Sataoa Laumea

[DTiempo81]

I've already answered this point:



This clearly suggests that their system is set to only allow the top 10% to even give out grades and then only the top 2-3% are in charge of reviewing their work before it's published. Not sure how I can make it any clearer than that.

If you think this answers "the point" you didn't know what the point was to begin with, unfortunately. You also didn't even attempt to answer my question.

So, 60 people are giving out grades on every single snap from every single player. And 18 (at most) people are signing off on those grades, from every single snap from every single player. Just think about that. If you can't see the flaw in the system, you are their target audience for a subscription.

All good. Go Hawks.

 

[SeaWolv]

So, 60 people are giving out grades on every single snap from every single player. And 18 (at most) people are signing off on those grades, from every single snap from every single player. Just think about that. If you can't see the flaw in the system, you are their target audience for a subscription.

Thanks for finally getting to your point, which ironically is pointless.

 

[toffee]

What you're going to have to keep in mind as you debate the value of PFF grades is that the people on the other side of the debate have shelled out money for the PFF grades, so they're going to be pretty resistant to arguments that PFF grades are utter nonsense, no matter how much evidence you have to support such an argument.

When you consider how PFF grades are collected, it would be surprising if they contained anything other than utter nonsense. People spend the time to type out listings of PFF grade rankings, and it would be quicker and just as informative to write a program to choose players from NFL rosters in random order and call that a ranking. That is, I would expect the history of the output of a random number generator to contain as much useful information (and almost as good a signal-to-noise ratio) as PFF grades.

Based on you assumption, I may be an unicorn. I have full access to their data but do not have to pay. I did talk to them a few years ago on their process. At the time, three guys watch a game together back and forth to come up with all the data (see below), then the package was forwarded to a senior for approval or amendments. That was quite a few pairs of eyeballs.

This is "all the data", other than grading they also provide lots of raw data, ie Charbonnet' zone running vs gap was 5:16. Or snap counts, etc. A lot of data, I am not surprised that coaches and GMs use them.

 

[DTiempo81]

Thanks for finally getting to your point, which ironically is pointless.

Woof. First off, no need to get snippy. Second, that wasn't my point (you clearly missed that a few posts ago, and couldn't keep up). It was an observation about how silly PFF is. If you think 18 people are the arbiter of truth regarding quality of play in the NFL, there isn't much else to discuss. You can keep posting numbers and grades and etc etc, but you are really just regurgitating a small group of people's OPINIONS who don't even have the balls to show their work.

 

[DTiempo81]

Other than grading they also provide lots of raw data, ie Charbonnet' zone running vs gap was 5:16. Or snap counts, etc. A lot of data, I am not surprised that coaches and GMs use them.

Ha, if this is true, it makes WAY more sense of why the NFL would use their service. They aren't paying for the grades. They are using it as a basic scouting service, probably cheaper than doing it in house.

 

[SeaWolv]

PFF=horseshit (sometimes)

This video really proves nothing either way because they don't show all 63 snaps. Laumea had a typical first game for a rookie. He did some good things and he made some mistakes. He blocked well for most of the game but he also missed a couple of run blocks, allowed a couple of hurries in pass pro and had 2 penalties. This video doesn't include all of that, they show 1 bad run block and 1 QB hurry and doesn't even mention the penalties.

I'm not saying PFF is 100% accurate but for those of us who don't want to watch the All-22 footage, it gives us a ballpark of how the player did. Was he better than his last PFF grade of 29.3, yeah probably, how much is up for debate.

The AZ game was significantly better:

 

[DTiempo81]

I'm not saying PFF is 100% accurate but for those of us who don't want to watch the All-22 footage, it gives us a ballpark of how the player did. Was he better than his last PFF grade of 29.3, yeah probably, how much is up for debate.

This completely debases your original statement/opinion. Nice work.

The AZ game was significantly better:

View attachment 68507

Numbers go up.

 

[SeaWolv]

This completely debases your original statement/opinion. Nice work.

Never said PFF was 100% accurate. I have said multiple times it's directionally correct or in the ballpark. I stand by that statement.

 

[DTiempo81]

Never said PFF was 100% accurate. I have said multiple times it's directionally correct or in the ballpark. I stand by that statement.

You have stated you think PFF grade is as close to accurate as any ratings can be. That is not "ballpark" that is not "directionally correct". You are saying they are the most accurate ratings around, but then also saying out of the other side of your mouth you realize their grading is (probably) incorrect and but don't know why/how or by how much. Back to the opaque statement, you have people out here blindly following PFF grades while having absolutely no clue how they came to a particular score, or how accurate it even is to begin with.

