I use my eyes, not stats. Until you can provide video evidence to those so called dropped INTs the stats mean nothing to me. He had 13 INts that year and 2 were bogus, he also had multiple dropped potential TDs.
they are giving their opinion on who should have caught a ball, those new stats are also w/o knowing scheme, reads, etc... They are nice for fans that can't think for themselves but they don't tell us all we need to know.
Eyes deceive Junc, and again you dismiss them as "stats" when in reality these are based off of objective observation. Believe what you want but right now you're Wiley Coyote standing on thin air just before he looks down.
Junc, does your ego know no bounds? I'll lay you bottom dollar on 3/4 of the plays, and probably substantially more, you have no clue what the schemes were, what the reads were, or even what the hot routes were. I'll 100% guarantee that when a QB and WR miscommunicate on a route that you don't know which one ran the read on the route incorrectly. and I can guarantee that 100% unless your name is Mark Sanchez or Rex Ryan. And if your name is Mark Sanchez then I know where your bias is from
They are not based off objective observation, they are interpretations. I have never claimed to know and I have always said we cannot truly evaluate unless we know these things. really? when do I just post blind stats w/o context?
These receivers are the worst I've seen in a long long time. Kerely is the only one who's any bit trust worthy. I still think that Hill has the potential to be a pretty good player, but he has a long way to go.
1st part, yes they are objective observation. But this is a funny argument coming from you considering your entire argument is based off of subjective observation...which is your interpretation, now by your own admission. So lets see, who do I buy the opinion of, the biased subjective interpretation or the unbiased objective one? tough call...not.... on your third point, any time you reference stats it's out of context.
That's fine, drops are entirely subjective, after all. Just know that they're not calling a safety diving on the sideline for a ball a dropped interception; after following their analyses for a half dozen years, I'm comfortable accepting their criteria for a drop. Agree to disagree. Any statistic, in any walk of life, that is incorrectly applied is useless. It doesn't matter how advanced they are, this is still the case. Someone looking at DVOA, for example, and saying, "that's about as far as I'm willing to look into this, X is better than Y," isn't using the stat correctly. None of these stats are designed to think for us, the guys who create the models producing these stats constantly caution against using them that way. That's precisely why they do weekly breakdowns, attempting to delve into the numbers and give thought to why the models produced what they did. Sometimes really good models spit out really strange numbers. To me, ignoring analytics entirely in favor of the "eye test" isn't any better than blindly pinning everything you know about the game on the analytics; this is because a good statistic is one that doesn't just adequately depict what just happened, its one that helps to accurately predict what's going to happen next.
I discuss situations not blind #s w/o context. W/ that stats you post the TD w/ the game on the line is considered the same as the TD when your team is down 30 w/ 3 mins left in the game. It's why people thought Philip Rivers was a great QB. It's why people think mark Sanchez 2012 is the same guy as 2009-2011.
I think there is a place for these stats but to act like they tell us everything is being naïve and lazy.
I disagree to an extent that they're entirely objective. The criteria they base the call on is objective, obviously, and the person making the call is objective (at least for any analytics team worth listening to), but they still have to apply those objective criteria; a drop to me might not be a drop to you, even if we're looking down a checklist of what should define a drop. I might just see something in a different light. Unless they develop an AI that can look at every play with 100% precision, there's a subjective component.
I agree, but who was doing that here? I mean, the dropped INT thing is pretty cut and dry; if you agree that what they call a drop actually IS a drop, then there's not much room for interpretation as to what those numbers mean. The other stuff can get a little sticky, which is why you might need to step back and say, "<insert QB here> is throwing to a bunch of homeless guys they found behind the stadium, and they're all running fly routes every down; maybe his -23.2% DVOA is a bit misleading?"
I don't agree w/ the drop thing b/c I saw every drop and there were a few that I thought should have been caught. I would like to see clips of these so called drops.
Greene was at best average, but he actually played pretty well the 2nd half of last season. His overall numbers on the year weren't as terrible as maybe the eye test would have told you. Difference is Ivory is a more aggressive runner when he gets the ball, and can break tackles better. That said, is Ivory a guy who can handle a full workload? His career resume thus far is actually dwarfed by Greene's, no matter how much we all wanted Greene to leave.
Go through this thread and you will see people defending Geno's game yesterday the same way that they defend Sanchez. Difference is that Geno is 22 year old rookie, while Sanchez is a 26 year old veteran. Role with the damn rookie who has upside. No need to pull out stats or anything. They aren't switching back to Sanchez now. The decision is over. Give it up and root for your damn favorite team or go root for Tom Bitchdy.
Right, that's why I said "if you agree that the drop actually IS a drop." If you disagree with their interpretation, you ignore the stat, or tweak the numbers, etc.; if you do agree, there's no where else to go with it, really. I just meant its not one of those deep, complex stats with a modeling system behind it spitting out numbers that can be massaged given variables that the model doesn't include. Dropped INTs are dropped INTs, nothing fancy.
The running game as a whole played a bit better towards the end of last year, I'm just really anti-Greene. I think the O-line got some undeserved shit because of his inability to operate in space. Not to throw more stat stuff out there, considering where the discussion has been lately, but the Jets had the fifth best adjusted line yards in the league last year, which roughly approximates how much of a given play's success/failure was independent of the running back. They were also 2nd best in the league at stuffed percentage. The things that mostly the running back is responsible for didn't look so pretty (24th in second level; 29th in open field). That's probably skewed a bit because of the style of runner Greene was, lacking in speed and mostly between the tackles, but it also jives with my perception of him. How many times was there a hole he just didn't hit fast enough? How many times did he drop at first contact, and actually fall backwards? I just really don't like him as a player. I agree that Ivory probably won't hold up so well if given Greene's entire workload, but I think Powell is a pretty useful player, and there should be a large enough role for someone like Goodson in an offense lacking in explosiveness like the Jets.
