Charles Harris

Phillips has been making some plays. he needs more snaps.

 

Good research! These are the stats if you combine all the data (sample size is large too):

With Harris:
Total plays = 364
Passing plays = 217
Rushing plays = 147
Average yards gained = 4.85
Average passing yards gained = 5.29
Average rushing yards gained = 4.2

Without Harris:
Total plays = 371
Passing plays = 193
Rushing plays = 178
Average yards gained = 5.98
Average passing yards gained = 7.73
Average rushing yards gained = 4.08

So that shows the main difference is in the passing game where Harris helps.

 

So What? That does not mean it is actually directly caused by harris. It could just be a coincidence, harris is mostly in there on third down which are generally downs where the offense performs worse. There is no evidence to suggest this is due to harris playing well, which he actually is not.

He has done virtually nothing this season. He has only one sack the whole year and that came against a backup tackle.

 

You're right it could be a coincidence, but you need to prove that instead of just asserting it must be a coincidence. That site doesn't show what down these passing plays occurred on, but they were passing plays. And in absence of evidence showing otherwise, that data does suggest Harris is helping on passing downs.

That's a separate argument of course from whether Harris was the best pick, or whether he's performing (or not performing) as one would expect or hope from someone taken at his draft position.

 

You are the one inferring that this is due to Harris. Why should I have to take the time to prove or disprove something that You are inferring without any proof?

 

The data is evidence that Harris is helping in the passing game, unless there's some other data that does show it was a coincidence. It's not "proof".

Also, note that one can play the game you're playing with ANY stat. We could take the sacks Harris has and just say it could be "coincidence" he's not getting more because of some other factor. Sure that's a possibility, but the evidence shows he's not producing as some might have hoped in terms of sack production.

Point is.. you can't just cherry pick which stats demonstrate causality and which don't. You have to actually show through more detailed stats that something wasn't causal. An example: most of the difference in rushing attempts between teams that win and those that don't come in the 4th quarter where the winning team has a lead and is trying to run out the clock. That shows that it's not "attempts => high probability of winning".

So it's up to you. You want to trot out stats to support your argument (as you do), fine. But then be honest about stats like the ones posted above on Harris providing evidence he's helping in the passing game UNLESS you can show otherwise. How much you value "proving otherwise" (if indeed you are correct it's all a coincidence) is up to you.

 

Found the problem.

You're basing his job performance on sack numbers.

 

I was against the Harris pick from the start because he relied heavily on that spin move in college. However, his work ethic has been off the charts and it's hard to be down on someone like that. Stats aside, he's going to be better next season than he is today, and he's going to be better than that the season after. He is continually turning to others and asking, "How can I get better?" That's not typical for a rookie that's already starting and it would be hard to ask for anything more.

At the same time, I'm very tired of these arguments taking over the site. Someone takes the time to do some research, then someone else says, "Well, that person sucks because I say so." We've heard that childish banter on Harris, Cutler, Moore, Parker, Wake, Timmons, Gase....the list is endless and there's never a single stat, play or game referenced. And it's also amazing how one voice will die down (via a ban) and another magically takes its place- it reminds me of the old WWF tag team wrestling.

Only, we all know that type of wrestling is fake, don't we?

 

tell you what, when you actually start a thread with actual relevance, let us know.
basing your argument on "I didn't like him before the draft and therefore he sucks" and "he only has one sack" means one thing, you can't actually back up your weak argument.

 

Problem is you guys aren't using the ignore feature correctly.

 

Wrong, there is nothing in your "evidence" to suggest that this is for some reason directly due to harris.

Sack production is a very straightforward individual stat. You either get the sack or you don't, it is not a team derived stat like the performance of the entire defense on certain downs when said player is in the lineup. There are 10 other players involved in the performance of the overall defense.

You have not provided any evidence to prove that this is due to harris.

 

Same screen name, same I have always had. Use the search function.

 

I don't start twenty new threads a day, I barely do one thread a week. You just pulled that out of your ***.

 

Seems you have problems with the english language. Let me simplify it for you. Inferred is synonymous with conclude. You are concluding that these defensive stats are due to harris, when there is actually no direct evidence to prove this is due to him.

Therefore your inferrence or conclusion is wrong.

 

What the **** are you talking about? I have never been outed for having any other screen name. You just made that up or are confusing me with somebody else.

 

lol of course there is. You have two different conditions: “with Harris” and “without Harris”. It’s a standard way of testing for the effect of any “intervention” in science.

 

actually, inferring and concluding are not the same thing. try google.

 

But there is no evidence for causality. Therefore you cannot conclude that harris has been playing well based off of these stats or that the defense is better because of him instead of in spite of him.

