Mark Sanchez: MERGED

[#27TheDominator]

This is totally incoherent. I seriously do not understand a single one of the points you're trying to make. Dropped interceptions is a fine stat. All you do is count stuff and compare numbers. I guess there can sometimes be a little bit of subjectivity as to whether a particular incompletion qualifies as a dropped interception, but they adjust for tendencies and in any event I'm fairly confident the game charters know them when they see them. Accounting for dropped interceptions predicts future interceptions better than ignoring them. It's really pretty simple.

Do the statistics actually support this hypothesis? How long have they even charted this inane non-stat?

[Jetsfan80]

Do the statistics actually support this hypothesis? How long have they even charted this inane non-stat?

Just wait till they start charting body language. Sanchez will be among the worst in the league in this category perennially.

[mark6sanchez]

Friggin negative Nellies here after every game-and who's the troll pretending to be a Jets fan by using our QB's name and number? Can somebody please ban that idiot if they haven't already?

I been a Jet fan longer then u been alive... I had High hopes when Sanchez got drafted...I hope he plays better and make me look bad.

[SMC]

Do the statistics actually support this hypothesis? How long have they even charted this inane non-stat?

No, it doesn't. And 2010 was the first year they did it.

Claiming that dropped INT predict future INT is absurd. There's no demonstrative correlation. Each instance is a singular event with a defender, not trained for pass catching having the opportunity to catch a ball despite numerous variables working against him from succeeding in doing so.

[SMC]

Because their data set is [passes that fall incomplete by way of hitting a defensive player in the hands], not [all pass attempts].

But when a ball hits a defender in the hands that doesn't mean he can catch it. When a ball hits a DT in the hands is he supposed to catch it 100% of the time? Or how about when it hits a LB in the chest? FO has admitted that it is a pure judgment call on their part in what they call a dropped INT based on what they think should have happened regardless of whether the defender is known to have stone hands or a ball hawk.

[Klecko73isGod]

But when a ball hits a defender in the hands that doesn't mean he can catch it. When a ball hits a DT in the hands is he supposed to catch it 100% of the time? Or how about when it hits a LB in the chest? FO has admitted that it is a pure judgment call on their part in what they call a dropped INT based on what they think should have happened regardless of whether the defender is known to have stone hands or a ball hawk.

Correct, its a made-up non-stat that is only meaningful to idiots and a-holes with specific agendas.

[Matt39]

Correct, its a made-up non-stat that is only meaningful to idiots and a-holes with specific agendas.

Yeah, that's exactly what its for. You start crying anytime someone happens to say something slightly negative about the team. Sanchez threw a bunch of passes last season that guys in the secondary probably should have caught. And according tho their study, he did that more than any other starting QB in the league. And we all know Sanchez needs to fix his accuracy.

No reason to call me an ahole for pointing out stuff that I see that needs improvement.

[Klecko73isGod]

Yeah, that's exactly what its for. You start crying anytime someone happens to say something slightly negative about the team. Sanchez threw a bunch of passes last season that guys in the secondary probably should have caught. And according tho their study, he did that more than any other starting QB in the league. And we all know Sanchez needs to fix his accuracy.

No reason to call me an ahole for pointing out stuff that I see that needs improvement.

That is 1000% wrong. I get pissy when people say moronically stupid things.

I'm the guy who ranted for two years here about how much I hated Thomas Jones when he played for the Jets. I may kill someone if I see Dustin Keller fall again for no reason. The next time I'm watching a game with JiF and Eric Smith gets burned like toast, I am kicking JiF in squarely in the nuts.

There are plenty of realistically negative things you can say about Sanchez, like he still has a tendancy to stare down receivers and his body language is terrible. Dropped INTs is a ridiculous, nonsensical, completely subjective NON-stat that is predictive of nothing and people who use it like some kind of ace-in-the-hole as a replacement for making a legitimate statistical argument are idiots.

[Bleedin Green]

I been a Jet fan longer then u been alive... I had High hopes when Sanchez got drafted...I hope he plays better and make me look bad.

Wow, that's quite impressive considering the Jets haven't been around longer than SoFla has been alive. Glad to see all of your arguments are just as coherent as the one you began this thread with.

[Bleedin Green]

That is 1000% wrong. I get pissy when people say moronically stupid things.

