1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is Adam Gase the biggest scam in football???

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by djphinfan, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    The fact that they moved on so quickly from Rosen is startling, because there is insufficient evidence he can't develop into being a Super-Bowl caliber quarterback, and the first overall pick could've been used to either aid in his performance (i.e., a left tackle) or help the all-important pass defense (i.e., Nick Bosa).

    What that suggests is that having an elite quarterback is beginning to be viewed as more valuable than having what's believed to be a lesser quarterback, with surrounding pieces. And as I think I (and cbrad) have shown here, Arizona was correct to think that way. If other teams don't follow suit, it'll be because they aren't well-informed.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    Just had a chance to look at this more in-depth (and thank you cbrad, as always, for the very high-quality work). The striking thing there in my opinion in terms of this discussion is the near-zero chance of winning a Super Bowl with simply an average QB. There are more average QBs in the league than there are any other kind, so just think about how many there are at any one time who have almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl, even though they can't be called "bad." That's amazing.

    This, again, is why the Cardinals ****-canned Rosen and drafted Murray. Obviously they believe (perhaps just intuitively, if not based on analytics) that Murray can get them up near that 20 to 30% probability, while Rosen would keep them down around zero, or at most the eight or so percent probability associated with a standard deviation above average.
     
  3. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,915
    7,658
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah let's make sure the interpretation is correct here. We're not talking about "average QB's", we're talking about "average QB performance in a given year". An average QB might happen to have a great year in which case he would be well above 0 for that year.

    For reference, 1 standard deviation tends to be about 11 passer rating points so just add 11 to the league average to get an idea of where that QB's performance lies in that year. In 2018 the league average rating was 92.9 so a QB like Deshaun Watson who had a 103.1 rating would, according to the equation in that graph, have approximately a 6% chance of winning the SB that year while Mahomes with a 113.8 rating would have approximately a 13.5% chance of winning it. Obviously the reason the numbers aren't higher is because there's competition from other QB's that played real well.

    Just for fun, when you run the numbers for Marino in 1984 it comes out to 33.4% chance of winning the SB. He came close!
     
    Irishman, Brasfin and The Guy like this.
  4. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    9,439
    3,001
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin TX
    The ones to watch might be Goff and Wentz. Both iirc had their fifth years exercised. If they both are extended, under normal circumstance they should get upper echelon deals.

    If either are released or sign very team friendly deals it may be an indication that teams value the cap space more than a non-Brady/Brees/Roger's echelon guy.

    I doubt anyone pulls that trigger, and the Cards are a dysfunctional team with a drunk dope as GM, so not sure we should look to them as a model going forward.
     
    resnor, The Guy and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  5. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    790
    754
    93
    Sep 12, 2015
    It's hard to take you serious when you say things like 0% and 8% probability with no statistical evidence that is the case.

    What % chance does Aaron Rodgers have every year? If any team actually had a 30% chance year in and out that would be absurd and ridiculous.

    I guess you can say the Patriots but who else?
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,622
    7,375
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I mean, there's all kinds of "average" super bowl winners. Mark Rypien, Kurt Warner, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Brad Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Joe Flacco, Jim McMahon....then we can name folks like Big Ben, Aikman, Nick Foles, Eli Manning (twice) and others who aren't elite but very dependable. There's been 54 super bowls and the non-elite equal around 25% of all wins?

    If the 30% chance theory were true, Peyton Manning should have five Super Bowl rings...not two. Marino would also have 4 or 5, as would Elway, Favre, etc. cBrad has shown multiple times that a top 5 defense AND a top 5 offense is the best indicator of who's going to the show...rarely is either team outside the top 10 in either category.
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but it's also the case that when you separate QBs into groups on the basis of ability level and look at their performances over many years, the between-group variation is significantly greater than the within-group variation. So it's far more expected for an average QB to play in the average range in any given season, than to exceed that (or underplay it) significantly.

