Top Shutdown Cornerbacks of 2007 (putting K.C. Joyner's stats to better use)

[AdamJT13]

Adam, any statistically accurate way to add in the value of interceptions. For example, each int is worth an average punt (say 36 yards net) and take this away from total yards.

That's possible, too, but again, I'd prefer to use the number of interceptions only when that player is targeted. It might not change the numbers for many players, but when most players get only a few interceptions each season, one or two fewer interceptions could have a big effect on some players' numbers.

 

[percyhoward]

I get your point, but the "playmaking" and "shutdown" distinction isn't really an important one (see Deion).

 

[AdamJT13]

I get your point, but the "playmaking" and "shutdown" distinction isn't really an important one (see Deion).

To me it is, when people constantly refer to guys being "shutdown" cornerbacks when they don't shut down anyone. Other than maybe 2006, Champ Bailey has never been a "shutdown" type of cornerback. Asante Samuel makes plays, but he's not really a "shutdown" cornerback. Same with DeAngelo Hall (who most people finally realized hasn't been a shutdown cornerback just in time for him to have his best season).

And Deion had only two interceptions in 1995, two in 1996 and two in 1997. He wasn't much of a playmaker as a cornerback in those seasons, but he definitely was a shutdown corner.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Glad you added the numbers from 05 and 06, cause I did want to see Pacman's numbers especially in 06 when he had his best season.

I know some are scared of him, but really Pacman has to start on just his talent alone, plus it would keep Henry more healthy. How many teams can say their two starting CBs were top 6 picks....not many.

I do wonder how a really good corners numbers are affected when he has another equally really good corner on the other side.....attempts and yards have to go somewhere especially if the team plays with a lead alot.

 

[percyhoward]

I consider preventing a TD as much "making a play" as a pick is, but that's just semantics. And having two categories of stats for CB's isn't a bad thing, any more than inventing a new passer rating that separated big play QB's from bus drivers would be.

But I'd still want to know who was the best QB, just like I'd want to know who was the best corner, or if you prefer "best all-purpose" corner. It could be figured like passer rating, using TD's and INT's per estimated attempts faced (just to throw something out there).

 

[theogt]

That's possible, too, but again, I'd prefer to use the number of interceptions only when that player is targeted. It might not change the numbers for many players, but when most players get only a few interceptions each season, one or two fewer interceptions could have a big effect on some players' numbers.

You could easily come up with a formula that incorporate your "yardage per total attempt" (or whatever you want to call it) stat, plus INTs and TDs per attempt.

Just take the all of the stats for each variable for each player in a single year and run a variance study on all 3. Then put a divisor on each one and adjust it until each has a similar variance. That's essentially what they did when they came up with QB rating.

 

[AdamJT13]

You could easily come up with a formula that incorporate your "yardage per total attempt" (or whatever you want to call it) stat, plus INTs and TDs per attempt.

Easily ... except for getting the numbers to start with. STATS might be the only one that tracks TDs allowed now, and I'm still trying to get their 2007 numbers. And I don't think any of the three sources will break down INTs by whether or not the player was targeted, although it's possible that STATS' splits might indicate that. I'll have to figure out whether that's the case or not.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't think any of the three sources will break down INTs by whether or not the player was targeted.

It seems like what (to me, anyway) are the most obvious considerations are also the ones that get overlooked like that. It's like figuring points per possession without finding out first if there is any connection between how many points you score and how many possessions you have.

 

[theogt]

Easily ... except for getting the numbers to start with. STATS might be the only one that tracks TDs allowed now, and I'm still trying to get their 2007 numbers. And I don't think any of the three sources will break down INTs by whether or not the player was targeted, although it's possible that STATS' splits might indicate that. I'll have to figure out whether that's the case or not.

I'd be willing to waive the error that occurs based on INTs when not targeted. Yes, it'd be more accurate, but if the stat isn't available, the equitable doctrine of "who gives a damn" applies.

 

[dargonking999]

I'm definatly questioning my level of intelligence now because of this thread.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Everyone knows Newman had a outstanding year, he's been consistant since day one for Dallas...

 

[AdamJT13]

It's like figuring points per possession without finding out first if there is any connection between how many points you score and how many possessions you have.

There is, as I showed. Just because points per possession decreases, on average (for the reasons I stated), that doesn't mean that points scored still isn't increasing.

And you never did answer those questions I posed.

 

[AdamJT13]

2006
Lito Sheppard 0.796
Adam Jones 0.851
Champ Bailey 0.886
Sheldon Brown 1.008
Terence Newman 1.082
Nnamdi Asomugha 1.255
Asante Samuel 1.265
Anthony Henry 1.395
Shawn Springs 1.627
DeAngelo Hall 1.643
Marcus Trufant 2.352


I don't have the overall rankings for 2006 handy, but using just the numbers from STATS, Adam Jones was 10th out of 83, Newman 14th and Henry 25th, so all but the bottom three were among the top 25. Springs was 72nd, Springs 68th and Trufant 80th.

