ESPN MacMahon: Prediction of Pro Bowl Cowboys

[theogt]

That's just not true.

Fact: Witten's 1st downs per reception percentage is lower than ANY year in his career. Dramatically lower, in fact. It is 50%, compared with 61.7%, 58.3%, 57.8%, and 60.6% in his previous seasons.

And yet, he still is #2 in the NFC in first downs THIS YEAR.

Fact: Witten is a red zone target with an average of 4.8 TDs per year when you exclude this season, but importantly, those TDs have occurred at a substantially higher rate during actual RED ZONE possessions, a key distinction from catches by, say, Miles Austin, which tend to be longer plays that aren't reflected in the Cowboys deplorable red zone conversion rate.

Wrong. He averages 4.2 TDs per season. That puts him at averaging just over ONE TD every FOUR games. If that's a "redzone target," I have a bridge to sell you.

Fact: Witten's Y/Target and Y/Reception are nearly a full yard lower than at any point in his career. His average yardage per reception this season is 10.8, compared with 11.8, 11.9, 11.8, and 11.5 in previous seasons.

Fact: Jason Witten is 2nd in the NFC in targets.
Fact: Jason Witten is 1st in the NFC in receptions.
Fact: Jason Witten is 1st in the NFC in yards.

Fact: Even if Jason Witten is having a down year by his standards, he's still better than all the other TEs in the NFC.

The ONLY arguments you've put forth in favor of Witten's inclusion are yards and receptions, both of which are reasonable but a function of the offense and available weapons. The above, coupled with Gonzalez's addition to the NFC roster this season, makes Witten's candidacy very debatable.

LOL. I've shown you at least six major categories in which Jason Witten either leads the NFC or is second in the NFC. He leads in 2 of the 3 top categories. Y

It's simple - when Witten gets the ball, he's been less likely to turn it into a productive football play in 2009 than he has in 2008.

Irrelevant.

Blocking is much tougher to quantify, but it's my opinion that his play has declined in 2009. That, of course, is something we can agree or disagree on.

You can't deny that YPC, YPA, 1st Downs / Reception, and TDs are all relevant. How can you say that the above arguments are objectively wrong?

They're all relevant. But you can't deny that total yards, total receptions, total times targeted and total first downs, together, represent the largest grouping of the relevant statistics.

ANd you can't deny that Witten is either 1st or 2nd in those categories.

 

[NeonNinja]

Yeah, we get that this opinion is just in your view. Because it's not in reality, or anyone else's opinion.

Exactly.

 

[theogt]

I'm sorry, but I provided examples. What is it you're looking for? Please address them or stop with the snide comments. The only thing I've seen from you in this thread is the claim that yards and receptions are the only thing in the entire universe that matter.

I'm putting forth another differing argument, and I'm getting a bit weary of being respectful with you, to be honest.

Why can't Cowboys fans have an intelligent discussion about a player we love without deevolving into disrespectful and ad hominem discourse?

I've thrown statistics out to devour your pathetic attempts at an argument. If you can't handle me laughing at you in the process and are offended, then so be it. But make no doubt about it, you've been thoroughly destroyed from an objective statistical standpoint.

So, if you're willing to provide examples, give me 2 NFC tight ends that are better.

 

[Temo]

Historically I would agree with you on blocking, but I'm not seeing it this year.

In terms of FO's statistics, they include a great deal of system and QB accuracy bias in the value they assign. But as you see, they cluster Witten quite closely with Celek, Gonzalez and Shiancoe. Hence my confusion at why this is such a controversial topic. No one is arguing that Witten for Pro Bowl is lunacy, just that there are very good reasons why there are better candidates in the NFC. I don't see anything in the FO numbers to dispute that.

There are no tight end statistics available that don't include system and QB accuracy bias. FO's stats are the best individual statistical accomplishment records that I've seen.

I am going to disagree with you on the blocking.

Pro Football Focus agrees with me in that area. The offensive line stats that have us as the 3rd best team running to Left End and the 5th best team running to Right End agree with me. The fact that we're the 2nd best rushing team and often run out of a 2-TE set agrees with me.

 

[theogt]

If Dallas is in the Super Bowl Romo had better be absent himself.

