Using ANY/A as a means to compare across eras

[Chargers]

I'm surprised that Young leads this group. I would have expected his 2 seasons in Tampa Bay would plummet his stats in the same way  you mentioned Peyton Manning's 2015 did

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

On 4/14/2019 at 8:22 AM, Jlowe22 said:

There's a reason Brady has an 8.88 ANY/A in 2007, and a 6.13 ANY/A in 2013.

Yeah, his hand was swollen to the size of my head in 2013! I know because I had him on my fantasy team and it cost me

[childofpudding]

12 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Wow, yeah that is a really good point, I didn't even think of that. That could serve as a way to not have so many damn modern guys at the top.  But I think using a percentage doesn't necessarily account for a level of diminishing returns as these numbers keep going up, For example, being 50% better than advantage I feel is much easier when the average is 4.04 compared to when it is 6.12. Russel Wilson to achieve the same percentage would have to hit an ANY/A of 9.18 compared to the older player getting to 6.06. An ANY/A of 6.06, even long ago, is still very achievable and ultimately really isn't THAT efficient. An 9.18 is just unrealistically high to achieve. The only two seasons to reach that level over a full season are Peyton's 04' and Rodgers' 11' seasons, which are just unbelievable seasons. 

I don't see why rookie numbers should matter. You shouldn't be expected to be good as a rookie nor should it be held in high super regard if you are good as a rookie. Sure, it would be nice, but it should be viewed more as a learning experience. You're expected to learn and improve and that's all that really matters. If somebody sucks as a rookie, nobody should care, just as nobody should care if Rodgers or Young sucked when they came off the bench before they were the starter, there's no expectation that you should be dominating as a rookie nor when you are coming off the bench. 

The other thought experiment I had was maybe using ANY/A as the metric for players of past eras isn't a great idea, because ANY/A may not have correlated to offensive production as much as it does now. Maybe completion% was more important in the 1960s because QBs were mostly just throwing on 3rd down and completing the pass was the most important thing. I don't think you should change up what you're doing, but it's food for thought.

[Bobikus]

18 hours ago, Classic said:

I'm surprised that Young leads this group. I would have expected his 2 seasons in Tampa Bay would plummet his stats in the same way  you mentioned Peyton Manning's 2015 did

His SFO years were just that good.

[pwny]

Why are we trying to create a convoluted era adjusted ANY/A when we already have ANY/A+ which does exactly what this stat is trying to do?

 

EDIT: and if you want to not include rookie years, here you go:

[pwny]

Also, if you were going to attempt to do it the way you're doing, subtraction is a terrible means to it. You'd need to create a standard deviation for slot of years, and then mark players at where their scores fall in percentiles.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

37 minutes ago, pwny said:

Why are we trying to create a convoluted era adjusted ANY/A when we already have ANY/A+ which does exactly what this stat is trying to do?

It's mostly for funsies, and yeah, I realize a similar stat already exists. But I didn't see a way to actually have it list it for specific time frames or careers, I only see it on a per-season basis and that's it. How did you do that?

[pwny]

Just now, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

It's mostly for funsies, and yeah, I realize a similar stat already exists. But I didn't see a way to actually have it list it for specific time frames or careers, I only see it on a per-season basis and that's it. How did you do that?

Click the “Show/Hide Search Form” at the top. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

11 hours ago, childofpudding said:

The other thought experiment I had was maybe using ANY/A as the metric for players of past eras isn't a great idea, because ANY/A may not have correlated to offensive production as much as it does now. Maybe completion% was more important in the 1960s because QBs were mostly just throwing on 3rd down and completing the pass was the most important thing. I don't think you should change up what you're doing, but it's food for thought.

Well I didn't do this for any seasons in the 1960s anyway, though. I only started in the 70s

[pwny]

2 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Well I didn't do this for any seasons in the 1960s anyway, though. I only started in the 70s

ANY/A data only goes back to 1969, btw. Sack data isn’t available before then, so the formula can’t be ran then. Might as well include ‘69 in the data.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

1 minute ago, pwny said:

ANY/A data only goes back to 1969, btw. Sack data isn’t available before then, so the formula can’t be ran then. Might as well include ‘69 in the data.

