The Dak to Pickens combination shows extremely high potential

[Spottswoode]

Hey, we have posters here that like to tell people how to "fan" so maybe you can be the guy here that tells people how to "stat."

Dak has a pretty good 76-46 QB Record during the regular season but only a 2-5 playoff record. When someone brings up that 2-5 record, I want to see your stat prowess at the ready to defend it saying it's not enough data to draw any real conclusions and should be ignored. I mean, if you're consistent and all, lol.

You can stat any way you want. But when you post it to a public forum, draw a conclusion, and berate another poster for disagreeing, you need to be man enough to support your data. You know your data is terribly flawed but your pride makes you keep doubling down.

Here are your rankings for last year:

Purdy .......... 3/4
Wilson ......... 3/5
Goff .............. 5/9, 3 TDs
Darnold......... 5/9, 2 TDs
Hurts ............ 7/14, 3 TDs, 1 INT
Herbert ........ 3/6, 1 TD
Mahomes ..... 2/4, 1 TD
Rodgers ....... 2/4, 1 TD, 1 INT
Burrow .......... 4/9, 2 TDs
Allen .............. 4/10
Lawrence ...... 3/10, 1 TD, 1 INT
Stafford ......... 3/11, 2 INTs
Jackson ........ 3/12, 1 TD
Dak ............... 2/11, 2 INTs

If Mahomes had 1 more completion, he moves from #7 to #2. If Wilson had one more incompletion, he moves from #2 to #7.

Anytime the sample size is this small, you can’t draw conclusions from the results. This is basic high school stuff. It’s not rocket science.

I’m not defending Dak. I’m pointing out the poor analysis used to make a larger point.

 

[5Stars]

You can stat any way you want. But when you post it to a public forum, draw a conclusion, and berate another poster for disagreeing, you need to be man enough to support your data. You know your data is terribly flawed but your pride makes you keep doubling down.

Here are your rankings for last year:

Purdy .......... 3/4
Wilson ......... 3/5
Goff .............. 5/9, 3 TDs
Darnold......... 5/9, 2 TDs
Hurts ............ 7/14, 3 TDs, 1 INT
Herbert ........ 3/6, 1 TD
Mahomes ..... 2/4, 1 TD
Rodgers ....... 2/4, 1 TD, 1 INT
Burrow .......... 4/9, 2 TDs
Allen .............. 4/10
Lawrence ...... 3/10, 1 TD, 1 INT
Stafford ......... 3/11, 2 INTs
Jackson ........ 3/12, 1 TD
Dak ............... 2/11, 2 INTs

If Mahomes had 1 more completion, he moves from #7 to #2. If Wilson had one more incompletion, he moves from #2 to #7.

Anytime the sample size is this small, you can’t draw conclusions from the results. This is basic high school stuff. It’s not rocket science.

I’m not defending Dak. I’m pointing out the poor analysis used to make a larger point.

I’m not defending Dak. I’m pointing out the poor analysis used to make a larger point.

lol...when someone puts a disclaimer like above, yeah, you are defending Dak.

 

[MarcusRock]

I’m not defending Dak. I’m pointing out the poor analysis used to make a larger point.

lol...when someone puts a disclaimer like above, yeah, you are defending Dak.

Hence the taking umbrage at neutral stats that don't look good. Someone asked for more than 1 year, I gave them 4 more and most resembled the 1. Best believe if the "small sample size" stats showed Dak was 7/10 for long balls every year, they'd be calling him the greatest long baller of all time and character assassinate anyone who said different. Lol.

 

[speedkilz88]

I’m not defending Dak. I’m pointing out the poor analysis used to make a larger point.

lol...when someone puts a disclaimer like above, yeah, you are defending Dak.

 

[Spottswoode]

I’m not defending Dak. I’m pointing out the poor analysis used to make a larger point.

lol...when someone puts a disclaimer like above, yeah, you are defending Dak.

Find proof of your claim in anything I have posted previously. I have consistently said Dak is flawed, I would not have extended him, and his contract has been an albatross.

Again, facts matter.

 

[Spottswoode]

Hence the taking umbrage at neutral stats that don't look good. Someone asked for more than 1 year, I gave them 4 more and most resembled the 1. Best believe if the "small sample size" stats showed Dak was 7/10 for long balls every year, they'd be calling him the greatest long baller of all time and character assassinate anyone who said different. Lol.

The stats are bad for every QB that you posted, not just Dak. I’m not sure why you are having trouble understanding that it’s not about Dak, it’s about your poor analysis.