My guess is they'll make the invite to the players that are in the Super Bowl and allow them to turn it down. That way they can at least claim that they "made the Pro Bowl."

 

[Shinywalrus]

Shiny, you've stated how Witten has regressed from last year. Now prove to me that Gonzalez is better.

Fair enough.

First off, from what I saw of Gonzalez this year, I think he was a slightly better blocker, although I believe he has regressed as well. This is part of my argument, but let's dispense with it, because it's an impossible point to argue from either side.

In terms of receiving productivity, Gonzalez, despite having similar per play yardage, was able to translate those yards into substantially higher rates of first down receptions and touchdowns.

Gonzalez got to the first down marker on a whopping 66% of his receptions - meaning that his play extended drives and allowed Atlanta to execute a substantially higher number of overall plays - remember that first downs mean 3 or 4 additional plays in addition to the play itself, so they are very important.

Gonzalez has also been an effective red zone receiver, third down and fourth down threat - Atlanta was the top 4th down conversion team in the NFL and was slightly more effective than Dallas in both 3rd down conversions and red zone conversions.

He is statistically very similar to Witten in terms of yardage and receptions. His scoring statistics are superior.

I would argue that Gonzalez has received equal or greater attention from defenses in terms of coverage, although we could debate this ad nauseam to no effect as well.

I think Gonzalez has been more deserving this year.

I think Witten is a better, more well balanced player at this point in their respective careers. He's just not been as in sync as usual.

 

[theogt]

Fair enough.

First off, from what I saw of Gonzalez this year, I think he was a slightly better blocker, although I believe he has regressed as well. This is part of my argument, but let's dispense with it, because it's an impossible point to argue from either side.

In terms of receiving productivity, Gonzalez, despite having similar per play yardage, was able to translate those yards into substantially higher rates of first down receptions and touchdowns.

Gonzalez got to the first down marker on a whopping 66% of his receptions - meaning that his play extended drives and allowed Atlanta to execute a substantially higher number of overall plays - remember that first downs mean 3 or 4 additional plays in addition to the play itself, so they are very important.

Gonzalez has also been an effective red zone receiver, third down and fourth down threat - Atlanta was the top 4th down conversion team in the NFL and was slightly more effective than Dallas in both 3rd down conversions and red zone conversions.

He is statistically very similar to Witten in terms of yardage and receptions. His scoring statistics are superior.

I would argue that Gonzalez has received equal or greater attention from defenses in terms of coverage, although we could debate this ad nauseam to no effect as well.

I think Gonzalez has been more deserving this year.

I think Witten is a better, more well balanced player at this point in their respective careers. He's just not been as in sync as usual.

Make the argument for a second player. Because you claimed he was not top 2 in the NFC.

 

[Givincer]

The ONLY arguments you've put forth in favor of Witten's inclusion are yards and receptions, both of which are reasonable but a function of the offense and available weapons. The above, coupled with Gonzalez's addition to the NFC roster this season, makes Witten's candidacy very debatable.

It's simple - when Witten gets the ball, he's been less likely to turn it into a productive football play in 2009 than he has in 2008. Blocking is much tougher to quantify, but it's my opinion that his play has declined in 2009. That, of course, is something we can agree or disagree on.

You can't deny that YPC, YPA, 1st Downs / Reception, and TDs are all relevant. How can you say that the above arguments are objectively wrong?

So yards and receptions when spoken about in absolute terms are a function of the offense and available weapons, yet those very same yards and receptions when spoken about relative to something suddenly become not a function of the offense and available weapons?

 

[theogt]

So yards and receptions when spoken about in absolute terms are a function of the offense and available weapons, yet those very same yards and receptions when spoken about relative to something suddenly become not a function of the offense and available weapons?

It's called mining data. You make a claim. Then go mining the statistics for anything even remotely relevant that supports your claim. The key step is to claim that your mined statistics represent the truth, whereas the obvious statistics that disprove your claim are biased.

It's intellectually dishonest and he got called on it.

 

[Shinywalrus]

And yet, he still is #2 in the NFC in first downs THIS YEAR.

Wrong. He averages 4.2 TDs per season. That puts him at averaging just over ONE TD every FOUR games. If that's a "redzone target," I have a bridge to sell you.

