PFF uses qualitative and opinion-based grading as the root of its 0-100 Player Grades -- not its advanced statistics. As such, the 0-100 Player Grades are not truly quantitative and could be seen as being prone to bias, poor sample sizing, or other issues.
Staton on Clowney
Re: Staton on Clowney
Re: Staton on Clowney
There's two on the aforementioned list that graded substantially higher than a 1st team All Pro.Michael K. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:27 amIt is still someone being told how and what to grade, watching every play. If an AP voter calls a coach to ask who they think the best QB is, is there a possibility of it being subjective? Of course, with anything there is. Grading every single player, being done by guys that don't care one way or the other? To me it seems less likely to be biased.
It is a nice check and balance, IMO. I don't think there are very many guys making Pro Bowls that didn't grade well with PFF.
Re: Staton on Clowney
All reminds me of my wannabe expert draft analysis every yearD-train wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:24 pmThere are 32 1st team all pro picks and 32 2nd all pro picks. These are guys with Jobs and families and lives. They are not going to reach out to dozens of coaches players and scouts to ask about close to 100 players. It would literally days of research. And these experts they are calling also have lives jobs and families. They don't have the time to do this either.
Even it went down like that they would just be getting second hand hearsay from guys and voting based on that.
They probably just go off first hand knowledge of few games a week they watch, supplement it by reading NFL content throughout the season then maybe if they can't decide between two guys they might reach out to a contact that if they know one that is close to one of the guys they are deciding on.
Re: Staton on Clowney
Classic case of guys that come out of nowhere to play well will take a couple years to get recognition. I bet if Dunbar isn't suspended or injured he will be in the Pro Bowl.ThePro wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:29 amThere's two on the aforementioned list that graded substantially higher than a 1st team All Pro.Michael K. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:27 amIt is still someone being told how and what to grade, watching every play. If an AP voter calls a coach to ask who they think the best QB is, is there a possibility of it being subjective? Of course, with anything there is. Grading every single player, being done by guys that don't care one way or the other? To me it seems less likely to be biased.
It is a nice check and balance, IMO. I don't think there are very many guys making Pro Bowls that didn't grade well with PFF.
dt
Re: Staton on Clowney
Are you quoting what one analytics team is saying about another competing analytics team? You might assume that there would be some bias there.ThePro wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:24 amSo data from 90% of their analysts is flawed. It's pointless to receive data from someone that has no idea what they are looking at.PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level that they can grade plays. Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of “senior analysts” in charge of finalizing each grade after review. Our graders have been training for months, and sometimes years, in order to learn, understand and show mastery of our process that includes our 300-page training manual and video playbook. We have analysts from all walks of life, including former players, coaches and scouts. We don’t care if you played.
Re: Staton on Clowney
That is from PFF and I will admit that is weirdly stated.Hanjag wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:38 amAre you quoting what one analytics team is saying about another competing analytics team? You might assume that there would be some bias there.ThePro wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:24 amSo data from 90% of their analysts is flawed. It's pointless to receive data from someone that has no idea what they are looking at.PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level that they can grade plays. Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of “senior analysts” in charge of finalizing each grade after review. Our graders have been training for months, and sometimes years, in order to learn, understand and show mastery of our process that includes our 300-page training manual and video playbook. We have analysts from all walks of life, including former players, coaches and scouts. We don’t care if you played.
dt
- Donn Beach
- Posts: 13261
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am
Re: Staton on Clowney
yeah, pointed that out before, basically they have a lot of guys sitting in stands jotting down their impressions, its not analytics. It bothers me when it gets referred to as an analytical site. And even PC has stated, he can not understand what happened with a play until he checks with the players, that is, who screwed up. Not saying don't use it, but put it in perspective. I hate when something like PFF comes along and takes on this God like status. Its where arguments go to be ended. PFF says such and such so that's it, end of debate
Re: Staton on Clowney
This ^^^^^Donn Beach wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:00 amyeah, pointed that out before, basically they have a lot of guys sitting in stands jotting down their impressions, its not analytics. It bothers me when it gets referred to as an analytical site. And even PC has stated, he can not understand what happened with a play until he checks with the players, that is, who screwed up.
PFF is excellent when it comes to statistics. What bothers me is when some act like it is the end all be all of player analysis. They give the misperception that there are hundreds of professional scouts scouring over game film. There are still a few knowledgeable analysts giving their biased evaluation of a players skill. I think there are forum posters that evaluate player skill than PFF . They miss the mark far too often.
Anyways that's my bitch. Take it or leave it.
Re: Staton on Clowney
You honestly think they grade guys watching games from the stands. So they grade every play of every player..........from the stands????Donn Beach wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:00 amyeah, pointed that out before, basically they have a lot of guys sitting in stands jotting down their impressions, its not analytics. It bothers me when it gets referred to as an analytical site. And even PC has stated, he can not understand what happened with a play until he checks with the players, that is, who screwed up. Not saying don't use it, but put it in perspective. I hate when something like PFF comes along and takes on this God like status. Its where arguments go to be ended. PFF says such and such so that's it, end of debate
Apparently you haven't heard of this invention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera
All of that was addressed in previous posts which you "Didn't Bother to Read" (you should have copy write on that phrase btw)And even PC has stated, he can not understand what happened with a play until he checks with the players, that is, who screwed up.
YOU DON’T KNOW THE PLAY CALL?
We are certainly not in the huddle, but we are grading what a player attempts to do on a given play. While football is extremely nuanced regarding the preparation and adjustments that go into each play call, once the ball is snapped, most players are clear in what they’re trying to accomplish on each play, and we evaluate accordingly. Of course, there are always some gray areas in football. Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong. These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations.
Biggest STRAWMAN in the history of the Forum.takes on this God like status. Its where arguments go to be ended. PFF says such and such so that's it, end of debate
I said it is better than relying on Sport Writers who don't know more than the typical fan about players on 19 teams that the teams they cover DON'T EVEN PLAY each season. But I guess that is God like status.
dt
- Donn Beach
- Posts: 13261
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am
Re: Staton on Clowney
sports writers do not enter the debate in the first place, I am talking about whenever an issue about a football player comes up, somebody pulls PFF out of their ass and that is supposed to end it. What i comment on doesn't always have to follow what you comment on. I am not talking about who is more biased, I am saying i get tired of PFF being the last frigging word in anything football these days...And that they have attempted to respond to that criticism does not make it a strawman, just because they say they are few and far between does not in fact make them few and far between. And that to me is PFF in a nutshell. An actual analytical site would give an number of how many plays that constitutes, they would anaylize it. What does PFF give us, a phrase, "few and far between", what the heck does that mean in the first place?