Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Capaneus

Originally posted by coach

Are CBs getting points for tackles? Some of the guys you listed seem to have "too many" tackles for a CB.

I'd take Max Flight over any of them.

yes DBacks get a point for every four tackles. I'm still not sure how to judge the value of CBs and FSs, other than going and watching every one of their plays, which isn't realistic. So my rankings definitely need some help there. Max Flight does have more Ints than any of the CBs I picked, and his Pro Bowl score is comparable. The score currently gives 2 pts for a PD and 3 pts for Int. That's probably undervaluing Ints, which force a change of position. Flight has 20 PD and 6 Ints, where Johnson (the 2nd alt) has 27 PD and 3 Ints. Are three Ints worth more than seven PDs? Probably. But Flight also has been in 100 more plays, which makes his numbers less impressive, and he also has (one) more MsTks. Hmm. I dunno. Let me get back to this.


I'd say an INT is worth at least three PD. Logic being that it would take three straight PDs to get the ball back. It only takes one INT. And obviously, the field position is going to be better with the INT.

As for tackles, I'd give points to the safeties but not to the CBs.

I'd think CBs should get points for tkls in the run game, but not pass...Unfortuantely, there's no easy way to break that out...And I'd go 5 points for ints. Just my 2 cents

Originally posted by PP
I'd think CBs should get points for tkls in the run game, but not pass...Unfortuantely, there's no easy way to break that out...And I'd go 5 points for ints. Just my 2 cents

I agree with you but sometimes the cornerbacks tackle recievers that they arent covering. Sometimes it happens two or three times in a game. That makes them more efficient, not a lesser corner. Its something thats overlooked when youre gauging pass deflections vs tackles.

Originally posted by coach

HUGE gap between first and second here IMO. I know he's got a lot of yards, but is Jade Falcon really the second best QB in the conference? I think Pretty Boy is much better.

As the agent of a CB, facing the Saints always makes me a little nervous. The Daggers never worry me at all.

Eh, I think you're conflating the strength of the team with strength of the player. Falcon may be on a weak team, but he's a good player. Let's compare:

QB Rating:
Falcon: 92.8
Boy: 96.2
Close, but comparable.

Completions/Atts
Falcon: 423/623
Boy: 306/512

The Daggers air it out a lot more, which is no secret, and that's going to tilt things in Falcon's favor. I would downrate Falcon if he puts up bigger but not better numbers. However:

Completion percentage:
Falcon: 67.9%
Boy: 59.8%
8.1% in Falcon's favor. You would expect the guy with higher atts to have a lower completion %, because he's forcing throws. But, instead it's higher. Justafish's formula weights completion % heavily, and I would argue, justifiably so. One of the QB's biggest jobs is to get the ball into somebody's hands. What happens after that is largely up to the receiver. Falcon has done that more efficiently and more often than Pretty Boy.

Yards:
Falcon: 4,117.5
Boy: 3,526
Almost 600 yds more. He may have taken more completions to do it, but six whole football fields is six whole football fields.

Yards per attempt:
Falcon: 6.6
Boy: 6.9
Not as big of a gap as I thought.

TDs:
Falcon: 26
Boy: 39
Now it gets more interesting. This is the big reason to favor Pretty Boy, no denying it. However, the Saints have one Pro Bowl receiver and the rest of their WRs are no slouches either. The Daggers? Not so much. To really make this fair, I'd like to see what Falcon could do passing to the Saints' receivers.

Ints:
Falcon: 11
Boy: 12
The TD to Int ratio splits way in favor of Pretty Boy (one Int for every 3.25 TDs, vs. one Int for every 2.36 TDs). But really, I think Ints per att is a better metric, and there it's a different story:

Falcon: one Int per 56.64 atts
Boy: one Int per 42.67 atts

So, on the numbers, I'd give the edge to Jade Falcon. But what really settles it for me is that he put up those numbers on a team with no running game while getting sacked 60 times (!), far more than any other QB in the West. That he can do that under that kind of pressure makes him a better player in my book. If he was on a better team, my guess is it wouldn't be near as close.

Originally posted by coach

I'd say an INT is worth at least three PD. Logic being that it would take three straight PDs to get the ball back. It only takes one INT. And obviously, the field position is going to be better with the INT.

