Okay, what are your theories for difference?

[rhickok1109]

milk tastes better today than it did yesterday because the price is higher.

This is a great line as applied to the 'improved' passing statistics.

Everything else, I don't know? ... but the back and forth bickering definitely doesn't improve the football discussion - though this was probably an odd discussion from the start as evidenced by the multiple people who were confused and/or pointed out the common sense reasons.

Except that its not really applicable to this particular discussion. While passing numbers have obviously improved across the board, Brady's numbers have improved at a higher rate than the league average...and he has done so while being a larger part of the Patriots offense when compared to his early years. If people can't wrap their heads around a relatively simple statistical concept of comparing a set of numbers to the mean, then I guess you are correct in saying that people would be confused right away. Its like this discussion is taking place on two different levels of comprehension.

Well ... Brady's number improved at a higher rate during three seasons. Since 2011, he's been 10-15% above average, which pretty much matches what he did in his first six years as a starter.

[Bryan]

Well ... Brady's number improved at a higher rate during three seasons. Since 2011, he's been 10-15% above average, which pretty much matches what he did in his first six years as a starter.

Brady's Rate+ is higher in 2009 (116), 2012 (116) & 2015 (119) than any of his first six years as a starter (where his highest Rate+ was 115 in 2004). This is on top of simply ignoring his 3 remarkable seasons of 2007 (148), 2010 (130) and 2011 (127). Basically, if we just count Brady's "bad" years of the 2nd half of his career, they are still statistically better relative to league average than his "good" years of the 1st half of his career. I'd say that one can draw the conclusion that Brady has gotten better with age from that bit of information. I guess we can debate the relative merit of statistics in general, and the specific value of an 'advanced' passing statistic such as Rate+, but I think the numbers themselves are pretty clear. Maybe I am just splitting hairs at this point.

[Reaser]

Except that its not really applicable to this particular discussion. While passing numbers have obviously improved across the board, Brady's numbers have improved at a higher rate than the league average...and he has done so while being a larger part of the Patriots offense when compared to his early years. If people can't wrap their heads around a relatively simple statistical concept of comparing a set of numbers to the mean, then I guess you are correct in saying that people would be confused right away. Its like this discussion is taking place on two different levels of comprehension.

Except that it is very applicable.

People are/were confused, if you read the thread. Some weren't clear on what the article was trying to say and others were astounded by the simplicity of the explanation(s) for the rise in passing statistics, leading them to wonder what the point of the question was. There's multiple posters, as you can see in the thread. You'll also note that the advanced stats - created by people who have never played the position and wouldn't even know something as basic as how to take a snap from center - were not used in the article in question. Raw numbers per 16 games were used. Then the question was asked, why did the [raw] stats increase? Therefore, you get the common sense and correct answers, from multiple people.

I do agree though, this discussion is on two different levels. One where people understand football and one where people are trying to apply stats across the board as if not only are stats comparable in different eras of passing (within a relatively short time frame) but also as if style of play - the actual sport on the field - is also comparable in the time frame, which obviously (or should be obvious) it is not. "Brady is a larger part of the offense", said as if the sport didn't change at all and QB's in general are not themselves a larger part of the offense in recent times. Yes, some people are very confused.

[Reaser]

Lets have some fun with stats (note: Only putting roughly a minute into this)

Taking out the rookie year (as was done with Brady, for obvious reasons) and not counting 2010 since he was clearly done. Here is Favre with the same 2007 divider.

1992-2006 (16 gm avg): 61.1% completion percentage, 3833 yards per season, 18 ints per season, and a 85.2 passer rating.
2007-2009 (16 gm avg): 66.9% completion percentage, 3943 yards per season, 15 ints per season, and a 94.7 passer rating.

What's your guys' theory for the difference? Obviously 'something' happened in 2007, because from 2006 to 2007 his completion percentage went from 56.0% to 66.5%! and from 2006 to 2007 his passer rating went from 72.7 to 95.7!

... and as you can clearly see - because as always, stats tell the story - he improved dramatically from the period when he was winning MVP's and was 1st-team All-Pro multiple times to the period after 2007. His completion percentage was 8.8% better, he threw for over a 100 yards more per season, he threw 3 less ints per season and his passer rating skyrocketed. Not to mention - amazing stat alert - his Int%+ was a career best 123 in 2009!

