Scathing article

Collin, please understand, I'm not arguing in the least about this. I was just asking so I might understand better. I have no opinion one way or the other on this subject, really that I feel comfortable with, and I might be agreesome with you.

Also the more relevant point, to me, would be how does this relate to wins and losses? Somehow, I'm not sure whether we win more or lose more depending on Jake's QB rating- which I believe is a bs stat anyway. At least between the numbers of 70 to 110.

I believe one can do 'well' in a game, having a winning effort even, resulting in a low QB rating all the same.

 

There is no opinion to have, which is the problem. It's a fact, not something that people can argue about. The only reasons to disagree with the fact are either ignorance that prevents a person from understanding it or objection due to the speaker (people disagreeing just because I was the one who pointed it out).

 

And you based your interpretation of better performance on a flawed number, choosing to totally ignore other contributing factors.

Gee ,have you forgotten this already?

Apparently, you are having trouble stopping now that you have started.

But enough of these childish word games and moronic insults. Let's look at a touch of reality.

Early in this thread, you locked onto a relationship between sacks and QB rating. (Post #17). You immediately discounted several explanations based on the fact that they did not apply across your entire sample spectrum (greater than or equal to 3 sacks). In other words not ALL referenced games had a high number of attempts, inadequate run game etc. so you chose to ignore those as factors along with any additional factors. Maybe Reyes had a late night out, or Jake got sacked more in those particular stadiums where he or the WRs were looking directly into the sun. Weather could play a role. Hell, Mitchell could have ate a pot of Pintos the night before causing Jake to drop further and faster. THESE FACTORS MAY NOT APPLY TO ALL OF YOUR REFFERENCED GAMES. Weather may have created the sack/rating relationship in 1 or 2. More pass attempts in a couple more. Mitchell and his pintos in 1. etc. You chose to ignore everything but the sacks and QB rating which indicates that you already were focused on a relationship between the 2. Even your own calculation fails to consider any other possibility.

So how do you determine if there is a true correlation between sacks and QB rating with so many other variables? Simply ignoring all the variables is not the answer and is down right stupid just like ignoring variables when evaluating a QBs performance. The only way is to plot the sacks versus the QB rating. If a true corellation exists, it will appear as a gaussian shape This plot will require far more data points than exist, as i already stated.

You can continue to state that the correlationship between sacks and QB rating is FACT but that is a LIE. It is only your OPINION and it's WRONG.

 

What other contributing factors did I ignore? We discussed whether or not QB rating was an adequate measure, and we discussed whether or not an increased number of passing attempts explained away the correlation. Nothing changed the fact that Jake does do better in games where he is sacked 3 times or more, for whatever reason that happens.

Yeah, I said I'd do my best to stop arguing this dead horse and then didn't. That obviously makes me a compulsive liar who can't ever be trusted. I'm also obviously the only person who has ever said they'd try to stay out of a thread and then came back to post. Woe is me, I have no more credibility.

I didn't ignore any part of them. In fact, I specifically acknowledged that a poor running game and/or bad defense could have been a factor in some, but I pointed out that those weren't factors in Jake's best 3+ sack games and therefore they couldn't explain away the correlation.

Dude, will you please take a statistics course so that I don't have to explain everything to you? Variables can help explain why a correlation exists. Whether or not Jake just plays better when hit or if sacks and an improved QB rating are a by-product of Jake being more patient or if we call more effective passes when Jake is getting sacked; none of those variables change the fact that there is a correlation between the number of times Jake is sacked and his QB rating in that game. They only help explain WHY the correlation exists.

Seriously dude, everyone can see that you've lost this one. You don't have the intellectual authority because you got your ass handed to you in the statistical analysis, and you don't have the moral authority because you've been every bit as insulting as I have. You have absolutely nothing at this point but righteous indignation, and while I can sympathize with that feeling, I'm just too god damned tired to get angry with you at this point. You think I'm lying or wrong or crazy or whatever. Fine. I don't care if you are incapable of understanding the statistics or too angry to admit the truth. None of that is actually important to me, and the only thing that is important is whether or not what I stated is true. As proven by the statistics, it is.


