Stats that don't mean anything (1 Viewer)

[middleweightcontender]

Personally I hate what I call "historical stats".

For example, Redskins have never lost a game in California on Monday night (fiction), or the Bills have lost their first 2 games of the season for the last 10 years (fictional). Or one which reminded me of this topic, Brett Favre has never beaten Kansas City. Is there any purpose to these stats other than to give the talking heads to talk about? When considering who to start or who to make a play on I almost totally disregard this information. The situation tends to be different in more ways (personnel, coaches, etc) than they are similar than previous meetings (name, date, or time of the last meeting).

Which stats are ones you disregard?

 

[DawnBTVS]

QB Rating because while it does show who's had a great game it tends to overemphasize completion % and underrate YPA, not to mention the lack of rushing yards/sacks.

 

[Parmcat]

I hate it when people want to throw out a long run by a RB. "if you take that run away, he only had 13 for 28"

I for one expect those yards for my stats

 

[smcindoe]

"The team's record when this RB gets 25+ carries is 15-2. Therefore, they should just keep handing him the ball if they want to win."

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

QB Rating because while it does show who's had a great game it tends to overemphasize completion % and underrate YPA, not to mention the lack of rushing yards/sacks.

You hit upon one of mine. Completion % -- completions are often a two-way street, where the fault lies with the receiver rather than the QB. Also, it matters not one bit to me how many passes are completed, fantasy-wise or otherwise.

 

[Raider Nation]

"Time of Possession" is a largely meaningless stat.

New England scores in two plays. Good luck grinding out that clock.

 

[smcindoe]

"Time of Possession" is a largely meaningless stat.

Not to mention that even if you do care about what this stat claims to measyre, you really want to look at number of plays. Whether the clock is running in between snaps isn't really relevant at all.

 

[SSOG]

"Time of Possession" is a largely meaningless stat.New England scores in two plays. Good luck grinding out that clock.

Yeah, ToP is a big pet peeve of mine. Vanderbilt actually held a significant ToP advantage over Florida in college yesterday, but Florida absolutely destroyed Vandy. The reason Vandy had the ToP advantage is because Florida kept scoring in 4 or 5 plays.I hate how people espouse a "ball control" offense like it's really any better. Really, no matter how fast or slow your drives go, both teams are going to get the same number of possessions. The key is always to score more points per possession than the other team, whether you have 2 possessions each, or 20. The only time a "ball control" offense really makes a difference compared to a "quick strike" offense is if an inferior team is employing it, because the fewer possessions there are, the more chance there is for luck to take over and let the inferior team win.

 

[BigRed]

Which stats are ones you disregard?

FF wise, the way this year has gone, all of them. NFL wise, SB rings (usually comes up when talking QB greatness). Despite how well aware I am of the huge # of morons out there, it still amazes me how many people (fans media etc) are far too stupid to grasp that teams win SBs, not one guy.

 

[SSOG]

I think once you have a very "tightly played" game with few to no turnovers, TOP becomes more important.

Nope. Even then, ToP is just going to favor teams that run more than they pass, or teams that are taking longer to score. If one team runs nothing but 10-play drives that result in FGs while calling nothing but runs, and another team keeps scoring on 3-play TD drives while calling nothing but passes, the first team is going to DOMINATE ToP, but the second team is going to dominate the game. The more big plays you get and the more passes you call, the lower your ToP. Since big plays are largely considered a positive thing, any stat that penalizes a positive outcome seems a little counterintuitive.If you want to see a stat that says who is controlling the ball very well, plays per drive is a better way to go, since it doesn't differentiate between runs and passes like ToP does... but even that penalizes teams with extremely explosive offenses.

 

[BoltBacker]

Yards.

It's so over-emphasized in FF. I'd like to start a league where you get points for everything but(TD's/1st Downs/completions/catches/etc). I really have no idea why there are no leagues(that I've seen anyway) where you score points for gaining 1st downs.

 

[videoguy505]

Receiving TDs. Some guys get lucky and score more fantasy points than they can sustain over the long haul. Looking at YPC and targets yields a better judge of value.

 

[831hoops]

Yards per attempt adjusted for strength of schedule.

 

[SSOG]

Yards.It's so over-emphasized in FF. I'd like to start a league where you get points for everything but(TD's/1st Downs/completions/catches/etc). I really have no idea why there are no leagues(that I've seen anyway) where you score points for gaining 1st downs.

I actually think just the opposite. Yards are a much larger sample size, making them far more predictable from week to week than TDs. I prefer yardage-heavy fantasy leagues because I feel they require a lot more skill to be successful in.

 

[Slider]

QB rating. If a QB takes 45 sacks but only throws 2 picks (can't read a D) he's rewarded.

 

[BoltBacker]

Yards.It's so over-emphasized in FF. I'd like to start a league where you get points for everything but(TD's/1st Downs/completions/catches/etc). I really have no idea why there are no leagues(that I've seen anyway) where you score points for gaining 1st downs.

I actually think just the opposite. Yards are a much larger sample size, making them far more predictable from week to week than TDs. I prefer yardage-heavy fantasy leagues because I feel they require a lot more skill to be successful in.

But does the fact they are predictable make them a better stat? They don't reflect whether a team is winning or losing as much as scores/TO's/1st downs/etc.

 

[SSOG]

Yards.It's so over-emphasized in FF. I'd like to start a league where you get points for everything but(TD's/1st Downs/completions/catches/etc). I really have no idea why there are no leagues(that I've seen anyway) where you score points for gaining 1st downs.

I actually think just the opposite. Yards are a much larger sample size, making them far more predictable from week to week than TDs. I prefer yardage-heavy fantasy leagues because I feel they require a lot more skill to be successful in.

