Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JWL wrote:"I extrapolated the median numbers of the GAT9 formula and pulverized them with my computer's vise. In turn, this led to me developing a bell curve of 119 eligible passers. 65 passed my cutting edge AY/A and VOOP amalgamation (think of this as numbers making love to one another like OBP and SLG making OPS). Of those 65, I ran the R formula to determine the C rating multiplied by 48 because 48 was the number my aunt picked when I asked her to pick a number from 11 to 123, and I derived at Ken Anderson making the top 23. A top 23 quarterback of all time is certainly a Hall of Famer even taking into account his FLEP as being lower than the average R score of the top quarter percentile of the first 36 on the list of the top 65 AY/A-VOOP achievers. So, long story short, Ken Anderson belongs in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. My computer formulas said so."

GAT9- Golden Arm Talent 9; this represents the 9th reworking of the formula
AY/A- Adjusted yards per passing attempt
VOOP- Value Over Ordinary Passer
FLEP- I forgot what this means. It is saved into my computer somewhere but I know Anderson's number here is lower than most.

Classic, and sums up that type of nonsense perfectly.

I can see your logic on baughan and riley bryan out of curiosity who are your top 5 lb snubs Bryan

TanksAndSpartans wrote:As for some of the accolades you mention, I just don’t value the AAFC the same as NFL. My impression is the Browns were mostly beating up on inferior competition - not saying there weren’t any other good teams, just questioning whether they were challenged weekly.

Everyone that has studied the period (AAFC v. NFL) that I've seen has said the two leagues were very much equal. At best you can argue one was slightly better than the other, but it would be a negligible difference.

To come to the conclusion that the Browns were beating up on inferior competition in the AAFC, wouldn't you have to come to the same conclusion then for when they joined the NFL? Since the former opinion is based on reasoning which immediately continued in the NFL.

There's been a lot of long(er) posts about it on our forums but an overly simplified way I've posted before is that we can see what teams were in the AAFC compared to the NFL by what they immediately were in the NFL.

The Browns were the best team in the AAFC in 1949, then they were the best team in the NFL in 1950.
The Colts were 1-11 in the AAFC, then they were 1-11 in the NFL.

The 1950 NY Yanks were for all intents and purposes the AAFC NY Yankees (who had merged with Brooklyn in '49) - minus six players (including some of their best players, though they gained a couple AAFC players from other teams, like all NFL teams did). So a depleted - in a way - AAFC NY Yankees (as the NFL's NY Yanks) team went 7-5 in the NFL in 1950. In 1949 while in the AAFC they went 8-4. One game difference.

The only one that doesn't transfer year-to-year is the 49ers, but I think it's fair to call 1950 an anomaly, since the following year the 49ers were back in their accustomed position of having the 2nd best W/L/T record in their conference, which they always finished 2nd in their division (or league in '49) in the AAFC.

For the NFL, other than the Eagles and Giants essentially swapping performance from 49 to 50, every other team (Lions +2) was +/- one win from 49 to 50. So whatever league, AAFC or NFL, the good teams were good, the average teams were average and the bad teams were bad.

In regards to PFHOF, it's the pro football HOF, not [supposed to be] the NFL HOF. Specific to the AAFC it makes even more sense to 'count it' since it was essentially an equal level/quality of pro football to that of the NFL. Based on what I've seen, the film backs this up.

JohnTurney wrote:

bachslunch wrote:
The reason I have Anderson higher than the rest is based on stats adjusted for era in two systems. Anderson is the best of these by far in Kiran Rasaretnam’s approach, with best 4/7/10 of 3/3/5. Gabriel is 21/17/15, Brodie is 35/23/16, Theismann is 25/34/30, and Simms is 60/42/33:

http://newqbrating.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... VvetB.dpuf

.

Seeing Layne 50th behind DeBerg is kind of a buzzkill to me. I am sure the metric works out that way but if that happens then how credible is it for Ken Anderson to be 3rd all-time? Or Marino ranked one behind Gabriel?

