Profootballfocus in WSJ

**Filmstudy** · 02-04-2012, 10:16 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...897959096.html

What PFF does for analysis of the game pushes the envelope. The fact that the Giants are hiring them for analysis and a review of the article should tell you a lot. Thier premium service is only $60 a year (might be $90) and well worth it.

A healthy skepticism about the ability of these folks and how they collect their data is appropriate. In fact, I think folks that do that in every walk of life are going to be more successful. Dismissal of the information they bring is foolish.

In terms of subjective analysis, I would offer is that you may gain insight simply by trying to understand the definitional differences they have with other sources even if you don't agree with their conclusions.

In terms of objective aalysis, they are a far more consistent game-recording group than the far-flung NFL Gamebook folks, so they have a more accurate representation of QHs and tackles, for example.

I've known Neil for several years now and he and his team have:
--Greatfully accepted any differences between our scoring (and his player participation folks have helped me miss errors as well)
--Offered transparency with regard to subjective scoring.
--Helped with a number of ad hoc requests

They are an extremely hard-wroking class group and well-deserving of the success they are having.

**AirFlacco** · 02-04-2012, 03:20 PM

You're still the best Film and the Ravens should
hire you or have they?

**52decleetzu** · 02-04-2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Filmstudy

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...897959096.html

What PFF does for analysis of the game pushes the envelope. The fact that the Giants are hiring them for analysis and a review of the article should tell you a lot. Thier premium service is only $60 a year (might be $90) and well worth it.

A healthy skepticism about the ability of these folks and how they collect their data is appropriate. In fact, I think folks that do that in every walk of life are going to be more successful. Dismissal of the information they bring is foolish.

In terms of subjective analysis, I would offer is that you may gain insight simply by trying to understand the definitional differences they have with other sources even if you don't agree with their conclusions.

In terms of objective aalysis, they are a far more consistent game-recording group than the far-flung NFL Gamebook folks, so they have a more accurate representation of QHs and tackles, for example.

I've known Neil for several years now and he and his team have:
--Greatfully accepted any differences between our scoring (and his player participation folks have helped me miss errors as well)
--Offered transparency with regard to subjective scoring.
--Helped with a number of ad hoc requests

They are an extremely hard-wroking class group and well-deserving of the success they are having.

Maybe one day when the "old guard" of the NFL is gone PFF will get it's due. There is still that ignorant class of folks who just think it is "stats" and "stats" can't tell you anything in football. Watching the game can tell you a lot, and that is what they do. They just take what they saw and convert it to a number.

**wickedsolo** · 02-04-2012, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by 52decleetzu

Maybe one day when the "old guard" of the NFL is gone PFF will get it's due. There is still that ignorant class of folks who just think it is "stats" and "stats" can't tell you anything in football. Watching the game can tell you a lot, and that is what they do. They just take what they saw and convert it to a number.

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but how do you quantify injuries, momentum, etc? Stats definitely have their part, but I just don't understand how anyone can try to quantify things that have no numerical value.

**Justlovemybirds** · 02-04-2012, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but how do you quantify injuries, momentum, etc? Stats definitely have their part, but I just don't understand how anyone can try to quantify things that have no numerical value.

:word PFF is one of my favorite websites but I can't help thinking that they are somewhat limited in that they can't see the all-22 footage and therefore have a limited view of the whole field. Seems like it'd be hard to properly grade WR's. Still he does a great job with what he has.

**52decleetzu** · 02-04-2012, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but how do you quantify injuries, momentum, etc? Stats definitely have their part, but I just don't understand how anyone can try to quantify things that have no numerical value.

How do you quantify that in any sport? You can't. I don't even know what either matters.

Momentum I don't even know where to begin with that, I have no idea what it has to do with stats. Injuries? Great players don't seem to get injured that much even in football. And if you get injured a lot you aren't going to be in any conversation about who is what because you won't have the stats to justify it. Injuries are a weakness and should be looked at as such if a player is constantly battling them.

In the overall scheme of things over a very long time those things even out.

Sports is about production, period. If you produce, you get paid. You get recognized. You get the accolades. You help your team win.

If you go a few layers behind the stats they can tell you a lot.......basic stats tell you nothing. Yet most people rely on basic stats to tell them everything. Again hopefully one day this will change, but I am not holding my breath.