 

[Spottswoode]

Hence the taking umbrage at neutral stats that don't look good. Someone asked for more than 1 year, I gave them 4 more and most resembled the 1. Best believe if the "small sample size" stats showed Dak was 7/10 for long balls every year, they'd be calling him the greatest long baller of all time and character assassinate anyone who said different. Lol.

A sample size of 7/10 would also not be enough to say he is the greatest. The door swings both ways…good or bad. And I have made posts questioning the stats of Dak lovers as well.

And it’s interesting that you think I am assassinating your character by point out flaws in your logic. I’m sorry you are feeling like a victim…it wasn’t my intent.

 

[MarcusRock]

A sample size of 7/10 would also not be enough to say he is the greatest. The door swings both ways…good or bad.

That's why 5 years of data is better than 1.

 

[Spottswoode]

That's why 5 years of data is better than 1.

5 years of data COULD be better than 1 if you were combining the numbers to make a larger point. But here the sample size would still way too small.

But you went further by trying to compare each year v. another and I showed by using your rankings that 1 more pass would dramatically influence the results.

It doesn’t make any difference whether you provided 1 or 5 years because you were making year to year comparisons using TINY sample sizes.

This is why you often see rankings where they put a caveat on the minimum numbers to be included in the rankings. You don’t get to be the batting champion with 50 at bats or the 3 point champ with 30 attempts. It’s because the sample size is too small.

Let’s try another analogy using free throws:

Player 1…4/5
Player 2…1/1
Player 3…75/100
Player 4…19/25

According to your methodology, the rankings for ability would be:

Player 2…100%
Player 1…80%
Player 4…76%
Player 3…75%

While the player rankings are true based on actual free throw percentages, the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions regarding ability. If player 2 misses his next free throw, he goes from second to last. With a large enough sample size, players 1 or 2 may prove to be the worst free throw shooters.

If a relatively small change in the baseline numbers results in a outsized impact on the result, the sample size is too small.

 

[Mark]

Dak definitely needs receivers who can "adjust" to off-target throws. Because the latter are going to see a lot of them, unfortunately.

 

[Johannes44]

Dak definitely needs receivers who can "adjust" to off-target throws. Because the latter are going to see a lot of them, unfortunately.

Dak needs an entire team that is going to carry him and his torn ACL to a SB. That is literally what he needs.

 

[MarcusRock]

5 years of data COULD be better than 1 if you were combining the numbers to make a larger point. But here the sample size would still way too small.

But you went further by trying to compare each year v. another and I showed by using your rankings that 1 more pass would dramatically influence the results.

It doesn’t make any difference whether you provided 1 or 5 years because you were making year to year comparisons using TINY sample sizes.

This is why you often see rankings where they put a caveat on the minimum numbers to be included in the rankings. You don’t get to be the batting champion with 50 at bats or the 3 point champ with 30 attempts. It’s because the sample size is too small.

Let’s try another analogy using free throws:

Player 1…4/5
Player 2…1/1
Player 3…75/100
Player 4…19/25

According to your methodology, the rankings for ability would be:

Player 2…100%
Player 1…80%
Player 4…76%
Player 3…75%

While the player rankings are true based on actual free throw percentages, the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions regarding ability. If player 2 misses his next free throw, he goes from second to last. With a large enough sample size, players 1 or 2 may prove to be the worst free throw shooters.

If a relatively small change in the baseline numbers results in a outsized impact on the result, the sample size is too small.

Yep, not taking the time to do deeper dives and the data will ALWAYS be smaller for 30+, just like Dak's playoff record compared to his regular season. So I posted "what is." I noticed something, did a snapshot one year relative to peers, then added 4 more of his years that were mostly similar to what I noticed. What people do with the "what is" is up to them ..... and interesting.

 

[Spottswoode]

Yep, not taking the time to do deeper dives and the data will ALWAYS be smaller for 30+, just like Dak's playoff record compared to his regular season. So I posted "what is." I noticed something, did a snapshot one year relative to peers, then added 4 more of his years that were mostly similar to what I noticed. What people do with the "what is" is up to them ..... and interesting.

Finally we agree.

And hopefully others will understand the limitations of the data when drawing their conclusions which was my only intent.

 

[nalam]

Dez's numbers tanked under Dak. Dak doesn't like to throw a contested ball. He needs separation.

That period Dak was concentrating on not getting INTs , you know his turnovers numbers were in single digits initially in his couple of years.