What?? This is YOUR hypothesis. I'm simply commenting on your conclusions, and where I see issues with your conclusions.
Like I told you already, I believe I already supported my own hypothesis, so my work is done in that regard. If you don't think I supported it, then it's up to you to specify how that should be done differently.
There is also an awful lot to suggest Tannehill is a very good QB. Since those of us who predicted that prior to the 2019 season were proven correct so far, I'm going to stick with my prediction over yours.
How many times do you have to be told that you have the relationship reversed? A large part of the reason for the lighter load was the effectiveness of the team.
LOL. No you didn't. In fact, you can't even keep straight what you were trying to show. It keeps changing.
There isn't even a relationship there. The correlation game-by-game between YPA and Tannehill's load -- i.e., his percentage of pass dropbacks (or pass attempts) -- was nil. By contrast, the correlation between Tannehill's passer rating and Derrick Henry's yards per rush, game-by-game, was 0.64, which was 2.2 standard deviations above the league norm in 2019. The correlation between Derrick Henry's yards per rush and Tannehill's YPA, game-by-game, was 0.31, which is whole lot higher than nil. Likewise, there was a -0.63 correlation between Derrick Henry's yards per rush and Tannehill's percentage of pass dropbacks, game-by-game. As Henry ran the ball more efficiently, Tannehill's percentage of pass dropbacks decreased. So if you want to argue that the lighter load was a result of, as you said, "the effectiveness of the team" -- namely Derrick Henry -- then that statement can be supported objectively (the 0.64 and -0.63 correlations noted above). If on the other hand you want to argue that Tannehill's percentage of pass dropbacks (or pass attempts) was a result of his own "effectiveness" -- i.e., his YPA -- that statement can't be supported. The correlation between those variables was nil.
Who do you think is really confused here, the guy who has a huge investment of time spent doing mathematical calculations that investigate these hypotheses, or the guy who tries to follow along while having no such investment of time?
Here is an article discussing Foles in 2013. It also make an interesting point about the likelihood of 1 hit wonders at QB. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2084972-what-are-the-odds-nick-foles-2013-season-was-an-anomaly Looking back, it's actually harder than you'd think to find obvious one-hit wonders at the quarterback position. Guys get hot for stretches and fade away, but nobody has ever really done what Foles did in 2013 and then disappeared. Can you see a one-hit wonder on that list? Josh McCown put up that number in relief of Cutler last year, and it came late in his career. So that's an anomaly, but the circumstances differ completely than those of Foles. In fact, the only non-superstars on that list are McCown and Chad Pennington, but Pennington still had a solid career, and his 2002 rating was still 15 points lower than Foles' 2013 rating. Foles has to avoid becoming a Josh Freeman or a Bert Jones. The good news is that the odds are greatly in his favor, since more than 75 percent of the players on the two previous lists pertaining to single-season YPA and passer rating either became, or already were, stars. There you go. 7 one hit wonders in 25 years (up to that point). That is what you are betting on. Combine that with some very solid play from Tannehill from 2014 to 2016 when the OL didn't suck and I'll take my chances with Tannehill and that is exactly the decision that the Titans made.
Effectiveness of the TEAM. When you get a lead, you run more. This has been explained to you repeatedly.
We aren't talking about rushing attempts. We're talking about the relationship between Henry's yards per rush (efficiency) and Tannehill's pass attempts, game-by-game. Tannehill's very light load was largely a function of Henry's efficiency in running the ball. When his yards per rush were higher, Tannehill's pass dropbacks were fewer. Moreover, as has been noted (again, try to follow...), the Titans entered the fourth quarter during Tannehill's starts with a cumulative scoring margin of -1. They hardly had a "lead" that permitted them to run more. Instead -- again, as has been shown -- Tannehill's percentage of pass attempts was 1.98 standard deviations below the league average in quarters 1 through 3, precisely when the Titans were accumulating a "lead" heading into the fourth quarter of negative 1. You're using broad concepts that apply to the game generally, but you aren't applying them to the 2019 Titans.
Anybody making that bet, either way, would be smart to explore the similarities between Tannehill and the other QBs involved, during those single seasons. As far as Dalton and Foles go, there are many. I would personally bet neither for nor against Tannehill next season. Like I said above, there are many reasons to hedge one's bets. And Vegas seems to agree, given that his odds of winning the league MVP in 2020 are nothing more than mediocre.
All perfectly normal and as expected. Not really sure what you think you've uncovered....... When a team is running the ball effectively they do it, especially late in games. I already showed you that Tannehill's run/pass ratio in the first half was identical in wins and losses. It was the 2nd half of wins and losses where it was skewed. Exactly as expected. And exactly as the Titans planned.
