kc joyner "the football scientist" (1 Viewer)

[srnohav]

I purchased his fantasy draft guide as well as his scientific football 2006. It is around 150 pages of information. I was wondering if any of you had any negative comments on it that used it last year. I love the breakdown on WR's against individual CB's. I think that combining this with FBG could be a very strong combination. I just wanted to see if any of you thought otherwise. thanks

 

[sholditch]

Well, last year I remember him saying that Fitz was one of the best WRs in the nfl (true) and that Plummer is actually one of the more accurate QBs in the league (also turned out to be true). He does tons of analysis and watches film which I like. Too many people get overly concerned with stats and he doesn't seem to do that. How did you like the book?

 

[Keys Myaths]

He's breaking down individual WRs against individual CBs?

Yes, I see a huge problem with that.

Small sample size. Those are most likely meaningless, statistically speaking.

 

[srnohav]

Well, last year I remember him saying that Fitz was one of the best WRs in the nfl (true) and that Plummer is actually one of the more accurate QBs in the league (also turned out to be true). He does tons of analysis and watches film which I like. Too many people get overly concerned with stats and he doesn't seem to do that. How did you like the book?

it comes in an email actually, I just received it yesterday, but I like it. he breaks down the defenses that each player will go against even more than the SOS article that we have on FBG. he actually rates out each corner back and than relates that to the WR that will be going against them. EX: a team could have a really good Secondary overall but have a OK Left cornerback that covers the Flanker. Therefore it increases the chance that the flanker could have a good game even thoe the defense is ranked high.

 

[ImTheScientist]

1) He stole my name

2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

 

[Keys Myaths]

2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

:honda:

 

[losgalacticos]

1) He stole my name2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

Could you elaborate a bit please?

 

[BGP]

Well the big flaw with FBG is that it is far too focused on statisics. Its very difficult to find people here that clearly focus on watching game tape. I pretty come here for a cheatsheet and that's it - I can find far more interesting NFL discussion elsewhere.

In the past I've reposted here very deep and lengthly analysis made by others in other forums as sort of a test. I wanted to see how many people were interested in and could discuss the NFL on that level. I found no interest.

And that's fine, but it just means this site is more of a kiddy pool than shark pool.

 

[JayMan]

1) He stole my name2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

Could you elaborate a bit please?

In order for a study to be "statistically significant" you need to a have looked at a representative numbers of "events" to be able to conclude that you could extrapolate the outcomes of those "events"... (by using a Normal or Student variable - mathematical terms)...For example, when CNN does a survey saying that George W. Bush would collect 43% of the votes... they had to survey a significant number of people - and assuming that their responses are normally distributed - they can extrapolate and say that the 43% of the US population would vote for Bush - 19 times out of 20...That's the same here... if Randy Moss caught a TD pass the 2 times that he lined up against Chris McAllister... doesn't make it "significant" enough that for the next time they'll line up against one another... it'll be a TD for the Raiders...

 

[BGP]

1) He stole my name2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

Could you elaborate a bit please?

In order for a study to be "statistically significant" you need to a have looked at a representative numbers of "events" to be able to conclude that you could extrapolate the outcomes of those "events"... (by using a Normal or Student variable - mathematical terms)...For example, when CNN does a survey saying that George W. Bush would collect 43% of the votes... they had to survey a significant number of people - and assuming that their responses are normally distributed - they can extrapolate and say that the 43% of the US population would vote for Bush - 19 times out of 20...That's the same here... if Randy Moss caught a TD pass the 2 times that he lined up against Chris McAllister... doesn't make it "significant" enough that for the next time they'll line up against one another... it'll be a TD for the Raiders...

The nature of the NFL doesn't allow for that. All the sample sizes are typically "too small". But, you can still lean on the wisdom of your elders for guidance. Perhaps this person has an eye for something that you don't.

 

[Hammerage]

He also said that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat reciever in the NFL with TO and Moss

 

[doughboydeluxe]

1) He stole my name2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

Could you elaborate a bit please?

