No matter how hard I look, I just don't see Gabriel as HOF

[JohnTurney]

Ok, but even PFR wouldn't say to use it in order to do that. You're blaming PFR for people misusing a number. That's silly. If your issue with AV stems from people being dumb about using it, then I'd say it's a pretty weak case. I use it in the way that PFR says it should be used or viewed through because that was the intention with the number.

I am not "blaming" anyone. I am offering an opinion. It's simple. AV is not very good in my opinion. And anyone who uses it spreads "fake news" as it were. I don't "blame" PFR for what other people do. I criticize their stat. If you want to use it fine, that's your choice.

So to be clear this is false: "(my) issue with AV stems from people being dumb about using it"
this is true: AV is stupid.


So all four Viking linemen were better individually that Bob Lilly? This one chart shows AV is not serious.

Here is 1969
1. Alan Page • MIN 23
2. Lem Barney • DET 22
3. Carl Eller • MIN 21
4. Paul Krause • MIN 19
5. Jim Marshall • MIN 17
6. Gary Larsen • MIN 16
7. Sonny Jurgensen • WAS 15
Earsell Mackbee • MIN 15
Lonnie Warwick • MIN 15
10. Fran Tarkenton • NYG 14
Roy Winston • MIN 14
Willie Wood • GNB 14

[JohnTurney]

Since I was pretty young I was doing "Rate+" in my head.

LOL.

Ok.

And what's with the eye roll? Care to explain?

[JohnTurney]

Somehow LT's 1985 season is even with 1986. 1985 is a year where LT said he didn't have a great year, John Madden specified it in his second book, it was revealed it was a bad year in terms of out of control drug use, LT was "blue" every year from 1981-90 by Proscout, except 1985 when he was red.

he did get First-team All-Pros from the major organizations AP, PFWA, SN, NEA etc, but the "guys in the know" teams Dr Z, Gordon Forbes, Peter King, John McClain all omitted him.

Not saying it was a crap year, a guy with that talent is going to make plays, high or hungover or whatnot. But if the AV is supposed to compare, and then people add the AV together to get a "career score" then it fails because it has 1985 the same as 1986 is just stupid. I am dubious that 1989 was his best season, too. Better than his three DOPY seasons?

PSI best = 1986, 1984, 1981 and others right there. 1985 is worst until 1991. ...

Sometimes you just have to start over and if the results are this bad, it's a bad model. And Taylor and Lilly are not outliers. They are the rule. It's not 100% off, but far enough off as to have little use except for authors wanting to crib numbers for their articles.

[Bryan]

I am not "blaming" anyone. I am offering an opinion. It's simple. AV is not very good in my opinion. And anyone who uses it spreads "fake news" as it were. I don't "blame" PFR for what other people do. I criticize their stat. If you want to use it fine, that's your choice.

I'm not sure why you are continuing to focus on this Career AV 'issue'. I used it as a throwaway stat in response to your verbatim use of "career value". I don't think anyone is saying Anderson was better than Gabriel and simply pointing to the Career AV differential.

I usually agree with your football thoughts, but I think its 'myopic' of you to claim "I prefer a more complete approach" while completely ignoring the underlying issue of my argument. Rest assured, I take a 'complete approach' as well. Again, if you are going to knock Anderson down a few pegs for being the subjective 'system QB' (even though he won the NFL MVP in Lindy Infante's system), then I'm not sure how Gabriel avoids being criticized for the same thing. I already said as much earlier in the thread, but instead you've chosen to latch on to something inconsequential to such a degree that we are now comparing Lawrence Taylor's AV score with Lonnie Warwick's. I already said this once, but I'll try again in an effort to steer the conversation back on topic:


Gabriel played in Marchibroda's system which allowed him to check off to his RBs. Tom Moore had 60 reception in 66, Larry Smith had 46 receptions in 69, Les Josephson had 44 in 70. This increased Gabriel's Comp%, lowered his INT%, but also cut into his YPA. Again, Gabriel won an MVP in 1969 with the lowest YPA (6.4) of any NFL QB...even the Steelers' Dick Shiner had a 6.8 YPA. Gabriel's high passer rating was based on him ranking 3rd in Comp% and 1st in INT%, both products of Marchibroda's system.

