Why fans and media shouldn't assign sacks allowed

[bladiebla]

i try not to assign players blame on the ol for sacks.......because yu dont know the assignment it is the UNITS fault

 

As it is the D-unit it's achievement, yet only one D-player or the D-players that lay hand on the QB get credit.

[Thurman#1]

The issue goes beyond the assigning of sacks, it basicly is the issue for all stats. Interceptions are the same; a quarterback could be throwing what looks like a awfull pass that gets intercepted. Yet it could have been a timed ball that was spot on but the intended receiver failed to run the correct route or misunderstood the play. Yet the quarterback gets credited an interception. A quarterback his stats could look awesome throwing nothing more then 5 yard passes if he has receivers that consistently add 20 yards after the catch, yet in reality he could be terrible.

 

The nature of measurables in combination with the human factor creates a natural diviation, especially in a complex team sport like American Football which is basicly a high speed, aggressive version of chess. If you use stats understanding that there is always a deviation in play it doesn't matter. Also the higher the stat the less deviation it will contain and therefor the more telling the number will be. Shouldn't the stats be kept for that reason alone?

 

In the case of american football stats also provide entertainment value and are a tool for the spectator to help follow and understand the depth of the game. Looking at the sack stat; sacks are creditted towards a defender or defenders making the sack, however they wouldn't be able to make them if it weren't for the play of their teammates. Yet the sack as a stat caused by a defender is an official stat.

 

If you turn it around then the situation is exactly the same for offensive linemen compared to defensive line man. So there is no reason not to keep the sacks allowed stat on offensive linemen.

 

There is an argument not to keep the stat and that is that offensive linemen really are a team within the team, if that team breaks somewhere the whole team is in trouble. In my humble opinion that argument is a bit overrated though, it may be the case for the offensive line players in the form of a tandem but if you turn it around on the defensive line they won't be making sacks either if the rest of the d-line are failing their assignments.

 

My conclusion/opinion; make the sacks allow stat by offensive linemen official.

 

 

 

Comparing "interceptions" to "sacks allowed" makes no sense at all.

 

Why? Because interceptions are a fact-based stat. There either was an interception or there wasn't. There's no room for "perhaps" or "maybe" there. You never hear people say "There may have been two interceptions or there may have been three in that game, there's no way to know."

 

"Sacks allowed" is an opinion-based stat. The stat compiler basically says "In my opinion it was the LG's fault. That's my guess, and therefore it will become part of the stat." In the case of the play the article refers to, the sack allowed would certainly have gone to Kaczur, though it was simply not his fault, as the article shows. And a mistaken opinion would have been enshrined in a stat.

 

Now, if they ever start a stat called "Interceptions which are the QB's Fault," that too will be an opinion-based stat, and like Sacks Allowed, will never become an official stat. For good reason.

 

Fact-based stats are useful. Opinion-based stats are not, since they are more representative of the opinion than they are of reality.

 

You said "The issue goes beyond the assigning of sacks, it basicly is the issue for all stats. Interceptions are the same; a quarterback could be throwing what looks like a awfull pass that gets intercepted. Yet it could have been a timed ball that was spot on but the intended receiver failed to run the correct route or misunderstood the play." This simply shows that you're not noticing the difference between "Interceptions" and "Interceptions Which Are The Fault of the QB." The interceptions stat is always correct.

 

As is Sacks. There either is a sack or there isn't. But "Sacks Allowed" is exactly as useful and official as "Interceptions Which are the Fault of the QB." Which is to say, not useful or official.

 

You try to make the same argument here: "Looking at the sack stat; sacks are creditted towards a defender or defenders making the sack, however they wouldn't be able to make them if it weren't for the play of their teammates. Yet the sack as a stat caused by a defender is an official stat."

