Didn't figure you'd have much of a defense for that one. Your posting history is too consistent with it.
I haven't ignored it at all. I've said it occurred squarely within the context of an extremely light passing load in general, as did all of Tannehill's performance metrics, which is true.
Again, you came up with a theory, made up your own definitions, and cherry picked the data to use, and now want me to come up with something?
Again. Try to understand...you haven't shown that Tannehill's "light" load wasn't a result of being so effective throwing deeper than everyone else. Real talk: Tannehill didn't need as many passes to advance the ball as other QBs.
Again, you tell me how we're going to measure "throwing deeper than anyone else," and we'll determine whether there was a relationship between that and Tannehill's passing load in 2019. I'll be nice enough to do the math involved.
Yeah, I want you to tell me how to do it all the right way, since you profess to know. If you know I'm doing it wrong, then by definition you must know the right way.
It is not related to passing load. It is a measure of difficulty of each individual throw base on measurable characteristics of that play alone (e.g. air yards, pass pressure, receiver separation, etc). You will have to show how throws vary in difficulty with passing volume. You haven't shown that.
I've given you what is clearly wrong in your conclusions. You continuously use the begging the question logical fallacy.
Did Tannehill lead the league in yards per attempt? That is a simple example of Tannehill attempting and completing longer passes.
I'm comfortable concluding that Tannehill's performance in general, including what's mentioned above, occurred within the context of an extremely light load, and how that may in fact explain the difference between his CPOE in 2019 and his CPOE previously in his career. We'll see what that portends for the future.
How does it explain it, exactly? How does throwing the ball a lower percentage of the time alter expected completion percentage, exactly?
OK, so you're operationalizing "throwing deep" as YPA. I've already shown there was no relationship game-by-game between Tannehill's YPA and his passing load. There was, however, a fairly strong relationship (-0.63 correlation) between Derrick Henry's yards per rush (rushing efficiency, not rushing attempts) and Tannehill's passing load. So, again -- and please try to follow -- there was no relationship between Tannehill's YPA (his passing efficiency) and his passing load. There was a relationship between Tannehill's passing load and Derrick Henry's rushing efficiency, however. So the contention that Tannehill's passing load was low because of his own performance (as you've said, "throwing deep") isn't supported. The contention that his passing load was low because of Derrick Henry's performance is supported, however.
I've already said I'm not going to speculate about a mechanism of action that can be neither confirmed nor denied, on a message board full of hostility. We'll just see how he does next year and thereafter.
Serious question, Why would the coaches purposefully give more responsibility to this group of QBs? 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 Why?
So you admit that you don't know of any reason why lower passing % would be less difficult for each throw. Glad we cleared that up.
Because their run games don't support the lightening of their loads? Remember that the correlation between passer rating and rushing efficiency on a game-by-game basis throughout the league in 2019 was almost nil. It was only Tannehill who enjoyed a relationship 2.2 standard deviations above the league norm in that regard....
Do you know why it wouldn't? No you don't. Nobody can confirm nor deny that. The meaning of such a thing can be determined only later, after more data are gathered.
It says that ability is unrelated to passing volume, unless a team's run game can compensate for less than stellar QB ability, at which point the load of the QB whose ability is less than stellar can be lightened. Try to follow the relationships among three variables, not just two.
Circular argument. You continue to ignore the other data presented by cbrad and others as regarding the run game.
So Derrick Henry's rushing efficiency was driven by Tannehill's passer efficiency (as measured by passer rating). Cool. That does explain why both passing efficiency and rushing efficiency skyrocketed when Mariota was replaced with Tannehill.
Again, you aren't understanding how things relate. If we're determining ability, then the degree of difficulty of the situation in which performance is measured is an important consideration, hence the focus on passing volume.
The correlation between Tannehill's YPA and his passing volume, game-by-game in 2019, was -0.06. The correlation between Tannehill's YPA and Derrick Henry's yards per rush was 0.31. The correlation between Derrick Henry's yards per rush and Tannehill's passing volume was -0.64. The partial correlation between YPA and Henry's yards per rush, controlling for passing volume: 0.35 The partial correlation between YPA and passing volume, controlling for Henry's yards per rush: 0.19 The partial correlation between Henry's yards per rush and passing volume, controlling for YPA: -0.66 I would request that @cbrad help us interpret the above.
YPA is not a measure of efficiency. Passer rating is a measure of efficiency. 9/10, 90 yards, 1 TD 0 INT = passer rating of 137.5, 9 YPA 1/10 90 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT = passer rating of 97.92, 9 YPA Just like using pass % as a measure of difficulty, you need to misuse numbers to make your case. There are accepted measures of both passing efficiency and passing difficulty. They are passer rating and expected completion percentage. Tannehill was #1 in the first and #8 in the second. Done.
In support of my last post: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/08/03/defending-qb-rating Put most simply, you cannot be a smart football analyst and dismiss passer rating. In fact, it's impossible to look at the incredible correlation to victory of passer rating and then dismiss it. You might as well dismiss the score of a game when determining a winner. Existing passer rating, meanwhile, purports to tell us only one thing: which quarterback is the most efficient passer. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...stats-intro-to-completion-probability-part-ii Expected Completion Percentage (xComp) gives an indication of the level of difficulty of a quarterback's throws. You are going to have to defend the use of other measures.