I just noticed that I had Springs listed as 72nd and 68th. The 68th should be DeAngelo Hall -- he was slightly better than Springs using just STATS' numbers and slightly worse than Springs with all three sources combined (as shown by the 1.643 and 1.627 in the list).

 

[pancakeman]

You could easily come up with a formula that incorporate your "yardage per total attempt" (or whatever you want to call it) stat, plus INTs and TDs per attempt.

Just take the all of the stats for each variable for each player in a single year and run a variance study on all 3. Then put a divisor on each one and adjust it until each has a similar variance. That's essentially what they did when they came up with QB rating.

Or, if you prefer, adjust the divisors until your favorite player comes out on top!

 

[percyhoward]

There is, as I showed. Just because points per possession decreases, on average (for the reasons I stated), that doesn't mean that points scored still isn't increasing.

You didn't in fact show that points increase at all with more possessions, much less that they increase in proportion to your # of possessions, as you say they do here:

Say Team A averages 20 offensive points on 12 possessions per game, while Team B averages 18 offensive points on nine possessions per game. Now put them in the same game, give them each the same number of possessions and have the offense perform at exactly their average level. Who wins?

Team B, of course. If they each have nine possesions, Team B wins 18-15. If they each have 12, Team B wins 24-20.

It may seem like it's supposed to work that way, but when you look at real games, it turns out that it doesn't work that way at all.

A RB who gains 400 yards on 100 rushes will usually gain around 800 yards on 200 rushes. The 4.0 yards per rush is verifiable by looking at the actual games. It could be more or less, depending on performance, injuries, strength of opponent, etc., but it will be close to 4.0 on average.

A team that scores 18 points on 9 possessions will not score 24 points on 12 possessions (or anything close to 24 points) on average. The points per possession is also verifiable by looking at the actual games, and it's nowhere near 2.0. In fact it's a lot closer to 18 points per game, no matter how many possessions there are.

 

[AdamJT13]

It may seem like it's supposed to work that way, but when you look at real games, it turns out that it doesn't work that way at all.

That's because teams don't always perform at "exactly their average level."

A team that scores 18 points on 9 possessions will not score 24 points on 12 possessions (or anything close to 24 points) on average.

If they perform at their average level, they will. And they're likely to score more than 18 points, even if they don't perform at their usual level.

The points per possession is also verifiable by looking at the actual games, and it's nowhere near 2.0. In fact it's a lot closer to 18 points per game, no matter how many possessions there are.

That's not correct. Based on the sample of 160 games I posted a week or two ago, the average points allowed went from 18.08 on eight possessions up to 19.07 on nine possessions, to 19.19 on 10 possessions, to 19.93 on 11 possessions. You might not think that a difference of 1.85 points per game is a big difference, but it is. It could be the difference between being ranked sixth in points allowed or being ranked 13th, or the difference between first and fifth, or 10th and 17th, etc. And the only reason could be because one team faced three more possessions per game.

And since you decided to threadjack and go back to a former subject that you seemed to be avoiding until now, how about answering these questions for once? --

1. Which offense performed better?

Offense A's possessions
5 plays, 14 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 20 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 8 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 15 yards (plus 13 in penalties), TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 36 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, minus-4 yards, PUNT
6 plays, 50 yards, TOUCHDOWN
5 plays, 44 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 6 yards, PUNT
7 plays, 52 yards, FIELD GOAL
3 plays, 4 yards, PUNT
3 plays, minus-1 yards, PUNT
6 plays, 14 yards, INTERCEPTION
6 plays, 25 yards, PUNT


Offense B's possessions
4 plays, 96 yards, TOUCHDOWN
13 plays, 74 yards, FIELD GOAL
5 plays, 65 yards, TOUCHDOWN
10 plays, 78 yards, TOUCHDOWN
10 plays, 69 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, minus-7 yards, PUNT
13 plays, 69 yards, FIELD GOAL



2. Which defense performed better?

Defense X's possessions faced
1 play, 0 yards, INTERCEPTION
5 plays, 65 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 4 yards, INTERCEPTION
7 plays, 53 yards, FIELD GOAL
3 plays, 3 yards, PUNT
4 plays, 60 yards, TOUCHDOWN
13 plays, 49 yards, TURNOVER ON DOWNS
4 plays, 40 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 0 yards, PUNT
7 plays, 32 yards, MISSED FIELD GOAL
3 plays, 3 yards, PUNT
5 plays, 20 yards, INTERCEPTION
3 plays, 9 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 6 yards, PUNT
7 plays, 16 yards, TURNOVER ON DOWNS
3 plays, 3 yards, INTERCEPTION


Defense Y's possessions faced
6 plays, 21 yards, FIELD GOAL
5 plays, 49 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 5 yards, PUNT
9 plays, 51 yards, FIELD GOAL
3 plays, minus-10 yards, PUNT
13 plays, 71 yards, FIELD GOAL
9 plays, 93 yards, TOUCHDOWN

 

[dogunwo]

That's because teams don't always perform at "exactly their average level."



