR in baseball. (Well, one of the problems.) If WAR had more than a nodding acquaintance with actual team wins, I'd be much more inclined to trust it at the player level.
No. I would place them behind GB, NE, Pitt, NO and would have to think about a few others. They have a great run game but there are real questions about Schaub in big games and their passing game, even with a healthy Johnson, lacks depth.
They have beaten very few good teams.
it doesn't invalidate the accuracy of their system, although this year has caused me to question it more and more. I'll say this: If this was the first year of DVOA, and they were forced to try to convince people that the Jets were almost as good as the Packers and Patriots, I think their audience would be roughly nil.
They can't move the ball. I don't even blame Sanchez; the offensive gameplan is so conservative that he doesn't get a chance to move the ball. They won't let him throw downfield much. So he hasn't really mastered that part of the game, which means that when they're trailing late and he needs to throw downfield, it's difficult for him, AND he has to deal with prevent defenses and such.
So much of football in the NFL is gameplan. So much of it is. And I don't mean specific play calls but overall playcalling strategy (how often you throw and whether you spread out the offense and pass deep, etc.) which the head coach dictates. I would say that the head coach has at least 50% effect on the outcome of the game, equivalent to the players, just by virtue of dictating the overall strategy on offense and how conservative it is.
I actually have a theory that most of the players on the field are interchangeable except for the quarterback and elite wide receivers and runningbacks. I think any team with a good quarterback and a good head coach can win with any set of NFL-quality players beneath them. I think Brady and Belichik show this.
Exactly. That's another reason why even the best interception rates regress; all QBs are prone to bad decision-making and having "off" days.
------
Fair point; I meant that individual QB ratings pass the smell test.
As it is, my overall point was that while every component of DVOA (offensive passing, offensive rushing, defensive passing, defensive rushing, special teams, etc.) at least seems accurate, the aggregate tends to underrate teams with elite QBs, at least compared to wins. I think of it as a leverage issue; the final few minutes of a game are extremely high-leverage situations, and a QB's worth becomes much more pronounced.
Perhaps a solution could be to weight offensive passing DVOA more when computing estimated wins. On that front, I sadly do not have the knowledge required to be of much use.
The Pats have top players at left tackle, left guard, nose tackle and middle linebacker, some of the most important positions on the field.
And tight end. They're pretty weak at running back, though.
I don't think it's any coincidence that Ray's non-interchangeable players all have gobs of stats at hand, so we can get a handle on how good they are. If there was a reliable number to measure a center's performance, I think you'd see as much variance as you get at other positions.
Football is won at the point of attack. Win the battle there and you can get by with having mediocre talent at WR, RB and even CB. You need lines that get push, a positive turnover differential, discipline with regards to penalties and good special teams.
This is why the Patriots always draft players who play along the line and rarely draft "skill" people early.
This is why I laugh every time I see Brian Schottenheimer's name mentioned when head coaching gigs open up. He is a bad game planner, bad play caller and Sanchez hasn't developed one bit. That's a trifecta that should get you fired.
I wouldn't even include elite RB. As long as you have 2 capable ones, you're in good shape. The offensive line is more important IMO.
This is a breathtakingly stupid statement. It "makes sense" that a replacement QB would have 84.5 yards on 22 carries? A replacement QB who carried the ball 22 times would (a) never get 84.5 yards unless it was Vick or Newton (b) never last 22 carries without being carried off on a stretcher and (c) does not exist, since the number of other times an NFL QB has carried the ball 22 times in the last 60 years is ZERO.
What a ridiculous statement. It really captures the enormous MoE, the blackboxing, and the flawed "lets fit the stats to match the W-L results" analysis process that makes me just shake my head at how shitty the Football Outsiders analysis is. If I'd trust the advanced stats 80% and the scounts 20% w/r/t a MLB player, and 50/50 with respect to an NBA player, I think the split would be, at best, 10/90 with respect to an NFL player. I fail to see how Football Outsiders has demonstrated any value to what they do beyond a basic eyeballing of schedule and adjusting for turnovers/possessions/attempts.
