DMC Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 hours ago, Kalbear said: No, it's not when a QB gets a pass off; it's measuring what a success is given down and distance. Yeah, you're still fundamentally misunderstanding the metric you yourself brought up, so I'll go slow. Down and distance is one aspect, of course, but you are mistakenly under the impression it's the only aspect of a comprehensive statistic such as DVOA. It's not -- and this would be obvious if you ever constructed an aggregate metric, especially one that intends to set the comparison to a controlled mean. The operative comparison in this discussion concerning Flowers' performance is, obviously, pertaining to individual players' contribution to a team's DVOA score. Context beyond just down and distance is crucial when you are comparing it to the league average. In that respect, you really need to read your own link! Because this is explicitly stated therein: Quote Every single play run in the NFL gets a “success value” based on this system, and then that number gets compared to the average success values of plays in similar situations for all players, adjusted for a number of variables. These include down and distance, field location, time remaining in game, and the team’s lead or deficit in the game score. Teams are always compared to the overall offensive average, as the team made its own choice whether to pass or rush. When it comes to individual players, however, rushing plays are compared to other rushing plays, passing plays to other passing plays, tight ends to tight ends, wideouts to wideouts, and so on. The bolded makes this clear and why I have been comparing Flowers to other wide receivers -- because that's what DVOA itself does! In other words, the expectations in comparison to the baseline average are fundamentally different when the QB is targeting (i.e. gets the pass off) a receiver than it is even if the QB targets a tight end or running back. Let alone if the team runs the ball. The next paragraph further explains: Quote Going back to our example of the three-yard rush, if Player A gains three yards under a set of circumstances in which the average NFL running back gains only one yard, then Player A has a certain amount of value above others at his position. Likewise, if Player B gains three yards on a play on which, under similar circumstances, an average NFL back gains four yards, that Player B has negative value relative to others at his position. Once we make all our adjustments, we can evaluate the difference between this player’s rate of success and the expected success rate of an average running back in the same situation (or between the opposing defense and the average defense in the same situation, etc.). Add up every play by a certain team or player, divide by the total of the various baselines for success in all those situations, and you get VOA, or Value Over Average. The bolded is intuitive from both a conceptual and operational standpoint. If, say, a team gains 400 yards on 40 plays, that's great! But if 350 of them come from passing on 10 plays and 50 of them come from running on 30 plays, then the overall DVOA for that team is going to be generated from the quarterback and his pass catchers, NOT the rushers that could only get 1.7 yards per play. This should be common sense -- let alone explicitly ingrained into the model specification. Does being successful on down and distance, getting first downs, etc. still result in a boost? Sure. But again, not necessarily in relation to the league average. And in relation to the league average when a quarterback throws to a receiver, Flowers' first downs did not indicate a particularly efficient performance. 2 hours ago, Kalbear said: That sort of dink and dunk possession stuff is catnip to DVOA metrics. Again, no, it's not. Just look at the success rate metrics on PFR. 7/13 is not good for a receiver. 2 hours ago, Kalbear said: You normally do not have your best game of the season against a team who is particularly good against that type of player position. It does absolutely matter and is not moving the goalposts to indicate that in the 49er losses the #1 receiver on the other team did better than they normally do - that's the whole point. Sorry, but yes, it totally is moving the goalposts. Your argument was the Niners do not perform well against #1 receivers. And the fact is Flowers did not perform nearly to the quality and efficiency of a #1 receiver. The apparent fact he also didn't throughout the season inherently contradicts your argument and simply suggests the Ravens didn't actually have a #1 receiver! Instead, Flowers is just another receiver who had an above-average game - for him - on Christmas. And getting out of the statistical weeds, this is patently obvious for anyone who watched the game. Flowers' performance is not in any way why the Niners lost that game. Jackson beat the Niners and, more importantly of course, the Niners beat themselves. 