In order for a study to be "statistically significant" you need to a have looked at a representative numbers of "events" to be able to conclude that you could extrapolate the outcomes of those "events"... (by using a Normal or Student variable - mathematical terms)...For example, when CNN does a survey saying that George W. Bush would collect 43% of the votes... they had to survey a significant number of people - and assuming that their responses are normally distributed - they can extrapolate and say that the 43% of the US population would vote for Bush - 19 times out of 20...That's the same here... if Randy Moss caught a TD pass the 2 times that he lined up against Chris McAllister... doesn't make it "significant" enough that for the next time they'll line up against one another... it'll be a TD for the Raiders...

I haven't read his stuff, but that doesn't seem to be what srnohav is saying. If I am reading it correctly, he doesn't say things like "Randy Moss burned Chris McAllister for 8 catches and 125 yards, so he will do it again." It seems to me that he says things like "The Bears have a great defense, but their second CB gives up a lot of yards, so #2 receivers fare better against the Bears than #1 receivers."Again, I haven't read his stuff, so I could be completely wrong, but this is how I interpreted what he does.

 

[JayMan]

1) He stole my name2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

Could you elaborate a bit please?

In order for a study to be "statistically significant" you need to a have looked at a representative numbers of "events" to be able to conclude that you could extrapolate the outcomes of those "events"... (by using a Normal or Student variable - mathematical terms)...For example, when CNN does a survey saying that George W. Bush would collect 43% of the votes... they had to survey a significant number of people - and assuming that their responses are normally distributed - they can extrapolate and say that the 43% of the US population would vote for Bush - 19 times out of 20...That's the same here... if Randy Moss caught a TD pass the 2 times that he lined up against Chris McAllister... doesn't make it "significant" enough that for the next time they'll line up against one another... it'll be a TD for the Raiders...

The nature of the NFL doesn't allow for that. All the sample sizes are typically "too small". But, you can still lean on the wisdom of your elders for guidance. Perhaps this person has an eye for something that you don't.

I certainly agree with your statement... I was just answering the original post...I think, to some extend, you can foresee some weekly results by looking at "more general" occurences... For example when you have to choose between your two defenses and one is going up against a rookie QB... When you know that your league is PPR and your RB will be trusted to take dumps-off against a particularly "agressive" defense he's facing up this week...

 

[JayMan]

1) He stole my name2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

Could you elaborate a bit please?

In order for a study to be "statistically significant" you need to a have looked at a representative numbers of "events" to be able to conclude that you could extrapolate the outcomes of those "events"... (by using a Normal or Student variable - mathematical terms)...For example, when CNN does a survey saying that George W. Bush would collect 43% of the votes... they had to survey a significant number of people - and assuming that their responses are normally distributed - they can extrapolate and say that the 43% of the US population would vote for Bush - 19 times out of 20...That's the same here... if Randy Moss caught a TD pass the 2 times that he lined up against Chris McAllister... doesn't make it "significant" enough that for the next time they'll line up against one another... it'll be a TD for the Raiders...

I haven't read his stuff, but that doesn't seem to be what srnohav is saying. If I am reading it correctly, he doesn't say things like "Randy Moss burned Chris McAllister for 8 catches and 125 yards, so he will do it again." It seems to me that he says things like "The Bears have a great defense, but their second CB gives up a lot of yards, so #2 receivers fare better against the Bears than #1 receivers."Again, I haven't read his stuff, so I could be completely wrong, but this is how I interpreted what he does.

I must confess that I have not read it also - I was just trying to quote an insignificant statistical result... I can't say if Joyner's stuff is looking at significant results or not (my bad if my statement was implying that I've read it)

 

[SSOG]

He's breaking down individual WRs against individual CBs?

Yes, I see a huge problem with that.

Small sample size. Those are most likely meaningless, statistically speaking.

I don't think he uses data from Chris McCallister against Randy Moss... I think he uses data from Chris McCallister vs. all strong WR1s, and Randy Moss vs. all strong CB1s, and then extrapolates the likely results.He also, from what I hear, goes pretty in-depth and breaks down CBs strengths and weakness. He might say that Chris McCallister is ten times better than any CB in the league against short and intermediate stuff, but just stinks against deep threats, so a mediocre WR who does most of his damage deep would have a better game against McCallister than an elite WR who is mostly just a possession guy.

Never read his stuff, but that's always been my take on it. As for what I think about it... I think he watches more film than pretty much anyone in the NFL- and that includes the vast majority of coaches, I'd imagine. Now, he might not be as good at interpreting it, but that has to count for something.