 

You're just wrong. The name of the stat is NOT "Sack Caused By A Defender." It's just "Sack." For a reason. A guy either gets a sack or doesn't. Either one is a fact. Once you put "cause" in there, you have inserted opinion, and therefore entirely eliminated the possibility of it ever becoming an official stat. Does Marcus Stroud get a sack if he never gets near the QB but draws a double-team which allows the DE to get to the QB? Of course he doesn't. But in your made-up stat here "Sacks Caused By A Defender," the answer would be "Probably." Or "Yes." Or "No." All of them could be right, and that's why it is opinion-based, not fact-based.

 

This argument simply doesn't stand up.

[Thurman#1]

Good info for sure but I've never seen people defend sacks against for Pace, Walter Jones, or Odgen. Probably because they were true elite LTs. Peters is a good LT but is completely overrated and struggles to stay injury free. He's Philly's problem now.

 

 

 

You haven't seen it? Take a look right here:

 

"Sacks Allowed" is not an official stat for a reason, the reason being that it is opinion-based. Therefore, it should not be used to judge the play of ANY offensive lineman, whether that lineman be Pace, Walter Jones, Ogden or Jason Peters. Any sacks shown to be the fault of ANY of these lineman in the "Sacks Allowed" pseudo-stat is simply the result of a guess by the guy who compiled the stat and is not representative of reality.

 

There, now you have seen it.

 

As for your opinion about Peters, I certainly agree that he last year he didn't play up to his reputation, so he was overrated, very overrated at the beginning of the year and possibly slightly overrated by the end.. However, in every year in which he went to training camp, he played extremely well. We'll have to see how he plays over the life of the Philly contract, but there's every chance that at the end of that contract Philly will be saying "Man, picking up Peters was one terrific decision."

[Mr. WEO]

You haven't seen it? Take a look right here:

 

"Sacks Allowed" is not an official stat for a reason, the reason being that it is opinion-based. Therefore, it should not be used to judge the play of ANY offensive lineman, whether that lineman be Pace, Walter Jones, Ogden or Jason Peters. Any sacks shown to be the fault of ANY of these lineman in the "Sacks Allowed" pseudo-stat is simply the result of a guess by the guy who compiled the stat and is not representative of reality.

 

There, now you have seen it.

So if a defender, one on one, simply pushes an LT aside or down and sacks the QB, we can never say it was the resposibility of that LT? Never??

 

That defies the obvious.

 

And I guess you are not familiar with the "error" stat in baseball........

[Thurman#1]

So if a defender, one on one, simply pushes an LT aside or down and sacks the QB, we can never say it was the resposibility of that LT? Never??

 

That defies the obvious.

 

And I guess you are not familiar with the "error" stat in baseball........

 

 

And the error stat in baseball has what to do with any stat in football?

 

I'm not saying that it is impossible for the guesser to get it right. And I admit that sometimes what seems obvious is in fact correct. But the point is that that Pats play seemed absolutely obvious. What other explanation would anyone have had for it? None. It seemed obvious. Yet it was wrong.

 

Sometimes, the guesser guesses right. But only the teams would know which plays those were. And they're not talking. So it's guess-based. There's no question about it.

[VJ91]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

I saw this blog from the Boston Globe's Mike Reiss and wanted to share it.

 

To see the sack Tom Brady endured against Cincy, you would say it was right tackle Nick Kaczur's fault all the way. Totally obvious, 100 percent. No other Patriot was remotely close to Robert Geathers, who ran around Kaczur and bolted in cleanly ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...siting_the.html

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

 

Thank you Tim...I've been saying the same thing ever since the debate of whether the Bills should have resigned Peters or not began two years ago. Sacks allowed should not be a "stat" anyone pays attention to.

[VJ91]

So if a defender, one on one, simply pushes an LT aside or down and sacks the QB, we can never say it was the resposibility of that LT? Never??

 

That defies the obvious.

 

And I guess you are not familiar with the "error" stat in baseball........

 

excellent point.

 

The "error" stat in baseball is sometimes debated, and sometimes needs time to assign the error or not assign it. The same should be done for "sacks allowed." Instead of just placing a number next to each O-Linemen, each and every sack should be looked at on film and broken down much more carefully before the "experts" decide how many should be blamed to each blocker.