PFF goes way beyond the standard that is typically used for evaluating who is really that good, and who isn't. No media hype, no archaic baseline stats, just raw production and who is getting it done. So many times it isn't who you think.

You think anyone outside of Baltimore thinks Webb is a "top 5 knocking on the door as one of the best" corners out there? Nope. But watching every game I bet you do, and anyone who knows anything about football does who has watched them all as well. PFF thinks he is, and have the evidence to back it up. Why? Because they watch the games, they grade the player and take into account things that a simple box score can't.

They cut through all the bullshit you hear on the radio and TV everyday, from people who have not spent one second researching anything they are talking about 95% of the time. Who is producing and who isn't? They will tell you.

**Irish Raven** · 02-04-2012, 06:33 PM

The Giants are a nonpaying user of the site.

Mr. Berger says these communications typically begin with an email to Mr. Hornsby asking him to call Giants headquarters. That is because the teams' low-cost telephone system won't allow calls to England.

If I'm reading this correctly and haven't taken sentances out of context then the Giants are realy coming across as a cheap skate organization here

If they are going to use Neil's services then pay the man

**Ravenswintitle** · 02-04-2012, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Irish Raven

If I'm reading this correctly and haven't taken sentances out of context then the Giants are realy coming across as a cheap skate organization here

If they are going to use Neil's services then pay the man

I wondered the same thing

**52decleetzu** · 02-04-2012, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Justlovemybirds

:word PFF is one of my favorite websites but I can't help thinking that they are somewhat limited in that they can't see the all-22 footage and therefore have a limited view of the whole field. Seems like it'd be hard to properly grade WR's. Still he does a great job with what he has.

I do agree that they are limited when it comes to back end defensive players and wide receivers.

They can see pretty much anyone else though at all times at the LOS. Probably 16 out of 22 until the ball is thrown or play has ended, maybe even more.

I still see no reason why the all 22 footage isn't available, then we could really see who is doing what all over the place. It would revolutionize the way players are looked at and graded mainly on the back end.

**wickedsolo** · 02-04-2012, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by 52decleetzu

How do you quantify that in any sport? You can't. I don't even know what either matters.

Momentum I don't even know where to begin with that, I have no idea what it has to do with stats. Injuries? Great players don't seem to get injured that much even in football. And if you get injured a lot you aren't going to be in any conversation about who is what because you won't have the stats to justify it. Injuries are a weakness and should be looked at as such if a player is constantly battling them.

In the overall scheme of things over a very long time those things even out.

Sports is about production, period. If you produce, you get paid. You get recognized. You get the accolades. You help your team win.

If you go a few layers behind the stats they can tell you a lot.......basic stats tell you nothing. Yet most people rely on basic stats to tell them everything. Again hopefully one day this will change, but I am not holding my breath.

PFF goes way beyond the standard that is typically used for evaluating who is really that good, and who isn't. No media hype, no archaic baseline stats, just raw production and who is getting it done. So many times it isn't who you think.

You think anyone outside of Baltimore thinks Webb is a "top 5 knocking on the door as one of the best" corners out there? Nope. But watching every game I bet you do, and anyone who knows anything about football does who has watched them all as well. PFF thinks he is, and have the evidence to back it up. Why? Because they watch the games, they grade the player and take into account things that a simple box score can't.

They cut through all the bullshit you hear on the radio and TV everyday, from people who have not spent one second researching anything they are talking about 95% of the time. Who is producing and who isn't? They will tell you.

I guess I'll have to read more on PFF and see exactly what it is that they are grading players on.

I get what you're saying, but I guess it's kind of hard to get past the old saying "Any given Sunday" you know? That's why I brought up momentum. You can't really quantify that and while some may argue against it, in a lot of cases it does and can matter. Sometimes all a lesser team needs is momentum to beat a better team. The Seahawks game for example this past season. Yes, the fumbles from ST's are the direct result of that loss, but the entire game the Ravens were out of it and each fumble just gave more and more momentum to the Seahawks team.

Even then, I guess, you could attribute a statistical value/variance due to it being a road game, weather conditions, etc.

**psuasskicker** · 02-04-2012, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but how do you quantify injuries, momentum, etc? Stats definitely have their part, but I just don't understand how anyone can try to quantify things that have no numerical value.

Quantification of everything is critical in any business in order to best evaluate performance. The best businesses are the ones that quantify the subjective in such an effective way that they are able to build their business around something that their competitors are guessing at.

- C -