Anderson's MVP was post-Walsh with Infante's system. Even if you downgrade Anderson's 74-75 seasons as being a product of Bill Walsh's system, it's not like Anderson was simply completing short passes to no affect. He led the NFL in passing yardage both years, as well as YPA with totals of 8.1 and 8.4. So yeah, if Anderson was merely a system QB, I don't know what more he could have really done to impress you.

[JohnTurney]

I'm not sure why you are continuing to focus on this Career AV 'issue'.

The reason responded on AV is because of this "AV is what it is. It has it's flaws and even PFR says it's not some end all be all. It's simply trying to create a point of comparison for "quality" or "value" of the player and a lot of it depends on how that player's team did or if got awards (which give the players AV a bump within the system)"

I reject the contention that the AV does what it purports to do. I don't even remember that you used it, but if you did then the same thing would apply. I never said or accused the AV of being a "end all, be all" I do content that it fails are creating a useful point of comparison for "quality" or "value".

I don't expect that people have to agree, but no one has countered with any evidence as to why the AV stuff is all over the map. Maybe I am missing something, but if Gry Larson ? Lilly, it kind of ends it. I am surprised more people don't see that.

[Hail Casares]

Since I was pretty young I was doing "Rate+" in my head.

LOL.

Ok.

And what's with the eye roll? Care to explain?

That it's hilarious like this is some accomplishment. I think anyone following the NFL with a functioning brain would understand that a great passer rating in 1988 compared to a passer rating in 1956 might be a really bad equivalency because of the massive differences in the game, even prior to 1978. The accomplishment is that PFR actually quantified it with actual numbers so we can see how much better than the league average players were and we have an objective measure, not just some intuition or "understanding". PFR actually gave us quantifiable proof. That's the accomplishment. What you're talking about "doing in your head" is what lead PFR to actually get the number. One is worth bragging about. The other is just silly.

[JohnTurney]

I already said as much earlier in the thread, but instead, you've chosen to latch on to something inconsequential to such a degree that we are now comparing Lawrence Taylor's AV score with Lonnie Warwick's.

Yeah, well, maybe that's what I do. I latch on to " inconsequential" things. It's what I am known for. As I said there was a post by someone else about AV and that was a response to the inherent nonsense AV is. I just looked it up, you did your "AV post" about a month ago. There have been other people posting about AV since then.

As fas as total approach, I think I do that, how do you know I don't take into account Gabriel's system when I say I don't think he's HOF. Or his 1968, etc . . . I looked at his stats, passer rating in relation to league average (even though Gabriel's game was not conducive to passer rating, which didn't exist at the time). I look as his honors and his "wins". All of it. And in my opinion, he falls short.

I think you and I agreed except for one thing---that there was a significant gap between Anderson and Gabriel. There, we disagree. Could there be a gap? Sure. Significant? I don't see it.

There were posts about other places and people, Chase, Kacsmer, and that other dude, who take stats, rework them, massage them and come up with what I think it is bullsh!t, that Anderson is an all-time great. And that is based on numbers. It could be said that Anderson supporters "latch on to something inconsequential" to try and elevate him to a status he didn't earn.

I never hear supporters Answer the doldrums of 1976-77 to 1980ish. They love the 1973-75 and then 1981-82, but never offer an explanation for the 1983 dropoff. I'd like to see it.

As far as this " I don't know what more he could have really done to impress you."

Not the question. Did he impress? Yes. All the time? No.

What he could have done to make me think he's a HOF QB is this: Have more than 4-5 "blue" seasons.

Year Rate
1981 — 98.4
1974 — 95.7
1982 — 95.3
1975 — 93.9

gap

1983 — 85.6

gap

1973 — 81.2
1984 — 81.0
1979 — 80.7 (should be in his "prime")
1976 — 76.9 (should be in his "prime")
1972 — 74.0
1971 — 72.6
1977 — 69.7 (should be in his "prime")
1980 — 66.9 (should be in his "prime")
1978 — 58.0 (should be in his "prime")

For a guy who's HOF creds are based on passer rating, he had the 4 seasons then....what?

What could Gabriel have done to make me think he's HOF?—Have more than 4 or so "blue seasons".
Same for Brodie, Esiason, Simms, and so on.

