Sturm Debunks Dak and Dunk

[Blake]

Dak doesn't go downfield much at all. Do you even watch the games?

He goes downfield more than you'll give him credit for though. It's like one poster said here recently, "Some of you wish to pretend/act as if he has never once thrown a deep ball". We know that's not true.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Dak doesn't go downfield much at all. Do you even watch the games?

Are you seriously offering your subjective experience of the games you've watched as a refutation of objective statistical analysis? If you don't see the myriad ways in which that's suspect, it's no wonder you hate statistics. Clearly, it's a language you don't begin to understand.

 

[erod]

Are you seriously offering your subjective experience of the games you've watched as a refutation of objective statistical analysis? If you don't see the myriad ways in which that's suspect, it's no wonder you hate statistics. Clearly, it's a language you don't begin to understand.

And if you are just a paste-eating dork that sees football on Excel spreadsheets, I can't help you. Listen, Einstein, there are an infinite number of ways to average 8 YPA. Does that really need to be explained to you?

Guys are wide open downfield, but Dak doesn't look there. Doesn't mean he throws swing passes and bubble screens all night, but he's not going significantly downfield. That isn't evident on paper. You have to actually understand football.

 

[Plankton]

Sure it is, you are just ignorant of the actual definition of the stat. That's your problem, though. The concept is actually really simple and clearly defined for anyone who can bother to look it up.

What is Air Yards?
The total distance that a football is thrown beyond the line of scrimmage to the point of reception. Air yards can be calculated by taking total passing yards and subtracting Yards After the Catch (YAC).

https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/nfl/air-yards.aspx

In all the hypothetical examples you made up, the air yards would be ZERO.

Again, it's a worthless stat. It is a stat that completely excludes completion percentage.

If you think that it has value, that's your business. I don't think it has any value at all, because it only takes into account the successful attempts and not all attempts.

 

[sean10mm]

Again, it's a worthless stat. It is a stat that completely excludes completion percentage.

If you think that it has value, that's your business. I don't think it has any value at all, because it only takes into account the successful attempts and not all attempts.

Keep moving those goal posts, buddy.

You originally complained about air yards per attempt because you thought air yards counted incompletions as adding air yards somehow. Which wasn't true, it was just a thing you made up in your head in the absence of actually knowing a damn thing.

Now you're complaining about how air yards (note the difference) don't count completion percentage. That's true, and neither do yards after the catch or regular ol' yards, period. Of course that's irrelevant. Air yards per attempt (the original thing you were complaining about!) do, because it's dividing the air yards gained by the attempts, not the completions. Incompletions add 0 air yards, so the more of them you have the worse your air yards per attempt. This is elementary school math here.

Of course being proud of being ignorant instead of wanting to actually learn anything is a great American tradition.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

And if you are just a paste-eating dork that sees football on Excel spreadsheets, I can't help you. Listen, Einstein, there are an infinite number of ways to average 8 YPA. Does that really need to be explained to you?

Go back and reread our exchange. You've tried (and failed) to explain the deficiency in YPA as a measurement of a QB's tendency to throw downfield. While you're correct that it's deficient, you haven't properly recognized the source of that deficiency. If you had, you'd understand that your larger point-- i.e. that statistics are useless and we should rely on an eyeball test -- is completely blunted.

Guys are wide open downfield, but Dak doesn't look there. Doesn't mean he throws swing passes and bubble screens all night, but he's not going significantly downfield. That isn't evident on paper. You have to actually understand football.

Your need to fall back on subjective self-certainty -- "Hey guys, I can't justify my position because it isn't evident on paper. But trust me, I know football. Sorry if you don't" -- is beyond embarrassing. And yet you have the nerve to question the quality of Sturm's education. In what institute of higher learning anywhere in the world is anecdotal experience taken to by superior to objective statistical analysis?

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Again, it's a worthless stat. It is a stat that completely excludes completion percentage.

If you think that it has value, that's your business. I don't think it has any value at all, because it only takes into account the successful attempts and not all attempts.

Why doesn't dividing air yards by number of attempts resolve your concern?

 

[Future]

This team is in good hands and they will only get better. And why wonder what Tony can do when Dak is doing it now?

Why? Because there's genuine concern about whether or not a rookie can succeed in the playoffs, especially when he's played poorly when we couldn't run the ball consistently in the last month of the season.

Tony's done that his whole career. That's not a slight against Dak or his future, but in this season, there's a good chance that Tony is the better option. I don't get why people think that's such a ridiculous thought.

 

[Doomsday101]

Why? Because there's genuine concern about whether or not a rookie can succeed in the playoffs, especially when he's played poorly when we couldn't run the ball consistently in the last month of the season.

Tony's done that his whole career. That's not a slight against Dak or his future, but in this season, there's a good chance that Tony is the better option. I don't get why people think that's such a ridiculous thought.