If I'm running a team, I'd give serious thought to simply running an entirely new group of rookie/second-year running backs through the roster every two years. In general, I'd prefer young legs that haven't been ground down by 16-game schedules.
This works until they get the QB killed or put the ball on the ground. Fresh legs are trumped by a good offensive line and knowing how to play. If you can get fresh legs, too, that's a benefit.
But a replacement RB is not a QB. And Tebow being capable of handling 20 carries matters, because (a) the read option, which in theory should juice the RB's YPC if run correctly, is only viable if the QB is also a reaosnable running threat and (b) a QB can pass - and while Tebow may be below average as a passer, is is off the charts as a passer in the pool of players who can carry the ball for 20 runs in a game.
The problem with football statistical analysis is that there simply isn't enough information available to solve for a player's value quantitatively given all the independent variables that influence results.
I believe that it's almost pointless to try to do this kind of comparison. Today's NFL teams are almost playing a different game than they were just 15 years ago. The current Packers don't have a good defense, but good tough defense has practically been made illegal in the game now.
I sort of agree. I wouldn't go with a whole new stable of RBs every other year, that's overkill. You'd be spending the whole year trying to figure out who's more effective at this, who's more effective at that and so on. You want stability. One way or another you will need to replace a RB every other year or so, so I would just draft one in the 2nd/3rd/4th round alternating years. (There's no need to draft a RB in the 1st round, 2nd round is fine.) RBs are system players and they're the easiest position to plug and play, and in today's NFL the RB position has become pretty devalued.
This is a fair point. But the elite quarterbacks tend to win consistently, year after year, no? Brady? Manning? Rodgers? Montana? Do these elite QBs, once they establish themselves, turn in 3-13 seasons? Rarely if ever.
Do they win because they're an elite QB or do they land with a team ready for an elite QB? It is likely a little of both. Situation is important.
I completely agree, and that makes me pretty sad. I'm not sure we'll ever see the great onces that I grew up with, because that skill set isn't as valued anymore.
That's a little skewed, since Tebow was playing a five-quarter game. Through the end of regulation, he had rushed 16 times. I don't know how to find out how often a QB has carried the ball 16 times over the last 60 years, but I do know that Bobby Douglass once had 19 carries in a game. Michael Vick's career high is 15.
I can't imagine anyone would argue against the value of an elite QB. But the other positions you listed are probably less indispensible. The Colts and Pats have won year after year without elite RBs, and have run out a number of non-elite WRs (and Manning and Brady likely make the ones they have look much better than they really are).
Yes, but the quarterback is obviously the most important position on the field. They shouldn't be lumped in with running backs and wide receivers. Larry Fitzgerald might be the best WR in the game, but he can't keep Arizona from sucking.
I did a P-I search of players with 10+ rushes and 5+ pass attempts in a game and the only people with 16 or more are Tebow, Bobby Douglass twice, Billy Kilmer and AFL journeyman Al Dorow.
In fairness to Schottenheimer, I think Rex Ryan is handcuffing him. I think Ryan has instructed him to run a conservative offense that relies on screen passes and such and doesn't take many shots downfield.
I'm immediately skeptical of head coaches with a defensive-minded background, i.e., who are former defensive coordinators.
(Just learned last week that, I think it's Romeo Crennel, who has been both a defensive coordinator and an offensive coordinator. That impressed me.)
They point out mistakes but it's a team game. If the defensive line sucks then the corner backs get toasted. If the offensive line sucks then there are no holes. Hard to go deeper than what's on the screen without reviewing film.
That might be true initially, but they win year after year, for more than a decade, while everything around them is changing.
Think of how often Brady's team has changed around him. He wins, and turns players into stars (like Welker) simply by utilizing them a lot.
QB ---> LT ---> 4-3DE/RushLinebacker ---> MLB ---> RT and C ---> NT/DT ---> WR ---> 4-3OLB/3-4Ted ---> SS ---> RB ---> G ---> 3-4DE ---> CB ---> FS
All announcers in all sports do this. You never hear an announcer say "this guy has no business in the league" at least not national ones.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main