Ryan Tannehill

"cbrad wrote:

And it's also a fact that the comparison of ratings was across eras.

No. It is your interpretation of his intent.

"cbrad wrote:

This isn't a question of opinion. It is a fact that no statistician would be successful (in statistics) at arguing "it's not raining" if it is raining regardless of the predicted probability of rain.

What if it wasn't a historic amount of rain (z-score wise of course)?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

No. It is your interpretation of his intent.

His intent is beside the point. When the comparison itself is across eras you shouldn't use a statistic biased by era.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

What if it wasn't a historic amount of rain (z-score wise of course)?

Then the claim would be that it IS raining but it's not at a historic level.

"cbrad wrote:

His intent is beside the point. When the comparison itself is across eras you shouldn't use a statistic biased by era.

There was no comparison.......

"cbrad wrote:

Then the claim would be that it IS raining but it's not at a historic level.

LOL

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

There was no comparison.......

This is the list he was referring to:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_single_season.htm

You can see the literal comparison of unadjusted passer ratings across eras. Can't "rank" someone without comparing.

"cbrad wrote:

This is the list he was referring to:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_single_season.htm

You can see the literal comparison of unadjusted passer ratings across eras. Can't "rank" someone without comparing.

What if he was only comparing to the current record holder or players from the same era?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

What if he was only comparing to the current record holder or players from the same era?

Already answered that question. Let's not go in circles. Regardless, the comparison in that post was across all years.

"cbrad wrote:

Already answered that question. Let's not go in circles. Regardless, the comparison in that post was across all years.

Agree to disagree. I read his posts that acknowledged you can't compare across eras......

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Agree to disagree. I read his posts that acknowledged you can't compare across eras......

There's nothing to disagree on. This is the quote directly from his post:

Tannehill is 4 passer rating points away from the all-time NFL record. He's currently in 4th...ALL TIME.

That's a comparison across all years.

"Fin D wrote:

What were the specifics of those differing surroundings and how did they differ from each other?

"resnor wrote:

Yet you can't seem to tease apart that despite the different staffs, they were all terrible? Which HC he had is still a head coach today? Zach Taylor is awful in Cinci. How many of his OCs are still OCs in the league? How many players left Miami over Tannehill's tenure, and had success with other teams that they didn't experience here? Just saying he had multiple sets of surroundings doesn't actually tell anyone anything. You're not providing any actual proof. You say he had multiple sets of surroundings, so that means he's at fault. I'm saying, despite different regimes, Tannehill had one surrounding:. BAD surroundings.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Almost all of them bad.... when they weren't bad, he produced passer rating that averaged over 100 and winning % high enough to make the playoffs.

Along the lines of the above points, it’s certainly plausible that the surroundings he’s experiencing currently are light years better than the ones he had previously. That’s certainly not an untenable position.

What support do we have for the idea that his current surroundings in Tennessee are significantly better than the ones he had in Miami?

I don’t argue with Cbrad, I don’t understand 75% of his posts.

His knowledge in regards to stats are far beyond to sophisticated.

"cbrad wrote:

There's nothing to disagree on. This is the quote directly from his post:

That's a comparison across all years.

So are these:

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

I understand the difference in eras and all that, and I understand it's less over the average today than it was way back when. So why isn't all the elite guys today doing it?

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

Then there's this (which also wouldn't line up with previous eras...but fun to see) -

- Tannehill joins Aaron Rodgers as the only QBs in history to complete 75% of their passes and earn a rating over 130 for 3 straight games.
- Tannehill joins Russell Wilson as the only QBs in history to throw for 2 TDs and earn a rating over 125 for 4 straight games.

So, agree to disagree.......

"The Guy wrote:

Along the lines of the above points, it’s certainly plausible that the surroundings he’s experiencing currently are light years better than the ones he had previously. That’s certainly not an untenable position.

What support do we have for the idea that his current surroundings in Tennessee are significantly better than the ones he had in Miami?

What support do we have that they are not?

"cbrad wrote:

There's nothing to disagree on. This is the quote directly from his post:

That's a comparison across all years.

I disagree with you diminishing what he's done, should he end the season with that record. I understand you can't compare eras specifically, but you also can't harness context...too many humans involved...it's not apples to apples because of statistics. In the absence of EXACT comparability (which is impossible), I'll take the fact that a number compares favorably and is an impressive accomplishment.

NOBODY claimed he's the GOAT QB of all time if he finishes with that record...but that's what you're acting like.

When the Hall of Fame rattles off player records and accomplishments at their induction...they don't include z-scores.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

I disagree with you diminishing what he's done, should he end the season with that record. I understand you can't compare eras specifically, but you also can't harness context...too many humans involved...it's not apples to apples because of statistics. In the absence of EXACT comparability (which is impossible), I'll take the fact that a number compares favorably and is an impressive accomplishment.

NOBODY claimed he's the GOAT QB of all time if he finishes with that record...but that's what you're acting like.

How about we compare approaches.

IF Tannehill finishes with a 2.48 z-score that's essentially identical to Matt Ryan's amazing 2016 season where he finished with a 2.47. I think everyone who saw Matt Ryan can agree that was damn impressive. In both cases it's top 0.66th percentile. So me saying we should use z-scores hardly diminishes what Tannehill will have done IF he ends this way.

But it puts things into proper context. Steve Young's record 1994 season with a z-score of 3.57 is to 0.02 percentile, which was even more impressive. So using z-scores in no way (IMO) diminishes what Tannehill is doing or might accomplish. It just puts things into proper context.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

When the Hall of Fame rattles off player records and accomplishments at their induction...they don't include z-scores.

