Why fans and media shouldn't assign sacks allowed

[bladiebla]

Gee, your sarcasm is really pouring through. To no purpose, of course. But just in case you thought it was too subtle, I'm here to tell you that I get it. You are the one who doesn't get it. The guy who threw the INT gets it next to his name, regardless of who was at fault. The guy who fumbled gets the fumble next to his name, regardless of who is at fault. Fault is not part of the equation in these stats.

 

Look, the stat is just a stat. Any emotional content comes from the guy trying to use the stat.

 

If you can find me one case, just one, of somebody but the QB who threw it recieving the sack, then you will have proved your point. I can find you dozens of cases where the INT is not the fault of the QB. I'm sure you can too. Cases where the reciever ran the wrong route, or slapped the ball up into the air. Cases where the reciever didn't look back and the ball hit him between the shoulder blades, popped up in the air and was intercepted. Or maybe just didn't come back for the ball when he should have. Yet, oddly, the INT doesn't get listed for the reciever. Because the reciever didn't throw it. The QB did.

 

And yeah, same as fumbles. Find me one case of the o-lineman who plants his helmet into the ball accidentally being credited with the fumble. Thanks for the comparison. It's a good one. You totally sussed out the fact that fault is not a component in either one. Excellent observations.

 

Well, I'm gone for eight hours or so. I'll be looking forward to your pithy reply, Beerball.

 

Again, if you think fault or responsibility is part of the equation, find me one case where anyone but the guy who threw the INT finds it next to his name in the stats. Just one.

 

Yet the passer rating awarded to the quarterback is heavily penalized by interceptions thrown. I.e. the quarterback is receiving negative credit.

 

The point you are missing is that American Football, and that goes for any sport basicly, is an emotional experience. The stats have a positive or negative emotional meaning. In it's simpliest form that translates to points for and points against.

A stat in sports is not just a stat it is what makes sport work, simply because you need a stat in order to win or loose.

 

Statistics are by no means static, not in sports and not in business. They are open to explanation and interpretation, which results in subjectivety. Take for example the health care statistic the US governement communicated to the public, i.e. 25% of the americans have no health insurance with over 60% of the Americans under insured. Now watch Fox News covering that and compare it to say CNN, two completly different reports. FOX News does an interpretation of the statistics making the viewers believe that the 15% is going to pay for the 25% gap and to beef up the 60%. CNN is using a different interpretation giving focus on the 25% receiving medical care they need. Opinions are formed, thus what seamed like simple numbers turned subjective, due to people giving different meaning to them.

 

Back to the receiver fault that is giving a quarterback negative credit, even if the balls was spot on, which shows fault in the statistic. That fault makes it open to interpretation and with that it becomes a subjective number.

 

The stat doesn't mean that the ball was thrown, since that would have been a pass attempt stat. It doesn't mean the ball wasn't delivered to the intended target, since that would have been a incomplete pass. The stat doesn't mean the ball was delivered, for that would be a complete pass. It clearly means the ball ended up with the defenders unintended without touching the ground.

 

Now if it interceptions just be kept as a team stat you'd be right, however it gets assigned to the quarterback. There is simply no way you can defend that the quarterback isn't taking fault of others onto his shoulders with the interception stat. There is a fair portion of interceptions where it isn't clear who was at fault, did the receiver overshoot his route, undershot it, did the QB underthrow it, overthrew it, sometimes there is no telling, did a sudden wind gash take it away. And that makes it open to interpretation and therefor subjective.

 

The question is, does it matter that the stats are subjective? We all know interceptions are, yet we do use them to judge quarterbacks. Does it matter? No since it does give a good measurable on the performance of a human and the number becomes more accurate the more measurements can be taken (*cough Favre*).

 

The same can be said for measuring sacks allowed, over a ten year career there will be a clear difference between the good guys and bad guys. Does the fault margin matter? No not at all, since it's the same error margin for all as long as the measurement period is long enough and your measurement definition is solid enough.

 

The trick is can someone come up with a sacks allowed measurable definition that is solid enough.

 

Sacks allowed aside, this whole discussion makes me wonder why stats are kept on everything except when it comes to the offensive line. Pancakes could easily be measured cant they? Broadcasters could do a pocket timer similar to hangtime, the software would need to be a little bit more sophisticated but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of good programmers out there who can achieve such a feat. How do coaches grade and measure their o-line players? I'm sure they are keeping some sort of stat to use to compare their performances or is it all based on feeling and non statistical judgement?

[bladiebla]

Anyone else have the feeling that Tim Graham will be writing a book called "Statistical Emotions" during the next offseason?