He also said that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat reciever in the NFL with TO and Moss

No he didn't. He would never EVER make such a ludicrous claim.Everyone knows that Owens is a mediocre deep threat, whose biggest weakness is his hands and whose biggest strength is yards after the catch. He did, however, say that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat in the NFL in the 2004 season.

Oh, an entirely unrelated question concerning deep threats. Do you happen to know who led the league in ypc last year? You know, because we're talking about deep threats, and I'd imagine that whoever it is would have to be a pretty good one. Do you happen to know who it was? Bueller... Bueller?

 

[Z-Dog]

Well the big flaw with FBG is that it is far too focused on statisics. Its very difficult to find people here that clearly focus on watching game tape. I pretty come here for a cheatsheet and that's it - I can find far more interesting NFL discussion elsewhere.In the past I've reposted here very deep and lengthly analysis made by others in other forums as sort of a test. I wanted to see how many people were interested in and could discuss the NFL on that level. I found no interest.And that's fine, but it just means this site is more of a kiddy pool than shark pool.

 

[srnohav]

He's breaking down individual WRs against individual CBs?

Yes, I see a huge problem with that.

Small sample size. Those are most likely meaningless, statistically speaking.

I don't think he uses data from Chris McCallister against Randy Moss... I think he uses data from Chris McCallister vs. all strong WR1s, and Randy Moss vs. all strong CB1s, and then extrapolates the likely results.He also, from what I hear, goes pretty in-depth and breaks down CBs strengths and weakness. He might say that Chris McCallister is ten times better than any CB in the league against short and intermediate stuff, but just stinks against deep threats, so a mediocre WR who does most of his damage deep would have a better game against McCallister than an elite WR who is mostly just a possession guy.

Never read his stuff, but that's always been my take on it. As for what I think about it... I think he watches more film than pretty much anyone in the NFL- and that includes the vast majority of coaches, I'd imagine. Now, he might not be as good at interpreting it, but that has to count for something.

He also said that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat reciever in the NFL with TO and Moss

No he didn't. He would never EVER make such a ludicrous claim.Everyone knows that Owens is a mediocre deep threat, whose biggest weakness is his hands and whose biggest strength is yards after the catch. He did, however, say that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat in the NFL in the 2004 season.

Oh, an entirely unrelated question concerning deep threats. Do you happen to know who led the league in ypc last year? You know, because we're talking about deep threats, and I'd imagine that whoever it is would have to be a pretty good one. Do you happen to know who it was? Bueller... Bueller?

I know that S Moss had the longest TD average per catch, I know he was up there for YPC, but I don't know if he was #1

 

[Jason Wood]

Presented with him at a fantasy conference in Pittsburgh a few years ago; before he became an ESPN correspondent. He wore a white lab coat and broke my laptop, true story. Nice enough guy but definitely quirky. Essentially he had been taping all NFL games for 15 years and watching them.

I think he makes interesting observations and his work at ESPN has improved (i.e., he's become a better writer); but from a fantasy perspective I'm not sure he's found a way to make his mark.

 

[coolnerd]

He's breaking down individual WRs against individual CBs?

Yes, I see a huge problem with that.

Small sample size. Those are most likely meaningless, statistically speaking.

I don't think he uses data from Chris McCallister against Randy Moss... I think he uses data from Chris McCallister vs. all strong WR1s, and Randy Moss vs. all strong CB1s, and then extrapolates the likely results.He also, from what I hear, goes pretty in-depth and breaks down CBs strengths and weakness. He might say that Chris McCallister is ten times better than any CB in the league against short and intermediate stuff, but just stinks against deep threats, so a mediocre WR who does most of his damage deep would have a better game against McCallister than an elite WR who is mostly just a possession guy.

Never read his stuff, but that's always been my take on it. As for what I think about it... I think he watches more film than pretty much anyone in the NFL- and that includes the vast majority of coaches, I'd imagine. Now, he might not be as good at interpreting it, but that has to count for something.

He also said that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat reciever in the NFL with TO and Moss

No he didn't. He would never EVER make such a ludicrous claim.Everyone knows that Owens is a mediocre deep threat, whose biggest weakness is his hands and whose biggest strength is yards after the catch. He did, however, say that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat in the NFL in the 2004 season.

