Luck, Griffin, & Wilson vs. Tannehill & Weeden: An Objective Analysis (Part I)

So what if there is no proper-touch statistic? I don't think anyone is here arguing about who forces the ball into double coverage more? Certainly there is a lot of value in being able to watch the game and form opinions off of that. But statistics serve their own purpose. They quantify the aggregate ability of 22 players, who all share a common goal. The winner of the game is literally decided by a statistic. Certainly nobody believes that we should no longer keep score, just have some people watch then decide who is better?

 

And therein lies the problem. Stats paint half of the picture.

Team A: 338 total yards, 72 plays ran, 19 first downs, TOP 32:20
Team B: 334 total yards, 57 plays ran, 16 first downs, TOP 27:40

which team won?


team c: 60 plays, 19 first downs, 377 total yards, 28:51 TOP
team d: 60 plays, 19 first downs, 272 total yards, 31:09 TOP

again, who won?

 

Statistics say that I can't determine who won the game.

 

Fine, by measure of aggregate ability, which team was superior?

 

PS.... When does sampling bias come into play? TIA

 

That's why there is only one stat that matters.

 

Statistics can't say if you're only providing that little data.

Always.

 

Hiw about a straight answer instead of deflection and accusations of bias for starters. You may very well be on to something, but when your methodology is so jacked up you either can't or don't answer a question, you lose credibility.

 

so why bother then? TIA

 

Bother with what? Are you suggesting there's sampling bias in the OP? What exactly is your point?

 

That is exactly what I am saying. The OP is rank with selection bias. The proper way would be to cover all QBs stats, not just rookies and the top 5.

 

Would have been much more constructive if you said that much earlier???

 

I said cherry picking in my first post ITT, which you replied to. Wouldn't it be easier for you to get that the first time it's said?

 

Right, except it was missing the constructive part:

Presumably at which point Shouright would have shared his reasoning for making the selection he did? Certainly that would have likely led to a much more productive discourse here.

 

No it would have led to being told that those passers aren't statistically relevant, and that his way is just fine. If that's productive then have at it.

 

Interesting where you kinda have to take each QB on a case by case basis and even that can be hard. You have o-line, scheme, and whether the QB makes quick reads . Tannehill was more accurate when he had extra time. Tannehill may not be thought of as one that gets the ball out quickly, but 60.2% of his throws were out of his hand within 2.5 seconds, higher than Brady's 59.1%.

Stats are from November though

 

Russell Wilson was a predictable steal in the draft..

 

I'm talking about the same thing in his highlight thread..would like your response in that one when you can, don't want to derail this one..

Confused and pissed off when writing it.

 

What is the original source of these stats, who compiled them? I'm curious as to Aaron Rodgers attempting only 3 passes per game of 21 yards or longer, almost the exact same amount as Tannehill.

 

ESPN's splits are pretty good for this sort of thing. looking at it, Rodgers did indeed attempt 48 passes of 21+. I haven't checked everyone else yet, but a quick check of the top 5 passers on ESPN pretty much matches up with what's been posted.

 

Griffin threw passes of 21+ yards 8.4% of his attempts. Cousins threw 21+ yards 8.3% of his attempts.