I'm the guy who ranted for two years here about how much I hated Thomas Jones when he played for the Jets. I may kill someone if I see Dustin Keller fall again for no reason. The next time I'm watching a game with JiF and Eric Smith gets burned like toast, I am kicking JiF in squarely in the nuts.

There are plenty of realistically negative things you can say about Sanchez, like he still has a tendancy to stare down receivers and his body language is terrible. Dropped INTs is a ridiculous, nonsensical, completely subjective NON-stat that is predictive of nothing and people who use it like some kind of ace-in-the-hole as a replacement for making a legitimate statistical argument are idiots.

Not that I'm one to try to stop you from a good JiF nut-kicking, but this one seems a bit out of line. For years he and I have been the biggest Smith haters on this board.

As a side note, I'm kind of curious for those who hang their hats on Sanchez leading the league in the dropped INT "stat", if they also consider that Sanchez lead the league in completed passes to his receivers ruled as INTs.

[Klecko73isGod]

Not that I'm one to try to stop you from a good JiF nut-kicking, but this one seems a bit out of line. For years he and I have been the biggest Smith haters on this board.

As a side note, I'm kind of curious for those who hang their hats on Sanchez leading the league in the dropped INT "stat", if they also consider that Sanchez lead the league in completed passes to his receivers ruled as INTs.

Another question for them is do they consider all of the dropped passes by his receivers as catches and adjust his completion percentage accordingly?

[Bleedin Green]

Another question for them is do they consider all of the dropped passes by his receivers as catches and adjust his completion percentage accordingly?

Don't be silly, it's not like the Jets had 3 of their top 4 receivers rank amongst the league leaders in drops or anything.

[Klecko73isGod]

Don't be silly, it's not like the Jets had 3 of their top 4 receivers rank amongst the league leaders in drops or anything.

Yeah, you're right. That would fly in the face of their myopic agenda. (See Aten, I can use SAT words too! )

[Kleckineau]

Face palms not withstanding it might be time to raise your expectations.

[Aten]

Dude, STFU.

The point is completely coherent. I've debated with FO writers and the guy who does the AFCE blog for ESPN on this issue , and they completely understood the points made.

Dropped INT assumes an event that is statistically improbable. That is fundamentally improper. Defend it by analysis rather than by your usual pompous drivel.

It doesn't assume events. It just counts them. It doesn't purport to conclude that the dropped interception would have been an actual interception but for something beyond the quarterback's control. It just notes that it happened. Again, there's some subjectivity as to whether a particular pass that touches a defender's hands before falling incomplete qualifies as a dropped interception, but that's a matter of data collection. The only assumption required is that the charters can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy, and even that is buttressed by adjusting the numbers for the charters' tendencies. I really don't understand what you mean by this improper fundamental assumption stuff.

[SMC]

It doesn't assume events. It just counts them. It doesn't purport to conclude that the dropped interception would have been an actual interception but for something beyond the quarterback's control. It just notes that it happened. Again, there's some subjectivity as to whether a particular pass that touches a defender's hands before falling incomplete qualifies as a dropped interception, but that's a matter of data collection. The only assumption required is that the charters can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy, and even that is buttressed by adjusting the numbers for the charters' tendencies. I really don't understand what you mean by this improper fundamental assumption stuff.

You're being willingly dense if you don't understand what I mean by the improper fundamental assumption.

A dropped INT must assume that the INT was going to happen but for the defender dropping it. It was a guaranteed event which the defender screwed up for some reason. The problem is that the assumed event (the INT) actually has a low probability of occurring (3%). Thus, it is an improper assumption. You can't say something "should have happened" when the fail rate is 97%.

Also, defend your statement that "Accounting for dropped interceptions predicts future interceptions better than ignoring them." What predictive value is a "dropped INT"? What basis do you have to make such a claim?

[Aten]

Claiming that dropped INT predict future INT is absurd. There's no demonstrative correlation.

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard. More dropped interceptions means more opportunities for interceptions means more actual interceptions. All you're doing is complaining about the data being potentially imprecise and all the fundamental this assumption that stuff is just to make it sound like a better argument than it actually is.

