Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Reed83HOF

PFF Baker is still better than Allen & Tre isn't in their top 101 players

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Monson actually admits they are purposely trolling with the “data” ... *face palm*

 

 

 

This is my surprised face

 

Monson basically was quoted as saying as much in one of the recent articles (I think in TBN....believe I linked it on another thread).   I forget the word he used, but it was something to the effect that he hoped to troll all 32 fan bases before the year was out, and that the Bills had one of the more reactive fan-bases (that wasn’t his word, but what he meant).

 

I wish us Bills fans would make a pinky pact to treat him as he deserves - with silence

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:


Remember the classic “who wants to apologize” threads?

 

We need one of those for the group of us that have been calling PFF grades totally subjective for years now 🤣

I know that thurman1 loves to go to bat for PFF routinely. in fact he even took up for them after the hodges comments.....interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

@Hapless Bills Fan - you might like this recent book, which is on the long-term divide between scouts and number crunchers (albeit with a focus on baseball): https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691180212/scouting-and-scoring. That's at root what all of this about. More broadly, the rise of FO and PFF is really the knock-on effect of the amazingly successful career of Nate Silver, who has gone from projecting the 2008 TB Rays as a world series team because of his statistical projections to the famous data-based projection guru in the country today. 

 

Thanks for the recommendation, Dave, I’ll have a look if I can find it!  

 

11 minutes ago, Logic said:

This.

Take their data sets, consider them side-by-side with other data sets, and form your own conclusions. What they say is not gospel. 

Most fans I know that dislike PFF dislike them not for their analytics, their secret proprietary formulas, or their data, but for their OPINION pieces, which they post right alongside the data. Some feel that a data collection and analysis website shouldn't be posting opinion pieces, especially when the opinions that they posit are often not backed up by the data. Furthermore, the recent admission by Sam Monson that they sometimes deliberately post inflammatory opinions that they don't even necessarily BELIEVE just to stir the hornet's nest does nothing to help their credibility.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence and the part about not posting opinions that aren’t backed up by data.

 

I do have a most sincere problem with PFF’s “secret sauce” statistics, especially their hypotheticals (“potentially interceptable balls” or some such).  I think once you’re into trying to quantitate stuff that didn’t actually happen, you’re on very tenuous ground.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 11:14 PM, Lurker said:

I think the only thing PFF is good at is generating clicks, web traffic and message board chatter...

Well, if all of the Bills fans that click on that site, and spend time on their pages STOPPED doing that... see we’re I’m going with this? Don’t feed the troll guys & gals. Completely ignore that they exist. If I can do it you all sure can. 👍
 

Go Bills!!!

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I do have a most sincere problem with PFF’s “secret sauce” statistics, especially their hypotheticals (“potentially interceptable balls” or some such).  I think once you’re into trying to quantitate stuff that didn’t actually happen, you’re on very tenuous ground.


Agreed.

Case in point: In attempting to explain why they felt Baker Mayfield had a better season than Josh Allen, they pointed to the fact that Allen supposedly had more "turnover worthy" plays than Baker Mayfield. Meanwhile, Baker had more ACTUAL interceptions BY FAR! This did not seem to matter to them. Somehow, "turnover worthy plays" detracted more from Allen's season than ACTUAL turnovers detracted from Mayfield's. Sure, right, whatever you say, guys! 🙄

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Otreply said:

Well, if all of the Bills fans that click on that site, and spend time on their pages STOPPED doing that... see we’re I’m going with this? Don’t feed the troll guys & gals. Completely ignore that they exist. If I can do it you all sure can. 👍
 

Go Bills!!!

 

I hear a little song coming on......mimimimimimi

(to the tune of "Sound of Silence")
 

Hello Sam Monson, my old friend
You trolled Bills Mafia again
Because you know that Bills fans love Our Guy
And if you bait us, We will tell you why!
To get clicks, You admitted that you trolled us by admiring Duck
Hey, What the F***?
Now hear the Sound…..of Silence

 

Please feel free to share widely
No credit necessary
No salesman will call

(I'm here all week, tip your server)

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I hear a little song coming on......mimimimimimi

(to the tune of "Sound of Silence")
 

Hello Sam Monson, my old friend
You trolled Bills Mafia again
Because you know that Bills fans love Our Guy
And if you bait us, We will tell you why!
To get clicks, You admitted that you trolled us by admiring Duck
Hey, What the F***?
Now hear the Sound…..of Silence

 

Please feel free to share widely
No credit necessary
No salesman will call

 


well done, but I’m a little mad cause that song is gonna be stuck for days now.

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:


well done, but I’m a little mad cause that song is gonna be stuck for days now.

 

Thank you

Sorry

Not.sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 2:23 AM, CNY315 said:

Wow. A 1st team All-Pro isn't a top 101 player lmao

 

Yeah I just looked up my reference book...

