delusions of grandeur Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 You guys are making my head hurt. I'll shut up now and let Keg explain when he has time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Damn it I'm behind, I only got through half on my way to work this morning, you guys better not ruin the ending in this thread before I get there, no spoilers! Sorry, but... Bruce Willis is a ghost. Finkel is Einhorn. Einhorn is a man. You kissed a man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiroacademy Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) OK just did a mock draft: drafting 7th 15th rd: Carson Palmer, (Cutler, Freeman, Rivers, Schaub not drafted) QB: Palmer RBs: David Wilson, D. McFadden, Chris Ivory, Giovani Bernard, J Stewart, D Richardson WRs: Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Cecil Shorts, Steve Johnson, Kenny Britt, TE: Jimmy Graham D: Steelers K: Bryant My first 2 picks were Calvin Johnson and Jimmy Graham. I don't usually draft WR, TE but that's seemed best at the time Edited July 18, 2013 by chiroacademy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiroacademy Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) Tried another mock draft picking 6th: QBs: Freeman and Schaub (15 & 16th rd) RBs: M Lynch, S Jackson, R Bush, G Bernard, Daryl Richardson WRs: Roddy White, M Colston, Mike Wallace, Steve Smith, Lance Moore TE: Olsen and J Cook K Gostkowski D Denver Are these teams I can win with? Edited July 18, 2013 by chiroacademy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 By zeroing out only the wins, the data is badly skewed. You're not saying zero QB teams will win 61% of their games, you are saying they still win 61% of the 50% of the games they originally won. If a team plays 13 games and wins 8, and you zero out their QB and get a 61% success rate, that's just 61% of 8, or ~4.8. That's not a 7.9 win season. So you are no longer measuring the value of an "elite" QB vs. the 16th QB, you are measuring the overall strength of the winning team at any moment and demonstrating that, if the rest of your team is good enough you can get by with any donkey. If you want to truly understand the Top 3 impact, do a data set where you zero out only their wins (not all games) and see what % of their games were still won once zeroed. See, this is exactly what I was saying (before some coding glitch relegated my excellent peer review of this article into the internet ether, since I'm sure this is not the kind of a site that would engage in the censorship of legitimate debate simply because someone disagrees with something)! The overall win percentage in every league is always exactly 50%--no more and no less. In a 12 team league, there are 6 games each week--6 teams win and 6 teams lose, every week. If you zero out every player's score except for the kickers, then the overall win percentage is still 50%. Does that mean you will win 50% of your games if you only start a kicker? Of course not. So to say that you would win 61% of your games without a QB is entirely misleading. What this data shows is that you would win 61% of the games that you would have won WITH a QB--just over half. So you would only win 8 games on the season without a QB IF you would have won 13 games on the season with your QB. If you would have gone 10-3 with a QB, then you would go 6-7 without one. I think this is far from demonstrating that a QB is not important. If you want to demonstrate the value of an elite QB, then you have to show how many of the wins obtained with an elite QB were by the 6 points or so that an elite QB scores over a middle-12 type QB. You'd probly still lose a game or two on every season by 6 points or less. Even that wouldn't really demonstrate that an elite QB isn't important, because someone like Brees or Rodgers has the capability of throwing for 4-6 TDs a couple of times a year, thus winning your game for you all by themselves. Ben Roethlisberger might average 6 points per week less than Aaron Rodgers, but he's not going to throw 2 Ws in your column all by himself. Anyway, I'm glad someone else was able to notice and describe this flaw in the ointment better than I was, apparently. It saves me from having to try to reconstruct my entire review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 See, this is exactly what I was saying (before some coding glitch relegated my excellent peer review of this article into the internet ether, since I'm sure this is not the kind of a site that would engage in the censorship of legitimate debate simply because someone disagrees with something)! The overall win percentage in every league is always exactly 50%--no more and no less. In a 12 team league, there are 6 games each week--6 teams win and 6 teams lose, every week. If you zero out every player's score except for the kickers, then the overall win percentage is still 50%. Does that mean you will win 50% of your games if you only start a kicker? Of course not. So to say that you would win 61% of your games without a QB is entirely misleading. What this