Baseball is the pre-eminent sport involving statistics. There are never ending ways to calculate a players performance. New statistics are being devised all the time, and the sport was changed forever with the introduction of sabermetrics by Bill James.
No longer was batting average the number one indicator of a players success. Instead, it was logically reasoned that to score runs, players have to get on base, thus on-base percentage became a more useful tool in deciphering how well a player is performing.
It also put to rest the notion that stats like wins and RBI are indicative of a single players productivity. Without their teammates scoring runs, pitchers cannot be credited with wins. Unless there are runners in scoring position, the only way to get an RBI is to hit a solo homerun.
With this in mind, I read with interest The Smittblog's piece on the worthlessness of QB rating. It occurred to me that there is no legitimate way to separate how good a football player is using sabermetrics. If wins and RBI are considered inadequate measuring sticks of performance, how can you really rate the talent of a single football player?
Some football websites, such as Football Outsiders have attempted to use sabermetrics for evaluating players, and they have done an admirable job. They have devised a statistic they use called DVOA, or Defense-Adjusted Value Over Average. But even they admit, the process is an inexact science:
DVOA is still far away from the point where we can use it to represent the value of a player separate from the performance of his ten teammates that are also involved in each play. That means that when we say, "Larry Johnson has a DVOA of 27.6%," what we are really saying is "Larry Johnson, playing in the Kansas City offensive system with the Kansas City offensive line blocking for him and Trent Green selling the fake when necessary, has a DVOA of 27.6%."
So which statistics are meaningful, and which are not? If Peyton Manning was put on the Raiders, what would his numbers look like? These questions have no right or wrong answers, but they are debatable.
Defense seems a bit simpler to judge than offense. Schemes matter on defense just as they do on the other side of the ball. An outside linebacker in a 3-4 scheme is going to have more sacks than an outside linebacker playing a 4-3 cover 2. That's the nature of the position. Other than that, it's relatively simple.
The defensive ends are there to rush the QB. Defensive tackles need to clog up space to allow linebackers to get to the ball. Linebackers have to mix it up - make plays on the ball while covering receivers and rushing the passer. Corners and safeties have to cover their men and get turnovers. Not much to define. Statistically, we know the player with the most sacks is generally the best DE, and the one who intercepts the most passes is an upper echelon cornerback.
Offense is decidedly more intricate. Wide receivers depend on quarterbacks who depend on offensive linemen. Without a good line, offenses are going to struggle. Period. Look at Edgerrin James. He went from a terrific offensive line with Indianapolis in 2005 to an atrocious one with Arizona. Even factoring in a small decline for age (28), James took a precipitous fall in production. He went from averaging 4.2 yards a carry to 3.4, 13 touchdowns to 6, 94 first downs to 59. And his longest run was a paltry 18 yards. So it's evident that running backs need the most help. They can get by on athletic ability to an extent, but without the maulers up front, they have little chance of statistical success. So yards per carry, touchdowns, yards gained and first downs are not true measuring sticks of a single runner.
Wide receivers are in a similar boat. Numbers may not define if a player is special. WR's obviously depend on having a decent QB to get them the ball, but catches are not a good indicator of a great wideout. Some offenses are pass-happy, some run more. Is Mike Furrey better than Marvin Harrison and Torry Holt because he caught more balls? Didn't think so. WR's need the ability to get open, but schemes are important in this, and superior coaches can find ways to get guys open. So catches, yards and touchdowns are a sign an offense is special more than a single receiver. Ask Art Monk, who is yet to be elected to the Hall of Fame even though he had the most catches in NFL history at the time of his retirement.
Quarterbacks are the cogs in the wheels of offense. Here, there may be the only statistics in football that defines how good one player is. It's not yards or touchdowns or number of attempts or number of completions. Two stats are vital in deciding the best QB: completion percentage and TD/INT ratio. While QB's do depend on WR's to catch what they throw, and that can make completion percentage go up or down a few points, it won't be enough to separate the great QB's from the subpar ones.
The starting QB's with a completion percentage greater than 60% who had more TD's than INT's reads like this: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Marc Bulger, Drew Brees, Chad Pennington, Steve McNair, J.P. Losman, Carson Palmer, Philip Rivers and Jake Delhohmme. All except Losman have led their teams to the playoffs at one point in their careers and four have led their teams to the Super Bowl.
Statistics in football is a tricky thing. Sabermetrics is a limited endeavor because of the dependance on teammates for success, and the myriad of positions depending on one another.
Links to this post
Apparently, the MLS isn't so popular in Europe. For that matter, it doesn't seem America is, either. Some soccer, er, football writer from the UK and Irish version of Yahoo! Sports named Sean Fay is so heartbroken that soccer is over for the summer, he comes up with a "list of things for a football fan to do this summer."
The most bizarre line is the one about watching them "closely, very closely". Something about it is a bit off. I can just visualize this guy typing in his basement, saying to himself, "It puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again."
Subscribe to DOTD
