(06-27-2017, 12:45 PM)pirkster Wrote:

(06-27-2017, 09:10 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: There are lots of ways that PFF's "rating methods" can skew results too far one way or the other for a number of positions.

This is clearly one of those situations.

My issue with them is that they seem to lack the awareness to acknowledge those shortcomings, and fail work to improve their system/methodology accordingly.

If you're getting garbage out, then you're either putting garbage in (I don't necessarily think this is the case for all their measurements, but the subjective measurements certainly are open to wild inaccuracies) or you need to re-think and re-tool the way you are formulating the "grade."

They clearly are either penalizing the run too heavily, not weighing his pass rush effectiveness high enough, or their subjective observations are not accurate.  It simply makes no sense that he would grade as the lowest rated starter.  That's a sign to go back and reassess the methodology, and take a second look at the subjective data as well.  Either their formula, judgement in observation, or both need review.

The thing is, they won't ever be able to fix it and it seems as if that is becoming more and more apparent. They can't fix their methodology simply because they can't fix the fundamental gap in how they obtain their data; they don't know what the play is and they don't know what the player is thinking. 

They can put in uncertainty factors and all of that, but the dynamics of a given football play are so astronomically huge that they are really just grasping at straws in the dark while wearing catchers mitts and a blindfold. They don't have access to the scouting report that the coaches used to develop the practice and game plans and without that, they can only really tell you if a guy gets pancaked or not. Not to mention that they don't know what the individual called play is, if it was even a play. It may have just been a concept.

In my mind, they are wrong and they're gonna stay wrong.

---