But does the fact they are predictable make them a better stat? They don't reflect whether a team is winning or losing as much as scores/TO's/1st downs/etc.

Field position is fluid. Getting yards might not necessarily put points on the board, but it increases the chances that you'll put points on the board (either this drive or next drive), and reduces the chances that the other team will put points on the board (because even if you punt, they're in horrible field position). I forget which head coach it was, but a coach once said that any time his team got two first downs on a drive, it was a successful drive.I'd say that yards are often a BETTER indicator than 1st downs. For instance, it's very hard to get a lot of first downs without getting a lot of yards (you can get at most 9 yards without getting a first down on any given drive), but it's super-easy to get a lot of yards without getting a lot of first downs. Imagine a team that threw 6 TDs of 50+ yards- that's 300 yards and 6 TDs, but only 6 first downs. There's no stat that's perfect, of course, but yards are far less imperfect than plenty of other stats.Another stat occurred to me that I hate- pointless home/road splits. During the NE/INDY game, they flashed a stat that Manning hasn't lost a fumble at home in several years. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Does he only use stickum on his hands at home? Do his teammates hustle after loose balls with more urgency at home? That stat is not the least bit meaningful, it's just another of those screwy results that crop up all the time thanks to miniscule sample sizes.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I think once you have a very "tightly played" game with few to no turnovers, TOP becomes more important.

Nope. Even then, ToP is just going to favor teams that run more than they pass, or teams that are taking longer to score. If one team runs nothing but 10-play drives that result in FGs while calling nothing but runs, and another team keeps scoring on 3-play TD drives while calling nothing but passes, the first team is going to DOMINATE ToP, but the second team is going to dominate the game. The more big plays you get and the more passes you call, the lower your ToP. Since big plays are largely considered a positive thing, any stat that penalizes a positive outcome seems a little counterintuitive.If you want to see a stat that says who is controlling the ball very well, plays per drive is a better way to go, since it doesn't differentiate between runs and passes like ToP does... but even that penalizes teams with extremely explosive offenses.

You say "nope" but then as an example to counter his point you use the analogy of the anti-"tightly played" game. I don't think anyone will argue with you that in a game with team A trading 4 yard runs for team B's 30-40 yd. pass plays that T.O.P. is way overvalued. But make no mistake about it. In a tightly played game, T.O.P. can be very important. You can't just look at stats and say it doesn't matter. You also need to factor in the fatigue it can place on the opposing defense and how T.O.P. can impact drives later in the game. If T.O.P. wasn't imporant, then the correlation of, "as a team increases TOP their win % increases as well" wouldn't exist. And it does.

 

[AB in DC]

Any stat that involves what a team has done in past years. Why the heck should last year's team have any relevance to what's happening today?

 

[SSOG]

I think once you have a very "tightly played" game with few to no turnovers, TOP becomes more important.

Nope. Even then, ToP is just going to favor teams that run more than they pass, or teams that are taking longer to score. If one team runs nothing but 10-play drives that result in FGs while calling nothing but runs, and another team keeps scoring on 3-play TD drives while calling nothing but passes, the first team is going to DOMINATE ToP, but the second team is going to dominate the game. The more big plays you get and the more passes you call, the lower your ToP. Since big plays are largely considered a positive thing, any stat that penalizes a positive outcome seems a little counterintuitive.If you want to see a stat that says who is controlling the ball very well, plays per drive is a better way to go, since it doesn't differentiate between runs and passes like ToP does... but even that penalizes teams with extremely explosive offenses.

You say "nope" but then as an example to counter his point you use the analogy of the anti-"tightly played" game. I don't think anyone will argue with you that in a game with team A trading 4 yard runs for team B's 30-40 yd. pass plays that T.O.P. is way overvalued. But make no mistake about it. In a tightly played game, T.O.P. can be very important. You can't just look at stats and say it doesn't matter. You also need to factor in the fatigue it can place on the opposing defense and how T.O.P. can impact drives later in the game. If T.O.P. wasn't imporant, then the correlation of, "as a team increases TOP their win % increases as well" wouldn't exist. And it does.

There is a correlation between ToP and winning, but it's a result of lurking variables. Teams with a lead run the ball, teams that run the ball win the ToP battle. That's like saying there's a correlation between rushing for 100 yards and winning- no duh, teams that win run the ball more, and teams that run the ball more get more yards. Yes, there's a correlation, and there's a causal relationship... but you have it entirely backwards. Winning the ToP battle doesn't lead to winning football games, winning football games leads to winning the ToP battle.You want an example of a tightly played game where ToP is meaningless? Team A gets nothing but 4 yard runs, team B gets nothing but 80 yard passes. Every drive ends in a TD, except for one drive by team A that ends in a field goal. Team B wins by 4 points, Team A dominates the time of possession by a whopping 50 minutes to 10 minutes.

Once again, big plays are a POSITIVE thing, but they have a NEGATIVE impact on time of possession. Any stat that penalizes teams that do a very good thing is, in my mind, not a great stat. ToP rewards some good things, but it penalizes other good things, which makes it a fatally flawed stat.

 

[bentley]

Personally I hate what I call "historical stats". For example, Redskins have never lost a game in California on Monday night (fiction), or the Bills have lost their first 2 games of the season for the last 10 years (fictional). Or one which reminded me of this topic, Brett Favre has never beaten Kansas City. Is there any purpose to these stats other than to give the talking heads to talk about? When considering who to start or who to make a play on I almost totally disregard this information. The situation tends to be different in more ways (personnel, coaches, etc) than they are similar than previous meetings (name, date, or time of the last meeting).Which stats are ones you disregard?

So by "stats," you actually mean "trivia." Nobody's pointing those things out because they want to help you pick your fantasy lineup.