SeaToTheHawks":w343nj8e said:
Add another one to the board that doesn't get it.
Oh, I get it. I just think your long snapper impact factor calculations are way off, especially when considering a team who's entire philosophy is control the ball, control the field position, and keep the games close. Is there another team who even approaches the number of one-score games that we have been involved with since Carroll took over?
Looking at FGs and PATs, I would say the long snapper and holder are roughly responsible for 25% each and the kicker 50%. In 2016 there were 29 successful field goals and 45 successful PATs in the regular season for a total of 132 points. Lets say Gresham was responsible for 25% or 33 points. This doesn't approach the 84 points scored by Baldwin in his record season, but it does compare favorably to Lockett with 36 points, Kearse with 30, Rawls with 24 and far surpasses any other player save Wilson. Admittedly, these calculations are a bit foolish, but then again so is the use of VoRP in a sport where entire careers are likely to have fewer games than one season in baseball, and for a position where the average effectiveness approaches 100%.
Of course we aren't comparing Gresham to an average replacement player like we normally would when calculating the VoRP. We are comparing him to a known entity who is performing well below the expectation for an average replacement player. We also aren't talking about the other part of value which is cost.
As a percentage of the salary cap, the difference in cost between Gresham and Frese for 2016 is 0.00129%. I just don't see a VoRP too small to make it worth going with the marginally cheaper player over the known commodity. If we were talking about a defensive end where the difference might be 5% of the salary cap, then it might be reasonable to consider the VoRP.