[GG]

That is indeed what you think.

 

The article's thrust is simple: Even on "obvious" plays, what seems to be true isn't always true as far as sacks assigned.

 

Your response: Yeah, but the Peters plays were obvious.

 

I assume you didn't miss the point, so you seem to be saying that it's true, but you hate Peters so much that you're going to keep going ahead and saying it even if it's likely not true. Fair enough, but certainly shows that your response is way more emotional than having anything to do with a logical argument.

 

I could care less one way or another about Jason Peters, but I can give you my opinion of him as a football player for my favorite football team, if you care.

 

Peters was truly a fan favorite because he was an underdog, and it was good to see somebody rise out of spectacularly failed draft picks and experiments to be the best OL on the team. That was until his true colors shone right through. Jason Peters, was and remains to be about himself and obviously hasn't been able to use whatever intelligence he has to match his superior athleticism. It was suspected, and later confirmed by him, that his contract situation affected his play on the field - that to me is the ultimate sign that he is not the type of guy who you want on your team. The league always had its share of primadonas, but the separating line between the great ones is that they backed up their talk with action on the field. For all training camp time that Bruce missed, there was never the worry that we needed to wait until mid October for him to be in game shape.

 

So, if you want to take a look at the Joey Porter plays, they are emblematic of Peters. Peters got the better of Porter on 99% of the plays, except that 1% were really, truly important. That, to me will be the defining feature of Peters' tenure here. Dominant, except when you need him to be.

[The Dean]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

I saw this blog from the Boston Globe's Mike Reiss and wanted to share it.

 

To see the sack Tom Brady endured against Cincy, you would say it was right tackle Nick Kaczur's fault all the way. Totally obvious, 100 percent. No other Patriot was remotely close to Robert Geathers, who ran around Kaczur and bolted in cleanly ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...siting_the.html

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

 

 

Bingo! And, for me, it has nothing to do with Peters.

 

And I completely disagree with the balderdash that this should be official, because all stats are subjective. Many stats (like an INT) are subjective at times, and can be slightly misleading. A sack allowed is a guess, virtually every time.

[Mr. WEO]

And the error stat in baseball has what to do with any stat in football?

 

I'm not saying that it is impossible for the guesser to get it right.

 

So it's guess-based. There's no question about it.

Actually, you said any "sack allowed" by any lineman is a guess and "not representative of reality", and therefore, one would assume, not "right".

 

But, as VJ91 agrees, MLB has no problem with "subjective" stats and "error" is a prime example that is judgement-based stat. You made it sound like such stats are inherently unacceptable.

 

Thta's kind of why I mentioned it.

[Fan in Chicago]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

 

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

 

I can buy the logic that one lineman by himself may not always be responsible for a sack allowed. But then I think the converse should be true also. If the year before, Peters was credited for allowing a low number of sacks, isn't it entirely likely that it was due to help by, say, the LG or a TE assisting on the play ? It can't be both ways - if he cannot be blamed fully/always for the sacks allowed from rushers on the left side, he should not get full credit for allowing a low number of sacks either. Am I missing something here ?

[The Dean]

Any stat needs a definition, that is a set of standards the statistician uses to assign it. For an INT it goes against whoever threw the ball, no matter the reason it happened.

 

For those who think this should be an official stat, what are the standards you would apply? What are the specifics in order for one to assign a "sack allowed" on a particular player? Do you assign a "sack allowed" on every sack, even if it is 10 seconds after the snap? If an OL chips a DL on a screen pass, but the play gets blown up (not due to that missed block) and that DL eventually makes a sack, does it count against the OL who did exactly what he was supposed to do?

 

These are just a few issues that need to be considered for this sort of stat.

[Mr. WEO]

If everyone involved with the play Tim references agrees it was a blown play, then fine. But in order to throw away the stat, you would have to argue that the vast majority of the noncoverage sacks are the result of some clear miscommunication that we can never know (or even tell?) happened. In other words, that such events are not exceptional.