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: My point originally was to point out that the 49ers do appear to sometimes have some trouble with #1 receivers. So, this is the other reason your argument is completely absurd. You did this with Purdy too the other week -- you're only looking at the four Niners losses (I'm not counting the Week 18 Rams loss as it was functionally a preseason game). What about, ya know, the 14 Niners wins? Your "analysis" here is the height of selection bias. What about CeeDee Lamb only going 4 for 49 on 5 targets? Or Calvin Ridley only going 2 for 20 on 3 targets? Or Mike Evans going 5 for 43 on 12 targets? Or DK Metcalf going 3 for 32 on 9 targets and 2 for 52 on 5 targets, respectively? Only looking at their losses is an especially lazy and entirely illegitimate way to try and draw conclusions. Arakasi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 9 Author Share Posted February 9 (edited) Just because it never gets old: ETA: I played with a few dudes around this age where parents complained it was unfair. My buddy Jordan was like 6'4 in 7th grade and wrecked everyone in hoops. Edited February 9 by Mr. Chatywin et al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 37 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: Don't forget the shaving cream. Braincase Jace, Big Bass dbunting, and Tylenol Ty run these threads! Stats Dorks gotta go the long way into the Playoffs chat, through the Home tab. Mr. Chatywin et al. and dbunting 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 10 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said: Braincase Jace, Big Bass dbunting, and Tylenol Ty run these threads! Stats Dorks gotta go the long way into the Playoffs chat, through the Home tab. Hm...Colts, Cowboys, Vikings. So, the thread is group counseling? Jace, Extat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 8 minutes ago, DMC said: Hm...Colts, Cowboys, Vikings. So, the thread is group counseling? Mrs. Zorral said you wasn't supposed to talk about that! Our feelings are our friends and our friends feel our feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 13 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said: Mrs. Zorral said you wasn't supposed to talk about that! Our feelings are our friends and our friends feel our feelings. I don't know what this is referring to, but I have all the feels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I don't know, I'm just riffing. Zorral seems the most like a school counselor to me. DMC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbunting Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 hours ago, DMC said: Hm...Colts, Cowboys, Vikings. So, the thread is group counseling? Most fans are in need of it every year Jace, Extat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I think this game will come down to whether the KC DBs can catch balls that hit them in the numbers or right in the facemask. Kalbear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) 16 hours ago, DMC said: Does being successful on down and distance, getting first downs, etc. still result in a boost? Sure. But again, not necessarily in relation to the league average. And in relation to the league average when a quarterback throws to a receiver, Flowers' first downs did not indicate a particularly efficient performance. Again, no, it's not. Just look at the success rate metrics on PFR. 7/13 is not good for a receiver. Going to delete a bunch of this stuff because it's largely in agreement with what I already said - but it doesn't matter, because again DVOA itself said Flowers did well that day. I don't know why you're arguing with them, but that's who you're arguing with. I agree PFR doesn't think Flowers did great, but that still is not the point; the point is that he did better than he does normally. As to dealing with aggregate data and doing data comparison stuff I literally have done this for years. But I don't need to do appealing to expertise; I'm simply reading the articles that DVOA folks wrote about the upcoming matchups. 16 hours ago, DMC said: Sorry, but yes, it totally is moving the goalposts. Your argument was the Niners do not perform well against #1 receivers. I literally stated that sometimes the 49ers don't do well against #1 receivers. Sometimes. You're the one that argued that that was impossible because of a shutdown corner that the 49ers have, which apparently doesn't shut things down all the time. I don't understand how showing how receivers who are the #1 receiver on their team did better against the 49ers than they did on average is indicating anything other than 'sometimes the #1 receiver does better against the 49ers'. To get it back to stats DVOA indicates that the 49ers are largely good against all types of receivers, but not especially good against any of them - over the 2023 season. Unfortunately they don't make that publicly available but it's part of the preview data. 16 hours ago, DMC said: And the fact is Flowers did not perform nearly to the quality and efficiency of a #1 receiver. The apparent fact he also didn't throughout the season inherently contradicts your argument and simply suggests the Ravens didn't actually