Oh, an entirely unrelated question concerning deep threats. Do you happen to know who led the league in ypc last year? You know, because we're talking about deep threats, and I'd imagine that whoever it is would have to be a pretty good one. Do you happen to know who it was? Bueller... Bueller?

Now that Joyner is employed by ESPN I am sure that he gets game tape, but much of his original work was done from his home with over the air broadcast, which many of you know is flawed when breaking down many areas of a footbal game. KC, also from what I understand has limited football background which means that you are trusting that football amatuer understands what truly is a bad decision by a QB or that the #2CB that he is down on really was supposed to get help from the safety. I also have determine whether his stats are relevant. As most of us have seen on this board sometimes the stats are interesting but are not important as they sound when we attempt to apply them.

 

[srnohav]

1) He stole my name2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

Could you elaborate a bit please?

In order for a study to be "statistically significant" you need to a have looked at a representative numbers of "events" to be able to conclude that you could extrapolate the outcomes of those "events"... (by using a Normal or Student variable - mathematical terms)...For example, when CNN does a survey saying that George W. Bush would collect 43% of the votes... they had to survey a significant number of people - and assuming that their responses are normally distributed - they can extrapolate and say that the 43% of the US population would vote for Bush - 19 times out of 20...That's the same here... if Randy Moss caught a TD pass the 2 times that he lined up against Chris McAllister... doesn't make it "significant" enough that for the next time they'll line up against one another... it'll be a TD for the Raiders...

I haven't read his stuff, but that doesn't seem to be what srnohav is saying. If I am reading it correctly, he doesn't say things like "Randy Moss burned Chris McAllister for 8 catches and 125 yards, so he will do it again." It seems to me that he says things like "The Bears have a great defense, but their second CB gives up a lot of yards, so #2 receivers fare better against the Bears than #1 receivers."Again, I haven't read his stuff, so I could be completely wrong, but this is how I interpreted what he does.

you are correct, as SSOG points out, he breaks it down by how Fred Smoot does against a top WR on average and then breaks it down by short, intermediate, and long pass plays. so each week you can take a look at the strenths of that particular corner that your Wr will be going up against and then decide if the strengths of your Wr will match up well. Just liek everything else we talk about here, this is not a full proof plan, but it helps on doing your analysis. if you draft a WR that has a tough SOS in the middle part of the year and he is not a top tier receiver that can overcome that, then you should probably draft anotehr Wr that ahs an easier schedule during that span.It seems that everything I read here talks about adding as much information as possible to your analysis so you can make the best projections as possible. KC Joyner seems to be able to contribute. I was jsut looking to see if anyone could argue that his analysis was off

 

[videoguy505]

I don't think he uses data from Chris McCallister against Randy Moss... I think he uses data from Chris McCallister vs. all strong WR1s, and Randy Moss vs. all strong CB1s, and then extrapolates the likely results.He also, from what I hear, goes pretty in-depth and breaks down CBs strengths and weakness. He might say that Chris McCallister is ten times better than any CB in the league against short and intermediate stuff, but just stinks against deep threats, so a mediocre WR who does most of his damage deep would have a better game against McCallister than an elite WR who is mostly just a possession guy.

I get his stuff too, what he does is watch every play and rank players using the old GPA system, 4.0 being the best. Every play--whether or not the ball was thrown to Randy Moss, for example, if he burned the CB on the play he gets credit for it, if he blew his route he gets marked down. So Moss, after all 800 offensive plays or whatever a season, could be rated A, or 4.0. Then he watches every defender, sees who's good and who gets burned, counting how many steps off they were or if the bit on a move or whatever, and assigns them a number. A guy who can't keep up with WRs over his team's 800 plays over a season would get a low grade. Pacman Jones might get a C-, or 1.75. Then when OAK faces TEN and you see Moss lined up against Jones, you know he outclasses him by 2.25 grade points. You would expect this to be a good matchup for Moss.He's not taking 1-on-1 matchups, but judging after a whole season (or more, not sure how far back he considers), so the sample size is large enough.

