Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:Can't say just yet. Got to compute everyone's rating still.
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:Yeah I'm not sure how him accusing you of such thing is ok without evidence here but it's very ironic and hypocritical that he raged on you. He gets away with a lot for as I pointed out and did...again... never adding anything but trying to start fights. It's all he does but I respect you for not falling into his traps and you don't let his bullying bother you. Well unless you did but I have never seen you display this type of thing though you and I see things waaay differently.
Originally posted by TheGore49er:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Originally posted by Waterbear:I pointed out that Jimmy wins games this is his response.
I'll give you 100 dollars if you can prove Steve said that.
Stop doing this straw man BS.
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
.Team accomplishments are not the same as individual accomplishments.
He's literally saying QBs have no basis on winning and that's it's all the team that won Jimmy the game, not Jimmy... The team.
Now pay up.
Holy 5th grade reading comprehension level, Batman.
For anyone who wants to see the actual post instead of reading what ribs is lying about, the post is #114892.
In no way, shape or form did I say this:
Originally posted by RackofRibs49:
Steve say the QB has no bearing on wins ever.
Awesome so Jimmy is a reason that Kyle has a great record with Jimmy and an abysmal record without. That's a QB DOES in fact make an impact in wins and losses... You know, arguably the most important position in any sport? Right?
Most sports are team games but one position is far more important than the others. There's a reason Kyle is like 9-28 without Jimmy. Jimmy is the difference. Sure Beathard and Mullens but that only proves that a good QB makes a difference in w/l.
"Man, I think people got short-term memory loss or something because, before Jimmy came (the 49ers weren't good). . . . He saved us, i won two games, four games, and when Jimmy came he really turned it around, brought us to the point where we're at now."
-Armstead
The record literally backs this up and for anybody without a clear agenda its undebatable. The 49ers were terrible pre-Jimmy and were terrible injured Jimmy. With Jimmy... and yes the team most certainly helped... they were a play away(ones Jimmy missed) from a SB victory and another SB appearance.
Is Jimmy an all time great? No... Never...but he turned this franchise around more than any player on the current team.
That doesn't mean he "won the games" for the team. It means his predecessors LOST THEM.
I'm usually better way than Gore and will usually give at least try to give an actual counter argument unlike he has ever done but I just can't after this post. A walking contradiction lol. QBs don't win games but they can lose them.
Once again telling players like Armstead they are wrong.
Ffs
#obssesed
at least you're not sending rage emails to rubber anymore lulz.
What are you talking about? I don't think I've ever sent an email to anyone here. I've responded to angry, racist PMs, and I've argued my case about warnings, but that's about it.
.
.
Anyway, I think I've found out part of why Jimmy "just wins," on a more analytic level than usually discussed around here. I'm working on my own quarterback rating metric, and so far Jimmy has done pretty well, but not great. However, after looking at 9 guys on my 2 minute drill before half time stat, Jimmy is thus far blowing away the competition (which includes Tom Brady and Josh Allen). I can't say for sure yet, because I've not determined the Pearson Correlation Coefficient yet (when compared to win%), which i will do after painstakingly going through every game the 31 QBs I'm looking at played in, but to give you an idea:
(obviously subject to human error, since I'm manually looking at every play-by-play)
Two minute drill before half time success rate (defined as drives which pass the two minute mark and result in scores):
Allen: 0.500
Brady: 0.476
Jimmy: 0.846
Jimmy is almost twice as good as Brady at it. Now, again, I can't say this is really why he "just wins" yet, because I have to do an analysis of how this statistic correlates with winning. It probably is NOT such a strong correlation, because (1) Neither my opening drive metric (defined as an opening drive that ends in a touchdown) nor my "clutch" metric (defined as a drive with 4 minutes or less left in which the QB's team is tied or trailing by one score which results in a lead change or tie, respectfully), strongly correlated with winning, and (2) Jimmy's win% is obviously less than his Half Time 2 min drill success rate (at 0.600). And since I brought it up, Jimmy's "clutch" success rate as defined above is better than average, but not the best.
But, it's probably going to show itself to be a factor. I've seen a couple other factors which help Jimmy "out win" his intuitive statistical output, but I'll discuss them when I finally finish this.
Jimmy has "done pretty well but not great". That's the great way to put him imo. His 2 minute drill is what wins him a lot of games imo. Like Alex he can be just flat out awful at times but we're never really out of reach of any gane really(maybe something you can look up if you want) and we're always close. Our games are usually one or two plays away. That itself leaves a team in position to win. It's a direct reflection of how Jimmy plays. He's sometimes great, usually in the middle, other times infuriating.
Me... I think, as many players have said, his leadership is his biggest strength. He's never too high or never too low. I think that reflects on the entire team.
Fantastic post btw.
