QB dept. : " Sheer luck buoyed Mark Sanchez's stats " ~ ~ ~

[CTM]

Only for a stat geek who's never stepped foot on a football field.

gimme a break, you're the same guy who insisted the offensses weak side was the QB's blind side not too long ago..

[T0mShane]

gimme a break, you're the same guy who insisted the offensses weak side was the QB's blind side not too long ago..

Oh. Snap.

[JiFtheOracle]

And Jifiot

http://www.jetnation.com/forums/index.php?/topic/93485-kerry-rhodes-lmao/page__p__1709778#entry1709778

Oh wow. You got me there. Reaching for an example a bit?

Are FO's stats perfect? No, but you are kidding yourself if decisions aren't being made based on them (or ones like them). Teams go way deeper then this btw, I think both Mangini and Ryan have said QB's are graded on eveyr pass, if you don't think they look down on a pass winding up in a defenders hands, you are crazy.

I never said they did or didnt. I'm saying its ridiculous to make the conclusion that Mark Sanchez got lucky this season turning around his stats because something negative almost happened.

The stats tell a story, not the whole story. You saying that you have a deeper passion for learning, understanding and knowing the game because you're into these stats, is the douchiest thing you've ever said...which is saying a lot.

[kelly]

what matters :

mark has been in the nfl for how many seasons ? . .

. . . & he's had his team in the playoffs for how many of those seasons ? ?

[serphnx]

Are we going to count dropped TDs too? If he has 3 more TDs he's at 20 which is pretty good for a 2nd year QB.

I don't really care about arguing against these tools though. I mean who cares.

It's one thing for us Jets fans to bicker amongst ourselves. But it's a whole other thing when somebody else attacks our players.

[CTM]

Oh wow. You got me there. Reaching for an example a bit?

No, it was pretty easy in fact. like owning you usually is

I never said they did or didnt. I'm saying its ridiculous to make the conclusion that Mark Sanchez got lucky this season turning around his stats because something negative almost happened.

The stats tell a story, not the whole story. You saying that you have a deeper passion for learning, understanding and knowing the game because you're into these stats, is the douchiest thing you've ever said...which is saying a lot.

I don't give a crap what you think, if you think all advanced stats are "meaningless" and shut yourself out to them completely, you are willfully ignorant and yes, not interested in understanding the hidden game better..

I make myself familiar these stats for gambling purposes, and I've won big 3 years running because of them. I don't give a sh*t if you are believe me or not.

[jason423]

I believe thier AFC East game charter is a jets fan.. fwiw

But what difference does that make? Sean, as far as I know, charts the stats. He isnt the guy writing the articles or anything else. He charts the numbers and someone else uses them. Hell defend whatever the conclusion is, but he is not the guy writing the stuff. I just think they have something against Sanchez. I get the year 1 deal. They have their system that they trust about the college starts and completion percentage which has Sanchez falling way short. I just think since then they have gone out of their way to point out negatives. The Jamarcus Russell comparison was so ridiculous. The logic they used in that comparison was nuts. Forget the fact that they were using Russells second year as the basis, the way the argument was constructed would have meant if Sanchez was even worse than he was as a rookie that the "logical" comparison was Aikman or Elway. But Sanchez was too good to be compared with them. It was just baseless garbage because someone there seems to dislike him. The case they made against the Jets defense was based in facts, lots of data, and pretty solid interpretation of that data. Nothing wrong with that at all. Sanchez they went after in a way totally opposite than that.

And what purpose is this latest article? If they want to say he isnt as good as the kid from Tampa they dont have to resort to "guys dropped alot of picks" against him. Sanchez showed a solid improvement from year 1 to year 2. Sure it was helped by the dropped picks but it was also hurt by the fact that they dont have him throw around the goal. He tracks with a very good group of players in terms of improvement. Freeman is the best of the best. Just an incredible turnaround that is better than any true rookie in the last 30 years. But their point is to say that Sanchez just isnt as good as people think. I just think it all goes back to the fact that they want to prove the college theory correct. Its pointless. There will always be exceptions to the norm. Maybe Sanchez is one.