 

[imeimex]

1) He stole my name2) He is not a Scientist, he is a bad statistician (if you ran a power analyisis on his data you would see his sample size is not statistically significant)

Could you elaborate a bit please?

In order for a study to be "statistically significant" you need to a have looked at a representative numbers of "events" to be able to conclude that you could extrapolate the outcomes of those "events"... (by using a Normal or Student variable - mathematical terms)...For example, when CNN does a survey saying that George W. Bush would collect 43% of the votes... they had to survey a significant number of people - and assuming that their responses are normally distributed - they can extrapolate and say that the 43% of the US population would vote for Bush - 19 times out of 20...That's the same here... if Randy Moss caught a TD pass the 2 times that he lined up against Chris McAllister... doesn't make it "significant" enough that for the next time they'll line up against one another... it'll be a TD for the Raiders...

The nature of the NFL doesn't allow for that. All the sample sizes are typically "too small". But, you can still lean on the wisdom of your elders for guidance. Perhaps this person has an eye for something that you don't.

 

[TwinTurbo]

He also said that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat reciever in the NFL with TO and Moss

He also added that it was a good thing Lelie was great as a deep threat because he sucked at everything else. His total analysis on Lelie was actually pretty good.

 

[JayMan]

I don't think he uses data from Chris McCallister against Randy Moss... I think he uses data from Chris McCallister vs. all strong WR1s, and Randy Moss vs. all strong CB1s, and then extrapolates the likely results.

He also, from what I hear, goes pretty in-depth and breaks down CBs strengths and weakness. He might say that Chris McCallister is ten times better than any CB in the league against short and intermediate stuff, but just stinks against deep threats, so a mediocre WR who does most of his damage deep would have a better game against McCallister than an elite WR who is mostly just a possession guy.

I get his stuff too, what he does is watch every play and rank players using the old GPA system, 4.0 being the best. Every play--whether or not the ball was thrown to Randy Moss, for example, if he burned the CB on the play he gets credit for it, if he blew his route he gets marked down. So Moss, after all 800 offensive plays or whatever a season, could be rated A, or 4.0. Then he watches every defender, sees who's good and who gets burned, counting how many steps off they were or if the bit on a move or whatever, and assigns them a number. A guy who can't keep up with WRs over his team's 800 plays over a season would get a low grade. Pacman Jones might get a C-, or 1.75. Then when OAK faces TEN and you see Moss lined up against Jones, you know he outclasses him by 2.25 grade points. You would expect this to be a good matchup for Moss.

He's not taking 1-on-1 matchups, but judging after a whole season (or more, not sure how far back he considers), so the sample size is large enough.

That's "mathematically" incomplete... because when Moss lines up against Jones - you have to consider only those "events" and not the 750 other plays... to be representative - you need to look only at the "event" that is at stake...Imagine that Moss lined up 50 times against Jones... and Jones had him covered all 50 times... but Moss was open the other 750 plays in his season... while Jones let his receiver get open the other 750 plays... Moss would obvisouly get a 4.0 grade - while Jones gets a 1.75... but you can see that Moss/Jones is a terrible matchup for a FF player owning Moss...

And this is why the sample size is statisitcally insignificant, in the NFL, to say that a particular WR will burn this CB - not enough "events".

I know Joyner doesn't say this and I'm obvisouly exagereting to make my point - but you get the idea... you can't just simply say "Moss is a 4.0 and Jones is a 1.75 -> good matchup"... On average it will be a good matchup - but head-to-head, it might not be...

My 2 cents

 

[SSOG]

He also said that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat reciever in the NFL with TO and Moss

No he didn't. He would never EVER make such a ludicrous claim.Everyone knows that Owens is a mediocre deep threat, whose biggest weakness is his hands and whose biggest strength is yards after the catch. He did, however, say that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat in the NFL in the 2004 season.

Oh, an entirely unrelated question concerning deep threats. Do you happen to know who led the league in ypc last year? You know, because we're talking about deep threats, and I'd imagine that whoever it is would have to be a pretty good one. Do you happen to know who it was? Bueller... Bueller?

I know that S Moss had the longest TD average per catch, I know he was up there for YPC, but I don't know if he was #1

It was a setup. Ashley Lelie has led the NFL in yards-per-catch for two straight years now.