 

Tim, is this how you interpret the majority of sacks?

[GrudginglyOptimistic]

And the error stat in baseball has what to do with any stat in football?

 

I'm not saying that it is impossible for the guesser to get it right. And I admit that sometimes what seems obvious is in fact correct. But the point is that that Pats play seemed absolutely obvious. What other explanation would anyone have had for it? None. It seemed obvious. Yet it was wrong.

 

Sometimes, the guesser guesses right. But only the teams would know which plays those were. And they're not talking. So it's guess-based. There's no question about it.

I think Graham's overarching point is a good one, but it does make the mistake of prescribing too broad of a solution based on his good point which ultimately leads to your post which also I think makes too broad of a point.

 

Should we NEVER take into account or make any mention of sacks allowed or some other subjective stat?

 

No!

 

Such a broadbrush response would be silly and when this type of approach is broadly applied in other situations (or in other sports as you do) the oddity of such a general rule becomes clear.

 

However, as much as folks may hate to do it as it does not lend itself to short pithy posts, I think the proper response is to utilize stats such as sacks allowed or even INTS but to clearly understand that these stats are generally not conclusive of anything with adequate accuracy, but that they are useful as INDICATORS of what may be the truth.

 

In this light, the sacks allowed stat may well be an indicator of some problems wth Peters game at LT.

 

However, there is a pretty long list of counter indicators

 

(such as the huge contract Philly gave him that put real money where their thoughts were, the very good rushing yardage the Bills RBs stacked up behind his blocking, other OL players like Dockery being clearly found wanting in that the Bills would not hold onto him because he would get a roster bonus, alternative explanations for the sack totals (potential breakdowns by other players which MAY explain the sacks, and even him winning the Pro Bowl nod from his peers and fellow coaches (this is ultimately a popularity contest and also is not conclusive but it is a real indicator as knowledgable folks are making the popularity judgment) which to me are quite strong in total countervailing indicators that Peters was far better than the sacks allowed # indicates.

[Fan in Chicago]

I think Graham's overarching point is a good one, but it does make the mistake of prescribing too broad of a solution based on his good point which ultimately leads to your post which also I think makes too broad of a point.

 

However, there is a pretty long list of counter indicators

 

(such as the huge contract Philly gave him that put real money where their thoughts were, the very good rushing yardage the Bills RBs stacked up behind his blocking, other OL players like Dockery being clearly found wanting in that the Bills would not hold onto him because he would get a roster bonus, alternative explanations for the sack totals (potential breakdowns by other players which MAY explain the sacks, and even him winning the Pro Bowl nod from his peers and fellow coaches (this is ultimately a popularity contest and also is not conclusive but it is a real indicator as knowledgable folks are making the popularity judgment) which to me are quite strong in total countervailing indicators that Peters was far better than the sacks allowed # indicates.

 

So what is your point ? That the counter indicators out-weigh the indicators ?

 

In any case, TG really isn't stating anything conclusive (wimp !) - just saying that there is more to the stat line when it comes to sacks allowed.

[Thurman#1]

Actually, you said any "sack allowed" by any lineman is a guess and "not representative of reality", and therefore, one would assume, not "right".

 

But, as VJ91 agrees, MLB has no problem with "subjective" stats and "error" is a prime example that is judgement-based stat. You made it sound like such stats are inherently unacceptable.

 

Thta's kind of why I mentioned it.

 

 

Oh, all right, I guess I understand what you're talking about with errors. But let's face it, if the shortstop boots one, I can't imagine a situation where you go back to the locker room and hear that it was actually the left fielder's play, or the third baseman's play.

 

And yeah, again, every sack that you don't have the word of the team on what the assignments were and what the play was and so on is a guess. I'll give you an example. The LT is alone on the end. He holds the rusher out for a second or so and then the guy gets past and makes the sack. Nobody else was close. Clearly it's the LT's fault, right? Then you go to the locker room and hear that it was a failed screen pass and that the LT had been told to release the guy after a second or so, but the QB hadn't made the throw and was sacked. Is that the LT's fault?