[JiFtheOracle]

No, it was pretty easy in fact. like owning you usually is

I don't give a crap what you think, if you think all advanced stats are "meaningless" and shut yourself out to them completely, you are willfully ignorant and yes, not interested in understanding the hidden game better..

I make myself familiar these stats for gambling purposes, and I've won big 3 years running because of them. I don't give a sh*t if you are believe me or not.

I never said I didnt believe you. I'm glad you find use in them, never said they didnt have a place. Dont think it applies to Mark Sanchez turning his stats around as "sheer luck".

But I will bow to you for having a deeper understanding for studying the stats...never again will I dare to challenge your knowledge of the game because you have hidden information that gives you an deeper understanding of the game.

[CTM]

But what difference does that make? Sean, as far as I know, charts the stats. He isnt the guy writing the articles or anything else. He charts the numbers and someone else uses them. Hell defend whatever the conclusion is, but he is not the guy writing the stuff. I just think they have something against Sanchez. I get the year 1 deal. They have their system that they trust about the college starts and completion percentage which has Sanchez falling way short. I just think since then they have gone out of their way to point out negatives. The Jamarcus Russell comparison was so ridiculous. The logic they used in that comparison was nuts. Forget the fact that they were using Russells second year as the basis, the way the argument was constructed would have meant if Sanchez was even worse than he was as a rookie that the "logical" comparison was Aikman or Elway. But Sanchez was too good to be compared with them. It was just baseless garbage because someone there seems to dislike him. The case they made against the Jets defense was based in facts, lots of data, and pretty solid interpretation of that data. Nothing wrong with that at all. Sanchez they went after in a way totally opposite than that.

And what purpose is this latest article? If they want to say he isnt as good as the kid from Tampa they dont have to resort to "guys dropped alot of picks" against him. Sanchez showed a solid improvement from year 1 to year 2. Sure it was helped by the dropped picks but it was also hurt by the fact that they dont have him throw around the goal. He tracks with a very good group of players in terms of improvement. Freeman is the best of the best. Just an incredible turnaround that is better than any true rookie in the last 30 years. But their point is to say that Sanchez just isnt as good as people think. I just think it all goes back to the fact that they want to prove the college theory correct. Its pointless. There will always be exceptions to the norm. Maybe Sanchez is one.

He's counting the dropped INT's... Is my point, it's not like they are fabricated or biased. They are legtimate. The fact that someone wrote an article about is because the Jets are good and mentioning them gets eyeballs

[CTM]

I never said I didnt believe you. I'm glad you find use in them, never said they didnt have a place. Dont think it applies to Mark Sanchez turning his stats around as "sheer luck".

But I will bow to you for having a deeper understanding for studying the stats...never again will I dare to challenge your knowledge of the game because you have hidden information that gives you an deeper understanding of the game.

You're a man-baby like your bff klacko. I simply said that it's not "meaningless" to people who are trying to understand the game at a deeper level. You inferred me saying I was superior. If you think the stats are meaningless, my comment should be meaningless to you as well..

GFY

[JiFtheOracle]

You're a man-baby like your bff klacko. I simply said that it's not "meaningless" to people who are trying to understand the game at a deeper level. You inferred me saying I was superior. If you think the stats are meaningless, my comment should be meaningless to you as well..

GFY

Everything you say to me is meaningless.

If understanding the stats helps take my knowledge deeper and my conclusion is Mark Sanchez improved his stats on "sheer luck", then shoot me because I've lost my mind.

FTR, I like reading them, think the findings are interesting. I just dont buy all conclusions based on the findings. Most of those, are totally up for interpretation. Just like this article. The data is used to spin an angle which eliminates other contributing factors.

[CTM]

also, the best way to attack these stats as meaningless is that they happen on such a small percentage of his overall passes. Which would be a common attack for TD/INT ratio in general

[jason423]

He's counting the dropped INT's... Is my point, it's not like they are fabricated or biased. They are legtimate. The fact that someone wrote an article about is because the Jets are good and mentioning them gets eyeballs

If thats the point Id agree 100%. I remember when Mark was 8-0 as a passer and alot of us would say that they were going to come in bunches because he had been so lucky to avoid turnovers and eventually it would catch up. What is good is that in football that can be fixable especially if you have a good coach. Those dropped picks on Monday are treated like an interception in their film reviews and Mark is going to hear about it when he comes in. If he is a good player that is totally correctable. Id be surprised if he threw that many gimmes next season.