Now that Joyner is employed by ESPN I am sure that he gets game tape, but much of his original work was done from his home with over the air broadcast, which many of you know is flawed when breaking down many areas of a footbal game. KC, also from what I understand has limited football background which means that you are trusting that football amatuer understands what truly is a bad decision by a QB or that the #2CB that he is down on really was supposed to get help from the safety. I also have determine whether his stats are relevant. As most of us have seen on this board sometimes the stats are interesting but are not important as they sound when we attempt to apply them.

Oh yeah, absolutely there are going to be problems with the information, but I always looked at it as just a massive pool of raw data. I wouldn't take every analysis he makes as gospel, but if he tells me that Arnaz Battle caught more underthrown passes than any other WR in the league, I'm going to believe him, because he's probably one of the few people who has charted how many underthrown passes were caught by EVERY WR IN THE LEAGUE.If he were a great analyst, he'd currently be employed by an NFL team right now in the scouting department or somewhere. If you view him as a data collector and compiler, though, he's got to be one of the best in the business.

 

[SSOG]

Imagine that Moss lined up 50 times against Jones... and Jones had him covered all 50 times... but Moss was open the other 750 plays in his season... while Jones let his receiver get open the other 750 plays... Moss would obvisouly get a 4.0 grade - while Jones gets a 1.75... but you can see that Moss/Jones is a terrible matchup for a FF player owning Moss...And this is why the sample size is statisitcally insignificant, in the NFL, to say that a particular WR will burn this CB - not enough "events".I know Joyner doesn't say this and I'm obvisouly exagereting to make my point - but you get the idea... you can't just simply say "Moss is a 4.0 and Jones is a 1.75 -> good matchup"... On average it will be a good matchup - but head-to-head, it might not be...My 2 cents

Well, that's why he goes in deeper and looks at the WR and CBs skill set. I mean, if Jones is fabulous against long passes and Moss is heavily reliant on long passes, then of course the matchup isn't as tempting as the straight GPA would allow.Still, if you want to take that stance, you can just go ahead and reject all data outright. I don't think anyone ever claimed he was Miss Cleo, they were just saying he does a lot more in-depth analysis than anyone else around. Even in-depth analysis can be wrong, or slanted, or biased... but it's going to be far less likely to be so than less in-depth analysis. Agree, or disagree?

 

[JayMan]

Imagine that Moss lined up 50 times against Jones... and Jones had him covered all 50 times... but Moss was open the other 750 plays in his season... while Jones let his receiver get open the other 750 plays... Moss would obvisouly get a 4.0 grade - while Jones gets a 1.75... but you can see that Moss/Jones is a terrible matchup for a FF player owning Moss...And this is why the sample size is statisitcally insignificant, in the NFL, to say that a particular WR will burn this CB - not enough "events".I know Joyner doesn't say this and I'm obvisouly exagereting to make my point - but you get the idea... you can't just simply say "Moss is a 4.0 and Jones is a 1.75 -> good matchup"... On average it will be a good matchup - but head-to-head, it might not be...My 2 cents

Well, that's why he goes in deeper and looks at the WR and CBs skill set. I mean, if Jones is fabulous against long passes and Moss is heavily reliant on long passes, then of course the matchup isn't as tempting as the straight GPA would allow.Still, if you want to take that stance, you can just go ahead and reject all data outright. I don't think anyone ever claimed he was Miss Cleo, they were just saying he does a lot more in-depth analysis than anyone else around. Even in-depth analysis can be wrong, or slanted, or biased... but it's going to be far less likely to be so than less in-depth analysis. Agree, or disagree?

Totally Agree - As you mentioned earlier... if you view him strickly as a Data Compiler - he's top notchBut as you also mentioned - if he was that good at evaluating which WR missed his route on every play he's looking at - he'd be with the Patriots and not ESPN... This makes me weary of GIGO - if he's "thinking" that Kennison should have come back toward Green because of the blitz - but it was clear from the huddle that Kennison was not suppose to be coming back - even if the other team was blitzing... that accounts for a "bad data" in his computations...On average, and looking at over 15 years of NFL games, he must not miss much - but it's still his own perception of the play...

