Agreed, Ken. Similar to earlier in the thread when I mentioned that most of my response is about not blindly accepting and/or being acquiescent about a 'stat' - especially stats I know (common football knowledge says) don't have the meaning they're being given.Ken Crippen wrote:I think that this still breaks down to "stats without context are meaningless." No single stat can give you the whole picture. You need additional information (context) to see what is going on. I will use my Rusher Rating statistic that I developed a few years ago as an example. You can use it to break down how efficient a running back is, and how efficient they are in various situations. However, without context, there is only so much you can tell from the stat. Is the running back efficient, or is it a function of the offensive line. You can compare another running back on the team with the same offensive line, but is the play-calling the same? Is the opponent employing a different defensive scheme with the second RB? Is it a function of an efficient passing game (setting up the run) or the running back? You can't tell from one stat. You need context.
As researchers, it is our job to provide the context. We take all of the components available to us (stats, film, personal accounts from the player, teammates, coaches, GMs, etc) and analyze it. The talking heads at ESPN are never going to provide the context. They will just spout a stat or two. They will say "Charles Haley belongs in the HOF because he has five rings." We can be better than that by providing context to the numbers.
Coincidentally, on the topic of "sacks", all ESPN/NFLN has said today about Charles Haley is: "five rings, and over 100 sacks" ...
Those are the only two things the two networks have put on his HOF 'resume', five rings (in a team sport) and over 100 sacks (100.5, and sacks are overrated to begin with) ...
It makes me wonder that if he had 4 rings and/or 99.5 sacks if he would still be on the outside looking in. Ha.
Since I mentioned the 1986 Giants on the previous page I should be fair and mention something about the 1986 AFC Champion Denver Broncos. In '86 Denver's Rulon Jones was UPI AFC Defensive Player of the Year, he had the most sacks (13.5) of his career that season. What did he have to say about sacks?:
"Sacks are overrated, as long as you consistently pressure the quarterback. Like (against Cleveland, Browns quarterback Bernie) Kosar threw two interceptions because of our pressure. That's a lot better thing to happen than a sack. It's unfortunate that people say: 'He's had a good year. See how many sacks he has.'" - Rulon Jones (UPI AFC DPOY)
Yup.