Hamlins arent' the ball hawks needed at FS

[theogt]

So basically, you admit that about half of their stats are crap but you consider the ones that jive with your lovefest for Hamlin. When they say 3 and STATSInc says 13, only one of them can be right or approximately right.

Profootballfocus sucks.

I bashed the stats on their site that are derivative. Not the stats that are raw. Their ratings are based on some formula, which I have no way of gauging other than the results, which appear non-sensical.

As to the accuracy of their raw stats, I can't make any claims one way or the other. I don't have the time to go through and verify. If you want to take the time to adequately debunk their statistics, go right ahead. But until someone does, it's the best evidence available. It's not going to be perfect and some stats are highly subjective, but once again, it's the best evidence available.

Typical theo bashing a player --in this case Rolle- to back his man, Hamlin in this case.

A rookie is not just as likely to come in and play at a probowl level.

I was referring to Sensabaugh. The poster replied to a post of mine ("Or not.") in which I was discussing not re-signing Sensabaugh and I was stating that a rookie could come in and play as well (or as poor) as Sensabaugh.

Please, do try to follow the conversation more closely if you're going to participate.

 

[theogt]

he's being sarcastic cause he thinks Hamlin has played like one of the best safeties in the NFL the past 2 seasons.

You can't name 10 safeties that have been better than him, so that means he's been a top 10 safety in the past two years.

 

[dogunwo]

How can we know anyting about M. Hamlin? From all reports, he was getting his hands on a lot of balls before he got hurt.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I bashed the stats on their site that are derivative. Not the stats that are raw. Their ratings are based on some formula, which I have no way of gauging other than the results, which appear non-sensical.

As to the accuracy of their raw stats, I can't make any claims one way or the other. I don't have the time to go through and verify. If you want to take the time to adequately debunk their statistics, go right ahead. But until someone does, it's the best evidence available. It's not going to be perfect and some stats are highly subjective, but once again, it's the best evidence available.

I was referring to Sensabaugh. The poster replied to a post of mine ("Or not.") in which I was discussing not re-signing Sensabaugh and I was stating that a rookie could come in and play as well (or as poor) as Sensabaugh.

Please, do try to follow the conversation more closely if you're going to participate.

You still fail at realizing how the burden of prove works. YOU keep spouting those stats as if they are meaningful. Its not up to someone else to prove what you are saying to be worthwhile.

They don't even remotely resemble what STATS has so prima facia they are garbage.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can't name 10 safeties that have been better than him, so that means he's been a top 10 safety in the past two years.

No it doesn't. Again you fail to understand burden of proof. Others don't validate your assertions. You are supposed to and you fail at it.

 

[theogt]

You still fail at realizing how the burden of prove works. YOU keep spouting those stats as if they are meaningful. Its not up to someone else to prove what you are saying to be worthwhile.

They don't even remotely resemble what STATS has so prima facia they are garbage.

No it doesn't. Again you fail to understand burden of proof. Others don't validate your assertions. You are supposed to and you fail at it.

Actually, it's you that fails to understand the burden of proof. If I provide evidence, the evidence is taken on its face unless you can disprove it or discredit it.

You attempt to discredit the evidence by showing that one statistic does not agree with STATS LLC. If that is proof enough for you to discredit all of their stats, then so be it. I disagree with that analysis, however. It's hardly sufficient to discredit their statistics altogether.

For example, are their definitions of passes defended the same? Do you even know what their definitions are? How they're judged? I doubt you have even the slightest clue. Yet you claim to be an authority on the issue. Your extreme arrogance is unsettling.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, it's you that fails to understand the burden of proof. If I provide evidence, the evidence is taken on its face unless you can disprove it or discredit it.

You attempt to discredit the evidence by showing that one statistic does not agree with STATS LLC. If that is proof enough for you to discredit all of their stats, then so be it. I disagree with that analysis, however. It's hardly sufficient to discredit their statistics altogether.

For example, are their definitions of passes defended the same? Do you even know what their definitions are? How they're judged? I doubt you have even the slightest clue. Yet you claim to be an authority on the issue. Your extreme arrogance is unsettling.