I've see other metrics published over the years and Ken Anderson does well in them. I think it stems from his 4-5 excellent years. And the more you weight things towards those and away from the so-so years he will be helped. I just never remember being worried about facing Anderson the way you would worry about Staubach or Fouts or even Stabler.
(Though Stabler is borderline IMO, too)

So if Ken Anderson gets in, good for him, but it will be a statnik thing that gets him in. He was maybe the first guy to get coached to the statistic, the passer rating cam out in 1973, before that it was not a factor. Did Walsh's offense cater to scoring well? High completion percentage boosts yards per gain a bit and the main thing is avoiding picks...

contrived?

And this "My basic method for evaluating a player's performance in a given year is to look at his CMTI, and then, based on the mean and standard deviation for that given year, relate his performance to that of his peers. Since the aggregate accumulation of these measures over the past 78 years looks very much like a normal (bell-shaped) curve, we can use the bell-curve to convert these measures to percentile ranks, giving a numerical value ranging from 1 to 99 for each of these performances. The sum of a given quarterback's 4 best such performances are then used as my C4 calculation, and the sum of his 7 best performances are my C7 calculation. Obviously, then the maximum possible value for C4 is 99 * 4 = 396, and, commensurately, the maximum C7 value is 99 * 7 = 693. As I mentioned earlier, I've also calculated a C10 value for those players with an exceptionally long career. Obviously, if we did this for every year a player qualified, one could create a career C score for each player."

WTF?

I really hope CMTI does not get Anderson into the Hall. I hope it's his overall skill set, yes, plenty of stats, but not not CMTI

Ken Anderson pretty much is a stathead’s darling when it comes to QBs, no doubt. Nothing wrong with that, and given that the Hall has similar great-stat/no-title guys in (Jurgensen, Fouts, Tarkenton, and Tittle, for four), I’m hard-pressed to see why the rest belong in and he doesn’t.

Re Rasaretnam: if I read correctly, what he’s apparently trying to do is an analogue to some of baseball’s advanced metrics — take passer stats and adjust year by year. He’s using a basis figure where he takes the number of completions minus the interceptions tripled (which he abbreviated as CMTI) and adjusting yearly. That may or may not be useful for ranking purposes.

But what I find interesting is that it seems to produce reasonably good results. For “best 10,” all but four QBs in the top 22 are (or in Manning’s case, will be) HoFers — only Anderson (#5), Gabriel (#15), Brodie (#16), and Mark Brunell (#18) are not enshrined. And the only HoFers ranked lower are Arnie Herber and four QBs who are known for “winning” despite pedestrian stats (Stabler, Layne, Bradshaw, and Namath). It’s similar for the best 4 and best 7 lists, too.

FWIW, I’ve seen people make similar gripes that I’m seeing on this thread about advanced metrics in baseball, usually saying (no surprise) that it’s artificial, contrived, I can’t figure it out without a slide rule, etc. Note well that attempts to apply similar approaches to football are still in the embryonic stages (Rasaretnam, Stuart, AV over at Football Outsiders) and likely can and will be refined. Fine by me — make them as useful as possible, but make the attempt. I’m not sure all these can (or should) be dismissed as sheer nonsense. And I realize I’m talking to a tough audience here: for example, there’s a strong dislike for Football Outsiders at this forum, for reasons that may or may not be the best. So be it — never hurts to have a devil’s advocate around.

bachslunch wrote: FWIW, I’ve seen people make similar gripes that I’m seeing on this thread about advanced metrics in baseball, usually saying (no surprise) that it’s artificial, contrived, I can’t figure it out without a slide rule, etc. Note well that attempts to apply similar approaches to football are still in the embryonic stages (Rasaretnam, Stuart, AV over at Football Outsiders) and likely can and will be refined. Fine by me — make them as useful as possible, but make the attempt. I’m not sure all these can (or should) be dismissed as sheer nonsense. And I realize I’m talking to a tough audience here: for example, there’s a strong dislike for Football Outsiders at this forum, for reasons that may or may not be the best. So be it — never hurts to have a devil’s advocate around.