 

You just don't know. Every single play is a guess until you hear about the play and the blocking assignments. Now some plays you can figure have a very high probability of being the fault of one particular guy. But again, the final call is a guess till confirmed by the team. And the teams don't often confirm.

[bladiebla]

Comparing "interceptions" to "sacks allowed" makes no sense at all.

 

Why? Because interceptions are a fact-based stat. There either was an interception or there wasn't. There's no room for "perhaps" or "maybe" there. You never hear people say "There may have been two interceptions or there may have been three in that game, there's no way to know."

 

"Sacks allowed" is an opinion-based stat. The stat compiler basically says "In my opinion it was the LG's fault. That's my guess, and therefore it will become part of the stat." In the case of the play the article refers to, the sack allowed would certainly have gone to Kaczur, though it was simply not his fault, as the article shows. And a mistaken opinion would have been enshrined in a stat.

 

Now, if they ever start a stat called "Interceptions which are the QB's Fault," that too will be an opinion-based stat, and like Sacks Allowed, will never become an official stat. For good reason.

 

Fact-based stats are useful. Opinion-based stats are not, since they are more representative of the opinion than they are of reality.

 

Sure gamestat wise there have been an x number of interceptions as there have been an x number of sacks. Those are gamestats, the point I tried to make was related to player stats. The interceptions a quarterback threw doesn't say per definition that he's a lousy quarterback, it could just as well have been a WR bobbling the ball into the hands of a defender on what was a perfect throw. So the interception stat as assigned to a QB is subjective. Plenty of discussion on that stat as well: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/48841-i...nst-their-stats so it can hardly be named a factbased statistic with relation to who made the error, hence I took it as example.

 

You're just wrong. The name of the stat is NOT "Sack Caused By A Defender." It's just "Sack." For a reason. A guy either gets a sack or doesn't. Either one is a fact. Once you put "cause" in there, you have inserted opinion, and therefore entirely eliminated the possibility of it ever becoming an official stat. Does Marcus Stroud get a sack if he never gets near the QB but draws a double-team which allows the DE to get to the QB? Of course he doesn't. But in your made-up stat here "Sacks Caused By A Defender," the answer would be "Probably." Or "Yes." Or "No." All of them could be right, and that's why it is opinion-based, not fact-based.

 

The sack that is awarded to the player is 'sack caused by a defender' there is no twisting this one, I didnt make it up it allready is an official stat. See: http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/5...GB_Gamebook.pdf

 

It's not so much a fact either when they get awarded half a sack, what if player one put in 75% of the effort and player 2 simply did the final dragging down they both get half a sack, that could have been a full sack to the first player had the second player not chipped in or it could have been no sack at all.

 

But that wasn't the point with getting the defenders into the discussion, the point is defenders often depend on other defenders making room for them to blitz and obtain the sack especially on inside blitzes, thus the sack is often the result of team play just as much as sacks allowed would be the result of team play but you could just as easily pin it on a single guy or two that let the defender or defenders through to allow them to make the sack.

 

Anyway at work here atm, i'll see if I can elaborate better/more later.

[TimGraham]

Bingo! And, for me, it has nothing to do with Peters.

 

And I completely disagree with the balderdash that this should be official, because all stats are subjective. Many stats (like an INT) are subjective at times, and can be slightly misleading. A sack allowed is a guess, virtually every time.

 

The only way sacks allowed could become official is if it was charted by each team's coaching staff. Even then it still would be subjective.

 

But that won't happen. The NFLPA never would allow management to assign official stats to the players.

[TimGraham]

Here's the Boston Herald story on the play ...

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/footbal...me_for_big_hit/

[Beerball]

We all (except for me) seem to be missing the key point in the piece that TG linked.

 

brady* got scrambled