As for tackles, I'd give points to the safeties but not to the CBs.

I agree with you about Ints being undervalued, and I've told Justafish as much. If you'd like to support me on that issue, go make your case in his thread: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=1218134 However, exactly how undervalued they are is trickier. As you said, 3PD and one Int each equal a changer of possession. However, like other turnover stats, whether a ball is a PD or an Int may depend on things beyond a CB's control: perhaps the ball was thrown in such a way that it was deflectable but not catchable. So I'd be inclined to go with PP's suggestion that an Int be worth 5, while keeping PDs at 2. However, I'm not convinced that tackles are neutral stat for CBs. As LIVID and PP have pointed out, there are situations where a tackle is a positive thing, and not just a sign the CB wasn't covering his man. There are times when a tackle is a sign of bad coverage, and telling them apart is impossible given the current model. So I'm fine with tackles being worth .25 The real solution would be tracking catches allowed, as Justafish suggests. Still, this is academic, as the Pro Bowl selections for CB are pretty clear. Here are the current nominees, with scores recalculated to reflect 5 pts an Int:

Mike Chen: 125
Ted Vodka, Jr.: 100
DeAndre Williams: 100
Charlie Dawson: 85

with no points for tackles:

Chen: 107.75
Vodka: 88.25
Williams: 85.25
Dawson: 76

Their position relative to each other is unchanged. Now, it may be that I'm missing someone, and the only player I've heard so far is Max Flight.

His score with 5 pt Ints: 83
With no points for tackles: 73.25

So he and Dawson are very close. But Dawson has been on the field for 178 fewer plays than Flight. So that forces me to give the nod to Dawson. With another 178 plays, I'm sure he could widen that score gap some.

Originally posted by dirk41
Um...how about the Chicago Mustangs whole beasty D-Line?

And since there's no KR/PR yet, I'll nominate my guy, Desmond Howard

Mustangs have a got rhino's and angry gorilla's in there d-line.



I Thought, Your QB was good

Originally posted by Capaneus
Originally posted by coach


HUGE gap between first and second here IMO. I know he's got a lot of yards, but is Jade Falcon really the second best QB in the conference? I think Pretty Boy is much better.

As the agent of a CB, facing the Saints always makes me a little nervous. The Daggers never worry me at all.

Eh, I think you're conflating the strength of the team with strength of the player. Falcon may be on a weak team, but he's a good player. Let's compare:

QB Rating:
Falcon: 92.8
Boy: 96.2
Close, but comparable.

Completions/Atts
Falcon: 423/623
Boy: 306/512

The Daggers air it out a lot more, which is no secret, and that's going to tilt things in Falcon's favor. I would downrate Falcon if he puts up bigger but not better numbers. However:

Completion percentage:
Falcon: 67.9%
Boy: 59.8%
8.1% in Falcon's favor. You would expect the guy with higher atts to have a lower completion %, because he's forcing throws. But, instead it's higher. Justafish's formula weights completion % heavily, and I would argue, justifiably so. One of the QB's biggest jobs is to get the ball into somebody's hands. What happens after that is largely up to the receiver. Falcon has done that more efficiently and more often than Pretty Boy.

Yards:
Falcon: 4,117.5
Boy: 3,526
Almost 600 yds more. He may have taken more completions to do it, but six whole football fields is six whole football fields.

Yards per attempt:
Falcon: 6.6
Boy: 6.9
Not as big of a gap as I thought.

TDs:
Falcon: 26
Boy: 39
Now it gets more interesting. This is the big reason to favor Pretty Boy, no denying it. However, the Saints have one Pro Bowl receiver and the rest of their WRs are no slouches either. The Daggers? Not so much. To really make this fair, I'd like to see what Falcon could do passing to the Saints' receivers.

Ints:
Falcon: 11
Boy: 12
The TD to Int ratio splits way in favor of Pretty Boy (one Int for every 3.25 TDs, vs. one Int for every 2.36 TDs). But really, I think Ints per att is a better metric, and there it's a different story:

Falcon: one Int per 56.64 atts
Boy: one Int per 42.67 atts

So, on the numbers, I'd give the edge to Jade Falcon. But what really settles it for me is that he put up those numbers on a team with no running game while getting sacked 60 times (!), far more than any other QB in the West. That he can do that under that kind of pressure makes him a better player in my book. If he was on a better team, my guess is it wouldn't be near as close.