[Guest dog14787]

Yet the passer rating awarded to the quarterback is heavily penalized by interceptions thrown. I.e. the quarterback is receiving negative credit.

 

The point you are missing is that American Football, and that goes for any sport basicly, is an emotional experience. The stats have a positive or negative emotional meaning. In it's simpliest form that translates to points for and points against.

A stat in sports is not just a stat it is what makes sport work, simply because you need a stat in order to win or loose.

 

Statistics are by no means static, not in sports and not in business. They are open to explanation and interpretation, which results in subjectivety. Take for example the health care statistic the US governement communicated to the public, i.e. 25% of the americans have no health insurance with over 60% of the Americans under insured. Now watch Fox News covering that and compare it to say CNN, two completly different reports. FOX News does an interpretation of the statistics making the viewers believe that the 15% is going to pay for the 25% gap and to beef up the 60%. CNN is using a different interpretation giving focus on the 25% receiving medical care they need. Opinions are formed, thus what seamed like simple numbers turned subjective, due to people giving different meaning to them.

 

Back to the receiver fault that is giving a quarterback negative credit, even if the balls was spot on, which shows fault in the statistic. That fault makes it open to interpretation and with that it becomes a subjective number.

 

The stat doesn't mean that the ball was thrown, since that would have been a pass attempt stat. It doesn't mean the ball wasn't delivered to the intended target, since that would have been a incomplete pass. The stat doesn't mean the ball was delivered, for that would be a complete pass. It clearly means the ball ended up with the defenders unintended without touching the ground.

 

Now if it interceptions just be kept as a team stat you'd be right, however it gets assigned to the quarterback. There is simply no way you can defend that the quarterback isn't taking fault of others onto his shoulders with the interception stat. There is a fair portion of interceptions where it isn't clear who was at fault, did the receiver overshoot his route, undershot it, did the QB underthrow it, overthrew it, sometimes there is no telling, did a sudden wind gash take it away. And that makes it open to interpretation and therefor subjective.

 

The question is, does it matter that the stats are subjective? We all know interceptions are, yet we do use them to judge quarterbacks. Does it matter? No since it does give a good measurable on the performance of a human and the number becomes more accurate the more measurements can be taken (*cough Favre*).

 

The same can be said for measuring sacks allowed, over a ten year career there will be a clear difference between the good guys and bad guys. Does the fault margin matter? No not at all, since it's the same error margin for all as long as the measurement period is long enough and your measurement definition is solid enough.

 

The trick is can someone come up with a sacks allowed measurable definition that is solid enough.

 

Sacks allowed aside, this whole discussion makes me wonder why stats are kept on everything except when it comes to the offensive line. Pancakes could easily be measured cant they? Broadcasters could do a pocket timer similar to hangtime, the software would need to be a little bit more sophisticated but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of good programmers out there who can achieve such a feat. How do coaches grade and measure their o-line players? I'm sure they are keeping some sort of stat to use to compare their performances or is it all based on feeling and non statistical judgement?

 

 

Interceptions are a fact regardless of what caused the interception, it happened and the QB gets credit. Sacks allowed is not so easily pinned on one person, big difference in my opinion. Statistics are open to interpretation but are factual in some form. Unless you can prove beyond a doubt how a sack occurred sacks allowed should not be used as a stat on one individual.

[The Dean]

Yet the passer rating awarded to the quarterback is heavily penalized by interceptions thrown. I.e. the quarterback is receiving negative credit.

 

 

The QB rating is not a great stat. But guess what? It has a specific formula you can examine. You can understand what was and wasn't factored into the rating. It is based on a number of different, also defined, stats. If you don't like the QB rating, you have the stats that make up the rating (and some that don't) to find a different statistical analysis of a QBs ability.

 

Has anyone here even intimated at a standard that one could codify (essential in the "official process" one would think) that is a generally realistic evaluation of pass blocking ability? Because, as you must realize, if it is the only objective measure of pass blocking ability, that's what it will become (at least to most fans, sports journalists, columnists, radio and tv talk shows, etc.).

[Guest dog14787]

Although its easy to see there are to many variables involved as previously posted such as coverage sacks, ect. There should be a way to develop a proper grading system to better distinguish one lineman from another besides just visual opinions. On one hand folks presume we can tell how well lineman are playing just by observation, therefor whats the problem. The problem is, as already been explained, without being in the huddle or knowing all the circumstances, simple observations will not work, not accurately.