Fact: Jason Witten is 2nd in the NFC in targets.
Fact: Jason Witten is 1st in the NFC in receptions.
Fact: Jason Witten is 1st in the NFC in yards.

Fact: Even if Jason Witten is having a down year by his standards, he's still better than all the other TEs in the NFC.

LOL. I've shown you at least six major categories in which Jason Witten either leads the NFC or is second in the NFC. He leads in 2 of the 3 top categories. Y

Irrelevant.

They're all relevant. But you can't deny that total yards, total receptions, total times targeted and total first downs, together, represent the largest grouping of the relevant statistics.

ANd you can't deny that Witten is either 1st or 2nd in those categories.

The entire crux of every one of your arguments is that "per play" effectiveness is irrelevant - that the absolute magnitude of activity and involvement is the determinant of whether a player ought to be considered a Pro Bowl player.

Personally, I think this is a highly offensive concept, and it is ABSOLUTELY not one that there is universal agreement on.

If Witten is less effective than other players on the team at converting first downs or contributing to a scoring drive than other players on the team, every time he is targeted, he is potentially harming the team's overall performance.

Let's consider a 2,000 running back who averaged 3.0 ypc. By your argument, this player is a Pro Bowl running back. Let me guarantee you: this Pro Bowl running back would be on a team that was 4-12, at best.

Consider that WR productivity has been roughly on par with last year, and in many ways superior. Consider that RB productivity has been superior. Given the significant declines in per play effectiveness by our TE, a key element in our offensive gameplan, is it really that outlandish to assign some responsibility for our awful yardage-to-scoring record? For our awful efficiency? These are legitimate questions.

You happen to think that raw reception/yardage productivity is key. That's a nice, interesting way of looking at things, but as we have seen things, it has little to do with the success of football teams.

I prefer to look at a balance of overall yardage and material contributions to drives and the success of the team. Witten's contributions to the latter have declined enough that, with Gonzalez in the picture, I think he's not really in the top-2 performers this year for TEs.

 

[Temo]

Fair enough.

First off, from what I saw of Gonzalez this year, I think he was a slightly better blocker, although I believe he has regressed as well. This is part of my argument, but let's dispense with it, because it's an impossible point to argue from either side.

In terms of receiving productivity, Gonzalez, despite having similar per play yardage, was able to translate those yards into substantially higher rates of first down receptions and touchdowns.

Gonzalez got to the first down marker on a whopping 66% of his receptions - meaning that his play extended drives and allowed Atlanta to execute a substantially higher number of overall plays - remember that first downs mean 3 or 4 additional plays in addition to the play itself, so they are very important.

Gonzalez has also been an effective red zone receiver, third down and fourth down threat - Atlanta was the top 4th down conversion team in the NFL and was slightly more effective than Dallas in both 3rd down conversions and red zone conversions.

He is statistically very similar to Witten in terms of yardage and receptions. His scoring statistics are superior.

I would argue that Gonzalez has received equal or greater attention from defenses in terms of coverage, although we could debate this ad nauseam to no effect as well.

I think Gonzalez has been more deserving this year.

I think Witten is a better, more well balanced player at this point in their respective careers. He's just not been as in sync as usual.

I think any objective observer will laugh at the idea that Gonzalez is a better blocker than Witten. Gonzalez himself would probably laugh at that.

They do not have similar per play metrics. Witten has caught 75% of all passes thrown his way, Gonzo 63%. Witten has averaged 8.2 yards per attempt, and 10.8 yards per reception. Gonzo has 6.6 and 10.5.

First down % by pass completion is not as good ast first down % by pass attempt. Gonzo is at 42%, but Witten isn't too far behind at 38%.

But again, FO's stats use all this information more comprehensibly. DVOA has a tremendous correlation to winning ball. It shows that Witten and Gonzo are very close in per play receiving, but Witten is slightly better. Add in blocking and Witten comes out ahead.

 

[Shinywalrus]

So yards and receptions when spoken about in absolute terms are a function of the offense and available weapons, yet those very same yards and receptions when spoken about relative to something suddenly become not a function of the offense and available weapons?

YPA and YPR are more insulated, statistically speaking, from those conceps, yes. If I have X yards because I am being targeted frequently, that is heavily related to my role on an offense. If I have X yards per times I am targeted, that is insulated from this effect, although other variables like QB accuracy can certainly have an impact.