I think team reaction would be one of doubt and panic, how could a QB who has lead them the whole way and got them to this point all of a sudden be benched in favor of a player who has not played a single snap? I think Dak has brought a leadership to this unit and they have responded to him. I get this based on comment of the players on how Dak is handling this team and now he is on the bench? Sorry I think making this move would be the biggest mistake the Cowboys could do. I like Romo but the truth of the matter is he has little experience in post season we are not talking about a guy who has gone out and won past SB we have 2 playoff wins with Tony. No way Dallas is going to bench Dak going into the playoffs

 

[MichaelWinicki]

No, Romo wasn't always great, but his highs were much higher than Dak's have been.

Well considering Romo has been in the league since 2003 and this is Prescott's rookie season... You know.

 

[sean10mm]

Why? Because there's genuine concern about whether or not a rookie can succeed in the playoffs, especially when he's played poorly when we couldn't run the ball consistently in the last month of the season.

Tony's done that his whole career. That's not a slight against Dak or his future, but in this season, there's a good chance that Tony is the better option. I don't get why people think that's such a ridiculous thought.

Because they aren't ignoring his age and injury history. 36+ QBs coming of like 4 major injuries in the last 4 seasons, and who fold over and die after taking a bump in a preseason game, are not a good bet to make it through an entire game, never mind magically lead you on a playoff run when their own postseason record is 2-4 or something.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Because they aren't ignoring his age and injury history. 36+ QBs coming of like 4 major injuries in the last 4 seasons, and who fold over and die after taking a bump in a preseason game, are not a good bet to make it through an entire game, never mind magically lead you on a playoff run when their own postseason record is 2-4 or something.

And he hasn't played two consecutive games in almost 2 years.

 

[erod]

Go back and reread our exchange. You've tried (and failed) to explain the deficiency in YPA as a measurement of a QB's tendency to throw downfield. While you're correct that it's deficient, you haven't properly recognized the source of that deficiency. If you had, you'd understand that your larger point-- i.e. that statistics are useless and we should rely on an eyeball test -- is completely blunted.



Your need to fall back on subjective self-certainty -- "Hey guys, I can't justify my position because it isn't evident on paper. But trust me, I know football. Sorry if you don't" -- is beyond embarrassing. And yet you have the nerve to question the quality of Sturm's education. In what institute of higher learning anywhere in the world is anecdotal experience taken to by superior to objective statistical analysis?

Well, I aced Differential Equations and Integral Theory at the University of Texas, so I think I can "decipher" something as sophisticated as yards per attempt. LOL

Sturm is great, but he gets entrenched on these all-nighter statistical gymnastics exercises way too often. He should be better than these PFF guys he loves so much, who couldn't tell a football from a rutabaga.

Dak likes to throw what's right in front of him. He gets uncomfortable (so far) if he has to throw from the pocket to the outside or downfield between the field numbers. He'll occasionally throw deep down the sideline, and he'll throw an in route up to 15 yards downfield if its in space he can see. He almost never throws before a receiver breaks a route, like veterans do all the time. He has to see it to throw it, which is why he holds the ball so long against good defenses. It'll change in time.

That doesn't take "subjectivity" to understand. It takes two eyes and a brain.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Regardless of YPA, it is clear as day that Dak's biggest strength is the short passing game, and there is no problem with that. It should be noted Dak is at a higher pass % than anyone on that list which inherently gives him a higher YPA and does not debunk Dak and dunk. Anyways-- nothing wrong with his short passing mistake free approach, we could win the SB with that if the OL dominates and the D plays as well as they have thus far.

I think that's partly by design. our offense has some west coast flavor to it, specially with Beasley and Dez.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just talk in circles. If you actually understood statistics, you would know how weak it is to use QB rating as the one and only determining factor for how effective a QB has been. I'll ask you AGAIN: Has Prescott been better than Rodgers this year? His QB rating is higher, so based on your logic, he has been, right?

You brought up stats and how they're predictive. Demonstrate for me, first, exactly what red zone QB rating predicts, and next demonstrate how strongly it predicts those things. Does it predict team red zone TD%? Team success? Amount of TDs scored, total? With no background in statistics at all, someone could look at what you posted as well as a couple other stats and pretty quickly make a very good guess. And hint: Those stats would not back up whatever your point is.

More on QB rating. I'd be interested to see how quickly and easily it fluctuates (Any guess? You think it stays fairly consistent week-to-week?) My guess would be it's a volatile number considering the small amount of samples. What say you? (Don't worry, I'll summarize all of these questions for you at the end!)

"Also what comprises a large enough sample size to be predictive in this context." Uh, what? You're talking out of your behind here. Stay in your lane, bro.

Just for fun, because it was quick and easy, I added red zone TDs of a few QBs. Here's where we're at:

Brees - 27
Rodgers - 27
Prescott - 19
Bortles - 19
Luck - 19
Mariota - 19
Winston - 18
Brady - 16
Carr - 16
Taylor - 15

Tied for 3rd in the league seems pretty damn effective to me. But man, if only we had Cody Kessler we'd be able to better score in the red zone. ******!

