Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
I agree that it is unfair to point to a few mistakes or bad plays and declare that a player is bad. There are simply too many moving parts on any given play. Similarly, I think it is unfair in many cases to point to a select statistic and declare that one's assertion is factual. Certain stats are objectively ascertainable (time of possession, for example), but many (most?) are directly or indirectly influenced by other factors on the field. That is especially true of composite / "advanced" stats which, to me, are murky at best. Too many moving parts for the numbers to capture. It's even worse when one cannot explain the stats that he or she is citing. Most people realize that stats are imperfect tools for analyzing what happened on the field, but claiming that an assertion is "factual" because an "advanced" statistic backs it up is, in my opinion, tenuous and damaging to one's credibility.
Thanks for posting the PFF grading process. I have seen it before and agree with your critique that comparing independently derived grades is preferable to their iterative review format. When I ask for methodology on a particular stat, I want to know which factors are considered, how those factors are measured / observed, and what role those factors play in influencing the outcome / conclusion. Anything like that available for the PFF sack stat?
I've looked for that on PFF, and there are some specific explanations in some cases, but it still comes down to guys watching plays. Totally agree with you in regards to using stats sans context. The sack data is perhaps among the most murky stats. Without knowing the linecalls, all the player responsiblity...just a shot in the dark. For instance, Gore looked terrible last year blocking for Kaepernick. Here is one of the best blocking backs in the game...did he unlearn how to block? So what was happening in front of him that created confusion? Did he see something different than the line?
Your separation of verifiable stats versus subjective stats is well done as well. You can argue where the chains should be, but not where they are...3rd and 1 or first down.