Yeah, I realized that it only goes back so far when someone asked me to do an earlier player. I think 70' being the start was mostly coincidental though too, because I didn't bother with any QBs who's careers leaked before that time. For example, if Staubach's rookie year was a year earlier, I would have used 69' in the calculation. 

[Mr Bad Example]

On 4/14/2019 at 3:03 AM, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Steve Young: +2.13
Peyton Manning: +1.76
Roger Staubach: +1.71
Joe Montana: +1.56
Dan Fouts: +1.47
Aaron Rodgers: 1.44
Tom Brady: +1.41
Dan Marino: +1.38
Drew Brees: +1.23
Tony Romo: +1.22
Philip Rivers: +1.13
Ken Anderson: +1.08

Andy Dalton: +0.16
Eli Manning: +0.08
Joe Flacco: -0.05
Cam Newton: -0.1
Archie Manning: -0.15

• Archie Manning, Cam Newton, and Joe Flacco REALLY suck. They managed to all be worse than the average across their era, hence the negative value. 
• standardized efficiency wise, Dalton and Newton both suck, but Dalton appears to be the superior from 2012 at least strictly from a passing perspective. (Obviously Newton is worlds ahead as a runner)

 

- Roger Staubach 3rd best QB of all time*? Ken Anderson 12th best?* This checks out. 

- you need to redefine your definition of "suck"; Joe Flacco nailed "average." Andy Dalton is about an average QB. Manning is below average, but as the above poster intimated, it's tough to know how much of that is innate ability and how much of it was, in the words of Bum Phillips, that he was "a franchise QB without a franchise." 

- the only thing I'd want to figure is how to add running ability into this - that would put Young, Staubach, and Rodgers up even more (!)  and add a bit to Elway, McNabb, and Newton's value/efficiency rating. 

[Mr Bad Example]

On 4/14/2019 at 12:21 PM, footbull3196 said:

Glad to see I wasn’t the only person who thought Aikman was overrated historically.  This dude threw 20 TDs once in his career.  Even for the 90s, that’s incredibly pedestrian.  And yet he was a 1st ballot HOFer cuz he happened to be quarterback on a loaded team that won 3 Super Bowls

I also think it should be obvious that Elway isn’t a top 10 quarterback of all time like some people want to claim, but I’ll leave that debate for another time

The thing about Aikman is he won with 3 absolutely loaded teams; Elway carried 3 mediocre teams to SBs....there was good DEFENSIVE talent on those late 80s Broncos teams, but rarely was there anyone threatening Elway's place as best player in the huddle, whereas Aikman was probably no better than 4th on a good day (Emmitt, Erik Williams, Larry Allen, Nate Newton, probably Irvin).*

 

Elway's 3 SB losses are more impressive than his 2 wins, as the 3 losses were teams that obviously had no business being there, aside from Elway, getting to the SB, whereas the 2 wins were absolutely LOADED teams doing what they were supposed to do.** 


EDITED TO ADD - 

* - I see we're on the same page with this; I hadn't read the entire discussion before posting

** - you mention him in relation to Luck, and I think they're comparable, as Luck also has been a bit bereft of a complete supporting cast

[Mr Bad Example]

On 4/15/2019 at 12:30 AM, Classic said:

I'm surprised that Young leads this group. I would have expected his 2 seasons in Tampa Bay would plummet his stats in the same way  you mentioned Peyton Manning's 2015 did

I'd hazard that if you're doing the breadth of career, it was the equivalent to one bad season (501 att); by the time Young was SF's starter in 1990, he'd had 363 high-ANY att to cleanse the palate, as it were. 

 

EDIT - or not, by the methodology, which would be an error, IMO. 

[TheKillerNacho]

Not sure what you're trying to prove by ignoring rookie seasons