 

Says right here and I QUOTE:
"1st team All-Pro CB is rated the 102nd best player"

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 5:14 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I hear a little song coming on......mimimimimimi

(to the tune of "Sound of Silence")
 

Hello Sam Monson, my old friend
You trolled Bills Mafia again
Because you know that Bills fans love Our Guy
And if you bait us, We will tell you why!
To get clicks, You admitted that you trolled us by admiring Duck
Hey, What the F***?
Now hear the Sound…..of Silence

 

Please feel free to share widely
No credit necessary
No salesman will call

 

Well done sir, well done. 👏👏 
 

you ear wormed me too...

Edited by Don Otreply
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is my surprised face

 

Monson basically was quoted as saying as much in one of the recent articles (I think in TBN....believe I linked it on another thread).   I forget the word he used, but it was something to the effect that he hoped to troll all 32 fan bases before the year was out, and that the Bills had one of the more reactive fan-bases (that wasn’t his word, but what he meant).

 

I wish us Bills fans would make a pinky pact to treat him as he deserves - with silence

Many of us have been ignoring their analysis for quite some time.  It is primarily a trolling site.  Their analysis, if you can call it that, is always shallow and half baked. 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whatdrought said:

What a bunch of worthless *****.

 

***** = scum sucking, low life, mathematics challenged, dimwits. 

 

As an aside, the fact that Allen did not throw a 4th quarter INT or a red zone INT is impressive as hell.  And as others have said this fact alone renders the entire PFF notion of "turnover worthy plays" to be hot garbage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, FLFan said:

Many of us have been ignoring their analysis for quite some time.  It is primarily a trolling site.  Their analysis, if you can call it that, is always shallow and half baked. 

 

Unfortunately, many of us also respond to them reflexively on twitter like a sea lion exhibit reacting to a zookeep holding a bucket of bait

29 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

 

***** = scum sucking, low life, mathematics challenged, dimwits. 

 

As an aside, the fact that Allen did not throw a 4th quarter INT or a red zone INT is impressive as hell.  And as others have said this fact alone renders the entire PFF notion of "turnover worthy plays" to be hot garbage. 

 

I don't know that it's entirely "hot garbage", but it begs the question "just how are they defining this"?

 

And any time someone creates a statistic around something that didn't happen (like a turnover) it begs the question are they also creating statistics around other things that didn't happen?  What about "droppable passes" for off-target throws that the receiver hauled in?  Or "potential completions" for passes that could have been caught by an acrobatic guy, but weren't?

 

I think it's probably more meaningful, overall to stick to tracking at what actually occurs

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Unfortunately, many of us also respond to them reflexively on twitter like a sea lion exhibit reacting to a zookeep holding a bucket of bait

 

I don't know that it's entirely "hot garbage", but it begs the question "just how are they defining this"?

 

And any time someone creates a statistic around something that didn't happen (like a turnover) it begs the question are they also creating statistics around other things that didn't happen?  What about "droppable passes" for off-target throws that the receiver hauled in?  Or "potential completions" for passes that could have been caught by an acrobatic guy, but weren't?

 

I think it's probably more meaningful, overall to stick to tracking at what actually occurs

 

 

For those of us who have used statistics to analyze all sorts of things your sentence in bold pretty much invalidates everything these guys have done.  This is so inappropriate at so many levels it begs the question of PFF's basic understanding of statistics.

 

For those of us who use statistics in our everyday work it's hard to understand how groups like PFF deal with the enormous number of variables involved in each individual play.  Football suffers from having the most variables per play of any sport while having very small sample sizes.  So I struggle with how effectively they can apply "analytics" in assessing QB play. 

 

So it's reasonable for anyone experienced with using statistics to study complex processes to wonder how they deal with such a chaotic system like football .  But when they employ FICTIONAL results in their analysis my skepticism skyrockets and it's hard not to feel like they've jumped the shark. 

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

 

For those of us who have used statistics to analyze all sorts of things your sentence in bold pretty much invalidates everything these guys have done.  This is so inappropriate at so many levels it begs the question of PFF's basic understanding of statistics.

 

For those of us who use statistics in our everyday work it's hard to understand how groups like PFF deal with the enormous number of variables involved in each individual play.  Football suffers from having the most variables per play of any sport while having very small sample sizes.  So I struggle with how effectively they can apply "analytics" in assessing QB play. 

 

So it's reasonable for anyone experienced with using statistics to study complex processes to wonder how they deal with such a chaotic system like football .  But when they employ FICTIONAL results in their analysis my skepticism skyrockets and it's hard not to feel like they've jumped the shark.

 

Yes.  I hope that the data teams contract with them to purchase is factual stuff.  Their data about personnel, down, and distance on each play is supposed to be something like >98% accurate now.  The formation used.  The type of play (run vs pass).  The result in straightforward terms.

 

The rest of it?  Yeah, Monson said it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...