Oh spare me. You saying anyone is arrogant is as hypocritical as possible.

In your world statistics can be made up but are to be held valid until they are disproven. Well on that note Hamlin had only 2 pass defenses, no interceptions, allowed a completion percentage of 68.6% to go along with 11 TDs. Now prove these stats are wrong. I'll be waiting.

As for your latter diatribe. You sit there and spout off on how I do not even know what the basis for their metrics are and what really struck a chord with me was that I know you do not know. Its impossible to know because its not on their website.

In Theo's world, we accept the statistics that jive with his assertions despite the fact that we have no idea how or why they came into being

 

[theogt]

Oh spare me. You saying anyone is arrogant is as hypocritical as possible.

In your world statistics can be made up but are to be held valid until they are disproven.

If they're "made up" then someone should be able to discredit them pretty easily. But no one has, so I'll keep using them.

Well on that note Hamlin had only 2 pass defenses, no interceptions, allowed a completion percentage of 68.6% to go along with 11 TDs. Now prove these stats are wrong. I'll be waiting.

What is your source? You don't have one. That's the difference. I'm still waiting on you to discredit the source. You can't. Your only refuge is comparing their stats to you making stats up off the top of your head.

As for your latter diatribe. You sit there and spout off on how I do not even know what the basis for their metrics are and what really struck a chord with me was that I know you do not know. Its impossible to know because its not on their website.

I've actually e-mailed the site specifically about passes defended before, so I do know.

In Theo's world, we accept the statistics that jive with his assertions despite the fact that we have no idea how or why they came into being

In my world, I accept sources that put in the time and effort to measure the statistics and put them together in such a fashion as profootballfocus.com until proven otherwise. It's very clear that these people put in a lot of effort to collect information. And I will use and rely on that information without putting in the effort to back it up until I have reason to do otherwise.

It's pretty simple. I don't just go out looking for information that agrees with my opinion or discredit sources just because they disagree with my opinion. That's what you do. Because of your extreme arrogance. You can't fathom that some fact-based argument would actually disagree with your opinion so you just waive it off as if it doesn't exist or is "made up." Typical arrogant (and ignorant) Fuzzy.

 

[Cover 2]

Actually, it's you that fails to understand the burden of proof. If I provide evidence, the evidence is taken on its face unless you can disprove it or discredit it.

You attempt to discredit the evidence by showing that one statistic does not agree with STATS LLC. If that is proof enough for you to discredit all of their stats, then so be it. I disagree with that analysis, however. It's hardly sufficient to discredit their statistics altogether.

For example, are their definitions of passes defended the same? Do you even know what their definitions are? How they're judged? I doubt you have even the slightest clue. Yet you claim to be an authority on the issue. Your extreme arrogance is unsettling.

One problem is the different safeties have different coverages. One safety might be in man or even have a larger zone to cover, while another safety doesn't have as much responsibility. This can skew the coverage metrics. I'm not going to say Hamlin sucks compared to the other safeties (mainly because I don't want to watch all of Hamlin's plays and those of his contemporaries), but the stats don't prove anything either without proper context.

 

[jobberone]

It was my understanding our safeties were largely interchangeable. Is that no longer the case? And yes I understand they aren't exactly the same.

I also think that safeties are cover safeties first and run support second. And no where near in a 50/50 ratio.

 

[ThrowuptheXDez88]

You can't name 10 safeties that have been better than him, so that means he's been a top 10 safety in the past two years.

I can name a ton of FS's for you that are better than Mr. Hamlin.... Polamalu-Reed-Sanders-Clark-Sharper-Dawkins-Wilson-Collins-Atogwe-Goldson-Rolle-Bethea-Weddle-Babineaux-Griffin-Jones-Nelson-Whitner.... lol you want more??? I'll name you some more if ya want...

