Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
I see what you are saying. As technology increases, high-resolution cameras with high frame rates, the ability to pause and examine, I see this as the natural evolution of analyzation. We do this every game our selves when we see a well-thrown ball vs a bad throw. You asked about balls thrown in-between zones which is a good point, and it probably depends on which side the ball is more on. But the zones aren't hit/miss it's accurate/less accurate/inaccurate etc. If it was either-or, that is where a bias could hurt you more, but the levels of increment minimize the impact of a bias.
Remember they are: - absolving quarterbacks from getting downgraded for throwaways, spikes, batted passes and plays in which they're hit while throwing.
- Did the QB put the slant route on the front number for optimum yards-after-the-catch opportunity? Did he hit him with an accurate pass on his frame? Did he leave it in a catchable spot, but in a less-than-desirable YAC location?
- are also careful to add proper context to passes that appear to be off-target but are thrown away from the leverage of the defense. Such passes get an “away from coverage” designation that falls into the proper bucket of accurate passes.
Manning would have fallen into the last two categories there, which he was doing on purpose. I would assume they would know that if the announcer knew it and talked about it in-game. So Manning would fall into that area of accurate passes as well.
Finally, the whole argument depends on the presence of bias in the system, but there is no evidence of any bias. Just because there is a possibility for something to be corrupted doesn't mean it is. For example, the president and the GOP has lawsuits in every swing state trying to remove mail-in ballots arguing that there is corruption. They have not won a single case though because there is no actual evidence that there is mass mail-in voter corruption (that isn't caught) to discard the system, just their theories. (and before this turns into a political debate for some of you, yes I know the examples the pres said in the debate the other night, all those have been explained and you can look it up.) Bias would ruin the results if the same person did all the evaluations for one QB and no one else and no one checked the results. OR, the entire organization is biased against that QB and everyone working on that QB skewed the results. I find either unlikely because PFF is staking their reputation on the accuracy of their analyzations. If someone found bias it would taint everything the company does. Therefore they have a vested interest in being impartial. I would change my mind if something did actually come out about it. But I can't assume it is happening because it could happen.
Yup we largely agree in Lance, except for the accuracy issue. |
I have no doubt that PFF is trying their best to get it right, but this boils down to the problem I've always had with them: the subjectivity in their analysis in my opinion creates odd results, like the year they had Ben Hartsock as the #1 TE in the NFL. Statistics are useful analysis tools, but they should never lead us to conclusions that are not in line with the results we see on the field. That's not to say I expect zero variance in the results. For example, I could see a statistical analysis determining that the Chiefs, Ravens, or Steelers are the best team in the AFC, but I would immediately dismiss one that said the Jets were the best team in the AFC. PFF's methodology would typically produce the former result, but has the capability built in it to produce the latter.