In Hindsight do you still trade Marshall for Eggnew and a 3rd rounder?

The actual numbers. Usage rates happened. The production happened. There are only 3 games to project forward.

 

No, you projected numbers for a season that already happened.

 

What is fundamentally dumb is to pretend that there wasn't another WR in 2011 taking up a 50% usage rate. That would be a dumb way to do a statistical analysis, and a sure fire way to never have anybody hire you for your statistical analysis as well.

There is NO WAY to COMPARE production without accounting for USAGE. It is how every single statistician for EVERY SINGLE sports team in EVERY SPORT would do it.

 

Projecting three games based on averages is reasonable. Predicting a season that already happened is ridiculous.

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't actually support your underlying point, but hey.

 

Based on usage. Unless you want to ignore that Brandon Marshall was here in 2011.

 

I agree. The thing that I keep going back to though is that Jeff Ireland had the final say in his contract and Bill Parcells specifically did not. The Dolphins had to be very careful about that because Jerry Jones was unwilling to part with Ireland prior to the 2008 Draft.

I've seen some people go on about how unenforcible the clause is in court, etc. The primary bodies enforcing the language would be A) The Dolphins owner, and B) Roger Goodell, with C) Jerry Jones acting as an interested and potentially aggrieved party. We're not talking about some court battle here. All Jeff has to do is raise a stink and suddenly the Dolphins are fined draft picks for deceiving the NFL and preventing Jerry Jones from being able to block Ireland's transfer when he in fact did have the right to do so.

It's arguable there's also NFL paperwork involved in signing free agents and drafting players that would actually require the signature of the man who (as defined by the league's Anti-Tampering Policy) has authority over personnel. So in that way, Jeff Ireland literally had his finger on the button, not Bill Parcells. I don't care whether Parcells thinks he's bigger than life, if Ireland's holding the pen and Ireland refuses to use it then the move doesn't happen.

The first level of grievance would have been brought to the owner. In 2008 that was Wayne Huizenga and I imagine Ireland would've found short shrift with him because Huizenga hired Parcells to be the man. But by January of 2009 the team was already sold to Steve Ross, and Parcells had been dissing Ross and being cold to him since the negotiations between Ross and Huizenga began and Parcells insisted that a clause be inserted in his contract saying that if Huizenga sold the team, Parcells could leave any time he wanted while still collecting all the money from Ross (who is now responsible for paying him). Combine that with being cold to the guy, telling every media source that'll listen that you're uncomfortable with Ross' focus on glitz and glamor, and even reports that Parcells told Ross to his face that if he smells Carl Peterson anywhere near the facility he's leaving, and I don't think you have a recipe for a boss that's going to side with you in a dispute with Jeff Ireland. Especially when it's Carl Peterson who gave Ireland his first scouting jobs.

The reality is Ireland held all the cards from 2008 onward but from 2009 onward he held them in a way that enforcing his authority wouldn't have even caused any self-inflicted wounds. If he was pissed that Parcells kept insisting on moves that he knew to be wrong for the team he could speak to Ross about it and before you know it Parcells is saying **** this I'm out of here, as he walks away with his money...with nobody worse for the wear.

So again I say that whatever moves might have theoretically been made that Ireland disagreed with, were still ultimately made with his consent. Not least because Ireland was still the one in all likelihood physically holding the pen and signing the damn contracts, terminations and other league filings. So yes, I hold him accountable for that.

 

It absolutely supports my point. You are just too prideful to admit that you were wrong, or are afraid to admit that you don't understand how a comparative statistical analysis is done.

I am thinking that you make your living based on an Art, or practice and not mathematics.

 

We're about a post or two away from Time Cube levels of coherency at this point, but please by all means show me who projects statistics for seasons that have already occurred, or who actually in practices uses what you're talking about.