 

[theogt]

One problem is the different safeties have different coverages. One safety might be in man or even have a larger zone to cover, while another safety doesn't have as much responsibility. This can skew the coverage metrics. I'm not going to say Hamlin sucks compared to the other safeties (mainly because I don't want to watch all of Hamlin's plays and those of his contemporaries), but the stats don't prove anything either without proper context.

All free safeties player the vast majority of their snaps in zone coverage. If you have your free safety in man coverage on a regular basis, your defense is going to get eaten alive. This arguments works for corners, not free safeties.

I can name a ton of FS's for you that are better than Mr. Hamlin.... Polamalu-Reed-Sanders-Clark-Sharper-Dawkins-Wilson-Collins-Atogwe-Goldson-Rolle-Bethea-Weddle-Babineaux-Griffin-Jones-Nelson-Whitner.... lol you want more??? I'll name you some more if ya want...

Hell, you can't even distinguish between a free safety and a strong safety, so I can't imagine you have even the slightest clue as to how to judge one.

 

[ThrowuptheXDez88]

All free safeties player the vast majority of their snaps in zone coverage. If you have your free safety in man coverage on a regular basis, your defense is going to get eaten alive. This arguments works for corners, not free safeties.

Hell, you can't even distinguish between a free safety and a strong safety, so I can't imagine you have even the slightest clue as to how to judge one.

I was talking safety in general, didn't mean to define all the ones I named as FS's... you just said name 10, those guys I named can play strong or free better than Ken Hamlin.. So I really don't feel the need to correct myself

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If they're "made up" then someone should be able to discredit them pretty easily. But no one has, so I'll keep using them.

What is your source? You don't have one. That's the difference. I'm still waiting on you to discredit the source. You can't. Your only refuge is comparing their stats to you making stats up off the top of your head.

I've actually e-mailed the site specifically about passes defended before, so I do know.

In my world, I accept sources that put in the time and effort to measure the statistics and put them together in such a fashion as profootballfocus.com until proven otherwise. It's very clear that these people put in a lot of effort to collect information. And I will use and rely on that information without putting in the effort to back it up until I have reason to do otherwise.

It's pretty simple. I don't just go out looking for information that agrees with my opinion or discredit sources just because they disagree with my opinion. That's what you do. Because of your extreme arrogance. You can't fathom that some fact-based argument would actually disagree with your opinion so you just waive it off as if it doesn't exist or is "made up." Typical arrogant (and ignorant) Fuzzy.

My source is myself. I 'took the time' to watch all of the Cowboys games and put those stats together for you. So under your paradigm you accept that. Now disprove it.

You never disproved it before. You simply discounted it right off the bat as normal people should because one has to QUALIFY ONE's SOURCE. Whats typical with you is that you do not hold that truth to your own source. But now we have the mythical email. thats great theo. You have an email but somehow you fail to try and explain what they explained to you or quote it or anything. I imagine you are biding your time waiting for a response.

LOL I just looked at profootballfocus and they have Hamlin ranked as the 74th best S in pass coverage. You wanted 10, but that was completely unecessary because your source for these wonderful stats gave you 73.

Actually they say that he sucks giving up 60% completion percentage 18.3 YPA a TD and no picks for a robust 120 QB rating against. They only have 44 players better than him in run support.

http://profootballfocus.com/by_posi...e=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1

I mean how silly of me to think that you could actually read a sortable chart. I know its got to be hard to click that column heading to sort for QB rating against but thats okay.

Which is it though theo: are you inept or you just trying to misrepresent what these guy actually said? I mean Hamlin was basically good for a long completion every game that he played according to them.

 

[theogt]

My source is myself. I 'took the time' to watch all of the Cowboys games and put those stats together for you. So under your paradigm you accept that. Now disprove it.

You never disproved it before. You simply discounted it right off the bat as normal people should because one has to QUALIFY ONE's SOURCE. Whats typical with you is that you do not hold that truth to your own source. But now we have the mythical email. thats great theo. You have an email but somehow you fail to try and explain what they explained to you or quote it or anything. I imagine you are biding your time waiting for a response.