    But your point is well-taken. With Murray, the Cardinals are trying to get from near-zero or 8% with Rosen to the roughly 14% the Chiefs had with Mahomes, for example. I thought the two and three standard deviation points in your graph were actual data points and not just extrapolations.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    Take a look at the graph cbrad supplied earlier in the thread, that showed the ever-increasing spike in passer rating as a function of the rule changes in the league. That calls for a demarcation in the analysis you're making above. The league was very different when Doug Williams won the Super Bowl in 1988. It wasn't a "passing league" at the time, as is said so often nowadays.

    In other words, it was far easier for a team led by a QB the caliber of Doug Williams to win the Super Bowl in 1988 than it is for a team to win the Super Bowl with such a QB nowadays.
     
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,150
    7,186
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Please stop acting like teams can just dump 1st round picks whenever they want. They have contracts and such. And you don't always have a teamwilling to give a second for you underperforming 1st round pick. It's simply not a reasonable thing to expect to start occurring with any frequency. The players union would nix any chance that ever had of being a thing that teams could do.
     
  10. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    22,544
    22,434
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I would wager a whole lot that if Arizona had stuck with their previous coaching staff, or hired nearly anyone else other than Kingsbury, that Rosen would still be there and seen as their QB of both the present and future. Its a very weird set of circumstances, and one that has benefited Miami tremendously. Seeing it as anything deeper is looking for things to fit a certain story.
     
    Irishman, KeyFin and resnor like this.
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    Again, the finding of relevance there is that a quarterback playing at the average level has almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl. cbrad supplied those statistics. What that means is that acquiring a quarterback who can be expected to play significantly above average is perhaps the greatest personnel priority in the league at the present time. Otherwise, you stand almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl!
     
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    I don't think anyone here has the information necessary to overrule with what you said above the alternative narrative that Rosen simply didn't play well enough, fast enough, to make the team forego a QB it believes has a much higher ceiling. And again, if that's true, it further underscores the importance of the QB position in the league at the present time.

    If Rosen had played like Russell Wilson did in his rookie season, do you think the team would've selected Murray, even given the presence of the other variables you mentioned?
     
  13. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,915
    7,658
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Oh those are actual data points, specifically each data point is the height of the bin of a histogram and plotted at its midpoint. I'd have to fully reconstruct that graph to know precisely which data are where, but I'm pretty sure that the data point at S.D. = 3 consists of two Super Bowl winners: 1) the most impressive single season in NFL history by passer rating with Steve Young in 1994 who had a 112.8 rating when the league average was 78.4 and the standard deviation was 9.634 giving him a z-score rating (standard deviations) of 3.57!!!, and 2) the 2nd most impressive season with Montana in 1989 who had a z-score of just above 3. The one loner at the bottom is Peyton Manning in 2015.

    Now.. what I do NOT remember because this graph was created in a debate over a year ago in Club is whether those percentages are only for starting QB's or all QB's. You have to divide the number of SB winners in each bin by the total number of QB's in that bin, and of course as you get closer to the mean the number of such QB's increases dramatically which pushes the probabilities way down for points close to 0. That lone data point that's not zero on the negative end (i.e., Peyton Manning in 2015) looks to me too high if this was over all QB's but looks about right if I had filtered by starting QB's, so that's my best guess as to exactly what the data points represent.

    What matters though is the fitted curve, and that won't be affected by much whether the data are over starting QB's only or over all QB's because points on the negative end would be pushed to zero if it included everybody, and that has almost no effect on the fit of the curve.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  14. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    33,337
    23,220
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Without a doubt.
     
  15. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,622
    7,375
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Umm, Doug Williams threw five TD passes in the first half of his SB win....he may have been the best passing SB MVP ever.
     
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    What conclusion does that support?
     
  17. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,024
    2,846
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Random events are like the male appendage. They have no memory and have no conscience.
     
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    I don’t think they would’ve traded away someone who was playing like a Hall of Fame caliber quarterback as a rookie, in favor of an unknown at the NFL level, but of course nobody can know with certainty.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  19. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    33,337
    23,220
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    He was not a hall of fame qb as a rookie
     
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    Nobody is a Hall of Fame QB, per se, as a rookie. The statement was that he was playing like a Hall of Fame caliber QB as a rookie.