In real life aren't QBs judged based on their team's success?

I think completion percentage is being greatly overrated. A lot of that depends on how far downfield the QB is throwing. Obviously a lot of dumpoffs and short passes can inflate that. Yards per attempt is a better metric. Is a 0 or 1 yard completion really that much better than an incompletion?

Also, you calculated int/att but not td/att...
Falcon: 1 TD per 24 attempts
Boy: 1 TD per 13 attempts

That's huge. I've always thought a quarterback's main tasks were to put points on the board and lead his team to wins. Pretty Boy obviously does both of those better than Jade Falcon.

BTW, I appreciate the discussion and your work here.

Originally posted by coach

In real life aren't QBs judged based on their team's success?


Why would you bring real life into this conversation?

Originally posted by Capaneus

Originally posted by coach

I'd say an INT is worth at least three PD. Logic being that it would take three straight PDs to get the ball back. It only takes one INT. And obviously, the field position is going to be better with the INT.

As for tackles, I'd give points to the safeties but not to the CBs.

I agree with you about Ints being undervalued, and I've told Justafish as much. If you'd like to support me on that issue, go make your case in his thread: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=1218134 However, exactly how undervalued they are is trickier. As you said, 3PD and one Int each equal a changer of possession. However, like other turnover stats, whether a ball is a PD or an Int may depend on things beyond a CB's control: perhaps the ball was thrown in such a way that it was deflectable but not catchable. So I'd be inclined to go with PP's suggestion that an Int be worth 5, while keeping PDs at 2. However, I'm not convinced that tackles are neutral stat for CBs. As LIVID and PP have pointed out, there are situations where a tackle is a positive thing, and not just a sign the CB wasn't covering his man. There are times when a tackle is a sign of bad coverage, and telling them apart is impossible given the current model. So I'm fine with tackles being worth .25 The real solution would be tracking catches allowed, as Justafish suggests. Still, this is academic, as the Pro Bowl selections for CB are pretty clear. Here are the current nominees, with scores recalculated to reflect 5 pts an Int:

Mike Chen: 125
Ted Vodka, Jr.: 100
DeAndre Williams: 100
Charlie Dawson: 85

with no points for tackles:

Chen: 107.75
Vodka: 88.25
Williams: 85.25
Dawson: 76

Their position relative to each other is unchanged. Now, it may be that I'm missing someone, and the only player I've heard so far is Max Flight.

His score with 5 pt Ints: 83
With no points for tackles: 73.25

So he and Dawson are very close. But Dawson has been on the field for 178 fewer plays than Flight. So that forces me to give the nod to Dawson. With another 178 plays, I'm sure he could widen that score gap some.

For tackles, I agree that sometimes they are a positive for CBs. And sometimes they're a negative. So that sounds like a neutral stat to me.

As far as the missing someone question... I'm biased but I think my guy (Curly Merkin) is pretty good. Depending on how much FRs are worth, he may be a contender. I just think Max Flight is better, which is why I suggested him instead.

Originally posted by phthalatemagic
Originally posted by coach


In real life aren't QBs judged based on their team's success?


Why would you bring real life into this conversation?

Temporary insanity?

How could you not put more defenders from the Coyotes on there? We have the best defense in the league and it's not only the game planning but our players.

Originally posted by nutrumpet
How could you not put more defenders from the Coyotes on there? We have the best defense in the league and it's not only the game planning but our players.

Probably because this is the Western Conference squad. Just a guess.

Originally posted by coach

In real life aren't QBs judged based on their team's success?

I think completion percentage is being greatly overrated. A lot of that depends on how far downfield the QB is throwing. Obviously a lot of dumpoffs and short passes can inflate that. Yards per attempt is a better metric. Is a 0 or 1 yard completion really that much better than an incompletion?

Also, you calculated int/att but not td/att...
Falcon: 1 TD per 24 attempts
Boy: 1 TD per 13 attempts

That's huge. I've always thought a quarterback's main tasks were to put points on the board and lead his team to wins. Pretty Boy obviously does both of those better than Jade Falcon.