If there was even the slightest hint that you actually took the time to measure the statistics, I would accept you as a source. However, it's evident that you did not, so I do not.

LOL I just looked at profootballfocus and they have Hamlin ranked as the 74th best S in pass coverage. You wanted 10, but that was completely unecessary because your source for these wonderful stats gave you 73.

Actually, I told your earlier that their ratings system is crap. I guess you forgot this. If you look at their ratings for every position there are nonsensical results. I've discredited them for more than a year now. Most people do. Unless you're a hypocrite who likes pulling them out after you've spent a couple days trying to discredit them altogether (albeit without actually making any attempt at doing so).

Actually they say that he sucks giving up 60% completion percentage 18.3 YPA a TD and no picks for a robust 120 QB rating against.

I've been over those hundreds of times. For safeties, completion percentage and QB rating are not useful statistics because there is a small sample size of times targeted.

For example, Ken Hamlin was targeted only 15 times. That's a very small sample size with which to judge a QB rating and a completion percentage. If another free safety was targeted 100 times and gave 50 passes (50%), while Ken Hamlin was targeted 15 and gave up 10 passes (67%), both playing the same number of snaps, you obviously couldn't claim that the first player had better coverage statistics.

I mean how silly of me to think that you could actually read a sortable chart.They only have 44 players better than him in run support.

I guess you love their ratings system now. Just like I said before, you'll discredit what doesn't agree with you and offer up what does from the same source. That's called being hypocritical.

I know its got to be hard to click that column heading to sort for QB rating against but thats okay.

As stated above, QB rating is almost wholly irrelevant for safeties.

Which is it though theo: are you inept or you just trying to misrepresent what these guy actually said?

That's funny. You completely misunderstand the very simple statement that their derivative statistics are nonsensical and you think I'm inept. If you actually took the time to read what I typed before replying you wouldn't make such obvious mistakes.

I mean Hamlin was basically good for a long completion every game that he played according to them.

Apparently you can't read their website either. Hamlin gave up only 9 passes all season. He had one of the lowest % of passes given up per snaps played in the entire NFL (if I recall correctly, he was #1 in the NFL among safeties).

 

[TheCount]

They're the only public source with all of the information in one place. They could be completely wrong. I have no idea and don't have the time to verify all of their facts, so go ahead qualify every statement I make regarding statistics with "assuming the statistics are true." But I thought such a statement would be obvious so I don't include it in every post.

The idea that football statistics don't "prove" anything isn't exactly a novel argument and certainly isn't a statement I pay much attention to. Coverage statistics are the best evidence we have for comparing defensive backs. If you ignore them, that's fine. I don't.

, you really know how to be abrasive when having a simple discussion don't you? More power to ya, enjoy.

I'm sorry I looked up the numbers for myself if that makes you feel any better, should have just taken your word for it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess you love their ratings system now. Just like I said before, you'll discredit what doesn't agree with you and offer up what does from the same source. That's called being hypocritical.

As stated above, QB rating is almost wholly irrelevant for safeties.

That's funny. You completely misunderstand the very simple statement that their derivative statistics are nonsensical and you think I'm inept. If you actually took the time to read what I typed before replying you wouldn't make such hilarious mistakes.

Apparently you can't read their website either. Hamlin gave up only 9 passes all season. He had one of the lowest % of passes given up snaps played in the entire NFL (if I recall correctly, he was #1 in the NFL among safeties).

Still cannot disprove it I see. In argumentation that boils down to you granting the argument. So at least --even though you won't admit it-- you know that your basis for sources is worthless. Moving on.

I also notice you still have gotten your response from the email that you supposedly already got.

I don't like their rating system. I am simply pointing out that your source doesn't jive with your conclusion. You just like to cherrypick the data from them that you like. I really like the way you can say that some of the data that they provide is bad but out of the same mouth conclude that you like some of it. Of course all of this is despite you having no clue how any of it is gotten.

They have a website and 'put that much time' into it.