 

All fair points, but most people are not willing to really take a look at what realistic draft success rates are. I think Ireland's drafts overall are probably around 55-65th percentile among GMs. The constant ranting and raving about how terrible he is and what a moron he must be is pretty tiring. But I have no real problem if the team decides to go in a different direction, as I don't think he has been so good as to be indispensable. It seems pretty clear to me from media reports and Hard Knocks that the two moves that people seem most upset about -- the Marshall and VDavis trades -- were done at Philbin's (or the coaching staff as a whole) request/demand. I think the failure to spend more resources on another WR to replace Marshall was also in accord with Philbin/Sherman's wishes. To use the famous Parcells analogy, I think Ireland sees his role as the grocery shopper whose job is to find the groceries that fit the meal that the chef wants to create. I find it hard to believe that Philbin was clamoring for a proverbial No. 1 receiver and Ireland completely ignored those wishes. It seems to me that Ireland and Philbin were on the same page. If you take away the Marshall and VD moves and look at it as if Marshall and VD were still on the team, I don't think there'd be any credible argument that the team lacks talent at WR or at CB. Ireland got talent for those positions, but it seems the coaching staff preferred to have the draft picks than those two players.

 

I'm on record approving the Brandon Marshall trade. And I still approve of it.

Yet Section126 is coming close to changing my mind on that. This argument is pretty lopsided. One person's logic is completely sound and another person's logic makes no sense whatsoever.

 

The only way that matters is if there was in fact a mandate to use Marshall over the others...which you told me early was silly.

 

Who in practice? Every single video/stat/analytic department for every single pro sports franchise in every single sport.

One more time: Usage matters.

 

There are loads of other people who do better jobs arguing against me that you could have picked to do this for and had it be way more plausible and interesting. This just looks transparently arbitrary.

 

Hate to say this, but you have just rejected the basic premise for all business planning taught in every school of business in the world.

 

Then it should be very easy to actually prove rather than insisting it's so self-evident.

 

why does that matter? He was a living and breathing human being playing the same position as the two guys in question. When you do a comparative analysis, you take into account everybody that contributed to the numbers you will be using.

 

I agree. IMO people are failing to consider the impact of the coach and the coaching turnover in their assessments.

 

Uh, it would be tremendously different for business than it would football statistics. There is a very long and exhaustive study and quantification of those issues. You cannot mathematically qualify the theoretical impact of a different offense, different opponents, different quarterback, and a host of other mitigating circumstances effecting receiving production.

 

it is. Pay for a Synergy account:

http://mysynergysports.com/

Or break into Davie and steal their proprietary software.

How do you think that PFF comes up with ratings? They get production, allow for usage, and project. That is what statistical analysis is all about.

it is the same principle that is used to determine QB Rating. Usage, Usage, Usage.

 

It matters because Hartline is putting up virtually identical numbers to Marshall. That means, while here Marshall wasn't significantly better. The only reason he was targeted more was because there was a mandate to target Marshall first. If Marshall was amazing he should have produced considerably more with that kind of mandate. As you say, usage.

 

And why would Ireland raise a stink? What wou have have to gain from it? He would get fired. He would be backstabbing the guy who has been his mentor and has been responsible for his career advancement to that point. And he would be widely viewed as a prima donna who screwed his former team and whom future teams would be very wary of. And, of course, there is no indication that Ireland felt so strongly about any disagreement about any particular player as to even contemplate for a nanosecond doing something so stupid as to essentially commit career suicide. There are only 32 NFL teams. In any given year maybe 5-6 GM positions open up. You're relatively new to one of those coveted 32 jobs. Nobody in their right mind would do what you are suggesting.

OK, now we are moving into the realm of the truly absurd.

I agree that Ireland should be held accountable for picks made while Parcells was here because there is no clear evidence that he disagreed with any of it. But his being accountable has nothing to do with the essentially unenforceable clause in the contract that Ireland "conspired" with Parcells and the Dolphins to include in order to enable him to get his dream job.

 

No, that's not at all what Pro Football Focus does. They grade individual plays in regards to outcome of their understood assignment. There's no projection.

And again, if it's so universal, you should be able to find some sort of example that actually explains any sort of methodology supporting what you're talking about. Instead of a link and an explanation that it totally and completely justifies what you're talking about behind a paywall. The explanation at the bottom of the page says this:

It's a video website that has statistics, some of which are proprietary but none of which are said to be based on anything other actual observable phenomena. There's no evidence they are doing stuff like say, going back and projecting theoretical seasons that have already happened.