data shows is that you would win 61% of the games that you would have won WITH a QB--just over half. So you would only win 8 games on the season without a QB IF you would have won 13 games on the season with your QB. If you would have gone 10-3 with a QB, then you would go 6-7 without one. I think this is far from demonstrating that a QB is not important. If you want to demonstrate the value of an elite QB, then you have to show how many of the wins obtained with an elite QB were by the 6 points or so that an elite QB scores over a middle-12 type QB. You'd probly still lose a game or two on every season by 6 points or less. Even that wouldn't really demonstrate that an elite QB isn't important, because someone like Brees or Rodgers has the capability of throwing for 4-6 TDs a couple of times a year, thus winning your game for you all by themselves. Ben Roethlisberger might average 6 points per week less than Aaron Rodgers, but he's not going to throw 2 Ws in your column all by himself. Anyway, I'm glad someone else was able to notice and describe this flaw in the ointment better than I was, apparently. It saves me from having to try to reconstruct my entire review. Hate to say it, but I have to agree w/ the first bolded 100%.... thought of this while reading last night. But, can't the same hold true for ANY position? And, psst, it's "FLY in the ointment", not flaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 And, psst, it's "FLY in the ointment", not flaw. I'm glad you caught my clever little play on words. Sometimes I think it all goes over everyone's heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 OK just did a mock draft: drafting 7th 15th rd: Carson Palmer, (Cutler, Freeman, Rivers, Schaub not drafted) QB: Palmer RBs: David Wilson, D. McFadden, Chris Ivory, Giovani Bernard, J Stewart, D Richardson WRs: Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Cecil Shorts, Steve Johnson, Kenny Britt, TE: Jimmy Graham D: Steelers K: Bryant My first 2 picks were Calvin Johnson and Jimmy Graham. I don't usually draft WR, TE but that's seemed best at the time Tried another mock draft picking 6th: QBs: Freeman and Schaub (15 & 16th rd) RBs: M Lynch, S Jackson, R Bush, G Bernard, Daryl Richardson WRs: Roddy White, M Colston, Mike Wallace, Steve Smith, Lance Moore TE: Olsen and J Cook K Gostkowski D Denver Are these teams I can win with? I like the second team much more than the first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiroacademy Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Me too, there was nothing left when I went to draft a RB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 Hate to say it, but I have to agree w/ the first bolded 100%.... thought of this while reading last night. But, can't the same hold true for ANY position? And, psst, it's "FLY in the ointment", not flaw. QB is the highest scoring overall position...so yes, you could in theory take and use any position....but there was more to it and proving value was a huge part of it....as for those games where those QBs go off and win a game on their own...give me a point total that people would consider "going off"...19pts?, 22pts? 25pts? 30pts? 35pts? 40pts? I am 100% being serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 QB is the highest scoring overall position...so yes, you could in theory take and use any position....but there was more to it and proving value was a huge part of it....as for those games where those QBs go off and win a game on their own...give me a point total that people would consider "going off"...19pts?, 22pts? 25pts? 30pts? 35pts? 40pts? I am 100% being serious. I would say that "going off" would be a 50% addition to their average. So for a 20ppg guy, a 30+ point game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 I would say that "going off" would be a 50% addition to their average. So for a 20ppg guy, a 30+ point game. OK, so for those that are on the QB goes off side of things...how many times do you think that happened for a winning team in the 1805 games I researched? Because I think it's safe to say if a QB went off for points like that and still lost then it doesn't matter and shouldn't factor in. I'll be home in a few hours so until then let people guess how many 30+ pt efforts by QBs led their teams to wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 The only place I could find with ready data on each game for each QB was in a slightly different scoring system (1 pt per 20 yards passing), but I'll put it out there for what it's worth. The top 10 QBs in that system averaged 24.39 points per game. A 15 point game is typically considered the minimum acceptable score from the QB position, so, since that is about 9.5 points under the top 10 QB average, 9.5pts above their average would be 34 points. So "going off" is 34 points or more, and tanking is under 15 points. Here are the top 20 QBs "Going Off" games and "Tank" games (in parentheses). 