    Aaron Rodgers has the highest career passer rating of all time, at 104.9. Russell Wilson is second at 100. Wilson’s passer rating as a rookie was also 100.
     
  21. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    94,430
    46,689
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Tannehill is a 30 year old backup...right where his talent level belongs.

    Some folks have the wrong perspective on his talent level, just because he has excellent velocity on the fast ball, and good accuracy doesn’t mean he can sustain the position at a level needed to help your team win big games.

    There are soo many traits of qb’ing that he wasn’t good enough..

    The list after 7 years became transparent.

    1) the lack of touch on required touch throws, especially in the red zone where the areas are constricted and more touch is required..for example, the fade route, pretty much eliminated from our offense.....below average

    2) anticipation of pressure..below average.

    3) multitasking the position when protection broke down..below average.

    4) lack of agility and quickness to evade the rush..below average.

    5) lack of common sense to understand how to use his legs to threaten a defense..below average.

    6) processing speed..always trying to catch up to the speed of the game..below average.

    7) vision of the field...if the first read was there, you were in good shape, because the few strengths that he did have would be on display, not having to worry about the rush, and could just rip it..after that, vision of the entire field/scanning the big picture in the drop...below average..

    8) leadership...tough dude, not sure he could inspire others to be great.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2019
    Miamiforlife likes this.
  22. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    33,337
    23,220
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    And the team would have had the first pick in the draft.
    With that defense and running game the cardinals would not be in a position to draft a new qb
     
  23. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Rosen

    1,449
    1,383
    113
    May 5, 2016
    All I can say is I hope nobody ever looks at me with the same critical eye that we do with sports figures. The list someone could make would be 10x as long. That said, he makes the big bucks and it since it goes with the territory I would add the one thing RT is missing that I hold above others is the “IT” factor. Nice guy and all, but he wouldn’t be a guy I would want if I had just one series to win it all.
     
  24. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    790
    754
    93
    Sep 12, 2015
    What is a random event when humans are involved?

    Statistics are great, but I genuinely believe that they can not be applied to human beings in the context we are here.

    Nick Foles is the defnition of an average QB, but the way he responds to pressure is different than let's say...Ryan Tannehill.

    Also QB rating isnt a measure of a QB, it is the measure of their offense as a whole. I guarantee Tannehill has a better passer rating if hes throwing slant routes to Jerry Rice or bombs to Randy Moss.

    Dante Culpepper is another amazing example of statistics not telling the story. Knee Injury or not, he just wasn't a very good QB but was in a perfect situation with Chris Carter and Randy Moss.

    I bet prime McNabb has better numbers throwing to better receivers.

    All this passer rating adjustment by year doesnt actually tell you anything about the players, so I don't understand how you can run a statistical analysis using flawed data and expect it to mean anything.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and resnor like this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,915
    7,658
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    "Random" just means you can't predict it with the model you're using. In statistics, we care about the distribution of those "random" events, and the model you're using might be able to predict how the mean of the distribution changes or how the shape of the distribution changes even if you can't predict each individual event. So as long as you attach any kind of value to predicting average levels of performance or some measure of the spread of the distribution (e.g., standard deviation), statistics applies and is useful.

    And while passer rating is obviously a team stat, if you really believe it "tells you nothing about the players" then you're assuming that passer rating literally has nothing to do with the QB, which is absurd. Of course no one can tell you what percentage of passer rating is due to the QB, but it's likely pretty high, and the higher that percentage is the smaller the sample size needed for that "team" stat to converge on becoming an individual stat. In general, if X% of a team stat is due to a player, then that "team" stat is to X% an individual stat and the higher that X is the fewer samples are needed to estimate individual ability.

    So decide for yourself how much of passer rating is due to the QB. Is it more like 30% or maybe 50% for you on average? Whatever you choose, that's the degree to which passer rating is a QB-only stat.
     