 

[coolnerd]

He also said that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat reciever in the NFL with TO and Moss

No he didn't. He would never EVER make such a ludicrous claim.Everyone knows that Owens is a mediocre deep threat, whose biggest weakness is his hands and whose biggest strength is yards after the catch. He did, however, say that Lelie was the most dangerous deep threat in the NFL in the 2004 season.

Oh, an entirely unrelated question concerning deep threats. Do you happen to know who led the league in ypc last year? You know, because we're talking about deep threats, and I'd imagine that whoever it is would have to be a pretty good one. Do you happen to know who it was? Bueller... Bueller?

I know that S Moss had the longest TD average per catch, I know he was up there for YPC, but I don't know if he was #1

It was a setup. Ashley Lelie has led the NFL in yards-per-catch for two straight years now.

Now that Joyner is employed by ESPN I am sure that he gets game tape, but much of his original work was done from his home with over the air broadcast, which many of you know is flawed when breaking down many areas of a footbal game. KC, also from what I understand has limited football background which means that you are trusting that football amatuer understands what truly is a bad decision by a QB or that the #2CB that he is down on really was supposed to get help from the safety. I also have determine whether his stats are relevant. As most of us have seen on this board sometimes the stats are interesting but are not important as they sound when we attempt to apply them.

Oh yeah, absolutely there are going to be problems with the information, but I always looked at it as just a massive pool of raw data. I wouldn't take every analysis he makes as gospel, but if he tells me that Arnaz Battle caught more underthrown passes than any other WR in the league, I'm going to believe him, because he's probably one of the few people who has charted how many underthrown passes were caught by EVERY WR IN THE LEAGUE.If he were a great analyst, he'd currently be employed by an NFL team right now in the scouting department or somewhere. If you view him as a data collector and compiler, though, he's got to be one of the best in the business.

This is a pretty accurate way to look at Joyner and his work. Because he does watch and compile, Joyner can often confirm or call into question general observations that we may have, but the analysis of what that information means (or if means anything to us at all) is really in the hands of the reader.

 

[srnohav]

I don't think he uses data from Chris McCallister against Randy Moss... I think he uses data from Chris McCallister vs. all strong WR1s, and Randy Moss vs. all strong CB1s, and then extrapolates the likely results.

He also, from what I hear, goes pretty in-depth and breaks down CBs strengths and weakness. He might say that Chris McCallister is ten times better than any CB in the league against short and intermediate stuff, but just stinks against deep threats, so a mediocre WR who does most of his damage deep would have a better game against McCallister than an elite WR who is mostly just a possession guy.

I get his stuff too, what he does is watch every play and rank players using the old GPA system, 4.0 being the best. Every play--whether or not the ball was thrown to Randy Moss, for example, if he burned the CB on the play he gets credit for it, if he blew his route he gets marked down. So Moss, after all 800 offensive plays or whatever a season, could be rated A, or 4.0. Then he watches every defender, sees who's good and who gets burned, counting how many steps off they were or if the bit on a move or whatever, and assigns them a number. A guy who can't keep up with WRs over his team's 800 plays over a season would get a low grade. Pacman Jones might get a C-, or 1.75. Then when OAK faces TEN and you see Moss lined up against Jones, you know he outclasses him by 2.25 grade points. You would expect this to be a good matchup for Moss.

He's not taking 1-on-1 matchups, but judging after a whole season (or more, not sure how far back he considers), so the sample size is large enough.

That's "mathematically" incomplete... because when Moss lines up against Jones - you have to consider only those "events" and not the 750 other plays... to be representative - you need to look only at the "event" that is at stake...Imagine that Moss lined up 50 times against Jones... and Jones had him covered all 50 times... but Moss was open the other 750 plays in his season... while Jones let his receiver get open the other 750 plays... Moss would obvisouly get a 4.0 grade - while Jones gets a 1.75... but you can see that Moss/Jones is a terrible matchup for a FF player owning Moss...

And this is why the sample size is statisitcally insignificant, in the NFL, to say that a particular WR will burn this CB - not enough "events".

I know Joyner doesn't say this and I'm obvisouly exagereting to make my point - but you get the idea... you can't just simply say "Moss is a 4.0 and Jones is a 1.75 -> good matchup"... On average it will be a good matchup - but head-to-head, it might not be...