The key point is that there are numerous variables you can look at, and it's hard to argue that there's a silver bullet. I happen to think that per play effectiveness and contribution to drives through productive plays (first downs, touchdowns, large yardage gains on 1st and 2nd downs, or conversions on 3rd and 4th downs) is very important.

 

[Shinywalrus]

I think any objective observer will laugh at the idea that Gonzalez is a better blocker than Witten. Gonzalez himself would probably laugh at that.

They do not have similar per play metrics. Witten has caught 75% of all passes thrown his way, Gonzo 63%. Witten has averaged 8.2 yards per attempt, and 10.8 yards per reception. Gonzo has 6.6 and 10.5.

First down % by pass completion is not as good ast first down % by pass attempt. Gonzo is at 42%, but Witten isn't too far behind at 38%.

But again, FO's stats use all this information more comprehensibly. DVOA has a tremendous correlation to winning ball. It shows that Witten and Gonzo are very close in per play receiving, but Witten is slightly better. Add in blocking and Witten comes out ahead.

I think attempt vs. completion is a more complex discussion. Gonzalez is targeted more frequently as a desperation checkdown in Atlanta's system, and Ryan is a less accurate quarterback than Romo.

But again, I like FO's stats, and in various ways they argue that Gonzalez, Witten, Celek, Davis and Winslow have had comparable productivity passing.

Much of my point hinges on what I have seen as a pretty serious regression in Witten's blocking discipline, which I do maintain, as I've thought him to be the best in the NFL in past years. I think that Bennett, in 2009, has been superior. (Honestly - and please look at the games before you judge this opinion too harshly!)

Again, though, not understanding the big hubub. The original point was that Witten has regressed in some facets of his game, which I think objective statistics agree with, and that Gonzalez being added to the NFC makes Witten's Pro Bowl candidacy somewhat questionable. Why is this controversial?

 

[Shinywalrus]

It's called mining data. You make a claim. Then go mining the statistics for anything even remotely relevant that supports your claim. The key step is to claim that your mined statistics represent the truth, whereas the obvious statistics that disprove your claim are biased.

It's intellectually dishonest and he got called on it.

It's not data mining. In fact, what you have done is much more akin to data mining - the truth is that you can't tie absolute yardage, absolute first downs, absolute receptions, or any of those statistics, to any ascertainable correlation with team victory.

When a player is a productive part of a team, and contributes high value per play, however, there is ABSOLUTELY a correlation to team victory. I have chosen variables that relate to per play productivity.

The difficulty, of course, is that you can't just select the players who are most productive per play, because their absolute contributions may not be all that significant - think Miles Austin from 2008. Per play probably the most productive receiver in football, but not involved enough to be considered a Pro Bowl player.

The perfect balance, of course, is Miles Austin circa 2009 - amazing per play productivity, but a high level of absolute performance as well.

But just as Terrell Owens from 2008 was a bit of a drag on the team relative to his absolute performance because of dropped passes, stalled drives and similar miscues, I'm simply making the argument that Witten is LESS helpful to the team than his absolute yardage and reception totals suggest - and objective statistics from FootballOutsiders, among others, certainly lend to the idea that he is not necessarily superior to a range of peer tight ends in the NFC this year. Obviously he's a fabulous player and the TO comparison is far too extreme in magnitude, but the general sense of it stands.

 

[theogt]

The entire crux of every one of your arguments is that "per play" effectiveness is irrelevant - that the absolute magnitude of activity and involvement is the determinant of whether a player ought to be considered a Pro Bowl player.

Personally, I think this is a highly offensive concept, and it is ABSOLUTELY not one that there is universal agreement on.

Yes, it's utterly offensive that the magnitude of activity (i.e., the PRODUCTION) of a player is the most determinative factor in choosing which player represents the best at his position.

If Witten is less effective than other players on the team at converting first downs or contributing to a scoring drive than other players on the team, every time he is targeted, he is potentially harming the team's overall performance.

You have not shown that he is less effective than other players at converting first downs or contributing to scoring drives.