 

[SeaWolv]

You have stated you think PFF grade is as close to accurate as any ratings can be. That is not "ballpark" that is not "directionally correct". You are saying they are the most accurate ratings around, but then also saying out of the other side of your mouth you realize their grading is (probably) incorrect and but don't know why/how or by how much. Back to the opaque statement, you have people out here blindly following PFF grades while having absolutely no clue how they came to a particular score, or how accurate it even is to begin with.

Nope, never said that. Find me the post. PFF is the only rating agency around. Who else does what they do? Ratings come down to subjectivity of the observer, as all things in life, and will always differ slightly or even greatly from one expert to another. Which is why sports talk is so popular.

Variance and opacity are not the same thing.

 

[DTiempo81]

Nope, never said that. Find me the post.

Yes, I think they're close... As close as any rating agency can be.

Was he better than his last PFF grade of 29.3, yeah probably, how much is up for debate.

 

[DTiempo81]

Who else does what they do?

Evaluate players? A ton of options for that.

Ratings come down to subjectivity of the observer, as all things in life, and will always differ slightly or even greatly from one expert to another. Which is why sports talk is so popular.

Variance and opacity are not the same thing.

If you don't understand why/how there is variance, yes it is.

 

[SeaWolv]

SeaWolv said:
Yes, I think they're close... As close as any rating agency can be.

This is your gotcha post?? One filled with qualifiers? Close does not equal accurate it means close like as in a ballpark. There are no other rating agencies out there. Show me one. Lots of people out there with opinions but that's not the same thing. How often do we see "experts" argue about player performance on ESPN or Fox sports shows?

 

[sutz]

geez guys, get a room.

 

[onanygivensunday]

Back on subject, I just finished re-watching the entire game with a focus of Laumea and here are my non-professional observations.

1. Overall, he played a solid game with very limited situations where he was beat.
2. He moves well in space and does an excellent job in squaring up his target(s).
3. When he is beat, he's typically beat with quickness... not power.
4. He needs to improve in situational awareness when a DT is stunting. Specifically, he needs to be aware to disengage from his double-team and pick up the stunter.
5. In pass pro, there were many plays where he stonewalled his man, keeping him well out of the play.

 

[Appyhawk]

Coach Mac sure seems to have an accurate eye for knowing the right moves to make. Just wish his eye was a little quicker on the draw. LOL

 

[DTiempo81]

This is your gotcha post?? One filled with qualifiers? Close does not equal accurate it means close like as in a ballpark.

It wasn't meant to be a gotcha post. Your response was to my question, do you think they are ACCURATE. That was your reply. Not my fault you you can't pick a lane.

There are no other rating agencies out there. Show me one. Lots of people out there with opinions but that's not the same thing. How often do we see "experts" argue about player performance on ESPN or Fox sports shows?

Yes, no one else gives out number grades for each player on each game -- because it is useless endeavor. There are many people, professionals, and former players, that analyze game film to evaluate players performance play by play. You literally can throw a stone and hit one in the Internet.

With your last sentence you are finally getting around to the truth of the matter. Of course the experts are arguing about subjective player performance, that's about all you CAN do without knowing more about their assignments/play calls/etc. Putting a number to any of it is just completely asinine.

Anyway, apparently our discussion is upsetting other people. I appreciate your responses, and really have no ill will towards you or your opinion of PFF. Cheers.

 

[Sun Tzu]

This is your gotcha post?? One filled with qualifiers? Close does not equal accurate it means close like as in a ballpark. There are no other rating agencies out there. Show me one. Lots of people out there with opinions but that's not the same thing. How often do we see "experts" argue about player performance on ESPN or Fox sports shows?

Hey Sea,

As you argue with the uneducated mob in here, I am reminded of a quote I once read, "Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Now is probably a good time to walk away from this and let the mob go on thinking that their "eye test" is superior to an unbiased professional's vetted evaluation.

 

[AROS]

Can't beat the eye tests, you know why? Those eyes watched with love, with affections, with emotions. Double or quadruple after a few beers or cocktails

Name an analytics that has those attributes? I bet you can't

Aros Analytics

 

[DTiempo81]

Hey Sea,

As you argue with the uneducated mob in here, I am reminded of a quote I once read, "Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Now is probably a good time to walk away from this and let the mob go on thinking that their "eye test" is superior to an unbiased professional's vetted evaluation.

At no point did anyone say anything of the sort.