Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick
No, you've said that. I made the assertion that real QBs don't become more prone to throwing interceptions as a result of having thrown a first one.

You refuse to consider the possibility that there may be some QBs who respond differently to throwing interceptions than others. Your assertion is based on the assertion that all QBs respond the same way to throwing interceptions.

I'm asking you for evidence to back that up.

And once again, instead of providing that actual evidence, you launch personal attacks against me, my intelligence, my reputation, and imply that I shouldn't post in here.

Originally posted by slashxtreme
k but I think his point is that there are thousands of games, and if you were to look at the bulk of them , no issues.
Sure, because we're talking about rare events. Exponential increase of very low probability events is what causes a QB who has thrown 5 interceptions in 172 pass attempts to then throw 12 interceptions during a game that features 72 pass attempts. It's what causes a returner who has fumbled only once all season to then fumble six times in one game. Random results would have a normal distribution, but that isn't the case here.

Originally posted by
Meaning you're focusing on something that is an outlier. Doesn't mean that its not an issue, just means that it's not hard coded.
That's not what it means at all. Blocked extra points are outliers, right?

Originally posted by Novus
You refuse to consider the possibility that there may be some QBs who respond differently to throwing interceptions than others. Your assertion is based on the assertion that all QBs respond the same way to throwing interceptions.
No, you're trolling. You continuously insist that I'm saying something that only you have said. I have been extremely clear about what I am claiming, but you don't address that. You make up shit because your only interest in this thread is to argue with and aggravate people who actually know things while you know nothing.

Originally posted by
And once again, instead of providing that actual evidence, you launch personal attacks against me, my intelligence, my reputation, and imply that I shouldn't post in here.
I'm pretty sure that you repeatedly calling me "Comic Book Guy" isn't productive to the conversation. Yet again you refuse to take responsibility for your own behavior. Novus, you don't ever contribute to any discussion, probably because you fundamentally lack the ability to do so. All you do is to badger people who know things. Maybe doing so makes you feel relevant, I don't know, but you're the one who is disruptive while adding absolutely nothing to the discussion. That's why people don't want you to post. People are willing to put up with someone like you being obnoxious if you also make some insightful points and therefore move the discussion along. You don't do that. The only thing you do is to seek conflict with people like me. You're a troll.

Calling you Comic Book Guy pales in comparison to what you've been dishing out in this thread, jd, so you complaining about that really is hilarious.

But let's go back to the first post where you made this assertion:

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5081999&page=3#47344793

Originally posted by jdbolick
#1) No, they don't. In fact, a player who throws an interception or has a fumble actually becomes more conscious about not having more.

You didn't say "most players" or "some players." You made a blanket declaration that is meant to apply to all players.

I'm asking you -- again -- to back that up. Ignore who you think I am, and ignore who the question is coming from. Back it up. Show me your evidence that all players respond to all turnovers in the exact same way.

And by the way, Comic Book Guy... if you want me to stop calling you Comic Book Guy, you need to stop insulting me. Otherwise, I will continue. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Novus
Calling you Comic Book Guy pales in comparison to what you've been dishing out in this thread, jd, so you complaining about that really is hilarious.
Trying to get you to understand anything is like teaching a sheep to walk on its hind legs. You can call me whatever you want and it won't matter because your opinion is so irrelevant and devoid of anything resembling respect that I would be equally indifferent if you called me the most amazing human being since Gandhi. The point is your blatant hypocrisy and your stunning obliviousness to that hypocrisy in criticizing me for supposedly dropping personal insults when you've been doing so all along.

Originally posted by
You didn't say "most players" or "some players." You made a blanket declaration that is meant to apply to all players.
Have you ever in your entire life heard a football player say that a turnover caused them to have another? I'm sure you've had enough exposure to sports that you've heard guys say that they tried to avoid subsequent turnovers after having one, however. That's the way players are. When you throw an interception or fumble the ball, you become more aware of the possibility and try not to have more.

