Buffalos#1Fan Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 On WGR Jerry Sullivan spoke of the term "regressing to the mean." Basically it's a math term and what it means is that that if there is one extreme measurement, the second time the measurement would be closer to the average (mean). This is definitely the case with Fitz. In the past 7 week losing skid, our "franchise" QB has looked like the same backup that's been throwing sloppy and inaccurate passes over the past three years. He has looked good at times but his play would indicate that he is a mediocre QB. Sure, he played well for a few games but as the "regression" states, he eventually regressed back to his average self. What this means for us Bills fans? Don't expect to see the Fitzpatrick that out-dueled Tom Brady earlier this season next year -- expect more of the same. A weak armed, inaccurate QB who likely won't be able to win much more than 8 games. Probability has no memory. I think what you meant to suggest is that over time his measurements would approach the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bananathumb Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Wilson and Sullivan will never admit they were wrong about Ryan Regression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Kachy Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 On WGR Jerry Sullivan spoke of the term "regressing to the mean." Basically it's a math term and what it means is that that if there is one extreme measurement, the second time the measurement would be closer to the average (mean). This is definitely the case with Fitz. In the past 7 week losing skid, our "franchise" QB has looked like the same backup that's been throwing sloppy and inaccurate passes over the past three years. He has looked good at times but his play would indicate that he is a mediocre QB. Sure, he played well for a few games but as the "regression" states, he eventually regressed back to his average self. What this means for us Bills fans? Don't expect to see the Fitzpatrick that out-dueled Tom Brady earlier this season next year -- expect more of the same. A weak armed, inaccurate QB who likely won't be able to win much more than 8 games. Past 3 years here and years at the rams and bengals. To compare him to Brady at least they both are 7 th rounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 He never really had any progression to have any regression....never has played worth a sh*t against a good defense. Weird how you take a MVP running back from behind him and a probowl center from in front of him and you can no longer hide him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I'm shocked this thread wasn't started by crayonz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 It's the fault of the 3.5 defense they're forced to play. Not a 3-4, not a 4-3. It's a 3.5-3.5, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXL Franchize Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Hate to say it YOU ARE DEAD ON SIR ......Too bad RW can't see whats going on and loves the guy....I love him 2...but as a backup....Top tier backup qb... Love the guy as a backup too. It just sucks that the contract we threw at him isn't backup money. If the Bills don't go after a QB this off-season I may have to start watching water polo!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Yup. Here I am. I don't have a lot to add to the OP's post. I think most fans recognize that Fitz is a mediocre QB who had a few good games against lousy pass defenses who hadn't yet figured out how to defend the Fitz/Gailey short-passing-game-only attack. But if for some reason someone feels inspired to learn more about the regression effect (a.k.a. regression to the mean), I'd suggest this article. Oh, stop pushing hyperstats. We've already proven that writer wrong. Fitzpatrick is not "in error" when he has a good game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Well, he's behind ex-NFL QB Donovan McNabb in terms of QB rating on the 2011 season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 SF really shows what good coaching can do as they did zip with Nolan and Singletary. Once the Jets figured us out then everybody else did it and our coaches haven't been able to overcome it. Harbaugh has the right idea, run the ball and agressive defense to protect your QB and you can win a lot of games. SF probably wont beat the Saints or Packers but nothing would me me happier if they did because as the copycat league teams would get back to smashmouth football instead of this pansy-ass spread. Don't forget that Harbaugh went in with a strike shortened off season and still got that team to 11-3. So all the BB apologists crying about the short off season don't have a leg The pansy ass spread still works, only the morons at OBD don't belive in building an O line properly to make it work. I can only hope these fools draft a QB first this year and they finally see that a sub par line just will never get it done. Run and stop the run has never, ever stopped working in the NFL as so many team still make the playoffs every year with that formula. Its just that for whatever reason the teams that have won the SB recently all have superstar "elite" QB's. So teams only see that QB and think they gotta have one to win or they can't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeEdwardsTeeth Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 His completion percentage is quite a bit higher this year than at any time in his career. "Quite a bit?" 62 percent up from 59%? You mean 3% higher? It's still relatively the same. Regressing to the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 (edited) Oh, stop pushing hyperstats. We've already proven that writer wrong. Fitzpatrick is not "in error" when he has a good game. I have both strengths and limitations. I'd like to think that I'm honest with myself about both. I certainly would not try to make a living doing something for which I was badly suited. This is where you and I differ. You clearly do not have a knack for statistics, and have extremely limited ability to answer "What does this really mean?" type questions about statistically-related material. Despite these limitations you have somehow managed to get a degree in a statistically-related subject, and have even parlayed that educational background into a dead-end government job. Either you should be commended for your combination of work ethic and political skill for having achieved all this despite a shockingly bad understanding of statistics, or else the system which failed to rid itself of blatant gross incompetence should be condemned. The objections you'd initially raised to the Hyperstats article were laughable, and destroyed any statstically-related credibility you might otherwise have had. The same statistical phenomenon described by the Hyperstats article was also described in articles from Stanford, Tufts, and other top institutions. After you were shown those other articles, you abandoned your initial objections to