My 2 cents



I think that is crazy, i get your point but that fact is you are taking away the whole concept of averages. nothing is perfect, otherwise FF would be easy, projections would tell us exactly what each player would do each game perfectly. the point is if Jones historically does bad in a certain area or against a certain "kind" of receiver. then I consider that very helpful in my projections for a player. the average reader I would say agrees, because look at how much people are spending reading the internet trying to get that little "edge" over your competition.

the fact that you are trying to say that it is completely useless because of sample size is rediculous.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I actually bought this guy's book last year and I wasn't at all impressed. He was actually missing some games from the beginning of the season so it was incomplete. I admire the guy for watching and tracking the most miniscule of football statistics but I think his work is questionable. One, his eye is untrained...he has zero football background. To comment on a details like blocking assignments, DB coverage, etc you need to have an understanding of what each play calls for...I am pretty sure he doesn't and he definitely hasn't been able to tie his info into the fantasy world.

 

[JayMan]

I don't think he uses data from Chris McCallister against Randy Moss... I think he uses data from Chris McCallister vs. all strong WR1s, and Randy Moss vs. all strong CB1s, and then extrapolates the likely results.

He also, from what I hear, goes pretty in-depth and breaks down CBs strengths and weakness. He might say that Chris McCallister is ten times better than any CB in the league against short and intermediate stuff, but just stinks against deep threats, so a mediocre WR who does most of his damage deep would have a better game against McCallister than an elite WR who is mostly just a possession guy.

I get his stuff too, what he does is watch every play and rank players using the old GPA system, 4.0 being the best. Every play--whether or not the ball was thrown to Randy Moss, for example, if he burned the CB on the play he gets credit for it, if he blew his route he gets marked down. So Moss, after all 800 offensive plays or whatever a season, could be rated A, or 4.0. Then he watches every defender, sees who's good and who gets burned, counting how many steps off they were or if the bit on a move or whatever, and assigns them a number. A guy who can't keep up with WRs over his team's 800 plays over a season would get a low grade. Pacman Jones might get a C-, or 1.75. Then when OAK faces TEN and you see Moss lined up against Jones, you know he outclasses him by 2.25 grade points. You would expect this to be a good matchup for Moss.

He's not taking 1-on-1 matchups, but judging after a whole season (or more, not sure how far back he considers), so the sample size is large enough.

That's "mathematically" incomplete... because when Moss lines up against Jones - you have to consider only those "events" and not the 750 other plays... to be representative - you need to look only at the "event" that is at stake...Imagine that Moss lined up 50 times against Jones... and Jones had him covered all 50 times... but Moss was open the other 750 plays in his season... while Jones let his receiver get open the other 750 plays... Moss would obvisouly get a 4.0 grade - while Jones gets a 1.75... but you can see that Moss/Jones is a terrible matchup for a FF player owning Moss...

And this is why the sample size is statisitcally insignificant, in the NFL, to say that a particular WR will burn this CB - not enough "events".

I know Joyner doesn't say this and I'm obvisouly exagereting to make my point - but you get the idea... you can't just simply say "Moss is a 4.0 and Jones is a 1.75 -> good matchup"... On average it will be a good matchup - but head-to-head, it might not be...

My 2 cents



I think that is crazy, i get your point but that fact is you are taking away the whole concept of averages. nothing is perfect, otherwise FF would be easy, projections would tell us exactly what each player would do each game perfectly. the point is if Jones historically does bad in a certain area or against a certain "kind" of receiver. then I consider that very helpful in my projections for a player. the average reader I would say agrees, because look at how much people are spending reading the internet trying to get that little "edge" over your competition.

the fact that you are trying to say that it is completely useless because of sample size is rediculous.

I understand what you are saying... I'm just stating that you can't "conclude" anything without having a significant statistical evaluation - and sample size is at the base of those conclusions...I have been looking at statistical sampling for 6 years as a postgraduate student and for the last 4 years as a stock analyst - All I'm saying is that you can't conclude anything if the "events" are not representative

I'm definitely not saying that what he does is crap - au contraire! - when you look at 800 plays for a particular CB - to see that he's not covering anyone on deep routes - that's relevant... but to extrapolate and say he's toasted this week because he's playing against that deep threat WR - then you need for those two to have "a history"...

 

[srnohav]

OK I understand your point.