 

So we have some of the highest paid athletes in the NFL with no accurate method to grade them. In my opinion a grading system should be created and used to better gauge individual performance. If you based your grading system on proximity to the breakdown, we might get a decent representation of whats going on. For instance when a sack occurs the whole O-line gets marks against them, but the closer you are to the missed block, the higher the mark is against you. Coverage sack could be based simply on the time span at which the sack occurs. O-line gets marks against them, but not as severe in a coverage sack. At the end of the season you would be able to look at each offensive line and get an accurate gauge on just how well they performed. Then the offensive line and the offense as a whole all partake in the final line grade and it creates continuity across the board in an effort to increase overall O-line grade. Individuals will receive an independent grade based on individual performance including RB's on the blitz pickup.

 

Grading individuals like Jason Peters would be fun, don't you think

 

 

Again, this is just an example, but I think a grading system should be developed to give us a more accurate profile of an O-lineman capabilities so more liability is created on an individual basis.

 

I'm fairly certain if there was an accurate grading procedure Jason Peters grade for the 08 season would not merit the pro bowl or the money he received signing with the Eagles, at least not in my opinion.

[Thurman#1]

Really?? What kind of BS is that?

 

You're just trying to be clever here and backpedal.

 

If it's so hard to assign "responsibility" for a sack, then why is it, officially listed under only one individual's stats--the QB? And the same for ints. Why aren't you arguing for clearing out those two stats from the QBs line? You've now pointed out that they, too, are "too subjective" and it is improper to blame one individual, no?

 

10 seconds, 8,7,6...look, a knowledgeable official can watch the film, see what the play is, who was covering who, where the receivers are and how the QB reacted---and then make a reasonble assignment of "responsibility" for the sack. It is certainly doable and better than the way it is reported (unofficially) now. This stuff about "being in the huddle" is nonsense. Now way a majority of sacks come from "miscmmounication"/blown plays. Again, the analogy is in baseball. An official is charged with watching the play, the replay, and deciding, based on all factors, should the fielder have made the play (thus an "error") or was it unlikely anyone could have made the same play (thus a "hit").

 

Your argument is that since it is not done well now, it can't be done at all.

 

 

 

I guess you mean an INT, not a sack, right? Sacks are listed under the defender who made the sack.

 

INTs are listed under the guy who threw it because it's very helpful to know which guy threw it. It's that simple.

 

If I didn't see a preseason game, and the headline says "3 INTs Lose Game For Bills" then I immediately turn to the box score to find out whether they were thrown by Trent, Hamdan or Fitzpatrick. It has nothing to do with blame. I then turn to the story of the game to find out why the INTs were thrown, or go to the boards if it's not immediately obvious from the story.

 

I don't even understand what you are talking about here. Your post doesn't seem to make sense to me. Are you talking about sacks or INTs or both at different times? Could you re-write your post so that I could better figure out what you mean? I'm not being sarcastic here, I just don't understand what you mean.

 

If you are referring to sacks, of course it is difficult to assign many sacks to one OL. That's why there have been huge arguments raging here about the number of sacks that Peters is actually responsible for, arguments which have lasted for months. The newspaper article that this whole thread is based on shows a perfect example of this exact difficulty.

 

Hunh?

[Thurman#1]

Yet the passer rating awarded to the quarterback is heavily penalized by interceptions thrown. I.e. the quarterback is receiving negative credit.

 

The point you are missing is that American Football, and that goes for any sport basicly, is an emotional experience. The stats have a positive or negative emotional meaning. In it's simpliest form that translates to points for and points against.

A stat in sports is not just a stat it is what makes sport work, simply because you need a stat in order to win or loose.

 

Statistics are by no means static, not in sports and not in business. They are open to explanation and interpretation, which results in subjectivety. Take for example the health care statistic the US governement communicated to the public, i.e. 25% of the americans have no health insurance with over 60% of the Americans under insured. Now watch Fox News covering that and compare it to say CNN, two completly different reports. FOX News does an interpretation of the statistics making the viewers believe that the 15% is going to pay for the 25% gap and to beef up the 60%. CNN is using a different interpretation giving focus on the 25% receiving medical care they need. Opinions are formed, thus what seamed like simple numbers turned subjective, due to people giving different meaning to them.

 

Back to the receiver fault that is giving a quarterback negative credit, even if the balls was spot on, which shows fault in the statistic. That fault makes it open to interpretation and with that it becomes a subjective number.

 

The stat doesn't mean that the ball was thrown, since that would have been a pass attempt stat. It doesn't mean the ball wasn't delivered to the intended target, since that would have been a incomplete pass. The stat doesn't mean the ball was delivered, for that would be a complete pass. It clearly means the ball ended up with the defenders unintended without touching the ground.