[CTM]

this is a pointless debate now.. It's preseason, lets discuss after week 4

[CTM]

Dropped INT is a completely BS stat and it's ridiculous that it's brought up. This was discussed when FO/ESPN put that silliness out there.

yes, and you were wrong then too. lol

[SMC]

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard. More dropped interceptions means more opportunities for interceptions means more actual interceptions. All you're doing is complaining about the data being potentially imprecise and all the fundamental this assumption that stuff is just to make it sound like a better argument than it actually is.

Comical. An opportunity for something that naturally doesn't actually occur 97% of the time? Really? What do you have to support this? Oh, I forgot, FO has only done this for 1 year so there is nothing to support the notion that a "dropped INT" predicts future INTs and thus there has been no correlative studies.

The data is not "potentially imprecise," it's non existent. It's a purely subjective determination based a charter's review of an improbable event.

[Aten]

A dropped INT must assume that the INT was going to happen but for the defender dropping it.

No it doesn't. You don't have to call them 'dropped interceptions.' You can call them incompletions that hit defenders in the hands. You can call them kleckos. There is no assumption or second-guessing results involved.

[Klecko73isGod]

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard. More dropped interceptions means more opportunities for interceptions means more actual interceptions. All you're doing is complaining about the data being potentially imprecise and all the fundamental this assumption that stuff is just to make it sound like a better argument than it actually is.

That still doesn't account for it being predictive of future events.

If a young QB throws a lot of "dropped INTs" one year it doesn't mean he will throw more INTs the following year. A simple change in behavior, like say learning to throw the ball away instead of forcing it, can bring both the real INT and "dropped INT" number down.

I think Sanchez is in a weird stage in his development - one that missing four months of film study with coaches could have helped a lot with. You are still going to see some inconsistency this year but I think his better performances will be significantly better while his bad performances are more likely to look bad statistically while not really hurting the team all that much. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict there will be no zero TD games from this offense this year.

When Sanchez struggles early, you will see him find his bearings and lead the team on at least one TD drive, much like he did Monday night. I don't think we'll see any pure clunkers like last year.

[SMC]

No it doesn't. You don't have to call them 'dropped interceptions.' You can call them incompletions that hit defenders in the hands. You can call them kleckos. There is no assumption or second-guessing results involved.

This is asinine. It's not "incompletions that hit defenders in the hands." It's a dropped INT, which must assume that the defender would have caught the ball (whether in his hands, against his chest, etc,) and maintained possession of it with either two feet in bounds, knee, butt, etc. in the field of play to constitute a catch, despite the fact that the defender (1) is not a trained receiver, and (2) unlike an intended receiver, must have a split second reaction to a pass thrown to an unintented target.

You must assume the success of the success of the play (INT) to claim that it was only the defender's fault in dropping it and, thus, attribute it to the QB as a "would be" INT if not for the defender dropping it.

[CTM]

You're being willingly dense if you don't understand what I mean by the improper fundamental assumption.

A dropped INT must assume that the INT was going to happen but for the defender dropping it. It was a guaranteed event which the defender screwed up for some reason. The problem is that the assumed event (the INT) actually has a low probability of occurring (3%). Thus, it is an improper assumption. You can't say something "should have happened" when the fail rate is 97%.

Also, defend your statement that "Accounting for dropped interceptions predicts future interceptions better than ignoring them." What predictive value is a "dropped INT"? What basis do you have to make such a claim?

You really do make no sense and if anyone agreed with you from FO it was from pure exhaustion, not cause you had a coherent point

For instance, why are you applying the league avg int % of 3% to cases when the pass hits the defender in the hands. Obviously, the vast majority of those 97% non intercepted passed DO NOT hit defender's in the hands. So what is the average rate of intercepted passed when they DO hit the defender in the hands

[CTM]

That still doesn't account for it being predictive of future events.

you could say that about any stat ...

the bottomline is the more passes you throw that hit defenders the more interceptions you will have. Short term luck walks of butterfinger defenders is what will regress to the mean

[Aten]

Oh, I forgot, FO has only done this for 1 year so there is nothing to support the notion that a "dropped INT" predicts future INTs and thus there has been no correlative studies.

No idea where you got this idea. They've done the numbers for 2007-2010 so far and adjusted interceptions (which include drops and exclude stuff like end-of-game desperation heaves) have a year-to-year correlation twice as strong as interceptions alone.