Stats.

[Reaser]

Maybe these are better comparisons using the 2007 dividing line? (stats according to PFR, for quick reference):

Peyton Manning (not counting 2015 for obvious reasons)
1998-2006 had a 94.4 passer rating.
2007-2014 he had a 101.2 passer rating.

Was he really that much better starting in 2007, immediately after he had won his only championship and after already being MVP multiple times? I ask and I answer, yes, because obviously 'something' happened in 2007, stats are telling me he became a completely different player. He went from playing at an MVP level to playing at an, umm, MVP level. How we really knew he improved drastically - since we're just throwing out random stats - is that his three best Sack%+ seasons came in 2009, 2013 and 2010!

Maybe Big Ben is a better comparison? We'll even use his rookie season because, speaking of meaningful individual stats, look at that QB W/L record! Plus the Rate+ of 122! Yup, we're using 2004.

2004-2006: 87.9 passer rating.
2007-2015 95.4 passer rating.

The real confirmation is that his best Rate+ was 130 in 2007. Coincidentally, of course, after a 2006 season when his Rate+ was 92 ...

Maybe Drew Brees is better since we can use almost all the same seasons as Brady?

Drew Brees (not counting 2001 for obvious reasons)
2002-2006: 87.5 passer rating
2007-2015: 99.3 passer rating
(Note: Too lazy to type the yards, TD's, etc but trust me, they're higher in the latter period - because it's almost like passing numbers have gone up or something?)

Sure, his only consensus All-Pro season came in 2006 and look at that Rate+ in 2004! but the stats don't lie, nothing special through 2006, but from 2007-current, 'something' happened and he became a completely different player, just look at his passing yards per game and you can see clearly how much he got better from 2006 when he was mediocre at best (so the stats tell me). His top 9 seasons in average passing yards per game ALL came in 2007-2015, his 6 worst seasons in average passing yards per game ALL came in 2001-2006. His 9 seasons where he threw the most TD passes ALL came in 2007-2015, his 6 seasons where he threw the least TD passes ALL came in 2001-2006. Hmm, what are your theories for the difference? This season he threw for 324.7 yards a game, not even his career best. In 2006 - again, when he was consensus 1st-team All-Pro - he only threw for 276.1 yards a game, garbage. I'm not impressed. Drew Brees was clearly average then became awesome, just look at the numbers!

Stats.

Note: A lot of sarcasm was used in the above post.

[JohnTurney]

Lets have some fun with stats (note: Only putting roughly a minute into this)

Taking out the rookie year (as was done with Brady, for obvious reasons) and not counting 2010 since he was clearly done. Here is Favre with the same 2007 divider.

1992-2006 (16 gm avg): 61.1% completion percentage, 3833 yards per season, 18 ints per season, and a 85.2 passer rating.
2007-2009 (16 gm avg): 66.9% completion percentage, 3943 yards per season, 15 ints per season, and a 94.7 passer rating.

What's your guys' theory for the difference? Obviously 'something' happened in 2007, because from 2006 to 2007 his completion percentage went from 56.0% to 66.5%! and from 2006 to 2007 his passer rating went from 72.7 to 95.7!

... and as you can clearly see - because as always, stats tell the story - he improved dramatically from the period when he was winning MVP's and was 1st-team All-Pro multiple times to the period after 2007. His completion percentage was 8.8% better, he threw for over a 100 yards more per season, he threw 3 less ints per season and his passer rating skyrocketed. Not to mention - amazing stat alert - his Int%+ was a career best 123 in 2009!

Stats.

Brett Favre on the 2009 season, "It’s probably, of all the years I played, considering all the circumstances, it was my best year individually in how I played.” he also was quotes as saying "Brett Favre has won a Super Bowl and three MVP awards, but he never has had a passing season like this one."

Now. Favre has played the game, knows who take a snap from center. What is he saying? Is he looking at stats?

Stats are not something to be ignored. Stats, yes, can be used errantly, to make false comparisons, for example.