 

Now if it interceptions just be kept as a team stat you'd be right, however it gets assigned to the quarterback. There is simply no way you can defend that the quarterback isn't taking fault of others onto his shoulders with the interception stat. There is a fair portion of interceptions where it isn't clear who was at fault, did the receiver overshoot his route, undershot it, did the QB underthrow it, overthrew it, sometimes there is no telling, did a sudden wind gash take it away. And that makes it open to interpretation and therefor subjective.

 

The question is, does it matter that the stats are subjective? We all know interceptions are, yet we do use them to judge quarterbacks. Does it matter? No since it does give a good measurable on the performance of a human and the number becomes more accurate the more measurements can be taken (*cough Favre*).

 

The same can be said for measuring sacks allowed, over a ten year career there will be a clear difference between the good guys and bad guys. Does the fault margin matter? No not at all, since it's the same error margin for all as long as the measurement period is long enough and your measurement definition is solid enough.

 

The trick is can someone come up with a sacks allowed measurable definition that is solid enough.

 

Sacks allowed aside, this whole discussion makes me wonder why stats are kept on everything except when it comes to the offensive line. Pancakes could easily be measured cant they? Broadcasters could do a pocket timer similar to hangtime, the software would need to be a little bit more sophisticated but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of good programmers out there who can achieve such a feat. How do coaches grade and measure their o-line players? I'm sure they are keeping some sort of stat to use to compare their performances or is it all based on feeling and non statistical judgement?

 

 

 

You're right about the QB rating stat. It uses INTs against the QB. That is one of the many reasons that it is not a very good stat. We're always trying to find a better stat than that one. It's a bit useful, particularly over the course of a season rather than a game, but the fact that INTs are used as part of it is indeed one of the reasons it's not a good stat. That's why people often use Y/A as a better baseline stat for QBs.

 

The INT stat, itself, is NOT where the emotion and subjectivity come in. The emotion comes in when the stat is talked about and chewed over. That's the right time for blame to be discussed, and stats to be interpreted from different points of view.

 

But again, the INT stat doesn't assign blame, it just tells you who threw the pass. It's up to the commentators, pundits and fans to say whose fault it is. The stat itself, though, isn't subjective, it's objective, because the INT always goes to the guy who threw the ball, not the guy whose fault it was.

 

You say "Back to the receiver fault that is giving a quarterback negative credit, even if the balls was spot on, which shows fault in the statistic. That fault makes it open to interpretation and with that it becomes a subjective number." But the number isn't subjective. The interpretation is subjective.

 

You also say "There is simply no way you can defend that the quarterback isn't taking fault of others onto his shoulders with the interception stat." Yeah, I can. That is the whole point. Even when it is not the QB's fault, he gets assigned the interception, for two good reasons. First, he threw it. Second, it is often difficult to figure out who exactly is responsible for an INT. The only way to have a stat like "Responsibility for Interception" would be to have a guy guess or decide without all the facts, the way they do with "Sacks Allowed." It would be a crap stat, like "Sacks Allowed" is.

 

As for your discussion of o-line stats, you ask how do teams judge o-line play? By stats, undoubtedly, but not stats that some bozo guesses at. You're right, the teams put together numbers. The problem is that they don't release those numbers, because the teams are the only ones that can judge OLs. The teams know the play called on a given play. They know the blocking assignments (after they talk to the center). Those stats would be extremely useful for judging o-line play, but the teams generally don't release them.

 

You want to put the blame in the stat, but the blame comes in how the stat is used and discussed. INTs are an objective stat, just like the number of Americans without health care coverage. How the stats are talked about and interpreted is indeed subjective. But not the stat. Except for garbage stats like "Sacks Allowed," which are based on the opinion of a guy who has no idea of what play was called or what the blocking assignments on the play were.

[Thurman#1]

The QB rating is not a great stat. But guess what? It has a specific formula you can examine. You can understand what was and wasn't factored into the rating. It is based on a number of different, also defined, stats. If you don't like the QB rating, you have the stats that make up the rating (and some that don't) to find a different statistical analysis of a QBs ability.

 

Has anyone here even intimated at a standard that one could codify (essential in the "official process" one would think) that is a generally realistic evaluation of pass blocking ability? Because, as you must realize, if it is the only objective measure of pass blocking ability, that's what it will become (at least to most fans, sports journalists, columnists, radio and tv talk shows, etc.).

 

 

 

Yeah, exactly, Dean.

 

If this were one of several stats which attempted to define the ability of an OL at pass-blocking, it wouldn't be such a problem. But it is the only one out there, and it is extremely subjective.

 

How come the Eagles paid more than $10 million bucks a year for a guy who was the worst in the league at pass blocking last year according to that stat? Something is very wrong there, and it's most likely the stat. Some things just aren't easily quantified.