Someday they will.. just watch (or the equivalent adjusted stats).

Who's to say Steve Young would have the same numbers playing in today's game, where defenses are much more used to dealing with mobile QBs? Perhaps Young would not be as effective. There's literally no way of knowing either way. By adjusting like you do, you are making it a fact that he would do just as well today.

"resnor wrote:

Who's to say Steve Young would have the same numbers playing in today's game, where defenses are much more used to dealing with mobile QBs? Perhaps Young would not be as effective. There's literally no way of knowing either way. By adjusting like you do, you are making it a fact that he would do just as well today.

No I've told you this before. In NO case is there an assumption made that a QB from one era would perform with the same z-score in another era. Whether I use z-scores or adjusted ratings the ONLY thing being done is comparing each QB to his own era except that the numbers are all on the same scale. NEVER is the implication made that they would perform in a certain way in another era.

The scale is all that changes with z-scores or adjusted ratings. For example, if I have z-scores which implies the standard deviation is 1, I can change all z-scores to a year with mean X and standard deviation Y. That's all adjusted ratings are. So the scale changes but the comparison is always each QB to those he competed against.

In other words, using z-scores tells you how impressive a QB was relative to the competition he actually faced. But the scale is the same for all years which means you can compare across eras.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

What support do we have that they are not?

The issue is that there are competing explanations for the difference in his performance. If someone is going to propose that one of them has merit over another, then he should support that one with evidence.

Simply saying that his surroundings in Miami were bad says nothing about his surroundings in Tennessee. They could be no different (good or bad) in Tennessee for all we know, and then how likely would it be that his current surroundings explain the difference in his performance? Not very.

"cbrad wrote:

No I've told you this before. In NO case is there an assumption made that a QB from one era would perform with the same z-score in another era. Whether I use z-scores or adjusted ratings the ONLY thing being done is comparing each QB to his own era except that the numbers are all on the same scale. NEVER is the implication made that they would perform in a certain way in another era.

The scale is all that changes with z-scores or adjusted ratings. For example, if I have z-scores which implies the standard deviation is 1, I can change all z-scores to a year with mean X and standard deviation Y. That's all adjusted ratings are. So the scale changes but the comparison is always each QB to those he competed against.

In other words, using z-scores tells you how impressive a QB was relative to the competition he actually faced. But the scale is the same for all years which means you can compare across eras.

That is the implication. You're taking a rating from say the 80s. You're adjusting it to line up with current ratings, and then comparing say, Tannehill currently, to that adjusted score. So, you are currently saying that Tannehill isn't having historic numbers, as compared to adjusted scores. But Tannehill plays in today's league. So if we can't say that Young, for instance, would play just as well in today's game, against today's defenses that are very used to scheming against mobile QBs, then we shouldn't be adjusting at all.

"The Guy wrote:

The issue is that there are competing explanations for the difference in his performance. If someone is going to propose that one of them has merit over another, then he should support that one with evidence.

Simply saying that his surroundings in Miami were bad says nothing about his surroundings in Tennessee. They could be no different (good or bad) in Tennessee for all we know, and then how likely would it be that his current surroundings explain the difference in his performance? Not very.

Yet you propose NOTHING. You sit and argue semantics, but never actually make any real claims, so no one can prove you wrong.

And we know the surroundings are different. Fin D has unsuccessfully attempted to get you to answer the simple question about what things a team can do to minimize pass rush. Here's a simple difference: a coach that doesn't abandon the run game.

"cbrad wrote:

No I've told you this before. In NO case is there an assumption made that a QB from one era would perform with the same z-score in another era. Whether I use z-scores or adjusted ratings the ONLY thing being done is comparing each QB to his own era except that the numbers are all on the same scale. NEVER is the implication made that they would perform in a certain way in another era.

The scale is all that changes with z-scores or adjusted ratings. For example, if I have z-scores which implies the standard deviation is 1, I can change all z-scores to a year with mean X and standard deviation Y. That's all adjusted ratings are. So the scale changes but the comparison is always each QB to those he competed against.

In other words, using z-scores tells you how impressive a QB was relative to the competition he actually faced. But the scale is the same for all years which means you can compare across eras.

Last paragraph is not correct. Since you don't know how a QB would function in today's league, then it's meaningless comparing their ranking relative to their competition.

"cbrad wrote:

How about we compare approaches.

IF Tannehill finishes with a 2.48 z-score that's essentially identical to Matt Ryan's amazing 2016 season where he finished with a 2.47. I think everyone who saw Matt Ryan can agree that was damn impressive. In both cases it's top 0.66th percentile. So me saying we should use z-scores hardly diminishes what Tannehill will have done IF he ends this way.

But it puts things into proper context. Steve Young's record 1994 season with a z-score of 3.57 is to 0.02 percentile, which was even more impressive. So using z-scores in no way (IMO) diminishes what Tannehill is doing or might accomplish. It just puts things into proper context.

Someday they will.. just watch (or the equivalent adjusted stats).

That's the problem...you can't possibly harness the contextual relevance of ALL of their surroundings...therefore it's moot. You hear it all the time...Brady gets credit as being elite with a nobody receiving corps (even though Gronk and others have been elite in their system). Tannehill's doing it w/o a true #1 or elite receiver (Rice, Moss, etc.), backup TEs and rookies. It's IMPOSSIBLE to compare situations contextually to any level of certainty with any stats, with varying levels of skill-players and human error involved.

And sure...when they have a unicorn MC announcing the inductees?