have a #1 receiver! Instead, Flowers is just another receiver who had an above-average game - for him - on Christmas. And getting out of the statistical weeds, this is patently obvious for anyone who watched the game. Flowers' performance is not in any way why the Niners lost that game. Jackson beat the Niners and, more importantly of course, the Niners beat themselves. I don't see how this makes any sense at all, but I guess if you want to qualify people who aren't very good as not #1 receivers then you probably are going to win a lot of arguments! Similarly, I will say that Brock Purdy is not a #1 QB because he was not drafted in the first round, so any arguments about him being a #1 QB are equally invalid. That's not how most systems work and not how DVOA works. I wasn't saying that he was a #1 receiver because he was a great receiver - I was saying that he was a #1 receiver based on where he plays on the field, where the Ravens consider him in their playcalling, when he comes into play in 2-2 and 1-2 sets, etc. Mostly, the idea that you don't want to look at someone having a better day against a defense as a potential issue is...weird. Looking for trends in weaknesses when doing analysis is kind of the whole point. In 3 of the games that the 49ers lost (I didn't bother looking at Cleveland) the opposing team's #1 receiver had a better than normal day. That seems pretty relevant! I agree that Flowers is not an amazing receiver, and I agree that he isn't the sole reason that the 49ers lost, but it's important to consider when you're wanting to figure out how future games might go. 16 hours ago, DMC said: So, this is the other reason your argument is completely absurd. You did this with Purdy too the other week -- you're only looking at the four Niners losses (I'm not counting the Week 18 Rams loss as it was functionally a preseason game). What about, ya know, the 14 Niners wins? Your "analysis" here is the height of selection bias. What about CeeDee Lamb only going 4 for 49 on 5 targets? Or Calvin Ridley only going 2 for 20 on 3 targets? Or Mike Evans going 5 for 43 on 12 targets? Or DK Metcalf going 3 for 32 on 9 targets and 2 for 52 on 5 targets, respectively? Only looking at their losses is an especially lazy and entirely illegitimate way to try and draw conclusions. Absolutely it's selection bias! The point was to look at what happened in games that the 49ers didn't do well in to see if there are exploitable weaknesses and patterns. This is what I did when I did analysis of Duck games back in the day - you look at the bad games and see why they went bad, and then you extrapolate as to how a team would look if they ended up winning. That's not lazy at all - that is a standard analysis practice! This is what we do in politics all the time as far as extrapolating issues and saying things like 'if this demographic turns out more than expected, or if the polling numbers are off in this way'. I'm not making statements like the Chiefs WILL win no matter what or other absolutist statements; don't mistake me for some AM radio sports guy looking for hot takes. I said that the 49ers have, in their losses, had some weaknesses that were common. I would expect that the 49ers win given the two team's overall performance and matchups because I don't tend to put a ton of credence in playoff mojo. In particular the Chiefs weakness against the run and the 49ers absurd dominance in running should, in theory, make that an easy (if somewhat boring) game for them. However, if the Chiefs do win I expect it'll be because they were also able to exploit some of the 49er weaknesses a bit more than normal. One of them is Purdy's occasional (again, not always, just occasional) propensity to throw interceptable passes. This was the case in the 4 losses during the regular season and somewhat continued in the playoffs (he threw six interceptable passes, three each game, and only one was intercepted). How likely is that? If the 49ers stay on schedule and focus on the run game like I think they probably should I suspect it won't be an issue, but if they go down early or if Shanahan gets stupid I think that's one of the ways they lose. Another possibility is that the Chiefs manage to get Rice to go off more than he has - which again was a problem the 49ers had in 3 of their 4 losses. Based on that, I'd say that if the Chiefs win they'll have at least one INT and likely more, and Rice will have one of his best days all year, and the 49ers will have for whatever reason not run McCaffrey very much (similar to the baffling choices the Ravens made against the Chiefs). I'd still expect a close game regardless but that's how I think a Chiefs win will look. A 49ers win will likely look a lot like most of their other wins + Chiefs having some regression to the mean in terms of mistakes - more dropped passes, less Mahomes magic - and a very good performance in rushing between Purdy and McCaffrey. Edited February 9 by Kalbear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Also just a slight addition to the above - I did actually go back and look at the Cleveland