Originally posted by
And by the way, Comic Book Guy... if you want me to stop calling you Comic Book Guy, you need to stop insulting me. Otherwise, I will continue. Deal with it.
I don't care what you call me. What I want you to do is probably impossible, since I want to stop being completely useless and incessantly annoying. I can put up with someone being obnoxious or insulting or pretty much anything as long as they offer something to the discussion. You offer nothing worthwhile. Literally nothing. Your entire existence is nothing but a constant negative where you annoy or disrupt or detract. You are trolling this thread just as your every post is a troll, whether intentional or not. There are people who despise me and insult me at every opportunity, but I'm fine with it if they can provide interesting viewpoints, especially backed by evidence. You offer nothing, either because you're incapable or because your only interest is in causing conflict.

good read

Best......thread......ever....

http://www.footballperspective.com/analyzing-interceptions-2000-to-2012/

Statistical analysis of interception rates in the NFL. Found that playing behind and throwing deep had a higher correlation to interception rate. In a nut shell, interceptions are mostly random but if it is tied to any event, it is situational far more than tied to a certain player.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2009/09stuart_qbintrates.php

This guy does s similar statistical analysis that is purely player focused. Again, he comes to the conclusion that the vast majority of QBs are right at the league average year in and year out. They may have a bad run of luck for a season, but will return to the norm.

If Ints were build (i.e. player) related, they should be very correlated to the player and not random. Also, if they are random, then some thing like morale should not impact the likelihood. I can flip a coin trying to get heads and get tails twice. That might piss me off, but it isnt going to make my next coin flip any more likely to be heads.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Random results would have a normal distribution, but that isn't the case here.

Random results have a normal distribution over a very large data set. They definitely (and by definition) do not present normal distribution curves on a data set as small as a per game basis.

That would in fact be contradictory to the nature of random results.

It would not be surprising if there is a positive feedback loop for QBs throwing interceptions (if morale is meaningful, then there would have to be).

However, I once won sixteen consecutive hands of blackjack in Vegas. And it wasn't because the dealer's morale was low.

Calculate the odds on that when you have some free time.


If you want to make a case for QBs spiraling into picks "inappropriately," then you really ought to bring some actual analysis to bear. Anecdotal examples are generally very misleading in the realm of statistics. It creates a phenomenon called "WYSIATI" or "what you see is all there is."

Run the numbers, or accept the fact that all you are actually offering is speculation, informed or otherwise.

Originally posted by tautology
I once won sixteen consecutive hands of blackjack in Vegas. And it wasn't because the dealer's morale was low.


I seriously just lol'd

Originally posted by jdbolick
Have you ever in your entire life heard a football player say that a turnover caused them to have another?
No, I haven't, because that would an admission that they were rattled by a mistake... an admission that would be very damaging to a player's chances of continuing their career. But just because someone doesn't admit to something doesn't mean it's not true.

Originally posted by jdbolick
I'm sure you've had enough exposure to sports that you've heard guys say that they tried to avoid subsequent turnovers after having one, however.
Of course.

However, trying and doing are two different things. As I said earlier in this thread, "I've seen some players who have a turnover who respond by re-focusing and play much better the rest of the game. And I've seen other players who have a turnover who let it get in their head and end up having more turnovers as a result. Brady Quinn against Michigan in 2006 comes to mind."

Again... you didn't say "most players" or "some players." You made a blanket declaration that is meant to apply to all players, and you continue to defend it. So, it is still your position that every single QB in the NFL responds exactly the same way to throwing an interception. And I find that assertion laughable, the idea that such a large and diverse group of people would all respond to an interception in the same way. Yet you continue to base your arguments on this.

As for the rest of your reply... you compared me to a sheep trying to walk on my hind legs, called me a "hypocrite," "completely useless," "incessantly annoying," "obnoxious," a "troll," and declared that my posts are adding nothing to this thread. And that was all in one post. But you're mad because I called you "Comic Book Guy." Really? That's rich, Comic Book Guy.