Haven't followed the discussion so far, but just looking at the numbers here together with what I remember doing myself, the most important thing to note is that other than the correlation between Henry's Y/A and Tannehill's passing attempts, none of those are statistically significant due to sample size (at least that's what I remember when calculating it). And if I remember correctly the correlation between Henry's Y/A and Tannehill's passing attempts was only statistically significant when that Denver game was included. In other words, you're looking at stats that due to small sample size are inconclusive, although stats like passing YPA and passing volume generally have a correlation near zero for the league as a whole so that one I know is representative. Really.. the take-home message with most of these stats is we just don't have enough data to get statistical significance. And even if you did, there will still be many ways of explaining it. YPA is a measure of efficiency because it's "yards PER attempt". All the components of passer rating are measures of efficiency themselves: Y/A, COMP%, TD% and INT%.
Any measure's validity as an indicator of ability is a function of sample size, whether it's passer rating or whatever else.
I’ve stopped replying to your posts as they have been obtuse and sanctimonious but the bottom line on your posts have been Ryan Tannehill is not a good quarterback. That’s been your bottom line...period. Ryan Tannehill is sub-par Ryan Tannehill is below average Ryan Tannehill can’t win without this, that or the other You continuously post irrelevant numbers and stats that are meaningless. In your world of football, the quarterback is the end all, be all and the other 52 players, the coaching staff, anything that effects the game of football is completely irrelevant. Well your interpretation is equally irrelevant. If Joe Philbin had remained Miami and had a winning career as the Dolphins Head Coach, your interpretation of Tannehill might have relevance. If Adam Gase remained in Miami and had winning career as the Dolphins Head Coach, your interpretation of Tannehill might have relevance. Neither of those things have happened. In fact, both of those coaches are as equally incompetent today with their new teams as they were in Miami. Their offensive schemes, in a word sucked. Tannehill executed those failed offensive schemes and his game by game, series by series stats prove it. He did what was asked if him. Mike Vrabel’s offensive scheme is considerably different than the schemes Tannehill was asked to execute, but even with that being the case, Tannehill’s overall stats improved year after year and his talents culminated in playing for the AFC Championship. Instead of placing all of your focus on an anti-Tannehill campaign, how about placing your focus on an overall analysis of total effective offenses. You might actually find your high volume quarterback play is not a basket to put all your eggs in and further discover it’s not near as effective as you think it is. If you think it still is, watch what happens to Brady in Tampa Bay this upcoming season.
Even still, someone would have to convince me to use YPA over passer rating for efficiency and passing % over expected completion percentage for difficulty. They only reason he is trying to use different measures is because the accepted measures were shown to not support his narrative. He has provided no evidence that they are better than passer rating and expected completion percentage.
Here's the bottom line: 1) Tannehill performed well in 2019, but it was within the context of having an extremely light load placed upon him. 2) There is no measure of his performance that can be divorced from the context of the extremely light load he experienced. 3) The extremely light load he experienced was not caused exclusively by his own performance. 4) Whether 2019 is a reflection of Tannehill's ability or is a one-year (or rather, 10-game) anomaly can be determined only in the future. The above points are irrefutable in my opinion. Whoever opines that they can be refuted I'm happy to agree to disagree with.
Here is my bottom line: 1. Tannehill's passing volume was entirely consistent with teams that play a balanced offense and similar to a number of playoff teams. 2. Tannehill attempted the 8th most difficult throws, on average, in the league. 3. Despite being asked to make extremely difficult throws, he was the most efficient passer in the league. 4. Despite being asked to make extremely difficult throws, he was the 3rd most accurate QB in the league. 5. Despite being asked to make extremely difficult throws, he had the 3rd lowest percentage of bad throws in the league. 6. There was nothing in 2019 that cannot be replicated. Tenn has maintained consistent run/pass ratios for 4 years. The above points are irrefutable in my opinion. Whoever opines that they can be refuted I'm happy to agree to disagree with.
I take issue with the three highlighted points from above: the difficulty of Tannehill's throws in 2019, as measured by CPOE (which is what FinFaninBuffalo is using above) was just shy of a full standard deviation below the league average, and so his throws weren't "extremely" difficult in comparison to those of the average QB in 2019. This is another area where a low degree of variation across the league makes a league rank ("8th in the league") misleading. Here are the league z-scores for expected completion percentage in 2019: TEAM xComp% Z TB -1.70 DET -1.65 SEA -1.45 NYJ -1.29 TEN -1.19 (Mariota) PIT -1.09 NYG -1.04 TEN -0.99 (Tannehill) CIN -0.94 DET -0.84 DAL -0.79 BUF -0.79 CLE -0.68 WAS -0.48 PIT -0.48 CAR -0.33 MIA -0.33 MIN -0.28 GB -0.18 NE -0.07 LAC -0.07 CHI 0.03 ATL 0.33 NYG 0.33 IND 0.38 WAS 0.54 PHI 0.59 BAL 0.59 DEN 0.84 DEN 0.84 JAX 0.84 HOU 0.89 ARI 0.89 LAR 1.20 KC 1.20 NO 1.60 SF 1.70 OAK 1.91 NO 1.96
I think it's a viable hypothesis now to say Tannehill's surroundings in Miami were holding him back from some above average level. I didn't think that before given the data (I mean.. 2019 was statistically significant so the hypothesis has to be modified). But none of this excludes the possibility that Tannehill just had a fantastic year in what will otherwise be a mostly average career. So, unlike pre-2019 I'd say there's more uncertainty as to exactly what kind of QB'ing ability you have with Tannehill. It's going to take more years to see whether 2019 was a flash in the pan or indicative of a higher sustained QB'ing ability than was seen in Miami.