On the one had you appreciate their ability to derive what a pass defended or a target is. Then you conclude with that same brain that QB rating is meaningless because 'they are zone coverages.' Thats really a hoot as what you need for QB rating is completion and attempts, both of which you tout in favor of Hamlin, yards, TD, and picks.

I don't even you would be stupid enough to say that picks is not releveant. So which stat is bad in theo's world? Are you saying that you can determine when a pass is completed but not when they are targeted because of zone coverage or are you saying that the yards off the completion is meaningless?

Quite frankly once you say they can assign whose fault a completion is that you take the rest of it. You are granting their ability to assign. Otherwise it should all go out the door. But see in theo's world its not about consistency or reliability. Its about what makes theo look right.

You sure do like to cherrypick. Completion percentage and QB rating are not important but times targeted and times completed are. Their ability to derive what is a PD is good but their ability to SYNTHESIZE a statistic interpreting what see is not. Its great.

Whats really funny is that you disagree with the source that you are quoting and you think that inconsistency is okay when you cannot even explain how your source gets their information or what basis they use to come to conclusions. We should all take it on faith because well they have a website taht has it all together and you think they put a lot of effort into it.

Your assertion is so full of holes and you contradict it yourself. Go ahead cherrypick what you think profootballfocus says when THEIR CONCLUSION FROM THEIR DATA SAYS HE IS THE 74TH RANKED SAFETY.

Try to martyr yourself on the cross of Hamlin and continue to be the laughingstock you are as you flail away trying to explain away all the inconsisteny of your unqualified source who just so happens to come to a completely different conclusion from their data.

You don't even know how they got their data but you are arrogant enough to think you can interpret it better. Pathetic.

 

[theogt]

, you really know how to be abrasive when having a simple discussion don't you? More power to ya, enjoy.

I'm sorry I looked up the numbers for myself if that makes you feel any better, should have just taken your word for it.

Not sure how I was being abrasive there. Didn't mean to be, so apologies.

 

[theogt]

Still cannot disprove it I see. In argumentation that boils down to you granting the argument. So at least --even though you won't admit it-- you know that your basis for sources is worthless. Moving on.

I discredit by saying that you fabricated them on the fly. It's obvious that you did, because there is evidence that you did. Hence, there's no need to make any further effort in that regard. If you have evidence that PFF is fabricating evidence, then please present it.

I also notice you still have gotten your response from the email that you supposedly already got.

This sentence must have been intended to say something different, because, as written, it does not make sense. Slow down when you type and you won't sound so ignorant.

I don't like their rating system. I am simply pointing out that your source doesn't jive with your conclusion. You just like to cherrypick the data from them that you like. I really like the way you can say that some of the data that they provide is bad but out of the same mouth conclude that you like some of it. Of course all of this is despite you having no clue how any of it is gotten.

How can you really not grasp the difference between the raw data and the derivative statistics based on the raw data? I honestly did not realize this was such a hard concept to grasp.

They have a website and 'put that much time' into it.

That's exactly right.

On the one had you appreciate their ability to derive what a pass defended or a target is. Then you conclude with that same brain that QB rating is meaningless because 'they are zone coverages.' Thats really a hoot as what you need for QB rating is completion and attempts, both of which you tout in favor of Hamlin, yards, TD, and picks.

Actually, I never said anything about the QB ratings being meaningless because of zone coverage. You're completely misreading what I'm saying. I said QB ratings are meaningless because of small sample size.

Fuzzy, please slow down when you read my posts because you're missing points entirely. You don't have to respond so quickly. Take the time to digest what I'm saying and you won't make such obvious mistakes.

I don't even you would be stupid enough to say that picks is not releveant. So which stat is bad in theo's world? Are you saying that you can determine when a pass is completed but not when they are targeted because of zone coverage or are you saying that the yards off the completion is meaningless?

I have no idea what you're saying here. This is gibberish and has nothing to do with what I stated.

Quite frankly once you say they can assign whose fault a completion is that you take the rest of it. You are granting their ability to assign. Otherwise it should all go out the door. But see in theo's world its not about consistency or reliability. Its about what makes theo look right.

