Temo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,946
- Reaction score
- 362
Firstly, on the Emmitt stats. I just used the first stats that popped up when I searched for them. I agree his speed score sucks. I'm fine with that, for reasons already stated.
Secondly, lets get a scope of what this metric is supposed to do. It's not supposed to be used to rank players according to how well they will succeed in the NFL, as many people seem to be believe. If you read the ESPN article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822) you'll see that the creation of this metric was only meant to improve upon combine stats.
They saw, as most people have, that 40 time didn't always predict who was going to become a good player. Even though, really, it's the best metric of all the combine metrics if used solely by itself (and vertical jump was the only one that had any useful correlation). And this makes intuitive sense: if you want to build the perfect Running Back, in terms of physical tools, I think you start with speed burst and then leg strength. The fact that cone drills and the type don't work also makes intuitive sense to me: the attribute they're trying to measure (agility, ability to cut and make people miss) I think is more about instincts and good judgement on part of the runner than anything measureable. The bench press has always been somewhat meaningless to me... leg strength is MUCH more important than upper-body strength for a RB.
But they found that they could improve the correlation of 40 time if they adjusted all the times for weight. This makes sense too, a guy who is 220 lbs is showing more burst if he runs the 40 in 4.4 seconds than if a guy who weighs 200 lbs. You're moving 20 more lbs. (of probably muscle, since you ran it equally fast), and the added muscle probably makes you a better candidate as a RB.
That is ALL this metric is supposed to do: ADJUST 40 TIMES TO SOMETHING MORE MEANINGFUL.
Third, you can't disprove a statistical correlation by expounding on exceptions. There's ALWAYS exceptions. There's no hard and fast rule out there that judges all players perfectly. If there was, then no one would make mistakes drafting people. You can attack a correlation not based on the fact that there IS a correlation (that's like trying to disprove math, you can't do that), but you can attack it based on causation. In other words, saying "well there is a statistical correlation there, but I don't think it makes real-world sense because of X, Y, and Z".
And I don't see that. Given two players with similar speed and given no other information, I'll take the bigger one. Give me two players (lets say LDT and Ronnie Brown) and tell me one of them has great football instincts and follows his blocks well, despite being a less fast for his weight, and I'll take him (LDT, that is).
Lastly, Adam, I'll respond to your charting questions later, when I get home and can look at my own charts of those TO passes.
Secondly, lets get a scope of what this metric is supposed to do. It's not supposed to be used to rank players according to how well they will succeed in the NFL, as many people seem to be believe. If you read the ESPN article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822) you'll see that the creation of this metric was only meant to improve upon combine stats.
They saw, as most people have, that 40 time didn't always predict who was going to become a good player. Even though, really, it's the best metric of all the combine metrics if used solely by itself (and vertical jump was the only one that had any useful correlation). And this makes intuitive sense: if you want to build the perfect Running Back, in terms of physical tools, I think you start with speed burst and then leg strength. The fact that cone drills and the type don't work also makes intuitive sense to me: the attribute they're trying to measure (agility, ability to cut and make people miss) I think is more about instincts and good judgement on part of the runner than anything measureable. The bench press has always been somewhat meaningless to me... leg strength is MUCH more important than upper-body strength for a RB.
But they found that they could improve the correlation of 40 time if they adjusted all the times for weight. This makes sense too, a guy who is 220 lbs is showing more burst if he runs the 40 in 4.4 seconds than if a guy who weighs 200 lbs. You're moving 20 more lbs. (of probably muscle, since you ran it equally fast), and the added muscle probably makes you a better candidate as a RB.
That is ALL this metric is supposed to do: ADJUST 40 TIMES TO SOMETHING MORE MEANINGFUL.
Third, you can't disprove a statistical correlation by expounding on exceptions. There's ALWAYS exceptions. There's no hard and fast rule out there that judges all players perfectly. If there was, then no one would make mistakes drafting people. You can attack a correlation not based on the fact that there IS a correlation (that's like trying to disprove math, you can't do that), but you can attack it based on causation. In other words, saying "well there is a statistical correlation there, but I don't think it makes real-world sense because of X, Y, and Z".
And I don't see that. Given two players with similar speed and given no other information, I'll take the bigger one. Give me two players (lets say LDT and Ronnie Brown) and tell me one of them has great football instincts and follows his blocks well, despite being a less fast for his weight, and I'll take him (LDT, that is).
Lastly, Adam, I'll respond to your charting questions later, when I get home and can look at my own charts of those TO passes.
