Pass block efficiency-week 1

[MichaelWinicki]

The Cowboys were ranked 22nd in pass blocking efficiency based on week 1 vs the Giants.

"Pass blocking efficiency" is based on the number of QB sacks/QB hits/QB hurries compared to the number of pass plays.

The four worst teams after week 1?

Houston, New England, Pittsburgh, New York Giants.

 

[jblaze2004]

The Cowboys were ranked 22nd in pass blocking efficiency based on week 1 vs the Giants.

"Pass blocking efficiency" is based on the number of QB sacks/QB hits/QB hurries compared to the number of pass plays.

The four worst teams after week 1?

Houston, New England, Pittsburgh, New York Giants.

alot of recent Superbowl teams in that list but its still early.

 

[reddyuta]

what about Seattle? they didnt look good at all.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

what about Seattle? they didnt look good at all.

Seattle was 13th. They gave up 1 sack and 9 hurries in 43 pass plays.

 

[Noryb]

The Cowboys were ranked 22nd in pass blocking efficiency based on week 1 vs the Giants.

"Pass blocking efficiency" is based on the number of QB sacks/QB hits/QB hurries compared to the number of pass plays.

The four worst teams after week 1?

Houston, New England, Pittsburgh, New York Giants.

What about the Saints and Packers? Brees and Rogers were running for their lives.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

What about the Saints and Packers? Brees and Rogers were running for their lives.

GB was 11th.

NO was 15th.

 

[theogt]

Again, their formula for pass efficiency is flawed, just like all of their formulas.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Again, their formula for pass efficiency is flawed, just like all of their formulas.

They aren't doing anything complicated Theo...

Simply looking for sacks, QB hits and how many times the QB was hurried.

 

[theogt]

They aren't doing anything complicated Theo...

Simply looking for sacks, QB hits and how many times the QB was hurried.

It's the way they're combining them into a single statistic.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

It's the way they're combining them into a single statistic.

I guess they're not trying to make it complicated by making sacks worth "more" or QB hits worth "more."

It's like a batting average. And like a batting average that can be mined deeper, so can this number but on the surface it does represent something useful.

I'd love to see what formula you use.

I think that would be interesting.

 

[craig71]

A simple enough formula. It will be interesting to see how things shake out after six games or so.



Craig

 

[Shinywalrus]

It's the way they're combining them into a single statistic.

Not all heuristics are evil. Clearly a sack>hurry, so the abstraction detracts value, but it's not a completely unreasonable approach.

Personally I think that bucketing defeats of blockers into discrete ranges of time from snap is the best way to evaluate the general quality of pass pro. Still flawed but more to the point.

 

[Chuck 54]

If Romo or any QB is hurried but keeps making completions or holds the ball too long and is hurried, that would really skew the stats. And a team that runs the ball a ton, has a crappy QB and manages the game will have better stats.

Even sacks don't bother me too much. I don't really care about any of these rankings. All I care about is how often Romo gets drilled, how many Drives result in points, do we score enough points to win, and when we are desperate for a score in 4th quarter, how often does the protection break down when we really need it most, and did we win.

 

[Eskimo]

They aren't doing anything complicated Theo...

Simply looking for sacks, QB hits and how many times the QB was hurried.

The issue could be weighting.

In my own mind, let's say a hurry is worth 1 point.

I think a sack should be worth 3 points and a hit should be worth 2 points.

Now run that formula again and see what you get.

To me the big problem is that a hurry is too vague. With the current 1-step rule a hit truly means you got in on a QB just after they released the ball. A sack means that you took away a passing play with a net average of say 7 yards and converted it on average to a 6 yard loss which is a loss of down and 13 yard change in average field position. There is also a shot at forcing a fumble and the QB takes a hit, of course.

You can argue a bit about the weightings but I think they favor hurries way too much in that metric. A hurry is not close to a sack or a hit, IMO.

 

[craig71]

The issue could be weighting.

In my own mind, let's say a hurry is worth 1 point.

I think a sack should be worth 3 points and a hit should be worth 2 points.

Now run that formula again and see what you get.

To me the big problem is that a hurry is too vague. With the current 1-step rule a hit truly means you got in on a QB just after they released the ball. A sack means that you took away a passing play with a net average of say 7 yards and converted it on average to a 6 yard loss which is a loss of down and 13 yard change in average field position. There is also a shot at forcing a fumble and the QB takes a hit, of course.

You can argue a bit about the weightings but I think they favor hurries way too much in that metric. A hurry is not close to a sack or a hit, IMO.

But couldn't a hurry result in an INT as well?



Craig

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The issue could be weighting.

In my own mind, let's say a hurry is worth 1 point.

I think a sack should be worth 3 points and a hit should be worth 2 points.

Now run that formula again and see what you get.

To me the big problem is that a hurry is too vague. With the current 1-step rule a hit truly means you got in on a QB just after they released the ball. A sack means that you took away a passing play with a net average of say 7 yards and converted it on average to a 6 yard loss which is a loss of down and 13 yard change in average field position. There is also a shot at forcing a fumble and the QB takes a hit, of course.

You can argue a bit about the weightings but I think they favor hurries way too much in that metric. A hurry is not close to a sack or a hit, IMO.

What you're looking for Eskimo is the "slugging percentage" of pass blocking efficiency.

Like I said, this is the "batting average" version. It's useful, it's just not meant to be an end-all to pass protection efficiency. Just like batting average isn't meant to be the end-all to batting stats.

 

[Hoofbite]

The more I read PFF's stuff, the more I dislike some of their formulas.

They count a QB hit and a QB hurry as 75% the value of a sack.

A hit might be worth that much but it still doesn't say anything about the outcome of the play. That has been my main complaint is that they value hurries far too high because a hurry doesn't really mean anything if the play goes for positive yardage.

Additionally, they don't differentiate between the times an OL faces the blitz and times when they fail to block the defense when they aren't blitzing.

My other gripe is that the way a QB plays can hugely impact the results.

Mike Vick and Pig Pen especially hold the ball forever. If they get hurried after 5 seconds, how is that some sort of statement about the OL?

If they are going to go through the trouble of watching the games and compiling the stats, they should do a better job of including other factors.

What is the average time the QB has in the pocket before the pressure comes?

What is the outcome of a hurried pass? If it is completed, the hurry shouldn't count.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I stand corrected.

Hits & Hurries ARE "weighted" to be worth 3/4 of a sack.

So it's a little more complicated than just adding together sacks, hits and hurries.

Some may like that. Some may not.

 

[burmafrd]

might as well use a ouija board as PFF

both are about as valid

 

[MichaelWinicki]

might as well use a ouija board as PFF

both are about as valid

And how would you rate and compare the pass blocking efficiencies of offensive lines?