If they perform at their average level, they will. And they're likely to score more than 18 points, even if they don't perform at their usual level.



That's not correct. Based on the sample of 160 games I posted a week or two ago, the average points allowed went from 18.08 on eight possessions up to 19.07 on nine possessions, to 19.19 on 10 possessions, to 19.93 on 11 possessions. You might not think that a difference of 1.85 points per game is a big difference, but it is. It could be the difference between being ranked sixth in points allowed or being ranked 13th, or the difference between first and fifth, or 10th and 17th, etc. And the only reason could be because one team faced three more possessions per game.

And since you decided to threadjack and go back to a former subject that you seemed to be avoiding until now, how about answering these questions for once? --

1. Which offense performed better?

Offense A's possessions
5 plays, 14 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 20 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 8 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 15 yards (plus 13 in penalties), TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 36 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, minus-4 yards, PUNT
6 plays, 50 yards, TOUCHDOWN
5 plays, 44 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 6 yards, PUNT
7 plays, 52 yards, FIELD GOAL
3 plays, 4 yards, PUNT
3 plays, minus-1 yards, PUNT
6 plays, 14 yards, INTERCEPTION
6 plays, 25 yards, PUNT


Offense B's possessions
4 plays, 96 yards, TOUCHDOWN
13 plays, 74 yards, FIELD GOAL
5 plays, 65 yards, TOUCHDOWN
10 plays, 78 yards, TOUCHDOWN
10 plays, 69 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, minus-7 yards, PUNT
13 plays, 69 yards, FIELD GOAL



2. Which defense performed better?

Defense X's possessions faced
1 play, 0 yards, INTERCEPTION
5 plays, 65 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 4 yards, INTERCEPTION
7 plays, 53 yards, FIELD GOAL
3 plays, 3 yards, PUNT
4 plays, 60 yards, TOUCHDOWN
13 plays, 49 yards, TURNOVER ON DOWNS
4 plays, 40 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 0 yards, PUNT
7 plays, 32 yards, MISSED FIELD GOAL
3 plays, 3 yards, PUNT
5 plays, 20 yards, INTERCEPTION
3 plays, 9 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 6 yards, PUNT
7 plays, 16 yards, TURNOVER ON DOWNS
3 plays, 3 yards, INTERCEPTION


Defense Y's possessions faced
6 plays, 21 yards, FIELD GOAL
5 plays, 49 yards, TOUCHDOWN
3 plays, 5 yards, PUNT
9 plays, 51 yards, FIELD GOAL
3 plays, minus-10 yards, PUNT
13 plays, 71 yards, FIELD GOAL
9 plays, 93 yards, TOUCHDOWN

You expected an answer?

 

[percyhoward]

You expected an answer?

He's about to get one.

 

[Cowboy Junkie]

Xs defense without doubt performed better

 

[percyhoward]

That's because teams don't always perform at "exactly their average level."

But on average, they're supposed to.

That's what makes it average.

If a team's "average level" is 2 points per possession, then it should score 20 points on 10 possessions, and 30 points on 15. Since that doesn't happen on average, (not even close) then that figure of 2 "points per possession" doesn't really tell us anything.

What do you define, after all, as a team's average level of performance?

How about answering these questions for once? --

In those 4 scenarios, the offense/defense that performed better is the one that points per possession says performed better. But what's a better test of the stat--your research, or those 4 scenarios that don't reflect what your own research showed normally happens?

Based on the sample of 160 games I posted a week or two ago, the average points allowed went from 18.08 on eight possessions up to 19.07 on nine possessions, to 19.19 on 10 possessions, to 19.93 on 11 possessions. You might not think that a difference of 1.85 points per game is a big difference, but it is.

Two things.

First, whether I think 1.85 is a big difference doesn't matter. What does matter is that "points per possession" says that, for a team that averages 2.00 per possession, it shouldn't go up 1.85, it should go up 6.00. That's off by more than just a little.

Again: real difference 1.85
projected difference 6.00

Second, Football Outsiders says the average number of possessions in a game is a little over 11. You provide data from 8- to 11-possession games. You're looking at the low end, which skews the results toward what you said. You know this, which is probably why you don't say what your research showed you about 12- and 13-possession games.

I don't believe that I've offended your sensibilities by asking you to explain something that, on the surface, doesn't make sense. Just back up what you said with facts, or if you can't--ignore it.