[CTM]

Everything you say to me is meaningless.

If understanding the stats helps take my knowledge deeper and my conclusion is Mark Sanchez improved his stats on "sheer luck", then shoot me because I've lost my mind.

It means his TD/INT ratio was better based on pure luck. And it was.

To attack Sanchez the player, the are more likely to reference DVOA, DYAR, ANY/A or comp %, all of which had him in the bottom 1/3

[SMC]

wow.. that's even dumber then i thought it was.

ok, congrats!

LOL. You really are a close-minded stubborn mule.

There were 17,813 total attempts in the NFL last year with 10,185 receptions and 527 INTs. A reception occurred 57.1% of the time and an INT 2.9% of the time.

However, FO's "dropped interception" statistic is claiming a 100% chance of INT on the 15 passes they tracked which was dropped although an INT only happens less than 3% of the time. It's a false assumption by FO.

Sanchez, specifically, threw 507 times with 13 INTs, which means an INT occurred 2.5% of the time which is slightly LESS than the NFL average. If Sanchez threw an INT at the league average then he would have thrown 14.7 INTs, which rounds up to 15 TOTAL. Those are 2 extra INTs.

If you understand that then you're as dumb as I think you are.

[CTM]

LOL. You really are a close-minded stubborn mule.

There were 17,813 total attempts in the NFL last year with 10,185 receptions and 527 INTs. A reception occurred 57.1% of the time and an INT 2.9% of the time.

However, FO's "dropped interception" statistic is claiming a 100% chance of INT on the 15 passes they tracked which was dropped although an INT only happens less than 3% of the time. It's a false assumption by FO.

Sanchez, specifically, threw 507 times with 13 INTs, which means an INT occurred 2.5% of the time which is slightly LESS than the NFL average. If Sanchez threw an INT at the league average then he would have thrown 14.7 INTs, which rounds up to 15 TOTAL. Those are 2 extra INTs.

If you understand that then you're as dumb as I think you are.

Is this a comedy routine of some sort?

Are you going to smash a ******* watermelon next?

[SMC]

Is this a comedy routine of some sort?

Are you going to smash a ******* watermelon next?

LOL

Do you know what "but for" means?

An INT would occur "but for" the drop? You have to presume a 100% occurrence of the INT, but that occurrence was prevented by the drop. However, the true percentage of the occurrence is 3%.

Let me put it this way so you can see the utter falseness of the conclusion FO draws:

1. CTM says something intelligent 3 times out of 100.

2. SMC punches CTM in the face preventing him from speaking.

3. SMC prevented CTM from saying something intelligent.

[CTM]

LOL

Do you know what "but for" means?

An INT would occur "but for" the drop? You have to presume a 100% occurrence of the INT, but that occurrence was prevented by the drop. However, the true percentage of the occurrence is 3%.

Let me put it this way so you can see the utter falseness of the conclusion FO draws:

1. CTM says something intelligent 3 times out of 100.

2. SMC punches CTM in the face preventing him from speaking.

3. SMC prevented CTM from saying something intelligent.

Once of us is dense. Since you're arguing against the FO guys, I'm going to feel confident it's not me.

[Larz]

has anyone mentioned how stupid it is to think you can take 1 play in a game, change it, and assume everything else will happen the way it did without the play changing ?

especially a ******* turnover !!!!

the premise of this article is so ******* stupid it hurts my head

you simply cannot say any players stats would be different if you just altered some plays, and left everything else alone

so lets say sanchez goes 12 for 30, 225 yards, 1 TD, 1 int, but he had a lucky dropped int

do these ****tards really think you can just change his stat line to 12 for 30, 225 yards, 1 TD and 2 int's ?