[JohnTurney]

Maybe these are better comparisons using the 2007 dividing line? (stats according to PFR, for quick reference):

Peyton Manning (not counting 2015 for obvious reasons)
1998-2006 had a 94.4 passer rating.
2007-2014 he had a 101.2 passer rating.

Was he really that much better starting in 2007, immediately after he had won his only championship and after already being MVP multiple times? I ask and I answer, yes, because obviously 'something' happened in 2007, stats are telling me he became a completely different player. He went from playing at an MVP level to playing at an, umm, MVP level. How we really knew he improved drastically - since we're just throwing out random stats - is that his three best Sack%+ seasons came in 2009, 2013 and 2010!

Maybe Big Ben is a better comparison? We'll even use his rookie season because, speaking of meaningful individual stats, look at that QB W/L record! Plus the Rate+ of 122! Yup, we're using 2004.

2004-2006: 87.9 passer rating.
2007-2015 95.4 passer rating.

The real confirmation is that his best Rate+ was 130 in 2007. Coincidentally, of course, after a 2006 season when his Rate+ was 92 ...

Maybe Drew Brees is better since we can use almost all the same seasons as Brady?

Drew Brees (not counting 2001 for obvious reasons)
2002-2006: 87.5 passer rating
2007-2015: 99.3 passer rating
(Note: Too lazy to type the yards, TD's, etc but trust me, they're higher in the latter period - because it's almost like passing numbers have gone up or something?)

Sure, his only consensus All-Pro season came in 2006 and look at that Rate+ in 2004! but the stats don't lie, nothing special through 2006, but from 2007-current, 'something' happened and he became a completely different player, just look at his passing yards per game and you can see clearly how much he got better from 2006 when he was mediocre at best (so the stats tell me). His top 9 seasons in average passing yards per game ALL came in 2007-2015, his 6 worst seasons in average passing yards per game ALL came in 2001-2006. His 9 seasons where he threw the most TD passes ALL came in 2007-2015, his 6 seasons where he threw the least TD passes ALL came in 2001-2006. Hmm, what are your theories for the difference? This season he threw for 324.7 yards a game, not even his career best. In 2006 - again, when he was consensus 1st-team All-Pro - he only threw for 276.1 yards a game, garbage. I'm not impressed. Drew Brees was clearly average then became awesome, just look at the numbers!

Stats.

Note: A lot of sarcasm was used in the above post.

Stats don't lie, people do. And even though your post was sarcasm, by dividing at 2007 you ignore a real change in Brees career, which was the move to NO. In his case the jump is his productivity was a coach change, scheme change and all the is easily seen.

With Favre the lie was picking a long end and short end to compate. Stats didn't do that, people did.

With Manning same, thing, his leap year was not 2007. Stats didn't lie, people did.

So, what you have failed to do is explain how rule changes and how the game is played caused the jump for Brady in 2007, I thought we agreed there were reasons he was more accurate, doubled TDs, lowered INTs. You primary premise was "how the game is played" with a splash of Welker and Moss.
Now, it seems you are back to there is no difference. Maybe Iam reading your sarcasm wrong, but by bringing examples your attack is on stats, it seems.

Well, that's fine, but there are plenty people who played the game, know how to take a snap and do look at stats, in context. Two examples: Brett Favre and John Elway. I will add in Steve Young who I have talked to about the passer rating and how he shared what Wlash thought about it and how it was important. I will also throw in Bill Belichick who told someone I know that anything that compares TD passes to INTs has value in his book, meaning the passer rating has some value as a metric to him.

I actually love to learn things who played the NFL game.

[Reaser]

Brett Favre on the 2009 season, "It’s probably, of all the years I played, considering all the circumstances, it was my best year individually in how I played.” he also was quotes as saying "Brett Favre has won a Super Bowl and three MVP awards, but he never has had a passing season like this one."

Now. Favre has played the game, knows who take a snap from center. What is he saying? Is he looking at stats?

Stats are not something to be ignored. Stats, yes, can be used errantly, to make false comparisons, for example.

Yes, it was a great passing season, as I noted. Was passing easier in 2009 than in the 90's? Hmm ...

Was he looking at stats? I don't know, you tell me, you're apparently best friends.

Have you ever taken a snap from center? (since you're stuck on and mentioned multiple times a throwaway comment that was about people who create statistical categories, which Favre did not do, which makes your response odd, as well as false) ...