Let's consider a 2,000 running back who averaged 3.0 ypc. By your argument, this player is a Pro Bowl running back. Let me guarantee you: this Pro Bowl running back would be on a team that was 4-12, at best.

Rushing is wildly different than receiving. The difference between 3.0 YPC and 5.0 YPC (rushing) is significantly more than the difference between 11 YPC and 13 YPC (receiving).

Regardless, answer these questions: Which statistical ranking do you think has a higher correlation with Pro Bowl selection:

Total yards v. YPC or YPA?

Total first downs v. First downs per catch?

Consider that WR productivity has been roughly on par with last year, and in many ways superior. Consider that RB productivity has been superior. Given the significant declines in per play effectiveness by our TE, a key element in our offensive gameplan, is it really that outlandish to assign some responsibility for our awful yardage-to-scoring record? For our awful efficiency? These are legitimate questions.

That you continue to compare Witten's current season performance VS. his past season's performance only goes to show how clueless you are in this discussion. Witten should be comared against his peers THIS YEAR, not himself from previous seasons.

You happen to think that raw reception/yardage productivity is key. That's a nice, interesting way of looking at things, but as we have seen things, it has little to do with the success of football teams.

Prove it. You can't. Total production of individual players is a much more predictive than per play stats.

You included in your first down statistics players that had one catch on the season. One catch. Not only is that not helpful, it's borderline lying. At best it's deceitful.

I prefer to look at a balance of overall yardage and material contributions to drives and the success of the team. Witten's contributions to the latter have declined enough that, with Gonzalez in the picture, I think he's not really in the top-2 performers this year for TEs.

You prefer to cherry pick a stat or two that

 

[theogt]

It's not data mining. In fact, what you have done is much more akin to data mining - the truth is that you can't tie absolute yardage, absolute first downs, absolute receptions, or any of those statistics, to any ascertainable correlation with team victory.

Most certainly I can make the claim players that produce more in total than their peers contribute more to the success of their team than players that merely produce more per play.

Regardless, looking at the statistics that were shown on the actual voting site for Pro Bowl players can hardly be considered "mining data."

LOL.

When a player is a productive part of a team, and contributes high value per play, however, there is ABSOLUTELY a correlation to team victory. I have chosen variables that relate to per play productivity.

Actually, there's not. Because when you focus solely only a per play basis, you introduce anomalies that are based on small sample sizes. Players that have 10 catches may have high YPC, but they're not contributing more than the player with 100 catches with a lower YPC.

The difficulty, of course, is that you can't just select the players who are most productive per play, because their absolute contributions may not be all that significant - think Miles Austin from 2008. Per play probably the most productive receiver in football, but not involved enough to be considered a Pro Bowl player.

I'm glad you're realizing the error of your ways.

The perfect balance, of course, is Miles Austin circa 2009 - amazing per play productivity, but a high level of absolute performance as well.

So name two NFC tightends with a better combination of per play and total production than Witten. The problem is that you cannot determine a perfect balance. But you what you can see is that year after year after year, the highest producing players in total numbers are the ones that make the Pro Bowl. And whether you think that's because they deserve it or not, the reality is that it is what it is.

 

[Shinywalrus]

Yes, it's utterly offensive that the magnitude of activity (i.e., the PRODUCTION) of a player is the most determinative factor in choosing which player represents the best at his position.

You have not shown that he is less effective than other players at converting first downs or contributing to scoring drives.

It is offensive, because football is drive-based and opportunity-based. If I am throwing the ball to a player, I am not only deciding to involve them in the play, I am actively making a decision not to involve several other players who may or may not be more effective given the opportunity. I'll cite 2008 TO again. His yardage came at the expense of the number of opportunities he wasted that could have been more effectively deployed elsewhere.

There MUST be a balance between total absolute productivity and per play productivity.

Rushing is wildly different than receiving. The difference between 3.0 YPC and 5.0 YPC (rushing) is significantly more than the difference between 11 YPC and 13 YPC (receiving).

Not wildly different, but admittedly different. Unfortunately, YPC is a measure of central tendency, when what really matters is the distribution. How many negative plays? How many first downs? How many drive extending plays? A higher per play average communicates a higher productivity per play, which IS correlated with success (more on that in a moment).

