Fatbot living in the past:
Of course the stats support what we saw with our eyes because, like what Blue&Gold stated, it's just people like us -- with no specialized information, experience or expertise -- doing these "stats" -- which aren't "stats" but rather just recorded observations by laypeople.
PFF lacks any sophistication to know what really made a given play successful it just records the obvious outcomes. It doesn't know that on a given play maybe Michael Brockers did something the OG didn't expect, disrupted the blocking scheme and helped Aaron Donald get a great sack that wouldn't have happened but for Brockers. Yet Donald will get all the credit according to PFF and Brockers none.
Obviously that's just a hypothetical but you can see how if you apply that to every given play and 22 people on the field all affecting each other, the enormity of errors, unknowns and misconceptions grows exponentially so that PFF basically has no worth except to be a lazy tool for the media to try to falsely legitimize the writer's opinion. See Bernie.
My little story about stats in the NFL, I used to do gameday stats for CBS a lifetime ago and Madden was spouting off about how a QB was getting knocked down and pressured all game. They turned and asked me for the stats I'd been tracking to throw up a graphic, and I reported something paltry like 1 knockdown and 3 pressures. I then proceeded to watch them make the graphic with 7 knockdowns and 9 pressures to more match what Madden was saying.
Sometimes the reason a guy's "stats" look good is because the guy watching wants him to look good.
Needless to say I disagree with your assessment of PFF. For me, you're guilty of falling into tsome of the same pitfalls that you accuse PFF of but you can tell me that after you've read this.
Let's check off each of your points and I'll see if I can make a counter observation.
"
just recorded observations by laypeople" - This is probably the comment I disagree with the most because there is a method to their madness. Using "laypeople" is the best way to go IMO. If a person is asked to do a simple job too much "knowledge" and "expertise" can easily contaminate the product. If I'm asked to look at a play and record whether the ROG blocked the player in front of him so as to keep him from tackling the RB on a running play I require no specialized knowledge to complete that task. If I was a knowledgeable expert like yourself I might over analyze the situation and say to myself, "well, he kept the guy from tackling the RB but the RB had to bounce outside of what looked like the designed hole" so I'm going to give him a fail on that play while the "lay" guy would say he did his job. Who contaminated the data?
A worker on an assembly line doesn't need to know how to design, build and drive a car in order to be able to attach a steering wheel to the column. He need only attach the steering wheel exactly as he was taught without any deviation to not only do his job correctly but to also be part of the team that builds that great car that all the experts rave over.
These laypeople you're talking about aren't put out on an island by themselves. Provided they are given a specific set of instructions that they follow exactly, the data they collect can and will be collated by the "experts" you seem to think don't exist. Do you know what the "laypoeople's" instructions are? Do you know how many "laypeople" are looking at a single play, each looking at a different aspect? If the answer is no, then aren't you making a completely unsubstantiated assumption?
Now, you might quibble with or even disagree completely with the "set on instructions" he was given but as you don't even know (probably) what those instructions are you're just guessing without any facts to back you up. Do you have those facts?
"
PFF lacks any sophistication to know what really made a given play successful" - And you know this how? Have you read what exactly it is they measure on each play? If not, you are again just making an assumption that isn't backed up by any facts. I don't have a prescription to PFF but I've been allowed to read what it is exactly that they measure on some of the plays by posters who do have a subscription and considering some of the limitations you yourself have alluded too, I think they do a pretty good job with the resources they have. Sure, they might miss a few things or not realize that what they thought was supposed to happen was actually meant to happen in a completely different way. In addition, don't those mistakes even out over the long run? Like all stats, they are indicators of trends and not the "truth" of every single player. Do you think it's a product of "
a guy's "stats" look good is because the guy watching wants him to look good" that JJ Watts has a great score and Dunbar doesn't? If the "stats" are so worthless then you'd expect players like Dunbar to score well too because it's all just random noise right?
"
I reported something paltry like 1 knockdown and 3 pressures. I then proceeded to watch them make the graphic with 7 knockdowns and 9 pressures to more match what Madden was saying" - This is the information age Fatbot and nobody would try to get away with stuff like that anymore because it's way too easy to find the truth. Do you realize that on the one hand you're saying these lay people don't know anything and on the other hand they're skewing the data to make the players they know nothing about look artificially good or bad? I can't take that example seriously at all.
Are their scores a perfectly accurate representation of every players abilities? No. When Mason ran for 117 yards in 14 carries did the fact that 89 of those yards came on one play where he ran through a hole that even I could have gained significant yardage in had I been the RB mean that the data is worthless? How about if he runs for 117 yards every game? Does that tell you anything worthwhile? If your using stats for anything other than trends, general information and comparison purposes I think you're looking in the wrong direction with any stat you look at.
They're not the gospel but they're certainly not worthless IMO.
Tell me where and how I'm wrong.