Most of the advanced baseball stats I support. It is just that one quote John Turney shared threw me for a loop. I had to mock it. What I do not like about fancy football statistics is when folks try to compare 2018 passers to ones from 1952 and 1974. This is often done through formulas that many times seem almost rigged to produce a desired result. It's like somebody asks himself, "How can I do this so that my formula can have Ken Anderson in the top 20?" and then spends free time orchestrating things so that Anderson does end up in the top 20. "Anderson was excellent here so I will accentuate this stat and he was subpar in this department so I will put less weight on that stat..."

Reaser wrote: 1. Everyone that has studied the period (AAFC v. NFL) that I've seen has said the two leagues were very much equal. At best you can argue one was slightly better than the other, but it would be a negligible difference.
.
.
2. To come to the conclusion that the Browns were beating up on inferior competition in the AAFC, wouldn't you have to come to the same conclusion then for when they joined the NFL? Since the former opinion is based on reasoning which immediately continued in the NFL.
.
.
3. In regards to PFHOF, it's the pro football HOF, not [supposed to be] the NFL HOF. Specific to the AAFC it makes even more sense to 'count it' since it was essentially an equal level/quality of pro football to that of the NFL. Based on what I've seen, the film backs this up.

With regard to #1, honestly, this is the first I've heard of the two leagues being equal. I should have saved it, but I recall an old analysis of the AAFC players that were absorbed by the NFL and I thought the conclusion was more along the lines of the best players being just as good, but a drop off after that. I'l try to find the article.

Just looking at 1946:

East
New York Yankees* 10 3 1
Brooklyn Dodgers 3 10 1
Buffalo Bisons 3 10 1
Miami Seahawks 3 11 0

West
Cleveland Browns* 12 2 0
San Francisco 49ers 9 5 0
Los Angeles Dons 7 5 2
Chicago Rockets 5 6 3

Without doing any deep analysis, Brooklyn, Buffalo, and Miami don't look very good. It looks like this season the Yankees may have had an easier time than the Browns. There were 2 other teams over .500 in the West.

With regard to #2, I specifically said there were some other good teams and I had the 49ers in mind. I don't necessarily think I'd have to come to the same conclusion just because the Browns did well in the NFL. College football is a good example - there are often teams that dominate "non-power" conferences. If one of those teams moved to a power conference and still went undefeated, I don't think it would prove they were beating up on inferior competition in the new conference. I think it would just prove they really were good and didn't need to rely on inferior competition to get their wins. I wouldn't expect their players to necessarily take home as many conference accolades in the new conference though, nor would I expect them to win by as many blowout scores, etc.

On #3, you're preaching to the choir. It's not the NFL HOF, yet there is one player who played in his prime prior to 1920.

I haven't seen much AAFC film - I don't think it's that easy to find. I've seen some. I recall looking forward to seeing the Yankees because I wanted to see Spec Sanders and did catch some footage of one of the championship games, but the quality wasn't great and I don't remember much of it.

One issue we've not touched is the number of QBs in versus other positions. While QB is certainly more valuable the question is how much. There are two OTs and two OGs and two OLbes and 2 CBs and 2 S and so on for every QB. But there are what? 26 modern-era HOF QBs...and we're debating perhaps numbers 27-32 or so?

And the 20th best DE or DT or CB or S cannot get in . .. the mathematical equivalent would be the 40th or so

So, if there is this kind of debate, plenty of good and a little but of questionable things for Anderson, it seems even we are biased towards QBs.

I have to admit, I have a bit of an-anti QB bias. Steve Young? IMO not 1st ballot, and a couple of others, too. nd there are QBs in HOF that I question a little bit. If Anderson gets in, and I expect he will get in, I would be okay, but I'd certainly question it.

I'd much rather have a few safeties and tackles and guards get in before another questionable QB,

TanksAndSpartans wrote: I recall an old analysis of the AAFC players that were absorbed by the NFL and I thought the conclusion was more along the lines of the best players being just as good, but a drop off after that. I'l try to find the article.