Actually, if their statistics were proven wrong, I would completely change my opinion. My opinion isn't set in stone. It's based solely on the evidence. If the evidence changes, I would change my opinion. If I had STATS LLC's statistics, which I consider the most reliable source on the matter, and they were different, I would change my opinion accordingly. It has nothing to do with finding something that makes me look right.

You sure do like to cherrypick. Completion percentage and QB rating are not important but times targeted and times completed are.

I explained to you the difference. It should be obvious by now. There is no inconsistency, hence no "cherrypick."

Their ability to derive what is a PD is good but their ability to SYNTHESIZE a statistic interpreting what see is not. Its great.

Let's break this down. There are two things they are doing. First, they are measuring the raw statistics. Second, they are formulating a rating based off the raw data. I have taken no issue with the former because I do not have the time nor the desire to verify their measurements. On the latter, I have taken the time to judge their formula-based ratings and have concluded that they're not worthwhile. There's nothing hypocritical there.

Whats really funny is that you disagree with the source that you are quoting and you think that inconsistency is okay when you cannot even explain how your source gets their information or what basis they use to come to conclusions. We should all take it on faith because well they have a website taht has it all together and you think they put a lot of effort into it.

I disagree with their formulas because I don't think the formula represents the best way to rate players. Just because I disagree with their formulas doesn't mean I have to disagree with their raw data. They are two entirely different concepts that should be treated two different ways.

There's raw data. And there's derivative data based on the raw data. I cannot take the time to verify the raw data, but I can take the time to consider the derivative data based on the raw data.

Your assertion is so full of holes and you contradict it yourself. Go ahead cherrypick what you think profootballfocus says when THEIR CONCLUSION FROM THEIR DATA SAYS HE IS THE 74TH RANKED SAFETY.

That's their conclusion from their raw data. It's not my conclusion. Just because my conclusion differs from theirs doesn't mean I have to discredit their raw data.

Try to martyr yourself on the cross of Hamlin and continue to be the laughingstock you are as you flail away trying to explain away all the inconsisteny of your unqualified source who just so happens to come to a completely different conclusion from their data.

No martyring here. I just point out the evidence. If people want to ignore the evidence, then so be it.

You don't even know how they got their data but you are arrogant enough to think you can interpret it better. Pathetic.

This is illogical. Just because I don't know the veracity of the raw data doesn't mean I can't disagree with how they evaluate the raw data.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How do you know that I made those up on the fly

Again the the email you lied about having still has not been quoted.

Its not raw data. This is not baseball where a hit is something very clear. In football especially with safeties playing zone coverages, making a judgement call on who to assign the completion on is a completely subjective thing especially when you are not privy to the coverages being called.

I know that the ball was thrown into Hamlin's zone more than 15 times and I know that the ball was attempted with Hamlin in the area more than 15 times. What should be obvious is that there is something very important in how they assign attempts and completions to that we do not know.

It could very well and probably does mean that they only assigned a target to a player if he was the primary or first coverage responsibility or if the player was isolated in coverage.

When a player is playing 15 yards off the line of scrimmage like Hamlin was constantly then it is fairly difficult to force single coverage on a player unless you use fancy formations and route combinations and even then if hes just playing the deep middle and giving help he is seldom going to be pinpointed for a target.

He was NEVER asked to cover anyone by himself. You never saw him try and take on TEs and the like but he just stayed in his Cover 3 zone for snap after snap.

Again for the 50th time you have no idea what calculus they used for saying someone was targeted. You sit there and look at it and say he wasnt targeted much. I see it as he wasn't isolated much but when he was he got torched.



I don't bother reading line by line hodgepodges. No one else does either BTW. I figured you would say something that actually made sense like saying that QB rating was not effective because they play in zone coverage.

As for sample sizes saying that its too small is unsubstantiated BS. First of all to say its a too small sample size it has to be a too small sample size to do something with and last time I checked no one was trying to correlate it to anything. You can certainly look at it and determine whether or not someone was successfully thrown on when it was attempted and when people threw on Hamlin he got torched.