Regardless, answer these questions: Which statistical ranking do you think has a higher correlation with Pro Bowl selection:

Total yards v. YPC or YPA?

Total Yards, and incorrectly so. It should be a balance of the two.

Total first downs v. First downs per catch?

Total first downs, and incorrectly so. It should be a balance of the two.

That you continue to compare Witten's current season performance VS. his past season's performance only goes to show how clueless you are in this discussion. Witten should be comared against his peers THIS YEAR, not himself from previous seasons.

Oh, I agree with that. I simply think it's interesting to consider his relative decline. There are very good reasons to consider Shiancoe, Vernon Davis, Gonzalez and MAYBE (I don't think so, but others do) Celek in the same or superior categories for 2009.

Prove it. You can't. Total production of individual players is a much more predictive than per play stats.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=889

Certainly proven and very well accepted for team-wide performance. It's more complicated on an individual level - in the aggregate, per play performance is correlated, while total yards are NOT.

On an individual level, if their absolute contribution is low, they're not contributing as much to the team, but if their per play contribution is low, they're also not contributing as much to the team. Again, 2009 Miles Austin is our model Pro Bowler. 2008 Miles Austin is too light on an absolute basis. 2008 Terrell Owens is too light on a per play basis.

Here's more on a "Per Yard" efficiency basis as a victory-correlated metric:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=886

You included in your first down statistics players that had one catch on the season. One catch. Not only is that not helpful, it's borderline lying. At best it's deceitful.

You prefer to cherry pick a stat or two that

If so, was just because I'm rushing to try to respond to folks in a timely way. The point doesn't change - there aren't any high absolute performers down by him in that category.

Are you done with the ad hominem attacks?

 

[theogt]

YPA and YPR are more insulated, statistically speaking, from those conceps, yes. If I have X yards because I am being targeted frequently, that is heavily related to my role on an offense. If I have X yards per times I am targeted, that is insulated from this effect, although other variables like QB accuracy can certainly have an impact.

The key point is that there are numerous variables you can look at, and it's hard to argue that there's a silver bullet. I happen to think that per play effectiveness and contribution to drives through productive plays (first downs, touchdowns, large yardage gains on 1st and 2nd downs, or conversions on 3rd and 4th downs) is very important.

You want to de-emphasize the impact of a player's role in an offense? That's absurd. If a player is better, his role will most likely be increased.

Seriously, quit the data-mining. Drop the flowery language. And just admit when you're wrong.

 

[Go Big D!]

Did this guy ever pick two NFC TEs better than Witten? Did I miss it?

 

[Shinywalrus]

Most certainly I can make the claim players that produce more in total than their peers contribute more to the success of their team than players that merely produce more per play.

Regardless, looking at the statistics that were shown on the actual voting site for Pro Bowl players can hardly be considered "mining data."

LOL.

Actually, there's not. Because when you focus solely only a per play basis, you introduce anomalies that are based on small sample sizes. Players that have 10 catches may have high YPC, but they're not contributing more than the player with 100 catches with a lower YPC.

I'm glad you're realizing the error of your ways.

So name two NFC tightends with a better combination of per play and total production than Witten. The problem is that you cannot determine a perfect balance. But you what you can see is that year after year after year, the highest producing players in total numbers are the ones that make the Pro Bowl. And whether you think that's because they deserve it or not, the reality is that it is what it is.

Of course it is. I haven't argued here at all that Witten won't make the Pro Bowl. Revisit my initial post. All I'm arguing is that I'm not sure that he SHOULD. I recognize that it suits your argument to create the straw man that I think he won't make it, but it's simply not in any of my statements.

And there's no realizing the error of anyone's ways here, so stop your childish gloating. If I thought per play productivity were the only thing that mattered, I would be arguing for Havner, which would be absurd and ridiculous.

Instead, I would personally vote for Gonzalez, Shiancoe and Davis prior to Witten. I would select Witten over Celek.

You could argue that Shiancoe doesn't have the yardage, but the proportion of his plays that were first downs and touchdowns is exceptional. Davis' touchdown total, while impacted by the lack of receiving threats, is threatening NFL records - it's an impressive level of productivity.

I'm not sure how Gonzalez and Davis over Witten would be offensive, even by your standards. Aren't Touchdowns an "absolute" stat too?