the interception could cause sanchez to melt down and throw 2 more int's, or he could bounce back and throw 2 TD's

morons

[Larz]

and another thing

it's just dawning on some people that sanchez is lucky ?

lets review

born into a stable loving family with a firefighter dad who plays football with you like everyday

born with looks that drive the womens crazy

your HS football coach has a son who played QB in the NFL

he's a southern california kid who gets recruited to play QB at perennial contender USC

he is rose bowl MVP

he gets drafted in the first round, gets a $50 million dollar contract

the team that drafts him has one of the leagues best defenses, one of the leagues best offensive lines, and trades for braylon edwards and santonio holmes, and you play in 5 playoff games your first 2 seasons

news flash, mark sanchez is one lucky SOB !!!!

[Klecko73isGod]

and another thing

it's just dawning on some people that sanchez is lucky ?

lets review

born into a stable loving family with a firefighter dad who plays football with you like everyday

born with looks that drive the womens crazy

your HS football coach has a son who played QB in the NFL

he's a southern california kid who gets recruited to play QB at perennial contender USC

he is rose bowl MVP

he gets drafted in the first round, gets a $50 million dollar contract

the team that drafts him has one of the leagues best defenses, one of the leagues best offensive lines, and trades for braylon edwards and santonio holmes, and you play in 5 playoff games your first 2 seasons

news flash, mark sanchez is one lucky SOB !!!!

Six playoff games.

Instead of telling us how bad they think Sanchez is, why doesn't Football Outsiders really think outside the box and try and figure out what the hell Sanchez is doing right that he's helped his team get to within one game of the Super Bowl in each of his first two seasons?

Anyone who has watched him play the last two years can see that his play has improved dramatically in the postseason and you really don't need any stats to tell you that either. Why not try to figure out why?

[The Crusher]

Sacks are pretty easy to track. Tracking something that almost happened, not so much.

Vernon Gholston and his half a dozen QB pressures are not happy about this.

[The Crusher]

and rex ryan

"It was good. No turnovers out there. A good thing on offense, a bad thing on defense. I think (the defense) dropped like five balls. Hopefully the defense, this afternoon, if they get the opportunity they can come up with them."

I think it's just more difficult to have standard parameters for dropped interceptions than something like dropped passes. When a QB throws to a receiver pretty much clear where he's going with it, criss cross routes and overload routes the exception.

yet what makes it a missed pic and not a batted down ball? Does the guy have to get two hands on it? does he have to be turned around? is it anymore or or less of a miss if it's a linemen with his hands tapes? Is it more or less on a batted ball?

Though I do agree Sanchez got away with a few very obvious ones but at the same time this is a weak stat In my fat yet humble opinion/.

[CTM]

I think it's just more difficult to have standard parameters for dropped interceptions than something like dropped passes. When a QB throws to a receiver pretty much clear where he's going with it, criss cross routes and overload routes the exception.

yet what makes it a missed pic and not a batted down ball? Does the guy have to get two hands on it? does he have to be turned around? is it anymore or or less of a miss if it's a linemen with his hands tapes? Is it more or less on a batted ball?

Though I do agree Sanchez got away with a few very obvious ones but at the same time this is a weak stat In my fat yet humble opinion/.

FO has an established criteria and they follow it, just like any other judgement call stat. ALmost everyone here knows a dropped int when they see one, in fact, it's more clear then who gave up a sack or even whose a fault for some incompletions..

[The Crusher]

FO has an established criteria and they follow it, just like any other judgement call stat. ALmost everyone here knows a dropped int when they see one, in fact, it's more clear then who gave up a sack or even whose a fault for some incompletions..

Still very subjective. So it's the same thing if it bounces off the hands of a taped up lineman's or a defensive back that makes a living picking off balls? I will go read the criteria if I can find it.

[CTM]

Still very subjective. So it's the same thing if it bounces off the hands of a taped up lineman's or a defensive back that makes a living picking off balls? I will go read the criteria if I can find it.

agreed, but many things are.. like QB pressures.. sacks that almost happenned.. or pass defended..

[SMC]

Once of us is dense. Since you're arguing against the FO guys, I'm going to feel confident it's not me.

Lemming.