    Surfs Up 99, The Guy and Irishman like this.
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    Two points are relevant to passer rating in this context in my opinion:

    1) Career passer rating statistics appear to correlate strongly with widespread human perceptions of quarterbacks’ individual ability, thus supporting the use of passer rating as a valid measure of individual ability.

    2) When you separate quarterbacks into groups on the basis of perceived individual ability, and you look at their passer ratings over many years, the between-group variation is significantly greater than the within-group variation, suggesting that whatever variation in passer ratings that can be attributed to quarterbacks’ surroundings isn’t sufficient to overcome what can be attributed to their individual ability.

    In other words, all quarterbacks vary in performance from year to year, presumably largely as a function of variation in their surroundings, but players like Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees vary over the long term at a significantly higher level of play (passer rating) than players like Ryan Tannehill and Andy Dalton.

    That suggests that quarterbacks’ individual ability is a more powerful factor than quarterbacks’ surroundings in causing variation in passer ratings.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  27. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,915
    7,658
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yes on point 1. That's an important argument. Point 2 isn't really a point you can make because whether between-group or within-group variation is bigger depends completely on the groups you choose! You choose groups that happen to be closer to each other then the within-group variation will be bigger.. choose them farther apart and the between-group is bigger. So there's no point #2 to make.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  28. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    94,430
    46,689
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    They won’t.. it’s sports 99, and this is the team we love..
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    How about if we do a median split on career passer rating?
     
  30. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,622
    7,375
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    That Doug Williams was not a lesser caliber passer- 306 yard and 4 TD's in the first half are both standing records. And the opposing QB? Some guy named John Elway. That sort of disproves your theory twice in one game.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,915
    7,658
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I wouldn't do that because splitting down the median means the two distributions are highly skewed, meaning that "variance" isn't a good measure of the spread of the distribution. You couldn't even use tests such as ANOVA because the normality assumption is violated.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    I’ll just post this as a response to that:

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WillDo01.htm
     
  33. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,622
    7,375
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    1) You've argued that a team has to have an elite QB to win a Super Bowl.

    2) Doug Williams has a career rating of 69.4...and he's a Super Bowl MVP.

    3) I also pointed out an elite QB in John Elway got slaughtered in that game (probably because he doesn't play defense?).

    4) You're 100% wrong in thinking a team has to have an elite QB to win it all.
     
    resnor likes this.
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, what I have argued is that a team has almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl nowadays with just an average quarterback. It was easier for teams to do so in the past, however, i.e., the Doug Williams era.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2019
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    What if the overall distribution was bimodal normal?
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2019
    Irishman likes this.
  36. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,915
    7,658
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You can do that, but it has to be done without what scientists call "fishing" (trying all kinds of things out to get some kind of result that might be interesting lol). You'd therefore first have to have some reason to separate the overall distribution into two separate components and then choose a model to separate them. The choice of model is easy: use what's called a 2-component Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) that assumes your overall distribution is the sum of two separate Gaussians (normal distributions).

    The bigger question is what justification do you have for trying to separate the overall distribution. If that distribution was truly bimodal (and was obvious by looking at it) then you're fine. But it's not for passer rating. It's unimodal for passer rating with a slight skew. So I think it's hard to justify trying out different K-GMM's (that K could be 2 or more components) just to see if you find something useful.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  37. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    94,430
    46,689
    113
    Dec 20, 2007



    Mark Schlereth says that when he called a game for the dolphins on the Friday before the game, he watched practice, he went in to say that “ it was the worst practice I’ve seen in my 12 years of doing this”
     
  38. Finatik

    Finatik Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,374
    1,334
    113
    May 2, 2014
    SO Cal
    Man this topic has legs. It must be the offseason.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  39. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    790
    754
    93
    Sep 12, 2015
    The good news for the Jets? That is an easy fix if Gase wants to.

    The bad news for the Jets? Gase thinks his **** doesnt stink.
     
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    474
    435
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    If there’s one true adage in sports, it’s “You play like you practice.”
     
    Surfs Up 99 and resnor like this.

Share This Page