[Guest dog14787]

Yeah, exactly, Dean.

 

If this were one of several stats which attempted to define the ability of an OL at pass-blocking, it wouldn't be such a problem. But it is the only one out there, and it is extremely subjective.

 

How come the Eagles paid more than $10 million bucks a year for a guy who was the worst in the league at pass blocking last year according to that stat? Something is very wrong there, and it's most likely the stat. Some things just aren't easily quantified.

 

 

That's funny, really funny

 

Jason Peters is exactly why we need a formula to grade O-lineman so there is no doubt how poorly he played last year.

 

We can look for excuses or reasons why sacks allowed doesn't work because 5% of the time it wasn't the lineman's fault, but as other posters have posted, everyone is judged the same way and any mistakes wouldn't have much effect on the final outcome. In my opinion improvising is part of the game. So what if there was a mix up, some players would realize as much and improvise to make a play, some players won't , broken plays happen and its how players respond is what makes the difference. I watched film with my cousin in Hamburg who has every game taped and he spent two hours breaking things down and showing me Jason Peters poor play last season.

 

So some of you folks can believe what you want, but based on last seasons performance Jason Peters was one of the worse starting left tackles in the league in my opinion.

[bladiebla]

I watched film with my cousin in Hamburg

 

Does he still happen to have the last World Bowl with the american commentary (not the german voice over feed) by any chance? I lost mine when my dvr crashed... :/

[Mr. WEO]

I guess you mean an INT, not a sack, right? Sacks are listed under the defender who made the sack.

 

INTs are listed under the guy who threw it because it's very helpful to know which guy threw it. It's that simple.

 

If I didn't see a preseason game, and the headline says "3 INTs Lose Game For Bills" then I immediately turn to the box score to find out whether they were thrown by Trent, Hamdan or Fitzpatrick. It has nothing to do with blame. I then turn to the story of the game to find out why the INTs were thrown, or go to the boards if it's not immediately obvious from the story.

 

I don't even understand what you are talking about here. Your post doesn't seem to make sense to me. Are you talking about sacks or INTs or both at different times? Could you re-write your post so that I could better figure out what you mean? I'm not being sarcastic here, I just don't understand what you mean.

 

If you are referring to sacks, of course it is difficult to assign many sacks to one OL. That's why there have been huge arguments raging here about the number of sacks that Peters is actually responsible for, arguments which have lasted for months. The newspaper article that this whole thread is based on shows a perfect example of this exact difficulty.

 

Hunh?

You're kidding right?

 

Ah, no--I meant sacks. The topic of discussion is assigning responsibility for sacks on the QB. You claim that it is nearly impossible to attribute an allowed sack to one person. I simply pointed out that every sack IS attributed to one person--the QB. It's clear to me now that the source of your confusion is that you do not know that "sacks" is an official metric for every QB in the NFL.

 

I was asking you why it is ok for sacks to be listed as an "official" stat for one player (QB-- even if he is not actually "responsible" for getting sacked), but not another player or players--just because you think it would be "difficult" to assign responsibility to an O-lineman?

 

Likewise, only one player gets assigned "responsibility for an int (the QB), even though the int may be the result of multiple errors and circumstances out of the QBs control (WR fell down, ran the wrong route, couldn't hold on to the catch, etc.).

 

I hope this helps you understand what is being discussed. I'm not being sarcastic, but I cannot rewrite this in a way to make you better understand.

[Guest dog14787]

Does he still happen to have the last World Bowl with the american commentary (not the german voice over feed) by any chance? I lost mine when my dvr crashed... :/

 

sorry, wrong Hamburg. ( Hamburg, NY )

[bladiebla]

sorry, wrong Hamburg. ( Hamburg, NY )

 

[Guest dog14787]

 

 

I thought at first you might be joking until I noticed you are in the Netherlands. Hamburg is real close to Buffalo and I have allot of relatives in and around Buffalo. (born there)

[bladiebla]

I thought at first you might be joking until I noticed you are in the Netherlands. Hamburg is real close to Buffalo and I have allot of relatives in and around Buffalo. (born there)

 

Lol, nope I was serious. Last World Bowl was played by the Hamburg Seadevils @ Frankfurt Galaxy. You made me all giddy... :/ No worries, i'll re-obtain my copy someday.

[Guest dog14787]

Lol, nope I was serious. Last World Bowl was played by the Hamburg Seadevils @ Frankfurt Galaxy. You made me all giddy... :/ No worries, i'll re-obtain my copy someday.

 

 

Sorry I couldn't help, I enjoy reading your posts and good to have you with us.