the Hyperstats article. You created a brand new objection: that the Hyperstats article was wrong because the regression effect applied to autocorrelations only. This made it glaringly obvious that you still didn't understand what for many people is a fairly simple and intuitively obvious concept, even after you had been shown several clearly and intelligently written articles about it. You are a stupid human being who, at least in the eyes of some, has succeeded in appearing intelligent. I cannot recall your having made a single correct statement about statistics. Yet you have succeeded in persuading many on these boards--at least among those unfamiliar with statistics--that your view of the subject should be taken seriously. My respect for your intellect is precisely zero, but I do have to admit you have a knack for spreading confusion and erroneous information. That knack probably represents one of the two things at which you're best. (The other being online bullying.) But do not expect me to congratulate you for "gifts" which bring no benefit to anyone, not even to yourself. Edited December 24, 2011 by Edwards' Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Ive said it the whole time.....Fitz is not a good QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toshiero Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 On WGR Jerry Sullivan spoke of the term "regressing to the mean." Basically it's a math term and what it means is that that if there is one extreme measurement, the second time the measurement would be closer to the average (mean). This is definitely the case with Fitz. In the past 7 week losing skid, our "franchise" QB has looked like the same backup that's been throwing sloppy and inaccurate passes over the past three years. He has looked good at times but his play would indicate that he is a mediocre QB. Sure, he played well for a few games but as the "regression" states, he eventually regressed back to his average self. What this means for us Bills fans? Don't expect to see the Fitzpatrick that out-dueled Tom Brady earlier this season next year -- expect more of the same. A weak armed, inaccurate QB who likely won't be able to win much more than 8 games. We gotta exercise the 3 million out clause this offseason. Gotta do it by day 7 of the new season according to NFLN a few weeks ago. we would only have to pay him 3.5 million to get out of the contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 We gotta exercise the 3 million out clause this offseason. Gotta do it by day 7 of the new season according to NFLN a few weeks ago. we would only have to pay him 3.5 million to get out of the contract It wouldn't cost them anything if they cut him before day 7. All Fitz would get is the $10m bonus he already got upon signing and his 3.2m salary for this season. So it costs them nothing additional to cut him. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 He'd be a better QB if he had a tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Ralph is wrong about Fitz. Surround him with better weapons and his deficiencies will only become more obvious. The QB more often makes the supporting cast better, not the other way round. Ralph and the Bills tend to get things a$$ backwards, and they have done so yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Kachy Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Well the offend looks good besides the Amish guy dressing up as a starting qb. He needs to go back to the farm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I have both strengths and limitations. I'd like to think that I'm honest with myself about both. I certainly would not try to make a living doing something for which I was badly suited. This is where you and I differ. You clearly do not have a knack for statistics, and have extremely limited ability to answer "What does this really mean?" type questions about statistically-related material. Despite these limitations you have somehow managed to get a degree in a statistically-related subject, and have even parlayed that educational background into a dead-end government job. Either you should be commended for your combination of work ethic and political skill for having achieved all this despite a shockingly bad understanding of statistics, or else the system which failed to rid itself of blatant gross incompetence should be condemned. The objections you'd initially raised to the Hyperstats article were laughable, and destroyed any statstically-related credibility you might otherwise have had. The same statistical phenomenon described by the Hyperstats article was also described in articles from Stanford, Tufts, and other top institutions. After you were shown those other articles, you abandoned your initial objections to the Hyperstats article. You created a brand new objection: that the Hyperstats article was wrong because the regression effect applied to autocorrelations only. This made it glaringly obvious that you still didn't understand what for many people is a fairly simple and intuitively obvious concept, even after you had been shown several clearly and intelligently written articles about it. You are a stupid human being who, at least in the eyes of some, has succeeded in appearing intelligent. I cannot recall your having made a single correct statement about statistics. Yet you have succeeded in persuading many on these boards--at least among those unfamiliar with statistics--that your view of the subject should be taken seriously. My respect for your intellect is precisely zero, but I do have to admit you have a knack for spreading confusion and erroneous information. That knack probably represents one of the two things at which you're best. (The other being online bullying.) But do not expect me to congratulate you for "gifts" which bring no benefit to anyone, not even to yourself. Yeah, I don't have a knack for statistics. Ignore my publications on statistical physics, and your ridiculous "true average value" of a die roll being 3.5. I'm the one deluding myself, and have the power to wrongly convince multiple other people here that you, as the sole arbiter of truth, are a numbskull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 The truth is somewhere in between with Fitz. Honestly I like the guy and for better or worse he is our guy. I think that if he and Gailey can work on the offense you can see Fitz improve tremendously from what he displayed during the losing streak. In business you are never as bad as your worst and never as good as your best. Ralph is wrong about Fitz. Surround him with better weapons and his deficiencies will only become more obvious. The QB more often makes the supporting cast better, not the other way round. Ralph and the Bills tend to get things a$$ backwards, and they have done so yet again. Agreed, but who was Stevie Johnson and Scott Chandler before Fitz got there? Even Freddie's game went up with Fitz at the helm. The truth is still somewhere in between about Fitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts