Davone Bess: The League's Biggest Impact Player

Honestly I feel like the whole "burden of proof" concept is a cop out. You know that he probably doesn't have time to find the red zone statistics of every single receiver duo in the league, I'm sure he has some sort of life. By using the burden of proof argument you basically build a defense you know he probably won't penetrate due to time and not due to data.

On the other hand I'm sure you also don't have the time to find the statistics of every receiving duo in the league. You also have a point you're trying to make, so why not include some data that supports it instead of making him support the entire burden of the conversation?

This isn't his career and he doesn't get paid to throw his time away coming up with graphs, spreadsheets and scientific reviews of the leagues receivers....

Basically I'm saying this debate doesn't seem to be fair.

 

By all means, feel free to prove that performance inside the 40 yd line or redzone is nothing more than a random subset of overall performance. At this point, these numbers have no significance.

 

Before we even begin to look at red zone statistics, its imperative we establish the statistical significance of red zone statistics.

 

When you try to make an argument based on a 10 yard reception on 3rd and 10 being better than a 10 yard reception on 1st and 10......well..

 

Who exactly made that argument? Thats an extremely vague hypothetical.

 

The theory being presented is that red zone performance is superior or more instructive than overall performance. I don't see any evidence to support that theory.

 

then it's not a stat. It's a metric since it's subjective.

 

dude, you just shot down the same thing and you are asking me "who" made that argument?

 

I knew that was the initial premise, just lost me there for a second..

 

When discussing QBs, its been proven that red-zone performance is just a random subset of overall performance. "Red Zone" ability does not exist, or at least has yet to be proven to exist.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not following what you're getting at.

 

How is it subjective? Its all based on past results.

 

I am dubious that what you are saying has been "proven." How has it been proven?

The most common performance indicator for QBs is passer rating. Passer rating is heavily influenced by TD passes. A QB on a team with no running game will likely end up with more passing TDs than one whose team has a great running game and tends to run in the red zone. That will make oen QB's performance numbers look better than the others even if he isn't really better at it. WE might not be substantively disagreeing here, but I think there are differences in red zone performance stats between players with otherwise similar stats between the 20s. Observationally, you also see some teams that are better at getting guys wide open via scheme in the red zone than other teams. I'm talking about plays where a TE releases and is uncovered, or a pick play where the WR ends up effectively wide open not through any special talent, but by scheme. So far, we haven't seen those scheme TDs from the Dolphins.

 

THIS is what I was getting at.

 

They are weighting results. That is why it is subjective.

 

You can prove whether the differences in red-zone performance and overall performance are significant by running a t-test. All you're trying to prove is whether some QBs over or under-perform in the RZ compared to outside the RZ.

The fact that a team has no running game, or a strong running game will manifest themselves both in the red-zone and outside the red-zone.

IIRC, whenever I've seen this type of analysis done, the t-test has been for completion percentage inside and outside the red-zone. Using any type of efficiency is not going to work in the red-zone, as the field is often too truncated.

 

The results are weighted by using historical results.

I.E. Miami has a 1st and 10 at their own 40 yd line, and they are down 10-3. Historically, teams in this position win the game 35% of the time.

Thats not really subjective, because everything is based on win-loss, which is a binary outcome.

 

Right, but we do have evidence that supports the Win Probabilities being presented.

ETA: also, just to be clear, this doesn't necessarily reflect a player's ability, just his impact on the game. It is very possible for someone to have a WPA that doesn't reflect their ability.