[CTM]

Lemming.

blockhead

[JohnnyHector]

The accuracy or fairness of FO's "dropped INT" criteria notwithstanding, any rational person should be able to surmise that throwing an inordinate number of passes to the opposing defense isn't the recipe for growth or continued team success for a young QB.

[bitonti]

and another thing

it's just dawning on some people that sanchez is lucky ?

lets review

born into a stable loving family with a firefighter dad who plays football with you like everyday

born with looks that drive the womens crazy

your HS football coach has a son who played QB in the NFL

he's a southern california kid who gets recruited to play QB at perennial contender USC

he is rose bowl MVP

he gets drafted in the first round, gets a $50 million dollar contract

the team that drafts him has one of the leagues best defenses, one of the leagues best offensive lines, and trades for braylon edwards and santonio holmes, and you play in 5 playoff games your first 2 seasons

news flash, mark sanchez is one lucky SOB !!!!

+1 my biggest problem with this article is that somehow luck is some silly fictional thing that math can't quantify. that there's no room for luck in the game of football (a game where a simple coin toss dicates so much). there are players who for whatever reason may not be the fastest and tallest but they still get the job done, there's an element of luck there. Heck for any team to make to the playoffs without their QB or other star player getting injured, that's luck too.

in football Luck is real... and i dare any math wizard to prove otherwise.

on the other hand maybe the football outsiders just proved Sanchez is lucky. thanks Math!

[JohnnyHector]

+1 my biggest problem with this article is that somehow luck is some silly fictional thing that math can't quantify. that there's no room for luck in the game of football (a game where a simple coin toss dicates so much). there are players who for whatever reason may not be the fastest and tallest but they still get the job done, there's an element of luck there. Heck for any team to make to the playoffs without their QB or other star player getting injured, that's luck too.

in football Luck is real... and i dare any math wizard to prove otherwise.

on the other hand maybe the football outsiders just proved Sanchez is lucky. thanks Math!

Nobody is stating that there is no room for luck in football. Their argument is that his improvement in TD/INT ratio was due more to luck than improved play and that given the same frequency of passes thrown to defenders, you can expect to see a regression in that department next season.

Discrete events can be attributed to luck. When you start examining a larger sample space, the effects of luck are greatly diminished in most cases.

[CTM]

Nobody is stating that there is no room for luck in football. Their argument is that his improvement in TD/INT ratio was due more to luck than improved play and that given the same frequency of passes thrown to defenders, you can expect to see a regression in that department next season.

Discrete events can be attributed to luck. When you start examining a larger sample space, the effects of luck are greatly diminished in most cases.

was about to type this, luck is way more of a factor on a given play then it is a game, and way more of a factor in a game then a season, and so on

[#27TheDominator]

He also led the league by far in interceptions that occurred after completions when the whistle should have blown the play dead. If his receivers didn't have alligator arms or drop TDs in the end zone he might have 22 TDs. Guess what though... there is not A stat for that just like there is no stat for "dropped interception"

Seven pages of nerds vs. cavemen and nobody has addressed this point. He was charged with a minimum of 2 or 3 interceptions by DBs that wrestled the ball from a WR on the ground. Does that count as anything or just another pick? The whole ******* thing is bullsh*t. Football isn't about numbers or luck. It's about being fast enough to be untouched or big enough to **** the other guy up when you catch him.

[JohnnyHector]

Seven pages of nerds vs. cavemen and nobody has addressed this point. He was charged with a minimum of 2 or 3 interceptions by DBs that wrestled the ball from a WR on the ground. Does that count as anything or just another pick? The whole ******* thing is bullsh*t. Football isn't about numbers or luck. It's about being fast enough to be untouched or big enough to **** the other guy up when you catch him.

Caveman.

[Matt39]

Nobody is stating that there is no room for luck in football. Their argument is that his improvement in TD/INT ratio was due more to luck than improved play and that given the same frequency of passes thrown to defenders, you can expect to see a regression in that department next season.

Discrete events can be attributed to luck. When you start examining a larger sample space, the effects of luck are greatly diminished in most cases.

And what if that doesn't happen? Then what?