1. Brady 2 (1) 2. Brees 2 (1) 3. Rodgers 2 (3) 4. Newton 2 (3) 5. Ryan 1 (3) 6. Griffin 1 (2) (out 1 game) 7. PManning 0 (2) 8. Romo 1 (3) 9. Stafford 1 (4) 10. Luck 0 (3) 11. Dalton 0 (6) 12. Wilson 1 (6) 13. Freeman 1 (4) 14. Flacco 0 (6) 15. Palmer 0 (4) 16. Schaub 1 (6) 17. Bradford 0 (7) 18. EManning 0 (7) 19. Roethlisberger 1 (2) (out 3 games) 20. Fitzpatrick 0 (7) So here it seems that the value in having a top-tier QB is not AS much about them winning one or two games for you all by themselves (which all of the top 5 will do), but in NOT having a QB that is going to make the rest of your team work that much harder to take up their slack in half your games (which most of the second 10 will do). So then I thought maybe I was being too stringent in my guideline of 34 points. So I tallied again, this time making the "Going Off" standard 30 points or more, and the "Tanking" standard less than 17 points. 1. Brady 4 (1) 2. Brees 5 (2) 3. Rodgers 3 (5) 4. Newton 4 (5) 5. Ryan 3 (3) 6. Griffin 4 (4) (out 1 game) 7. PManning 0 (2) 8. Romo 2 (5) 9. Stafford 2 (4) 10. Luck 3 (5) 11. Dalton 3 (6) 12. Wilson 1 (7) 13. Freeman 1 (6) 14. Flacco 1 (8) 15. Palmer 1 (5) 16. Schaub 1 (6) 17. Bradford 0 (11) 18. EManning 1 (7) 19. Roethlisberger 1 (4) (out 3 games) 20. Fitzpatrick 0 (9) So again, your top 5 or 6 QBs are going to win you a couple of games by themselves, but the bottom 10 are going to give you much more in the way of deficits to overcome than they are in headstarts to victories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) The only place I could find with ready data on each game for each QB was in a slightly different scoring system (1 pt per 20 yards passing), but I'll put it out there for what it's worth. The top 10 QBs in that system averaged 24.39 points per game. A 15 point game is typically considered the minimum acceptable score from the QB position, so, since that is about 9.5 points under the top 10 QB average, 9.5pts above their average would be 34 points. So "going off" is 34 points or more, and tanking is under 15 points. Here are the top 20 QBs "Going Off" games and "Tank" games (in parentheses). 1. Brady 2 (1) 2. Brees 2 (1) 3. Rodgers 2 (3) 4. Newton 2 (3) 5. Ryan 1 (3) 6. Griffin 1 (2) (out 1 game) 7. PManning 0 (2) 8. Romo 1 (3) 9. Stafford 1 (4) 10. Luck 0 (3) 11. Dalton 0 (6) 12. Wilson 1 (6) 13. Freeman 1 (4) 14. Flacco 0 (6) 15. Palmer 0 (4) 16. Schaub 1 (6) 17. Bradford 0 (7) 18. EManning 0 (7) 19. Roethlisberger 1 (2) (out 3 games) 20. Fitzpatrick 0 (7) So here it seems that the value in having a top-tier QB is not AS much about them winning one or two games for you all by themselves (which all of the top 5 will do), but in NOT having a QB that is going to make the rest of your team work that much harder to take up their slack in half your games (which most of the second 10 will do). So then I thought maybe I was being too stringent in my guideline of 34 points. So I tallied again, this time making the "Going Off" standard 30 points or more, and the "Tanking" standard less than 17 points. 1. Brady 4 (1) 2. Brees 5 (2) 3. Rodgers 3 (5) 4. Newton 4 (5) 5. Ryan 3 (3) 6. Griffin 4 (4) (out 1 game) 7. PManning 0 (2) 8. Romo 2 (5) 9. Stafford 2 (4) 10. Luck 3 (5) 11. Dalton 3 (6) 12. Wilson 1 (7) 13. Freeman 1 (6) 14. Flacco 1 (8) 15. Palmer 1 (5) 16. Schaub 1 (6) 17. Bradford 0 (11) 18. EManning 1 (7) 19. Roethlisberger 1 (4) (out 3 games) 20. Fitzpatrick 0 (9) So again, your top 5 or 6 QBs are going to win you a couple of games by themselves, but the bottom 10 are going to give you much more in the way of deficits to overcome than they are in headstarts to victories. Are your "Go Off" games just times they scored that many points? If so did you look to see how many of those games ended in losses? My guess is no...also, you are looking at just ONE year...I looked at 7 yrs for 3 different leagues...the equivalent of 21 years. Edited July 18, 2013 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 I'll be home in a few hours so until then let people guess how many 30+ pt efforts by QBs led their teams to wins. Based on the stats posted above, there were 40 such opportunities for the top 20 QBs to post a 30+ effort last year. Probly about a quarter of them were posted by QBs who weren't even starting for their teams, i.e., the second 10 QBs listed above. There are about a dozen of those games that went over 34 points by QBs likely to be starting, so I'm going to guess that at least 10 of those were in game-winning efforts. I'll split the difference for the other 20 games or so, and guess that there were about 18-20 efforts of 30 points or more by game-winning QBs in every league, on average, in 2012. In a normal league of 12 teams playing 13 games, that would be about a quarter of the 78 total games in which the QB played a key role in the victory for the winning team. Maybe we should look at how many games were LOST by teams when their QB scored less than 15 points, since all of the top 5 QBs listed above did that a combined 10 times, while the bottom 10 QBs combined for 55 such games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 So again, your top 5 or 6 QBs are going to win you a couple of games