game and, shockingly, Amari Cooper - their WR1 - had a better day than average too and was responsible for a crazy amount of the Cleveland output. So...yeah, in every loss that really mattered the 49ers didn't do great against a WR1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 20 minutes ago, Kalbear said: As to dealing with aggregate data and doing data comparison stuff I literally have done this for years. I know people that have employed econometrics for upwards of forty years in published research and they still fundamentally misunderstand those metrics, just as you are here. 22 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I said that the 49ers have, in their losses, had some weaknesses that were common. Fair enough. My point is #1 receivers have not been the primary issue in their losses. At all. And - with Mooney Ward - this is one of the last things to worry about when it comes to Sunday. Especially considering how weak their defense has looked in virtually every other aspect in both the Lions and Packers games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, DMC said: I know people that have employed econometrics for upwards of forty years in published research and they still fundamentally misunderstand those metrics, just as you are here. Similarly, I've spent years arguing with people about looking at the wins and not understanding survivorship bias, much like you want me to here. 1 minute ago, DMC said: Fair enough. My point is #1 receivers have not been the primary issue in their losses. At all. And - with Mooney Ward - this is one of the last things to worry about when it comes to Sunday. Especially considering how weak their defense has looked in virtually every other aspect in both the Lions and Packers games. I guess that's fine. I agree that it won't be the biggest factor if they lose, but I suspect you'll end up seeing Rice matched up against someone not named Mooney Ward catch a few backbreaking passes if the Chiefs end up winning. Though weirdly I don't get the love of Ward. His ratings from PFF are good but not stellar, he had a pretty high amount of targets against him and didn't have a ton of defensed passes. I don't even pretend to have watched him much so perhaps I'm missing some outstanding plays or something like that, but he looks...good? But not particularly great. Especially in the postseason, where he appears to have done nothing special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Similarly, I've spent years arguing with people about looking at the wins and not understanding survivorship bias, much like you want me to here. LOL, you're the one whose argument is explicitly based on looking only at the subset of Niners losses. I was the one pointing out you should look at the entire sample of 19 games to draw such inferences. 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I suspect you'll end up seeing Rice matched up against someone not named Mooney Ward catch a few backbreaking passes if the Chiefs end up winning. Right, this is where Ambry Thomas as their clear weak spot is what the Chiefs will attempt to exploit (like everyone else). Lenoir's actually been pretty consistently solid along with Ward. Their safeties could also be picked on. Alternatively, I could easily see Kelce just dominating and the receivers not mattering much at all in a Chiefs win. 12 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Though weirdly I don't get the love of Ward. His ratings from PFF are good but not stellar, he had a pretty high amount of targets against him and didn't have a ton of defensed passes. I don't even pretend to have watched him much so perhaps I'm missing some outstanding plays or something like that, but he looks...good? But not particularly great. Especially in the postseason, where he appears to have done nothing special. Not a fan of PFF grades at all but Ward had the second highest defensive grade on the team against the Lions after Bosa, and the highest coverage grade. Still hardly gaudy numbers - 73.7 overall and 75.6 coverage - but his high grade relative to the rest of the Niners defense again speaks to my point that the D has demonstrated myriad more weaknesses in the playoffs. More importantly, again, he was only targeted once for seven yards in 43 coverage snaps against the Lions. If that's not a sign of respect to a shutdown corner, I don't know what is. As for the season overall, um, he led the league in passes defended with 23 (second was 19). And again, clearly I'm not the only one who has this opinion considering he made second team All-Pro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 10 minutes ago, DMC said: LOL, you're the one whose argument is explicitly based on looking only at the subset of Niners losses. I was the one pointing out you should look at the entire sample of 19 games to draw such inferences. Right - much like you should look at the returned planes, and not the ones that went down. 10 minutes ago, DMC said: Right, this is where Ambry Thomas as their clear weak spot is what the Chiefs will attempt to exploit (like everyone