 

No, that is not at all what PFF does. PFF shows actual results/production. They don't project it. Their ratings are based on "grades" of plays that have already happened, not projections.

Usage is definitely a factor in production, but Synergy Sports doesn't project either. They account for and show what has already happened. They don't take historical results and project them into the future.

 

You are making a reasoned argument (you can be right or wrong, and so can I). I made a statistical one. They are different.

 

Correct

As an aside, synergy sports is absolutely awesome. It would be great if they, or someone else, developed a similar product for the NFL.

 

I made a mistake. I said PFF. I meant Pro Football Outsiders.

Synergy Sports is a tool used to project, they track usage in GREAT DETAIL. It is how scouting reports are formed.

 

This isn't how it works in practice. There is an abundance of opportunity in the business world to file lawsuits against employers or former/current employees. It almost never happens, because the negatives far outweigh the positives. Jeff Ireland filing grievances, even if completely legitimate would be a disaster for his career.

 

That is precisely what a scouting report does. That is what Synergy produces.

 

Data is data. You add in the variables (some little more than SWAGs, most based on some years data of similar situations, historical trends, etc., etc, etc.) and adjust for the projected market (like who you are playing) over time, and mix in the seasonal variations (when you play and where), and a good 'rough' projection can be pulled up. To really base this on something that is more than a sophisticated conjecture, you need to mix in some statistically significant modifiers which gave me a headache 35+ years ago and to which I have since not paid a lot of attention. Sec's is not sophisticated in the sense of being fully developed business analyst operating plan sophisticated, but is seems to be a very good down and dirty quick I need it now not in 24 hours projection. In other words, it should not be dismissed because it doesn't fit the argument. I have seen otherwise good businessmen go bankrupt ignoring such data.

 

BTW, what PFF does is chart games, very similarly to what a scout does, and we all know that can be subjective. Has anybody broken down their chart system?

 

Synergy is not used to project. It is used to scout and evaluate. NBA teams may look at it and say "Wow, Shane Battier is a better/worse pick and roll defender than the we thought, we should . . . . the next time we play the Heat," but they don't use it to conclude that Battier gave up ___ pts per possession when guarding the PnR Roll Man in 2012, so he'll give up ____ pts per possession to PnR Roll Men in 2014. Etc.

 

Have you seen Synergy tracking a game? What do you think the video departments do when they get all that tracking data? What they do is project, based on the circumstances. Then they grow the sample each and every game to form a stronger analysis, till they have a finished product. Then they do it all over again the following season.

 

Not really. Your statistical argument proves Hartline did about the same as Marshall with less usage. Which leaves only a couple of possible reasons:

- Marshall wasn't really that good here.

and/or

- Hartline is a superior player to Marshall.

and/or

- There's a problem with your numbers correlating to anything meaningful.

 

Marshall wasn't that good here.

Marshall is superior to Hartline in every sense.

Numbers are never wrong and Math correlates to everything in the universe.

 

So then Jeff Ireland would be unable to come to his boss and say "Listen, you hired me to do a job and Parcells isn't letting me do that job. My contract says I have final authority on personnel and he's making moves without my say-so by forging my signature on contracts. If you don't do something about this, I'm going to the the commissioner's office about it."

Right.

 

Again, no. They don't project the numbers into the future. Why would they do that? How would it help them? The use it to see what certain players and teams are good at or not good at and they develop game plans based on that.

 

No, he would be able to do that. It wouldn't be good for his career prospects in the NFL.

 

BTW, for reference..Brandon Marshall in 2011:

47.9% usage, 52.3% of production

 

It helps them to predict adjustments.

it was what led the Heat to change Chris Bosh's game based on a projection of his mid range shooting in the Heat's corner offense. There was big article on Heatindex about it.

it is how they can use a Eff. rating and determine which teams are good and which ones are not without looking at a w/l record.

 

Sure he could. He could have gone to Huzienga, who didn't want any part of that which is why he hired Parcells to begin with. Then he could have went to Ross in his first year as full owner, after which, Parcells stepped down.