Ultimately, it comes down to a sort of basic philosophy of Pro Bowl selections. Football is a team sport, and the performance of any individual player depends (to a varying degree from position to position) on the other ten guys on the field. So individual performance is the product of some mixture of a great team effort and great individual effort. So, for many players, success can be intangible, blending into the overall performance of the team. My feeling with Pro Bowl picks is that they naturally have to favor guys with more flash and swagger than your average player. In the Pro Bowl, you're not trying to create a cohesive team, you're slapping duct tape on a bunch of stars and hoping they play nice together. As I said at the outset, I'm trying to stick close to the numbers, since they are the most accessible way of comparing two players. And judging solely by the numbers, Jade Falcon would be the best QB in the West, with a Pro Bowl score of 317, which beats out Gambler's 290.

But even I'm not that crazy about Falcon. I believe completion % is a key stat, but Justafish is probably weighting it a bit too heavily. Here are their scores without factoring in completion %:
Gambler: 471.24
Falcon: 466.86
Boy: 459.87
Which is exactly how I have them ranked. Still, I think Falcon deserves some credit for having a markedly better completion %. Putting the ball in somebody's hands is a key skill for a QB. And I'm still surprised by how high Falcon's ypa is. You make it sound like all he's doing is throwing dump passes to the HB, but there's only what- Ten inches? Eleven? that separates 6.6 ypa from 6.9 ypa. This is where Gambler really stands out, as with 8.3 ypa, he blows 'em both out the water.

But what it really comes down to is how high you value TDs. Currently, a TD is worth three points to a QB. I think that's a fair number. Scoring a TD depends largely on field position, which the result of a big mess of factors out of the QB's control. But even if you bump it up to 4 pts a TD Falcon still has a higher score (334 to 298). Plus, Falcon's been on field for 90 fewer plays, which would make the score gap even bigger. And you can't beat a good story, and Falcon's is the best kind: player overcomes adversity (in this case, having a terrible O-line) to succeed.


Originally posted by coach

BTW, I appreciate the discussion and your work here.

Hey, arguing about the picks is the best part. Otherwise, I'd just be talking to myself.

Originally posted by nutrumpet
How could you not put more defenders from the Coyotes on there? We have the best defense in the league and it's not only the game planning but our players.

That's the west. Haven't done the east yet.

Originally posted by Capaneus
You make it sound like all he's doing is throwing dump passes to the HB,

If I did make it sound like that, it was unintentional. I was speaking more in generalities at that point. Just trying to say that completion percentage itself is overrated, not that Falcon's is inflated.

Originally posted by coach

For tackles, I agree that sometimes they are a positive for CBs. And sometimes they're a negative. So that sounds like a neutral stat to me.

As far as the missing someone question... I'm biased but I think my guy (Curly Merkin) is pretty good. Depending on how much FRs are worth, he may be a contender. I just think Max Flight is better, which is why I suggested him instead.

Well, as I said, the ideal solution would be to give points for "good" tackles, and deduct them for "bad" ones. If a stat is truly neutral, it tells you nothing- which makes it pretty much useless. Right now I think all players deserve some points for stopping the guy with the ball, but hopefully we can make that metric more sophisticated. I also think CBs and Safties should be penalized more for missed Tks, but I'm not sure how much more.

Hah, I was waiting for you to mention Merkin But, yeah he's definitely a contender for CB4. To compare with the earlier numbers:

5 pt Ints: 84
No pts for Tk: 75.5

So it's definitely a horse race between Dawson, Flight and Merkin. Hopefully, they'll spread out by the end of the season, so I can have a bit more confidence in my pick. For now, I'll give the edge to Dawson cause he has the least plays.

Originally posted by nutrumpet

How could you not put more defenders from the Coyotes on there? We have the best defense in the league and it's not only the game planning but our players.

As the other two gentlemen have pointed out, unless K-Zoo has switched conferences, I stand by my picks. However, I'm four positions into the East D-Squad, and no K-Zoo players yet. So I'm not sure you're going to like the actual rankings any better.

Originally posted by coach
Originally posted by Capaneus

You make it sound like all he's doing is throwing dump passes to the HB,

If I did make it sound like that, it was unintentional. I was speaking more in generalities at that point. Just trying to say that completion percentage itself is overrated, not that Falcon's is inflated.

Ah, that was just some poetic license on my part. But I definitely take your point that completion percentage is overvalued, just (I sound like a broken record) I'm not sure how much.