https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/nfl-receiver-rankings/

Analytics based non-standard stats are highly frowned upon by "living in the past" fans around these parts. All that matters (to them) are basic stat totals. That's all they have access to when their newspaper arrives in the morning. 

14 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Analytics based non-standard stats are highly frowned upon by "living in the past" fans around these parts. All that matters (to them) are basic stat totals. That's all they have access to when their newspaper arrives in the morning. 

I love analytics but I'm skeptical of ESPN.

And, reading through this list, there's a few that jump out that seem wrong. Having Kittle ahead of Kelce for starters. 

Reading how they came up with these stats, the guy even notes that "Open Score accounts for half the overall score; catch score is just over 25%, and YAC is the rest". 

Open Score, in how they describe it, is very subjective. AND, I should note, that some of the best receivers aren't necessarily "open". 

Some other oddities, Davante Adams being so low (and only one point higher than Richie James???); Amon Ra St Brown is very low; and Waddle is very low. 

AJ was certainly in the upper echelon of WRs this year, and so was Devonta. 

AJ isn't #1.  Top 5 sure.

I'd put Davante Adams, Jamar Chase, Jefferson and maybe Tyreek Hill above him.

Is this the same analytic that gave Dallas a 50% chance to win the SB and us 34% at the end of the season?

Cool to see AJ at #1 but Jamarr Chase at #14, a full 9 spots below Diontae Johnson, is ridiculous.

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Cool to see AJ at #1 but Jamarr Chase at #14, a full 9 spots below Diontae Johnson, is ridiculous.

Richie James ahead of waddle and the sun god renders the entire thing meaningless

Bengals have 3 in the top 20

 

3 hours ago, brkmsn said:

Analytics based non-standard stats are highly frowned upon by "living in the past" fans around these parts. All that matters (to them) are basic stat totals. That's all they have access to when their newspaper arrives in the morning. 

Analytics based on I watch a guy, make my opinion, and charge you over 300 dollars for it is the hot garbage you’re referring to. 😂

5 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

Analytics based on I watch a guy, make my opinion, and charge you over 300 dollars for it is the hot garbage you’re referring to. 😂

I clicked on the link and wasn't charged. 

10 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

I clicked on the link and wasn't charged. 

Yeah, me to.  Apparently @EazyEaglez is talking out his @ss again.

9 hours ago, brkmsn said:

I clicked on the link and wasn't charged. 

Yeah was this the one from ESPN? Their analytics people also said this. 😂

6 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

Yeah was this the one from ESPN? Their analytics people also said this. 😂

I'm sure that was based on remaining schedule and the projected seedings and playoff matchups. Analytics aren't necessarily the best method of predicting the future, but when used as such and then compared to what eventually played out, you can measure what teams performed above expectations and what teams didn't. That might explain why dallas and the vikings are firing some coaches and why the Eagles have some that are being sought after by other teams. 

IMO, the best use of analytics, for fans, is to help understand what led to certain stats. A QB with bad receivers can still make good throws and end up with a bad stat. Analytics try to still credit the QB for the good throw and likewise the receiver for the bad play.

If you went 100% on stats, Derrick Henry would be a Pro Bowl QB. There has to be a way to analyze the stat line before you can draw conclusions from it. Analytics (used for today's NFL and other sports) aren't perfect, but they have been improving all the time and are studied by coaching staffs and have become a big part of the preparation for each team as well as the league in many ways (ie, to make the game safer). 

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

I'm sure that was based on remaining schedule and the projected seedings and playoff matchups. Analytics aren't necessarily the best method of predicting the future, but when used as such and then compared to what eventually played out, you can measure what teams performed above expectations and what teams didn't. That might explain why dallas and the vikings are firing some coaches and why the Eagles have some that are being sought after by other teams. 

IMO, the best use of analytics, for fans, is to help understand what led to certain stats. A QB with bad receivers can still make good throws and end up with a bad stat. Analytics try to still credit the QB for the good throw and likewise the receiver for the bad play.

If you went 100% on stats, Derrick Henry would be a Pro Bowl QB. There has to be a way to analyze the stat line before you can draw conclusions from it. Analytics (used for today's NFL and other sports) aren't perfect, but they have been improving all the time and are studied by coaching staffs and have become a big part of the preparation for each team as well as the league in many ways (ie, to make the game safer). 

You can’t dismiss stats for analytics or the eye test as well. Many analytics are based on created stats themselves. Numbers put into a computer to create a statistical analysis. All I’m saying they’re not the end all be all like people try to make it out to be. A lot of what Chip Kelly did was based on statistical analysis and ultimately it blew up in his face. 

56 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

You can’t dismiss stats for analytics or the eye test as well. Many analytics are based on created stats themselves. Numbers put into a computer to create a statistical analysis. All I’m saying they’re not the end all be all like people try to make it out to be. A lot of what Chip Kelly did was based on statistical analysis and ultimately it blew up in his face. 

Doug Pederson was all about analytics and he won it all. 

 

Nobody said anything was the "end all, be all." You just get butthurt when someone like PFF "grades" a player higher than another player because the grade doesn't match the stats. Grading an individual performance and ranking an outcome are two completely different things.