Now if we had spent maybe 10% of the time discussing why this correlation exists as opposed to some people stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the facts because they hate me, perhaps other people could have gotten something out of this thread. As it stands, it's pretty useless.

 

I think we're missing a category here.

Fact: Jack Delhomme is the Carolina Panthers' starting quarterback.

Opinion: Jack Delhomme is a screwball, and the Panthers will be better off when they find a more consistent QB.

The missing category?

Generalization: Jake Delhomme performs better when he is sacked more frequently.

This appears to be a valid generalization from the statistical snapshot Collin presented. But is it a meaningful counter to magnus's claim that Jake performs better when he receives consistent protection? Not necessarily:

Take another look at the three strongest data points in Collin's snapshot:

11/28/2004 TB - 111.8 rating, 213 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT (21 attempts, 4 sacks)
12/05/2004 @NO - 119.0 rating, 294 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs (29 attempts, 4 sacks)
12/18/2004 @ATL - 106.8 rating, 340 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT (35 attempts, 4 sacks)

If you break these games down by quarters (using the play-by-play game logs at ESPN.com), you get:

11/28/2004 TB - overall 111.8 rating
Q1: 0 sacks, 4/6, 63 yds., 1 TD, 0 INT = Rating 140.9
Q2: 2 sacks, 2/3, 55 yds., 0 TD, 1 INT = Rating 41.66
Q3: 1 sack, 3/5, 20 yds., 0 TD, 0 INT = Rating 68.75
Q4: 1 sack, 5/7, 74 yds., 1 TD, 0 INT = Rating 145.2

12/05/2004 @NO - 119.0 rating
Q1: 0 sacks, 7/10, 85 yds., 1 TD, 0 INT = Rating 129.1
Q2: 1 sack, 8/11, 144 yds., 0 TD, 0 INT = Rating 114.7
Q3: 3 sacks, 4/4, 48 yds., 0 TD, 0 INT = Rating 116.6
Q4: 0 sacks, 3/4, 17 yds., 0 TD, 0 INT = Rating 82.29

12/18/2004 @ATL - overall 106.8 rating
Q1: 2 sacks (2 fumbles, 1 lost), 2/2, 14 yds., 0 TD, 0 INT = Rating 95.83
Q2: 0 sacks, 12/16, 126 yds., 1 TD, 0 INT = Rating 118.2
Q3: 2 sacks (1 fumble, 1 lost), 1/4, 27 yds., 0 TD, 0 INT = Rating 55.2
Q4: 0 sacks (1 fumble, 0 lost), 9/11, 173 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT = Rating 149.0
OT: 0 sacks, 0/2, 0 yds., 0 TD, 1 INT = Rating 0.0

5 Quarters (plus the one OT) with no sacks: 35/49, 464 yds., 4 TD, 1 INT = Rating 119.7 (with 1 fumble not lost)
7 Quarters with sacks: 24/36, 382 yds., 1 TD, 1 INT = Rating 99.53 (with 3 fumbles, 2 lost)

So, within these three games which most strongly suggested that Jake "performs better when sacked more" (if looked at game-wise) the stats actually show that Jake generally compiled better ratings, quarter-wise, when he was not sacked.

This, of course, proves nothing, it merely raises a question about Collin's generalization in the same way his statistical snapshot questioned magnus's.

 

Now that is fucking brilliant. Thanks for actually posting something worth reading.

But also note that Jake's performance in those quarters where he wasn't sacked were still well above his career average. I'll also take a look at the play by play logs of the other games to see if there is any additional information that might shed light on the issue. Moreover, note that the argument isn't that Jake's next throw or the rest of the throws that quarter are better as a result of being sacked. The argument is simply that there is a factual correlation between Jake being sacked frequently in games and having a higher QB rating. That distinction is relevant because it would fit with my expressed opinion that the additional sacks and higher QB rating may both be caused by the same thing - namely Jake being more patient and deliberate in the pocket.