If the stats have to be massaged in such a way, it makes me ask the question if the guy was truly great or HOVG. If his 4 seasons stand out and the rest don't,,,I ask those questions

it's just my opinion there are no QBs out there who are getting shorted in terms of HOF. From my perspective it's linemen, linebackers and DBs that have great cases and Anderson and Gabriel and Brodie seem like they fall short.

[Hail Casares]

Ok, but even PFR wouldn't say to use it in order to do that. You're blaming PFR for people misusing a number. That's silly. If your issue with AV stems from people being dumb about using it, then I'd say it's a pretty weak case. I use it in the way that PFR says it should be used or viewed through because that was the intention with the number.

I am not "blaming" anyone. I am offering an opinion. It's simple. AV is not very good in my opinion. And anyone who uses it spreads "fake news" as it were. I don't "blame" PFR for what other people do. I criticize their stat. If you want to use it fine, that's your choice.

So to be clear this is false: "(my) issue with AV stems from people being dumb about using it"
this is true: AV is stupid.


So all four Viking linemen were better individually that Bob Lilly? This one chart shows AV is not serious.

Here is 1969
1. Alan Page • MIN 23
2. Lem Barney • DET 22
3. Carl Eller • MIN 21
4. Paul Krause • MIN 19
5. Jim Marshall • MIN 17
6. Gary Larsen • MIN 16
7. Sonny Jurgensen • WAS 15
Earsell Mackbee • MIN 15
Lonnie Warwick • MIN 15
10. Fran Tarkenton • NYG 14
Roy Winston • MIN 14
Willie Wood • GNB 14

i can pull any advanced metric with subjective weight and take issue with the results. It doesn't negate the overall feel of the number or the point. Yeah sure, you can disagree with AV in 1969. But someone else might agree with the results from 1972-1986, then disagree with some years. Agree with more and so on. The point of AV, and PFR specifically points this out, is to not say "this guy is better than this player overall/in this specific year" it's to give an overall feel of the value of that player relative to his team. This is a massive issue you're missing. LT may have well not been as good as he ever was in 1989 but his value to the Giants was higher that year based on his production, awards, etc compared to other players on the roster and the stats the Giants defense generated. You can draw SOME lines across the league but AV never sets the number as an end all be all and the number is simply a way to give "value" to the shape and type of career the player had. It's a number to start a conversation or be a part of the conversation..the number isn't the conversation itself.

[JohnTurney]

i can pull any advanced metric with subjective weight and take issue with the results. It doesn't negate the overall feel of the number or the point. Yeah sure, you can disagree with AV in 1969. But someone else might agree with the results from 1972-1986, then disagree with some years. Agree with more and so on. The point of AV, and PFR specifically points this out, is to not say "this guy is better than this player overall/in this specific year" it's to give an overall feel of the value of that player relative to his team. You can draw SOME lines across the league but AV never sets the number as an end all be all and the number is simply a way to give "value" to the shape and type of career the player had. It's a number to start a conversation or be a part of the conversation..the number isn't the conversation itself.

Sorry, fails to do anything you say it purports to accomplish. And I am not sure anyone with a "functioning brain" would agree with the results from 1972-86. Or any other years. And if you think Greg Landry had 2 of the top 6 QB seasons from 1967-82 and want to hang your hat on that fine. I simply cannot accept that as measuring anything.

[JohnTurney]

That it's hilarious like this is some accomplishment. I think anyone following the NFL with a functioning brain would understand that a great passer rating in 1988 compared to a passer rating in 1956 might be a really bad equivalency because of the massive differences in the game, even prior to 1978. The accomplishment is that PFR actually quantified it with actual numbers so we can see how much better than the league average players were and we have an objective measure, not just some intuition or "understanding". PFR actually gave us quantifiable proof. That's the accomplishment. What you're talking about "doing in your head" is what lead PFR to actually get the number. One is worth bragging about. The other is just silly.

Glad to entertain you. But when I was working with the passer rating and recognizing the differences in era I likely didn't have a functioning brain, I mean it was 1978 and I was 14. me and by Royal calculator. Maybe it's nothing to brag about but gave me a better understanding of the game and the meaning of stats.