[CTM]

No idea where you got this idea. They've done the numbers for 2007-2010 so far and adjusted interceptions (which include drops and exclude stuff like end-of-game desperation heaves) have a year-to-year correlation twice as strong as interceptions alone.

Made up stat

[Klecko73isGod]

you could say that about any stat ...

the bottomline is the more passes you throw that hit defenders the more interceptions you will have. Short term luck walks of butterfinger defenders is what will regress to the mean

And fortunately for the rest of us, football is not played by condescending nerds.

[CTM]

And fortunately for the rest of us, football is not played by condescending nerds.

I haven't seen any 500lb loud mouth couch potatoes out there either..

[SMC]

You really do make no sense and if anyone agreed with you from FO it was from pure exhaustion, not cause you had a coherent point

For instance, why are you applying the

Accounting for dropped interceptions predicts future interceptions better than ignoring them. It's really pretty simple.

to cases when the pass hits the defender in the hands. Obviously, the vast majority of those 97% non intercepted passed DO not hit defender's in the hands. So what is the average rate of intercepted passed when they DO hit the defender in the hanrd

Of course, another FO sycophant.

Just because a ball hits a defender in the hands or in the chest (FO never explained what was a determining factor) means that he "should" have caught it. How hard is that to understand? A defender is not a trained receiver. As the old saying goes, if the CB could catch he'd be playing wide receiver. Further, the defender is at a disadvantage in trying to intercept a ball because his reaction time is less than that of a receiver.

The reason why I'm applying the league average of 3% is because it accounts for every variable which makes an INT not happen. That's what a defender faces. Last year, the best INTer was Ed Reed, and he only had 8 INTs and the Patriots led the league with 25. INTs rarely happen, so how can you dare to assume that it was supposed to happen even if the ball hits the defender in the chest or hands?

[Aten]

If a young QB throws a lot of "dropped INTs" one year it doesn't mean he will throw more INTs the following year. A simple change in behavior, like say learning to throw the ball away instead of forcing it, can bring both the real INT and "dropped INT" number down.

Of course. His stats can get better if he plays better. In that case, the effect of the higher mean (i.e. the improvement in his 'true' ability to avoid interceptions) tending to cause fewer interceptions could drown out the effect of regression to the mean (i.e. potential interceptions turning into actual interceptions at closer to the expected rate than they did last year) tending to cause more.

[Klecko73isGod]

I haven't seen any 500lb loud mouth couch potatoes out there either..

According to the geeks at FO there's no such thing as "clutch" either but use your eyes.

Billy Beane still hasn't won sh*t regardless of how many movies they make about him. There is not one single example of sabermetrics being employed in any practical application with any real championship success. The Red Sox and their 180 million dollar payroll don't count.

[SMC]

No idea where you got this idea. They've done the numbers for 2007-2010 so far and adjusted interceptions (which include drops and exclude stuff like end-of-game desperation heaves) have a year-to-year correlation twice as strong as interceptions alone.

If that's the case, then where is the data showing that the player that led the NFL in "dropped INTs" had an increase in INTs the following year? You yourself claim its a predictive event. Wouldn't that be the case?

[Klecko73isGod]

Of course. His stats can get better if he plays better. In that case, the effect of the higher mean (i.e. the improvement in his 'true' ability to avoid interceptions) tending to cause fewer interceptions could drown out the effect of regression to the mean (i.e. potential interceptions turning into actual interceptions at closer to the expected rate than they did last year) tending to cause more.

So in other words, two years is not remotely large enough a sample size to make any realistic prediction off of. Because as Sanchez improves and develops into the QB we all hope he will become, his mean will improve. Meaning this is simply another meaningless exercise in the metal masturbation known as "sabermetrics."

BTW, thank you for not being a condescending prick for a change like your buddy and realizing that just because someone doesn't wholeheartedly agree with sabermetrics doesn't mean they don't understand it.

[Matt39]

According to the geeks at FO there's no such thing as "clutch" either but use your eyes.

Billy Beane still hasn't won sh*t regardless of how many movies they make about him. There is not one single example of sabermetrics being employed in any practical application with any real championship success. The Red Sox and their 180 million dollar payroll don't count.

Baseball playoffs are pretty random though. Short series' do that. And pretty much every MLB team employs some aspect of Moneyball unlike 15 years ago...