AdamJT13;2675414 said:
Yes, you probably can glean some information when there is a huge discrepancy in the numbers.
And yes, you would have to adjust the numbers to account for the different methods used to record them.
That's much different from what you proposed -- judging players on different teams based on comparing them to their teammates. Would you judge receivers based on their percentage of their teams' wide receiver corps' receiving yards? Larry Fitzgerald had 29 percent of his team's receiving yards. Braylon Edwards had 34 percent of his. Does that mean Edwards (873 yards) was somehow superior, more productive or more involved in the passing game than Fitzgerald (1,431 yards)?
Or would you judge a defensive back based on his percentage of his secondary's interceptions? Terence Newman had 57 percent of his secondary's interceptions, and Ed Reed had 50 percent of his. Does that make Newman (four INTs) more of a ballhawk than Reed (nine)?
There is no need to adjust those numbers because, as is, they represent statistics that are completely different than tackles. Different criteria are not used so there is no reason to adjust them. Second, and more importantly, it is a completely different type of data. You'll have a limited range of solo tackles recorded for teams at the end of the year whereas receiving yards can vary by over 2,000 yards.
The interception statistics provide a particularly lame example as you know as well as I do that any statistic of this nature that is based on very small numbers (e.g., our total interceptions last year) is not going to be representative enough to tell us much.
OK, so we've established that a 17 percent difference in the raw tackle numbers could be entirely irrelevant, without even taking into account the flaws of the numbers themselves.
How about a 25 percent difference? If Player A had 40 "solo" tackles on a defensive line with 135, and Player B had 30 "solo" tackles on a defensive line with 100, who was more involved in tackles? Or were they "about the same"?
Shall we keep going? Player A had 28 "solo" tackles on a defensive line with 125. Player B had 20 solo tackles on a defensive line with 90. Who was more involved in tackles? Still "about the same"?
Look, you can't argue that a big raw % difference matters while at the same time arguing that the tackle metric as it stands is not meaningful.
In all of the cases you present, the players were involved in tackling at roughly the same level. Of course there are other questions to be addressed. For example why are the two defensive lines so different in terms of the number of tackles overall? Was this a dominant D with a ton of three and outs? Or did the D-line play a ton of ole'? As with ANY statistic, it is just one piece of the evaluation.
I'm certainly not saying this specific metric is perfect, but is something that can reasonably allow for comparisons between players in a manner that is much more sound than simply comparing raw tackles. Of course, you are presenting the statistics as if that ONE metric would be the only means of evaluation - which we both know is not a reasonable approach.