But, I have completed the half time drive success rate data, and interestingly enough, win% correlates more stronger with half time two minute drill success than last four minutes of the game+overtime drive success. It's also more important than fumbles per game and interceptions per game. Moreover, the result is statistically significant for p < 0.05. However, it's still a weak correlation (0.3703; a perfect positive correlation is 1, no correlation at all is represented by 0, and a perfect negative correlation is represented by -1).
That said, I am now pretty sure that one of the main reasons Jimmy is a "winner" besides the help he gets from the defense and coaching is that he's an ace in the first half two minute drill (we all knew this factored to an extent, but it is clearer when looking at the raw data). Think about it: Say you're Jimmy, and the offense is stagnating through the first and most of the second quarter. But the defense holds, and it's a one score game. Then suddenly Jimmy comes alive and drives the team down the field to score. Now the 49ers go into half time with the lead. So, I can see how being extra good at that one thing can add two or three wins to the board.
But, as I said, it's a fairly weak correlation. Touchdown passes is about twice as important, and completed air yards is around 1.5 times more important.
*One other interesting tidbit in looking at all these stats: surprisingly, Jimmy had almost as many completed air yards per game as Aaron Rodgers. The difference is only about 3 yards per game.
The question than should be why does the offense come to life during the 2 minute drill? Not why Jimmy comes to life during the 2 minute drill. Does Jimmy eat his can of spinach just before the 2 minute drill every game? I bet it had a lot to do with game planning and adjustments by Kyle more than anything else. Of course Jimmy still has to execute the plays but we saw the offense do the same thing vs the Texans with Trey in at QB.
I don't know, but Jimmy also performs well in other areas that correlate with win% as well, and one of these notably has a much higher correlation than half time scoring (and since just before half time scores has a low correlation, I won't be wasting my time with it anymore). And that is 1D% (percentage of first down passes per pass play [that is, attempts plus sacks]).
Now, you can very convincingly argue that he's getting lots of help on that from coaches and weapons. But that correlation is well over 0.7. CAY has a moderate correlation with win%, TD passes have a stronger correlation with win% than CAY, but not as strong as 1D%.
The thing with Jimmy is that the things he sucks at do NOT correlate very much with win%. There is a negative correlation with INTs, for example, but it's not even half as strong in magnitude as touchdowns. Another one is opening drive TD%. Jimmy sucks at that, but it doesn't really matter that much to wins.
In 2021 Jimmy was moderate in CAY per game (Not all that far from Rodgers, believe it or not: Jimmy was about 119, Rodgers was about 124. This is with me counting Jimmy as playing 15.5 games, rather than his full 16 starts, since he missed an entire half, and Rodgers at 15.75, since he missed the whole fourth quarter of the last game. For reference, Stafford and Brady had over 162.)
Point is, Jimmy is mediocre at most things, but he's good at two which incidentally happen to correlate pretty high with winning: third down passes for first down, and 1D%, and what he's worst at (interceptions) doesn't have a huge correlation with wins.
.
.
I am a known NON-Jimmy fan, by the way. I've just been spending the last few days, maybe a week, thinking about how to make a good QB rating system, and have been diving into these stats. My discovery thus far is Jimmy seems to be two or three places higher in the QB ranking than I'd have figured prior to looking at QB numbers that correlate with win percentage.
EDIT—Regarding Trey: contrary to what the Jimmy fan boys think, each tweak I've done with this metric I'm working on, Trey has almost always come out with a better rating than Jimmy. So yeah, Jimmy comes out looking better if stats are weighted towards the ones that correlate the most with win percentage, but Trey looks good too—and that includes even when I completely ignore rushing contributions (which don't factor much anyway, because of the low win percentage correlation). But then, it's a tiny sample size. Steve Young had a passer rating of 120.8 a couple times, I think, when he was coming off the bench.
.
.
EDIT2: When I say "correlate with win percentage," I mean strictly speaking 2021, and the 31 QBs who started 10 games. No way am I trawling through 5 years of data and hundreds of QBs. Too much work.
You're the one who had to keep adjusting your formula to discredit Cousins when he came out as #1 on your list? If so, I am guessing you manipulated the formula enough to put Jimmy at #1, am I right?
That was when I was doing back of the envelope calculations, and wasn't doing any real math with respect to correlation with win percentage. I had what, three terms in that? The final equation I'm working on will cover an entire line on this board. When you see my final thread, you'll see use of several statistical methods—including Pearson Correlation Coefficients, Spearman Rho value calculations, Coefficient of Determination, piecewise functions, and all the other cute stuff you use when you're trying to find out how something really correlates—you'll see the difference.
And most importantly: I AM NOT AND HAVE NEVER BEEN A JIMMY FAN. Have you even read my posts? I'm the guy who got LITERAL HATE PMS from a guy who kept creating fake accounts to attack me for saying Jimmy was average and way overpaid.
What I am is HONEST, and that is why I'm using RELIABLE STATISTICAL METHODS instead of intuition for this.