by themselves, but the bottom 10 are going to give you much more in the way of deficits to overcome than they are in headstarts to victories. I'll save this post to respond in a couple of hours...but until then can you supply me with a link to the league you are referencing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Are your "Go Off" games just times they scored that many points? Yes. If so did you look to see how many of those games ended in losses? My guess is no... You are correct--But I thought you said you were going to do that when you got home, so we will find out soon enough. you are looking at just ONE year...I looked at 7 yrs for 3 different leagues...the equivalent of 21 years. Correct again--just a starting point here, but given the flaws in your initial article, it's research that begs to be conducted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 Based on the stats posted above, there were 40 such opportunities for the top 20 QBs to post a 30+ effort last year. Probly about a quarter of them were posted by QBs who weren't even starting for their teams, i.e., the second 10 QBs listed above. There are about a dozen of those games that went over 34 points by QBs likely to be starting, so I'm going to guess that at least 10 of those were in game-winning efforts. I'll split the difference for the other 20 games or so, and guess that there were about 18-20 efforts of 30 points or more by game-winning QBs in every league, on average, in 2012. In a normal league of 12 teams playing 13 games, that would be about a quarter of the 78 total games in which the QB played a key role in the victory for the winning team. Maybe we should look at how many games were LOST by teams when their QB scored less than 15 points, since all of the top 5 QBs listed above did that a combined 10 times, while the bottom 10 QBs combined for 55 such games. I am not dealing in assumptions...I did my homework...if you want to question it and try to disprove it then I suggest you actually do the work instead of making assumptions and using the word probably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 I'll save this post to respond in a couple of hours...but until then can you supply me with a link to the league you are referencing? I was using the "Player Stats" listed at MFL for the "MFL 10s" scoring system. If this works... http://64.73.54.61/2013/options?L=28687&O=08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 Yes. You are correct--But I thought you said you were going to do that when you got home, so we will find out soon enough. Correct again--just a starting point here, but given the flaws in your initial article, it's research that begs to be conducted. My theorem and article are not flawed...if you feel that it is then you can go ahead and do the research to disprove it, but as I said above...do so with facts, not assumptions and probably Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 I am not dealing in assumptions...I did my homework...if you want to question it and try to disprove it then I suggest you actually do the work instead of making assumptions and using the word probably. I'll be home in a few hours so until then let people guess how many 30+ pt efforts by QBs led their teams to wins. Hey, you axed us to guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 Yes. You are correct--But I thought you said you were going to do that when you got home, so we will find out soon enough. Correct again--just a starting point here, but given the flaws in your initial article, it's research that begs to be conducted. the response to your YES is: what good is it if a QB goes off for 30+ and your team still loses? For the second answer: I am going to post my info...but your numbers are disingenuous at best...Until you can disprove my theorem it is true and not flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) Hey, you axed us to guess. I did, you didn't just guess a number...you put forth numbers in an attempt to support your argument...however, those numbers, as I already pointed out...don't tell the entire story. Oh and you did guess, you said a "couple" of games...I'll take that to mean TWO. Edited July 18, 2013 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 My theorem and article are not flawed...if you feel that it is then you can go ahead and do the research to disprove it, but as I said above...do so with facts, not assumptions and probably I did... and though my review mysteriously disappeared, Fleming posted basically the same thing I had--that you can't say that teams without a QB would win 61% of their games OVERALL when your evidence only shows that they would still earn 61% of the wins they gained WITH a QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Elf Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) Until you can disprove my theorem it is true and not flawed. Done. If you like, I will put together a more extensive and detailed debunking when I have the time. Edited July 18, 2013 by Axe Elf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.