Malfatron Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 hours ago, packfanfb said: Dak to garbage time stats 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 10 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: Musgrave played 15 snaps, had three catches, and of course had the big TD. On the TD, he basically ran down the field with no defender near him, stood in a spot and waited for the ball to arrive. How does that equate to a 93+ score? I guess PFF was also impressed he took 5 steps without falling down? I really don't get it. I think you are missing the context. Obviously, with such a small sample size, the outliers can skew things. That’s basic statistics. Doesn’t mean the whole system is bad. even if you completely delete the 38y TD play & pretend it never happened, he still went 2/2 for 14y on 14 snaps. If you extrapolate that over a typical amount of reg season snaps for a TE (maybe 700), that comes out to 700y, which would make him a top-10 TE in yardage. The 2.0 yards-per-route-run would be tied for #4 this year among TE’s (along w/ Hockenson & Laporta). & thats with giving him zero credit on the TD play. so the 90+ grade is not all that surprising. Just teaches a lesson about statistics & sample sizes. You shouldn’t expect impressive-looking bulk yardage statistics from a 14-snap sample size that featured only 7 routes run. Doesn’t mean the per-play rating is wrong. & the outliers will be smoothed out in a larger sample. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) I was away on the day of the game, staying at a friends house prior to going fishing (though the lake I was fishing was partially frozen over). He has a 55" TV and I could watch the whole game on his big screen on SKY in hi-def - fantastic ! What a game to be able to see on a big screen (and with me living in England, every time they had an ad break it just cut back to the commentators instead, to discuss what they had seen). Now, can I persuade my friend to go fishing again this weekend, when the Packers play the 49ers ???? One of the guys on the panel for the game shown in the UK was the (in)famous Ndamukong Suh, and he made me laugh, because when he was asked why he was looking for the Packers to win, his answer was "Because the Cowboys cheat", which completely blindsided the main host who quickly added "errr Allegedly", to which Suh replied no, its a fact................ heh. Edited January 16 by OneTwoSixFive 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 I said before the game I though the Packers hype (vs the Cowboys) was overdone (I still think that), though I also said I thought the Packers had a punchers chance at winning. It turned out more than that, so very much more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 8 hours ago, Mox said: 3 catches for 52 yards and a TD in 15 snaps is elite efficiency/production even if the TD was a gimme. If he ran any other routes and got open, that's a lot of good in 15 snaps. Elite production is not the same thing as elite performance. If I want to see who had elite production I can check the box scores. He had the nice sideline catch, but it was hardly a jaw dropper. There wasn't anything special about the rest. I would bet my house that his score would be under 70 without the gimme TD, and that is stupid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 7 hours ago, Sandy said: Yep he ran 8 routes. For context, if he ran 40 routes it's the equivalent to a 15 catch, 5 TD, 260 yard game. IMO, PFF makes more sense in season-long sample sizes for this reason. This is the problem. I would bet what you posted is not all that far off from what PFF actually does. It's not what happened, but it's the only way to make sense of the score they came up with. When Musgrave has that 15 catch, 5 TD game with 260 yards, I'll be 100% on board with the 93 score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) Kelce had 12 catches on 13 targets for 179 yards and a TD in week 7. Five of the catches went for 15+ yards. PFF grade was 90.1. Musgrave's performance was better? It's so dumb. TE TRAVIS KELCE, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS PFF Grade: 90.1 Kelce earned a 91.0 PFF receiving grade with a dominant showing on National Tight Ends Day. He picked up 179 yards on 12 receptions from 13 targets, giving him a 4.97 yards per route run average in the win over the Los Angeles Chargers. Five of his receptions went for at least 15 yards, and Patrick Mahomes‘ favorite target found the end zone for the fourth time this season. Edited January 16 by Mazrimiv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebpackfan Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 42 minutes ago, Leader said: Before the game, I was rooting for all the home teams because I doubted more than 2 visitor teams would win this weekend. I know it’s stupid because that’s not how statistics work, but I just feel better knowing no visitor team had won, and it was “due”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 40 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: Kelce had 12 catches on 13 targets for 179 yards and a TD in week 7. Five of the catches went for 15+ yards. PFF grade was 90.1. Musgrave's performance was better? It's so dumb. TE TRAVIS KELCE, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS PFF Grade: 90.1 Kelce earned a 91.0 PFF receiving grade with a dominant showing on National Tight Ends Day. He picked up 179 yards on 12 receptions from 13 targets, giving him a 4.97 yards per route run average in the win over the Los Angeles Chargers. Five of his receptions went for at least 15 yards, and Patrick Mahomes‘ favorite target found the end zone for the fourth time this season. This is a GRADE not a stat. That means it's both weighted like an efficiency metric (completion %, avg, ect) and subjective which inherently means there will be inconsistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 12 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: I get that he was productive when he played, but a 93 score implies he was playing at an elite level. He wasn't. He had three catches, and one was a gift wrapped TD where all he had to do was not screw it up. 12 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: I feel like I am bashing Musgrave, but that's not what I am trying to say. Musgrave is fine, and I'm glad he's a Packer. PFF sucks. Well, the score is the score. He was ultra productive on his limited snaps, so the score is elite. Kind of like how Bakkh was the highest graded pass blocking LT of the season.....if you ignore snap counts. And you should. But I really can't fault their scoring for Musgrave. It's just that they should have put a little asterisk there concerning the amount of plays he ran. Love's score and Aaron Jones' score is much more impressive to me. And I personally feel bad for Myers. I thought his score was too low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 31 minutes ago, spilltray said: This is a GRADE not a stat. That means it's both weighted like an efficiency metric (completion %, avg, ect) and subjective which inherently means there will be inconsistency. When the NFL is putting player PFF rankings on their broadcasts, it should probably represent what people assume it represents. People assume these scores are an evaluation of player performance, but that isn't what they are at all. It's an algorithm, and as often as not, it spits out a number that doesn't represent anything useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffdaswede Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 14 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: Musgrave played 15 snaps, had three catches, and of course had the big TD. On the TD, he basically ran down the field with no defender near him, stood in a spot and waited for the ball to arrive. How does that equate to a 93+ score? I guess PFF was also impressed he took 5 steps without falling down? I really don't get it. Sometimes I imagine you guys saying this stuff three barstools down. I tip my beer your way! I love Musgrave. So does his coach. We can all give him **** until that stuff is too far in the rearview mirror to be funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 According to PFF, Musgrave played a better game than Love FFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 minute ago, Mazrimiv said: When the NFL is putting player PFF rankings on their broadcasts, it should probably represent what people assume it represents. People assume these scores are an evaluation of player performance, but that isn't what they are at all. It's an algorithm, and as often as not, it spits out a number that doesn't represent anything useful. I disagree, from the context that it's taken as an efficiency statistic and not a gross one. They usually show their whole season PFF stats, which is why some find it useful. I believe that this is a good indicator of how a player is generally doing. Luck can still be a factor, but eliminating luck from statistics is a tall order that, in my opinion, hasn't been successfully accomplished under any current metric. Throw these 15 snaps in with the 468 he had in the regular season and it won't move the needle much on his overall score. Overall, efficiency statistics are nice for identifying players who perhaps deserve a higher share of the snap count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.