 

Nope those are lies. :imagestor

 

Great Job Fan, Attic! Though I do really think you should look at this year’s Miami and 2003’s Tennessee games (which fit his 95+ and 3+ sacks). I agree that Tennessee wasn’t all about Delhomme but having (read the archives) Collin specifically drilled him for his performance in the Miami game. Kind of hard to understand him using the stats from that game now to support his contention that Delhomme plays better when hit.

Also, in the spirit of learning more and following your example, I’ve found some more FACTS taking data from the last two years. Delhomme CLEARLY plays better in the following circumstances:

2005 PASSING CAT Rate Sac TD Int
OPP 19-1 YARD LINE 110.8 5 10 0
OCTOBER GAMES 108.8 5 9 4
4TH QUARTER 107.4 9 5 1
MARGIN 15+ 107.2 2 5 2
4TH QUARTER W/IN 7 103.8 6 3 1
ATTS 1-THROUGH-10 101.9 0 7 5
ATTS 21-THROUGH-30 100.6 0 4 0
BEHIND BY 1-TO-8 PTS 100.3 10 2 0
2ND QUARTER 97.4 9 6 4
BEHIND 95.8 14 7 3
1ST HALF 95.5 9 10 7
WINS 94.8 8 12 7

2004 PASSING CAT Rate Sac TD Int
1ST QUARTER 113.3 4 5 0
INDOOR GAMES 112.4 8 3 1
DECEMBER GAMES 112 11 8 2
2ND DOWN 104.5 10 11 1
WINS 104.2 13 16 5
NOVEMBER GAMES 101.2 7 10 2
OPP 19-1 YARD LINE 99.7 2 22 0
ATTS 1-THRU-10 96.6 0 8 4
ROAD GAMES 96.4 14 17 8
MARGIN 0-7 95.1 17 12 3

 

He played pretty well in that game except for one idiotic mistake that cost us the game. Your other numbers are interesting, but I wish NFL.com would have the situational stats by career instead of just by season. Yahoo! has them, and there are a couple of interesting things to note:

The 3rd quarter is Jake's worst, with a 76.8 QB rating, while the 4th quarter is his best (92.0)

We throw the ball a lot less in the first and third quarters (247, 317) than in the second and fourth quarters (406, 392).

Jake's QB rating when behind (88.8) is a lot better than when ahead (77.0) or tied (79.5).

28 of his 48 interceptions have come when throwing to the right side of the field (8 over the middle and 10 to the left). I would have expected him to have more INTs to his blind side.

Jake struggles on third down (75.5 rating), while he rarely throws interceptions on second down (9 in 448 attempts).

Delhomme has played a lot better in December (99.1 rating) than in any other month.

The team he has struggled most with is ... Carolina :supergrin (39.0 rating on 50 attempts).

 

Think so? Well, thanks. With the small number of games involved, it seemed like the natural thing to look at each one more closely.

Yes, that's so, which suggests a couple of things to me. First, as you mentioned, these two things (more sacks, higher rating) may show up together because they're both related to another factor or factors. Second, the value of the existing QB rating system may be inadequate for defining "better performance" in the context of this discussion. For example, Jake's first quarter vs. Atlanta (2 sacks, 2 fumbles, 1 lost, 2/2, 14 yds., 0 TD, 0 INT) yields him a rating of 95.83, though I doubt anyone would call it one of his better quarters.

Yes, the correlation's just a nugget at this point. An interesting nugget, but just one of many that could be mined from the data.

Said patience and deliberation perhaps being the fruit of various factors working in different combinations at different times. (Note that all three of the games cited are division games, for instance. Greater focus, maybe?).