2024 NFL Draft • Page 48

Literally nobody does this and nobody is pushing for this lmao.

It's also objectively NOT better to use the simplest of stats, as they're incredibly deceiving and removed of pretty much all context.

 

I’m gonna be fair here and acknowledge Matt tried to say like 6 pages ago “that’s your opinion and that’s cool and I don’t want to have this argument again”

Did it to Matt a couple days ago, doing it to you now Randall.

Now both of you please go get shoved in a locker by someone who’s actually played football please?

 

numbers are not NFL just like bartending is not a comedy club

I HAVE put those hours into studying statistics, calculus and at least a basic level of actual professional data science

 

^^^^^^

 

You don’t even read my posts when we argue it’s so obvious

i clearly said to cross examine simple numbers with watching games for context, because composite numbers can’t actually do that for you

 

Yes, I know that's what you said. And I responded to what you said. Also, watching the game for that context is better than doing exactly that but actually documenting it??? Come on lol.

 

Too many variables. Every analyst is biased toward the variables they think are the most important, but the actual weighted relationship between these variables is actually extremely nebulous and hard to figure out. Every new angle of football strategy & statistical numbers that you consider multiplies the possibilities of the actual truth exponentially.

 

I think it’s very easy to figure out which numbers are on the level and which numbers are bullshit.

the ones that back up my arguments are good, and the ones that don’t are clearly dumb and stupid.

 

Did the Jags defense suffer because they were on the field too long? Did they change schemes to adjust for a poor D line and not pull it off? Why were they on the field too long? Was that the offensive line’s fault?were we blitzing to try to match other teams being successful blitzing us and trying to stop games from getting out of hand? Or were we just trying to get turnovers and was the coach telling them to take chances? Like, already these few questions illustrate that we don’t actually know if the Jags secondary is bad now or if they just struggled situationally because of a lot of other things. I don’t believe measuring their EPA / DVOA / yards per route run / average separation / whatever explains that for you, it just tells another 5% of the story but people act like the more convoluted the stat, the more accurate. It very much can go the other way around and adding more variables is diminishing returns in terms of how accurate your answer can be. I know this because that’s how regression analysis actually behaves when you add more variables to the regression.

 

He’s gonna quote himself again, watch.

 

It’s so much easier to be like “damn I’ve never seen a 270 pound guy run a 4.4, but wait he looks awkward as hell changing directions so ultimately he’s a downhill athlete and limited in terms of how many ways his speed can impact the game”

thats way better than the guy who was measuring force in NEWTONS by multiplying their max meters per second in the 40 yard dash with their kilograms lmfaoooo. Shit is fuckin hilarious.

 

Imagine how sick it would have been if in the movie Draft Day, Kevin Costner and Dennis Leary spent a whole scene fighting over the importance of RAS when grading Vontae Mack

 

Oh yes the joke that I shared in the discord from some random twitter nerd is totally exactly what I'm defending here, very good lmao.

 

Ideally just face to face like this shouting about whether a 10 RAS means anything

 

it’s an extreme example. Hopefully you get the point im illustrating though? That casual oversights domino effect into very misleading numbers?

 

It doesn't. It, like pretty much all the stats, is entirely about thresholds. I don't care that someone is 10 or a 9, I care that they ARENT a 2 or a 3.

 

And then Jennifer Gardner interrupts them both and calls them idiots? Maybe dunks their ties into their coffee or something.

 

Yes, and as I've said countless times, the casual people are not the people I am listening to and trusting and it's not their data that I'm using. It's the actual professionals who do this for a living and work directly with the NFL. But you insist on arguing every single time. You did this what, yesterday? And over things with ZERO room for doubt or error too. You keep pretending like it's all personal grades and formulas with 100 variables spitting out a number that is objective and that's just not at all what is happening.

 

Imagine it the other way though. If Randy Moss runs .1 second slower in the 40 he’s probably still a 10 RAS. But that’s the difference between him being, like, hall of “really good”, versus being, the most unstoppable deep threat of all time who scored 23 touchdowns the one season he ever TRIED to use film study to play better.

 

I wonder how Bo Callahan’s career turned out

 

Randy Moss was a 9.67.

 

Tbh Chris Johnson is just a guy if he runs 4.34. That 4.24 is what made him awesome. you don’t envision him breaking off so many 90 yard runs if he’s a 4.3 guy. And I know from seeing thousands of 40 times what a good one versus a best-in-class versus a best-of-the-last-decade one is for each position. RAS doesn’t seem to differentiate.

 

even DUMBER this is NOT a flex holy SHIT

 

You're gonna lose your mind when you realize what the R stands for. It does differentiate. And even if it didn't, you cannot say "it doesn't seem to do this" and then also get on a high horse about how you know so much. If you don't know if it's flawed, maybe research instead of argue. You can literally DM the guy. He's very helpful.