If I find time today to run an analysis, I will. I'm certain you don't actually want that, though, and regardless of what's found out, you will squirm out of it, because you likely won't even understand it and you are far beyond admitting how dumb it was to use QB rating and QB rating alone to make a definitive claim.

But to summarize, can you answer any of the following:

1). Has Prescott been better, overall, than Rodgers? Why or why not?
2). What does QB rating predict? Does it correlate strongly with team or player TD%? Does it predict those things? How much so?
3). How easily does red zone QB rating change week-to-week?
4). How significant do you think the red zone QB rating differences are, considering the likely volatility due to relatively small sample sizes? How far do you suppose Prescott's RZ QB rating deviates from, say, #5 on your list?
5). What's an acceptable statistical sample size? (You can google that one).
6). This is more opinion: Do you think that more red zone opportunities would cause the QB ratings of certain players to drop? If Cody Kessler had the same amount of chances as Prescott, do you feel confident saying he'd still be better in the red zone?

For the record, I didn't appeal to my authority to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong"; you challenged that I even understood what tests could be run to get a clearer picture of this issue. I pointed out that I believe, based on my background, that I do, in fact, understand those things.

TLDR.

Try and make your posts more succinct and have a point. This is a sports message board not an academic review.

As for that last bit. By asking questions and assuming my not answering vindicates you is the very essence of what you declaim. You are just oozing with self importance. Get over yourself and try to construct an argument.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Try and make your posts more succinct and have a point. This is a sports message board not an academic review.

This comes off as disingenuous. You're a guy that regularly appeals to academia (including journal articles) to make a point. (Your many contributions on Jaylon Smith's condition are an obvious example.) Why now try to limit the discussion to jock talk?


As for Wonderboy's point, I'd have thought it was obvious: RZ QBR, he is suggesting, is too volatile (owing to small sample sizes) to have much predictive value and probably doesn't correlate with team success (or even red zone success). He hasn't provided a statistical analysis to support that point, but he's confident that he could (given the time), and has applied common sense statistical reasoning to identify a few data points that are suggestive of prima facie support.

As for that last bit. By asking questions and assuming my not answering vindicates you is the very essence of what you declaim. You are just oozing with self importance. Get over yourself and try to construct an argument.

And this looks like you're just ducking him. He has challenged your reliance on RZ QBR as a useful statistical measurement and has asked you a number of questions designed to bring out its limitations. Your refusal to engage and insistence that he "demonstrate more" rather misses his point. From his perspective, it's you that must demonstrate more before pimping RZ QBR as a useful statistical measurement of Dak's performance in the red zone.

 

[Clarkson]

TLDR.

Try and make your posts more succinct and have a point. This is a sports message board not an academic review.

As for that last bit. By asking questions and assuming my not answering vindicates you is the very essence of what you declaim. You are just oozing with self importance. Get over yourself and try to construct an argument.

The TL;DR is the questions. You won't even answer the ones you're actually capable of answering (which is probably about 2 of them)?

My point? Citing one Red zone QB rating stat at any given time means little-to-nothing. There are too many other data to consider and too many other ways to analyze that sort of thing. Your crude and simple way may be necessary for you to understand, but if you think it actually proves any kind of point whatsoever, you're just convincing yourself of nonsense. There are many other ways you could support your argument if the data were to support it. So far, from everything I've looked at (and some that I've posted and you've conveniently ignored), additional data does not support your argument.

Can I ask you a question you may actually be able to answer? It's another opinion question, so no hard numbers. If you were to ask a coach what QB he'd want inside the 20 if he needed a touchdown and gave him the options of Cody Kessler and Dak Prescott, how many do you think would look at just red zone QB rating and decide on Kessler based on that?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The TL;DR is the questions. You won't even answer the ones you're actually capable of answering (which is probably about 2 of them)?

My point? Citing one Red zone QB rating stat at any given time means little-to-nothing. There are too many other data to consider and too many other ways to analyze that sort of thing. Your crude and simple way may be necessary for you to understand, but if you think it actually proves any kind of point whatsoever, you're just convincing yourself of nonsense. There are many other ways you could support your argument if the data were to support it. So far, from everything I've looked at (and some that I've posted and you've conveniently ignored), additional data does not support your argument.

Can I ask you a question you may actually be able to answer? It's another opinion question, so no hard numbers. If you were to ask a coach what QB he'd want inside the 20 if he needed a touchdown and gave him the options of Cody Kessler and Dak Prescott, how many do you think would look at just red zone QB rating and decide on Kessler based on that?

I'm not going to answer your self assuming nonsense. The only one here giving any numbers is me. I have asked for you to make an actual argument but all you do is piggyback. It's boring.

I would recommend working on your reading skill because I told you that I was not going to argue QB rating as a metric. Shall I quote it for you?

Have fun chasing windmills.

 

[percyhoward]

Sturm did reference air yards as well. Being 5th in the league in air yards per attempt establishes pretty definitively that you're not dink and dunk.

It does, but that wasn't Sturm.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

It does, but that wasn't Sturm.

You gave him some help, for sure