Originally posted by Plankton
http://www.footballperspective.com/analyzing-interceptions-2000-to-2012/

Statistical analysis of interception rates in the NFL. Found that playing behind and throwing deep had a higher correlation to interception rate. In a nut shell, interceptions are mostly random but if it is tied to any event, it is situational far more than tied to a certain player.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2009/09stuart_qbintrates.php

I just pulled this up, and in the second paragraph he states, "Interceptions are tricky to analyze. Interception rates are very inconsistent from year to year, so much so that completion percentage alone may be a better predictor of future interception rate than actual interception rate." (Emphasis mine.) He makes a few other similar hedges in his intro as well. I'll read the rest of this one and the other one later when I have more time, but right away, I'd be cautious about reading too much into his analysis and results.

Originally posted by tautology
Random results have a normal distribution over a very large data set. They definitely (and by definition) do not present normal distribution curves on a data set as small as a per game basis.
Sure they would in the context of individual games across a full player's career, although opponent quality and scheme would obviously affect turnover chance and therefore not be entirely random. I'm not surprised that you pop up out of nowhere to make snide comments and vague allusions, but the reality is that we have a wealth of data showing that turnovers do happen in clumps, and that mass-turnover games are not as uncommon as they should be if they were genuinely independent events.


Originally posted by Novus
No, I haven't, because that would an admission that they were rattled by a mistake
And yet players do sometimes admit to being rattled.

Originally posted by
Of course. However, trying and doing are two different things.
Sometime after you've practiced your understanding of the English language, go back and reflect on the difference between "more conscious about not having more" and simply "not having more."

Originally posted by
And I've seen other players who have a turnover who let it get in their head and end up having more turnovers as a result. Brady Quinn against Michigan in 2006 comes to mind."
Quinn throwing an interception returned for a touchdown on the third play of the game didn't cause him to have more turnovers. He threw two touchdown passes after that before throwing his second interception midway through the third quarter. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=262590087&period=0 The second and third interceptions didn't come because he was rattled. The second came because he was under pressure and got hit while throwing, causing the ball to flutter for an easy pick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DyxdEv_XDjs#t=108s Then the third was a great play by Leon Hall where he jumped in front of the receiver when Quinn tried to throw back across the middle. Clearly none of those had anything whatsoever to do with being rattled, so you're making shit up in an attempt to pretend like you have a point. Unfortunately you don't.

Originally posted by
So, it is still your position that every single QB in the NFL responds exactly the same way to throwing an interception. And I find that assertion laughable, the idea that such a large and diverse group of people would all respond to an interception in the same way. Yet you continue to base your arguments on this.
Except that I never said any such thing. You continuously lie about what I've said because you don't care what I did post, you just want to be a disruptive troll.

Originally posted by
But you're mad because I called you "Comic Book Guy." Really? That's rich, Comic Book Guy.
I can never tell how much you're pretending not to understand and how much your brain really can't handle. In any case, try reading this again:
Originally posted by jdbolick
You can call me whatever you want and it won't matter because your opinion is so irrelevant and devoid of anything resembling respect that I would be equally indifferent if you called me the most amazing human being since Gandhi. The point is your blatant hypocrisy and your stunning obliviousness to that hypocrisy in criticizing me for supposedly dropping personal insults when you've been doing so all along.

Originally posted by Novus
I just pulled this up, and in the second paragraph he states, "Interceptions are tricky to analyze. Interception rates are very inconsistent from year to year, so much so that completion percentage alone may be a better predictor of future interception rate than actual interception rate." (Emphasis mine.) He makes a few other similar hedges in his intro as well. I'll read the rest of this one and the other one later when I have more time, but right away, I'd be cautious about reading too much into his analysis and results.

I do not present it as rock solid fact, but I challenge you to find a better and more scientific study of Interceptions. If you do not accept that as evidence, then I do not think there is any evidence that can be brought to this discussion.

A number of sources like K.C. Joyner of ESPN record data on "dropped interceptions" and "bad decisions" in general. That's where Eli's magic anal horseshoe comes into play since he annually ranks among the league leaders in "dropped interceptions." I think that's what your author was getting at regarding the raw interceptions total not representing a QB's risky play with great accuracy. Some guys are lucky enough to get away with it while some like Michael Vick in 2012 had a low overall "bad decision" percentage, but had almost all of the ones he committed result in interceptions. We're getting off on a tangent, but that's fine since nothing is going to come of this discussion anyway.