Right, I understand you think that. The point is, if you're trying to scientifically show something, then you need to falsify your hypothesis. You aren't doing that. You have a hypothesis, and you are seeking stats to support that. So for you to prove your hypothesis, you need to show that what you're claiming is different for Tannehill than for other QBs. You've got to show that his lower percent of dropbacks is because he's not capable, not a result of factors outside of him. You've not done that.
Sure they do, and that's precisely what enabled Tannehill to have an extremely light load passing the ball in 2019. It wasn't his own performance that did that, because there was no correlation between his own efficiency (YPA) and his passing load. What we've "uncovered" is that Tannehill's light load was a function of Derrick Henry's performance, not his own, which is precisely the opposite of what you've proposed.
Maybe you broke the code on Russell Wilson too. Pass % vs passer rating last four seasons: 2016 - 60%, 92.6 2017 - 59%, 95.4 2018 - 47%, 110.9 2019 - 54%, 106.3 What a loser......
From 2012 to 2018 Tannehill's average passer rating (adjusted to 2019) in high-volume passing games was 78.4. That's well below the league average during that period. So in 2019 he enjoyed team factors that largely kept him out of such high-volume passing situations. And again, that was a function of Derrick Henry's performance, not his own.
It was a function of both, the TEAM'S effectiveness. Why are you equating only YPA with efficiency? In addition, YPA on a game by game basis is too volatile to be useful. Too easily skewed. You've not uncovered anything.
LOL. Look again at the top 10 QBs in terms of highest % of passes and tell me that it is a good reflection of QB ability. Please..... LOL.
Again, you've not proven that Miami was average. You claim it is, but have never shown that. We've brought up the coaching carousel, the lack of success of players leaving Miami, and other evidence. You've dismissed those things. Acting like the only difference between Miami and Tennessee is Henry is silly. We've also shown that Henry played better with Tannehill than without. Yet you still hold to Henry.
OK, so you propose the measure of Tannehill's efficiency, and we'll see how well it correlated with his passing load.
You just can't seem to grasp that passing load is a measure of degree of difficulty, not ability. Settle down and try to follow the conversation.
I don't have to prove that Miami is average. Average is the null hypothesis. You go ahead and prove they weren't average.
You do need to prove that if your hypothesis is that Tannehill was in a similar situation in Tennessee as he was in Miami. Since that is your hypothesis, then you need to prove it. It's not anyone else's responsibility to prove your things true.
Here is the list of the top 11 QB combos of 2019 in terms of ability according to The Guy: 1. Matt Ryan 2. Fitz/Rosen 3. Daniel Jones/Eli Manning 4. Kyle Allen/Cam Newton 5. Andy Dalton 6. Phillip Rivers 7. Jameis Winston 8. Jared Goff 9. Gardner Minshew/Nick Foles 10. Patrick Mahomes/Matt Moore 11. Mitch Trubisky/Chase Daniel LOL
Why would I do that? You haven't even correctly figured out your own stuff. Correctly do yours, and then we can talk.
I haven't said anything about the degree to which I've proven the difference between Tannehill's situations. I'm completely comfortable with what I've shown at this point. If you believe there's something missing, then by all means tell us how it should be done differently, and I'll be nice enough to do the math involved.
Tell me how it should be done correctly, since you seem to know, and I'll be nice enough to do the math involved.
OK then we can agree to disagree about that. You can think a quarterback who shoulders 65% of his team's offensive plays as passes is experiencing the same degree of difficulty in leading his offense as the one who shoulders 49% of his team's offensive plays as passes, and I'll think otherwise.
The league has an official measure of difficulty. It is called expected completion percentage. If you want to introduce % of pass plays as a measure of difficulty, you'll have to prove that it measures difficulty. You haven't shown that.
If the guy shouldering 65% is throwing at the lowest ypa in the league, and the guy throwing 49% is throwing at the highest, you still would argue that the 49% guy has an easier job? That's the problem.
We've told you numerous times that your current thought process is flawed. You haven't changed anything. So I'm not interested in starting anything new.
Why do you think YPA has anything to do with the relationship between passing load and the degree of difficulty of the quarterback's job?
Of course you aren't. That way you can sit back comfortably and take potshots at others' work, without subjecting anything you propose to refutation. Quite a safe place to be.
LOL. Okay, sure..... All you needed to do is make up a bogus measure of difficulty and ignore the official one because it doesn't fit your narrative. You'll need to stop using CPOE as a measure of a QB's ability too, since it is based on expected completion percentage. I think it is more difficult with a low % of passing plays. Far too much pressure to have to be perfect on every play. Also, no chance to get in a rhythm. Finally, a lot less garbage time padding of stats. There Tannehill is back on top. And the list of QBs that he is grouped with looks far better than your top 10 list.
