Cam vs Tim

[mav1234]

i'm going to PM you my response to that

i can't write tender sentiments in public view

good, I don't want you to chase away my other admirers

[Showtime]

did you just finally admit that ypp is a team stat?

edit: Ahh, "net" YPP. weird, because a "net" ypp is not correlated well at all with winning unless you are defining it in a way that is not "ypp minus defensive ypp" or something.

I think you are listening too much to a guy who attempted to re-invent the wheel without being aware until 2 years after he did it, that it was actually already done, and was a better measurement to begin with. So he then made an argument to back up his third party stats and to this day is still trying to figure out how to make them work as accurately and they can't possibly work as accurately because the logic behind them is inherently faulted.

Something that predicts isn't more accurate in summarizing a team, than a stat that's designed to SUMMARIZE.

Yard per point efficiency is final. It's non debatable. It's what happened and it can no longer change. It's history up to the present. Expectancy is something that's used to predict. Like DVOA, for example. It tries to relate history to the future.

But if you were referring to football outsiders:

Correlation withwins, 2000-2003

Offense Defense Net

VOA .622 -.616 .858

Yards per point -.632 .615 .771

Yards .512 -.498 .679

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2004/dvoa-vs-yards-point

Net ypp is in fact more accurate than offensive efficiency or defensive efficiency from their own article and their own data.

Notice they also admit VOA is not as accurate as yards per point, also according to their own data. The difference is even more in favor of the offense today than it was in 2002-2003, which is when that data was extracted.

They also tell you offense efficiency matters more when it comes to winning. Not defense.

[mav1234]

did you read that post? at the bottom, it says:

While yards per point is a useful statistic, and sometimes a better measure of efficiency than total yards, it is not the mythical "one number that tells you all you need to know." It is not as accurate as our ratings at Football Outsiders. But it is more accurate than the NFL's standard rankings of team offense and team defense by raw yardage.

Yards per point often gives a team's offense credit for the quality of the defense, because the defense delivers short field position that leads to more points on less offensive yardage gained.

I am not sure if you are aware, but a correlation coefficient being different by 0.01 would suggest they are not very different at all... I also do not know why you highlight .771, which is lower than .858... You're actually wrong that net YPP is more accurate than the other measures, it's only more accurate than raw yards, which of course it is... it includes points!

[Showtime]

did you read that post? at the bottom, it says:

What about it? He's making a claim DVOA is more accurate for predicting, not debating the usefulness or accuracy of yards per point.

He's saying DVOA is better because he invented the poo. Like ESPN says total quarterback rating is better than passer rating, because they invented it.

To me this says a lot about his credibility;

I honestly had not thought much about yards per point since I started analyzing football statistics a year and a half ago. I had run into the term maybe once or twice. I never took any time to look into it. And then, a couple weeks ago, it suddenly showed up twice in the same week.

So first he invented DVOA, and THEN he found out about yards per point. Some analyst. You ever watch Dumb and Dumber when he looks at that picture in the bar and goes screaming "We landed on the moon? Hey..we landed on the moon"!

This reminds me of that.

[Dilated_chakra]

Showtime ....... Never post again.....thanks in advance.

[teeray]

The score was 21-7 and I had Dallas -10. It was an okay chunk of change. Dallas won. Spare me on the bullpoo about betting against "our" team. Cash rules everything.

My favorite win was 3k on Carolina ML against Minny in 2009.

I've tried to talk Sports and Poker with you but you are scared to death to share any personal information for some reason, even a poker SN.

I don't have a problem betting against your team. I had ATL -3 this past weekend.

Yet I still broke three different things in my house in the second half :lol:

[Dilated_chakra]

Squidbillies Tom treebow ......anybody else see that episode? Lol

[Showtime]

did you read that post? at the bottom, it says:

I am not sure if you are aware, but a correlation coefficient being different by 0.01 would suggest they are not very different at all... I also do not know why you highlight .771, which is lower than .858... You're actually wrong that net YPP is more accurate than the other measures, it's only more accurate than raw yards, which of course it is... it includes points!

I realize there's not a huge difference and all that is, is actually a percentage(62% vs 63%). I'm simply pointing out offensive yards per point is STILL better. Even if it is by a small margin. It's better than even offensive VOA. Like I said it's a tried and true method. Tested since before you were born.

And the rest of it is because you keep changing what you're arguing. You said net yards per point isn't an accurate measurement. It is when compared to offensive efficiency or PPG differential which are already accurate. It's even more accurate.

You should have also paid attention to this:

The point here is not that yards per point is not a useful statistic. It is a better measure of a team's ability than raw yardage.

Which should put an end to any argument that starts with "but our offense is ranked 5th in yards". It doesn't fuging matter if you don't have the scoring efficiency to go along with it. That's a less meaningful stat.

[redbuddha]

Would u trade Cam for The Golden Calf of Bristol if it ment winning in the broncos fashion?

No because Cam could do the same thing with more effectiveness if we ran that type of system.:cam:

[Dilated_chakra]

Showtime....you lost bro Mav smoked you. You are basically saying that moving the ball doesn't matter. Tell the truth you still live with your mother and she cuts the crust off of your sandwiches

[mav1234]

most people who say our offense is decent point to the fact that we are top ten in a whole variety of offensive categories, especially those that are much more "power" offensive measures than YPP.

This year, net ypp is NOT an accurate predictor of number of wins this year. It may have been in the past, it is NOT this year. plain old YPP is still an OK predictor, but both ppg and point differential especially are better this year (and point differential is probably better most years).

Tell me, what is the Panthers' net YPP This year? What about the Packers?

[Showtime]

Showtime....you lost bro Mav smoked you. You are basically saying that moving the ball doesn't matter. Tell the truth you still live with your mother and she cuts the crust off of your sandwiches

What the heck did I lose in?

I proved to him he was wrong that YPP is in fact more accurate for the season than PPG. Backed it up with facts.

I proved that net ypp is even better than offensive efficiency.

I love idiots that can't keep up that take sides based on bias and pass judgment.

[mav1234]

You randomly generated wins and losses for the week to try to prove that YPP was better than PPG, which doesn't even address the season long issues and did nothing to help your point.

You then linked the Panthers to show how YPP was better than PPG for us, to which I reminded you of our point differential (which, unsurprisingly, matched up with our overall w/l standing), along with a couple other teams where the YPP is not nearly as accurate a predictor of how they are doing as other measures.

You quoted an article from 2004 that didn't even address PPG and managed to misquote the article and highlight data that actually suggested you were wrong...

You have done a good job of making yourself look a bit silly, but that's it.

[Dilated_chakra]

Panthers are 11th with an avg of 24 ppg the number 5 spot is 25 ppg newton has single handedly doubled last years avg of 12ppg he is not struggling or playing like a rookie. He happens to be a rookie with the potential to play much better.