else). Lenoir's actually been pretty consistently solid along with Ward. Their safeties could also be picked on. Alternatively, I could easily see Kelce just dominating and the receivers not mattering much at all in a Chiefs win. yeah, I could see Kelce being also amazing - especially if the plotline requires that Taylor Swift does well and is able to endorse Biden at the superbowl while forcing Kelce to bow in cuck fashion to her or something like that - but my suspicion is that the 49ers will try and focus him down, possibly at the expense of everyone else. 10 minutes ago, DMC said: Not a fan of PFF grades at all but Ward had the second highest defensive grade on the team against the Lions after Bosa, and the highest coverage grade. Still hardly gaudy numbers - 73.7 overall and 75.6 coverage - but his high grade relative to the rest of the Niners defense again speaks to my point that the D has demonstrated myriad more weaknesses in the playoffs. More importantly, again, he was only targeted once for seven yards in 43 coverage snaps against the Lions. If that's not a sign of respect to a shutdown corner, I don't know what is. I guess it's a sign that the Lions could do almost anything else and didn't bother throwing against him because everyone else was wide open, per your logic, no? 10 minutes ago, DMC said: As for the season overall, um, he led the league in passes defended with 23 (second was 19). And again, clearly I'm not the only one who has this opinion considering he made second team All-Pro. Again not really trying to argue his bona fides - I didn't watch him specifically or anything, mostly curious. That said, since he also had one of the highest targeted counts it kind of stands to reason he'd have a high defensed pass count too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Right - much like you should look at the returned planes, and not the ones that went down. 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: especially if the plotline requires that Taylor Swift does well and is able to endorse Biden at the superbowl while forcing Kelce to bow in cuck fashion to her or something like that Psyop FTW! Seriously, Kelce appears to have regained his mojo in the playoffs. Generally, Warner and Greenlaw are the most equipped linebacking duo in the league to help neutralize him. But again, based on the playoffs, I'm skittish - even when considering Greenlaw was the MVP of the Packers game. 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I guess it's a sign that the Lions could do almost anything else and didn't bother throwing against him because everyone else was wide open, per your logic, no? Sure, that would be the glass half empty perspective of my point - that Ward is one of the last aspects of the Niners defense to worry about right now. "Didn't bother," though, still is an acknowledgement that he's a relative strength. 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: That said, since he also had one of the highest targeted counts it kind of stands to reason he'd have a high defensed pass count too. K, but you're the one who said he didn't have a ton of defensed passes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, DMC said: K, but you're the one who said he didn't have a ton of defensed passes. That's fair - I was going after what PFF considers, not what PFR considers. I think PFF is looking at rate, because you're right - that's a lot of defensed passes. 3 minutes ago, DMC said: Sure, that would be the glass half empty perspective of my point - that Ward is one of the last aspects of the Niners defense to worry about right now. "Didn't bother," though, still is an acknowledgement that he's a relative strength. ...I guess? I mean, I think that's a reasonable take, especially since Detroit didn't do its massive damage in the air until the 4th quarter too. Still, it's hardly a glowing recommendation. You may be right that him covering #1 WRs isn't a big concern, but I suspect that the way they get the ball to Rice (if they do successfully) will be more in zone based attacks and where Ward isn't primary on him anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I suspect that the way they get the ball to Rice (if they do successfully) will be more in zone based attacks and where Ward isn't primary on him anyway. Yup. Anyway, in terms of non-Kelce weapons, I'm much more worried about Pacheco considering the Niners porous run defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbunting Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Who needs the SB on Sunday, we can just log in here and watch these two titans go at it! DanteGabriel, Mr. Chatywin et al., Jace, Extat and 4 others 1 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 7 hours ago, dbunting said: Who needs the SB on Sunday, we can just log in here and watch these two titans go at it! Imagine being able to suck the joy out of the NFL thread, in Superbowl week. That is some peak nerd. Edited February 10 by BigFatCoward DireWolfSpirit, Nictarion, Ramsay B. and 1 other 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.