1950 1st-team all pros. Of the 11 on the AP team 5 were from the AAFC (1 Brown), the UPI 11 1st-teamers 5 were from the AAFC (3 Browns) and the 22 1st-team selections by the NYDN 10 (3 Browns) were players that played in the AAFC in 1949. Of the 26 unique players to get a 1st-team selection 12 (3 Browns) came from the AAFC. So yes, it was roughly an equal split on those judged to be the very best.

For both the above and for 'depth', you have to take into account that there was 7 AAFC teams in 1949 and 10 NFL teams (i.e. the NFL had more players) and that of the 13 teams that made up the NFL in 1950 only 3 were AAFC (4 counting the Yanks) and 10 (9 counting the Yanks) were NFL. We didn't get to see the Bills, as a team. Nor did we get to see the Bills version of Chet Mutryn, for example. Instead got him on a horrible Colts team for his NFL season.

I wouldn't expect their players to necessarily take home as many conference accolades in the new conference though, nor would I expect them to win by as many blowout scores, etc.

Start with blowout scores, I'll just pick winning by 20 or more points for the exercise.

1946
20pt plus wins: 7 (in 14 games)
Lost to 49ers and Dons

1947
20pt plus wins: 6 (in 14 games)
Lost to Dons
Tied Yankees

1948
20pt plus wins: 5 (in 14 games)
Undefeated season

1949
20pt plus wins: 5 (in 12 games)
Twice tied the Bills
Got blown out by the 49ers

1950 in the NFL
20pt plus wins: 5* (in 12 games)
*1 against former AAFC team: Colts.
Lost two close games to Giants

I get what you're saying about a group of five team going to a power five conference, the analogy makes sense but that's just not what happened with the Browns. The Browns blew out as many teams in the AAFC in 1949 as they did in the NFL in 1950. They even were blown out in the AAFC which they weren't in the NFL the following year. And had two ties against a Bills team we unfortunately didn't get to see in the NFL. Plus the two close losses to the Giants in 1950. I'm not seeing this huge difference in competition for the Browns from 1949 AAFC to 1950 NFL? Looks about the same to me. And they won the championship both years. Even if you look at the playoffs, the Bills-Browns game was extremely close -- Bills led at HT and took the lead late 3Q and were on a potential GW drive before a pick-six ended the game. Even the championship, was only Browns 7-0 at HT and early 4Q was a 14-7 one TD game. Obviously their 1950 NFL postseason had even closer games but competition wise, tough games both years.

As for conference accolades. Will stick with Speedie here. There was combined AAFC/NFL All-Pro teams, so I'm not sure why we wouldn't count them? If I understand correctly you're saying he only was 1st-team on those (or at least they shouldn't count as much?) because he was playing against inferior competition in the AAFC? If that's the case, then how are his 1950 consensus 1st-team all-pro and 1952 UPI 1st-team All-Pro seasons explained when he was supposedly playing against superior competition in the NFL? That doesn't add up, to me.

JohnTurney wrote:One issue we've not touched is the number of QBs in versus other positions. While QB is certainly more valuable the question is how much. There are two OTs and two OGs and two OLbes and 2 CBs and 2 S and so on for every QB. But there are what? 26 modern-era HOF QBs...and we're debating perhaps numbers 27-32 or so?

And the 20th best DE or DT or CB or S cannot get in . .. the mathematical equivalent would be the 40th or so

So, if there is this kind of debate, plenty of good and a little but of questionable things for Anderson, it seems even we are biased towards QBs.

I have to admit, I have a bit of an-anti QB bias. Steve Young? IMO not 1st ballot, and a couple of others, too. nd there are QBs in HOF that I question a little bit. If Anderson gets in, and I expect he will get in, I would be okay, but I'd certainly question it.

I'd much rather have a few safeties and tackles and guards get in before another questionable QB,

Agreed 100% which safteys and tackles/guards would you like to see

rewing84 wrote: Agreed 100% which safteys and tackles/guards would you like to see

some are here:

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... t-yet.html