Yes, false comparisons, like applying raw numbers from one significantly different passing era to another and saying "look guys, the numbers are higher", when all passing numbers are higher.

by dividing at 2007 you ignore a real change in Brees career, which was the move to NO. In his case the jump is his productivity was a coach change, scheme change and all the is easily seen.

Brees moved to NO in 2006. I noted the 1st-team all-pro. I also noted how 2006 was behind 2007-2015 in TD passes and yards per game. So ... not ignored.

With Favre the lie was picking a long end and short end to compate. Stats didn't do that, people did.

You'll note I noted the difference between 2006 and 2007. "completion percentage went from 56.0% to 66.5% and from 2006 to 2007 his passer rating went from 72.7 to 95.7" ...

So, what you have failed to do is explain how rule changes and how the game is played caused the jump for Brady in 2007, I thought we agreed there were reasons he was more accurate, doubled TDs, lowered INTs. You primary premise was "how the game is played" with a splash of Welker and Moss. Now, it seems you are back to there is no difference. Maybe Iam reading your sarcasm wrong, but by bringing examples your attack is on stats, it seems.

I haven't failed to do anything, your article failed. I have not said "there is no difference" or gone back to "there is no difference", I never even said that anywhere? I said how the game is played has changed (it has, correct), 2007 he got Moss and Welker (he did, correct) and overall the raw stats are comparing one passing era to another (with many changes in between the short period of time. As previously said, there isn't one line of demarcation in this period in regards to rule changes and how they increased passing statistics, there's multiple.)

Bill Belichick who told someone I know that anything that compares TD passes to INTs has value in his book, meaning the passer rating has some value as a metric to him.

Belichick - and hundreds of coaches/GMs/scouts/players - has said that sacks are overrated. Yet you give them weight. Almost as if you have your own opinion, but can't think for yourself on topics where it's not convenient for you to do so, or am I reading you wrong and using that as an excuse to make unnecessary comments?

I actually love to learn things who played the NFL game.

Oh, I'm definitely impressed by your dropping of names. But yes, me too. Learn from coaches also. I have talked to former NFL players (and college players and high school players) as well, and - gasp! - I've even played against players that are in the NFL, including a player who will be playing this Sunday, and I learned how to play the QB position from a Rose Bowl winning QB, and myself was a QB for - to date - a third of my life, and played at a decent enough level to be recruited by lower level colleges. I have even coached QB's. If we're bringing football resumes into this for some unknown reason. I guess that's fair, does yours include "taking snaps from center"?

[mwald]

Aw hell, I might as well weigh if Bob Gill doesn't have any objections.

P*ssing matches like this are why, even though I love football history, I've chosen to hone and/or demonstrate what I know by putting a reputation-risking stake in the ground on games that haven't been played yet. You win. You lose. You tie. But after it's over, you know who was right and you know who was wrong.

It's a dangerous place to live, but oh so satisfying.

P.S. Reaser, have to tip my hat to you on your last post even though I disagree with much of it.

[Reaser]

I've chosen to hone and/or demonstrate what I know by putting a reputation-risking stake in the ground on games that haven't been played yet. You win. You lose. You tie. But after it's over, you know who was right and you know who was wrong.

It's a dangerous place to live, but oh so satisfying.

That's one way to do it. Though I've always liked seasonal predictions (especially made before the preseason starts, to 'live' even more dangerously), specifically enjoy SB predictions (mine, as always documented here, was Seattle v. NE, if NE doesn't win Sunday then that'll break my streak of having at least one SB participant correct every year since 2011).

Though week-to-week is done also. I have some of my totals (if you or anyone else cares to share theirs?), since this thread has gone sideways anyways, may as well go off topic. It was slightly a down year (specifically college) for me but you are what your record says you are.

NFL straight-up (to date, including playoffs): 164-100
NFL ATS: We turn in our sheets weekly so I'd have to later add up the season total but i know 100% it's a handful of games better than above. Which is the usual for me (and opposite of most people i know who do worse ATS.)
College ATS: 170-120 (we pick Pac-12 and Top 25 games weekly)
College Bowl games (no spread): 26-15