Post by goldenratio on Mar 26, 2020 9:32:01 GMT -5
FWIW:
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
OK. Let's discus sacks vs pressure.
1. Yes, from an EPA/Impact standpoint sacks are a better play statistically and overall than pressure.
But clearly it's more complicated than that
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
2. Pressure in and of itself matters.
Last season, pressuring a QB moved his passer rating from 99.8 to 67.3, which is the equivalent of turning DeShaun Watson into Duck Hogdes. It's a major impact and win for the defense long-term
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
3. Sacks are a TINY snapshot of a pass rusher's season.
10 to 15 sacks is like half a percent of a pass rusher's season.
10-20 is a little over a percent.
It's signal noise, even assuming those sacks are all the same quality play, which of course they're not.
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
4. Not all sacks are qualitatively good plays by the defender. Remember the play Michael Strahan broke the sack record with? That's the same statistically as the play Khalil Mack stole Taylor Decker's soul on. Clearly they're not the same play from a qualitative point of view
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
5. Almost 1/5th of all sacks are completely unblocked.
Another 1/3rd are either clean up or pursuit plays. Expected level plays for an NFL player.
So like 1/2 of all sacks are basically noise.
You NEED to look at pressure to build up a better picture. It increases resolution
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
6. Pressure is more predictive. Because it provides greater image resolution for the player in question, past pressure predicts future sacks better than past sacks do.
So why focus on it? Because it's less dumb than looking at how many sacks a player has in the past.
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
These are the reasons we shouldn't think of pressure as simply 'almost plays' and actually think smarter about the data we're using to try to actually achieve something - greater context and knowledge about players.
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
OK. Let's discus sacks vs pressure.
1. Yes, from an EPA/Impact standpoint sacks are a better play statistically and overall than pressure.
But clearly it's more complicated than that
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
2. Pressure in and of itself matters.
Last season, pressuring a QB moved his passer rating from 99.8 to 67.3, which is the equivalent of turning DeShaun Watson into Duck Hogdes. It's a major impact and win for the defense long-term
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
3. Sacks are a TINY snapshot of a pass rusher's season.
10 to 15 sacks is like half a percent of a pass rusher's season.
10-20 is a little over a percent.
It's signal noise, even assuming those sacks are all the same quality play, which of course they're not.
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
4. Not all sacks are qualitatively good plays by the defender. Remember the play Michael Strahan broke the sack record with? That's the same statistically as the play Khalil Mack stole Taylor Decker's soul on. Clearly they're not the same play from a qualitative point of view
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
5. Almost 1/5th of all sacks are completely unblocked.
Another 1/3rd are either clean up or pursuit plays. Expected level plays for an NFL player.
So like 1/2 of all sacks are basically noise.
You NEED to look at pressure to build up a better picture. It increases resolution
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
6. Pressure is more predictive. Because it provides greater image resolution for the player in question, past pressure predicts future sacks better than past sacks do.
So why focus on it? Because it's less dumb than looking at how many sacks a player has in the past.
Sam Monson (@pff_Sam)
3/25/20, 12:22 PM
These are the reasons we shouldn't think of pressure as simply 'almost plays' and actually think smarter about the data we're using to try to actually achieve something - greater context and knowledge about players.