Fact is he has only 13 tackles and 1 sack on the season. His 1 sack came against a backup tackle who came in mid-game due to an injury to the starter. These individual numbers are the worst of any of the top edge defenders in this year's draft. The only other top edge defender in the draft who has been comparatively as bad is taco charlton. Who I also said was overrated.

This thread was created by the resident dolphins PR rep Dan Marino to try and make charles harris look good given that he can't actually reference his actual production which is bad.

 

Yes they are, infer and conclude are synonyms. See reference below. You guys need to brush up on your language skills.

http://mobile-dictionary.reverso.net/english-synonyms/to infer

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/infer

 

Turning a losing football argument into a "Words with Friends" exercise is pretty much the same thing we do every day here- if you're too dense to back up your argument with the stat guys, just call 'em names and complain about their grammar. Then everyone forgets how little you actually know about football.

For example, you didn't capitalize "Actually" or "Try" at the start of each sentence...that proves Kiko is a horrible linebacker! That's the childishness we've been forced to endure lately.

 

Yes it is (statistical) evidence of causality because we all know that the players caused the stats, not the other way around. It's when you have a correlation between two stats that you have to think further.

For example, "rushing attempts" and "win percentage" are two stats, and the correlation there is higher than for "rushing YPC" and "win percentage". It's in those cases where you have to dig deeper for evidence something is not causal. Here though.. it's pretty clear the group of players caused the production numbers.

Now.. keep in mind the evidence is only statistical in nature, meaning we're making inferences in the presence of random variation that cannot be perfectly characterized on each play (i.e. you don't know the state of every measurable variable on each play). That's what gives you the opening for saying it might be something that only reveals itself with greater resolution (conditioning on more factors).

That's why I said it's evidence until proven otherwise, and you have to prove otherwise to make your case. Until then though, yes it's evidence for causality.

Yeah.. you've got stats that suggest he's not performing as well as you'd like. I'm not arguing against those stats. I'm just saying those aren't the ONLY stats that are relevant to this debate. It's not as black and white as you're making it seem like. Besides, we really have to wait a few years to see whether Harris develops into a good DE or not, regardless of what any of the stats so far say.

 

So.. Harris is making QB's go to their outlets more often. That's what I take from the passing difference.

 

Nice to know what I am seeing on the field is backed up through stats. Harris is fine as a rookie. Which is a good sign.

 

Same with Jordan Willis.

 

There are too many variables to determine wether or not this is due to harris, therefore it is of no real value in terms of evaluating his play.

For example harris is mostly playing on third and long situations which are mostly lower percentage downs where offenses normally dont perform as well. It could simply be the variation is due to the types of situations he is playing in. It could also be due to another player, wake and harris are almost always on the field together on passing downs, what makes you think its not wake who is having this effect and not harris? It could also be due to some other factor, there are 10 other players on the field affecting the performance of the defense which is a team stat, not an individual stat therefore you should not deduce anything about an individual's performance based on a team stat.

 

Jordan Willis is not being given many reps on passing downs since Cincy is stacked with pass rushers. He is being used mostly as a run stopper and edge setter which he is great at as upposed to harris who stinks at setting the edge.

Given the dramatically less amount of opportunities he has had compared to harris I would say his one sack and 18 tackles is worth more than Harris's one sack and 13 tackles. Jordan Willis was a third round pick and has a PFF rating of 75.9 so far this season, harris was a first rounder and has a PFF rating of 71.2

 

3rd down doesn't explain the difference. Here are the splits for 2017:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/splits_avg.htm

First of all.. lol at pro-football-reference for not being able to do a simple computation of Y/A in their "down splits" for 1st down.. they have a ".0" there haha!

Anyway, combine 1st and 2nd down and you get 286.7 attempts for 1956.5 passing yards as the average for an NFL team so far in 2017. That gives you an average of 6.82 Y/A for 1st and 2nd down combined compared to 6.24 Y/A for 3rd down.

OK.. so even IF Harris ONLY played on 3rd down you'd have to subtract only 0.6 Y/A from the difference. But the difference is a whopping 2.44 passing Y/A.

So after adjusting for the extreme case of Harris ONLY playing on 3rd down you still have a 1.84 Y/A difference. Point is.. that's an example of actually doing some research and saying one might have to adjust stats a bit. All you have right now are opinions w.r.t this Y/A issue. I need data/evidence, not opinions. We know your opinions.

 

Maybe try leaving your beef with the poster at the door and debate the content?

 

Right, Jordan Willis has one sack BUUUTTTT he is really good against the run and all these things, Cincy has a rotation at DE etc. etc.

But Charles Harris has one sack, yet gets no credit for his effect on the passing stats presented in the OP. It's always grass is greener with some people.

 

Maybe they are smoking that greener grass?