Some insight into why Philbin was fired and Gase was hired.

[Spider-Dan]

If the assignment of such points corresponds to the probability of obtaining a first down, then it's far less problematic (if at all) than a pass-blocking grade whose rationale is unknown and which may be inconsistently applied across players and teams, as well as across graders.

Do you actually know the "formula" for assigning a value of -1 to a 3-yard loss?  Your comments imply that not only are you aware of this formula, but that it is strictly calculated from historical probability (which, in itself, seems curious given the vast difference in offenses and rules between eras).

For example, how is it that a 3-yard loss is worth exactly -1 point both before and after the recent emphasis on defensive holding calls?  Seems kind of... well, arbitrary.

edit: Remember, you're the one that cast the net over the entirety of subjective stats.  You could have said that you disagree with PFF's ratings, or that you feel that their formulas assign too much weight to the wrong areas.  But you didn't; you simply said that they are subjective and therefore necessarily unreliable.  So once you play that card, all subjective stats (including DVOA) go out the window.

Of course, you could try to make the anti-Tannehill argument solely using objective stats, but there's a rather obvious reason why you aren't: it's trivial to take year-to-year objective stats and "prove" all sorts of ridiculous conclusions.

[Dolfanalyst]

Do you actually know the "formula" for assigning a value of -1 to a 3-yard loss?  Your comments imply that not only are you aware of this formula, but that it is strictly calculated from historical probability (which, in itself, seems curious given the vast difference in offenses and rules between eras).

Even if it isn't, the resulting measurements, while perhaps being less valid, would still be something that could permit reliable comparisons among players and teams, because they'd be based on a core unit of measurement (the yard) that's indisputable and can be applied consistently by anyone.

Again, compare that to PFF, whose unit of measurement is based on, what?  And how do we know the people doing the grading are applying it consistently, whatever it is?

So, the distinction here is where the subjectivity lies.  You can say that weighing 200 pounds is "good," and that's a subjective intepretation, but at least we can know you weigh 200 pounds with certainty if we have a reliable scale.  If we can't even determine you weigh 200 because we don't know how reliable the scale is, we got a problem!

Of course, you could try to make the anti-Tannehill argument solely using objective stats, but there's a rather obvious reason why you aren't: it's trivial to take year-to-year objective stats and "prove" all sorts of ridiculous conclusions.

We can certainly evaluate Tannehill using objective statistics in my opinion.

[Rich]

DVOA, at its core, is based on yardage.

Great. But then they look at all this situational stuff that lends itself to subjectivity.

Also, are they paying attention to how good the blocking was and taking that into account?

Also, PFF evaluates based on things such as yardage, broken tackles, fumbles, etc as well.

Just like you pick and choose the advanced stats you want to believe in, you pick and choose the components of the evaluation process that you want to highlight.

There is no objectivity in your approach.

[Dolfanalyst]

Great. But then they look at all this situational stuff that lends itself to subjectivity.

That situational stuff is exactly what makes it differ from less sophisticated statistics.  A "garbage time" TD, for example, while worth equally as much as a more impactful TD in terms of the traditional QB rating formula, is worth less in the DVOA system, owing to its lesser value in terms of its probability in helping the team win.  A TD pass against a poorer defense is also worth less than a TD pass against a better defense.

Also, are they paying attention to how good the blocking was and taking that into account?

Also, PFF evaluates based on things such as yardage, broken tackles, fumbles, etc as well.

Just like you pick and choose the advanced stats you want to believe in, you pick and choose the components of the evaluation process that you want to highlight.

Yes, eventually one does have to settle on the measurements of players' performance (statistics) one considers to be most rigorous, and yes that is a subjective decision, but not an arbitrary and uninformed one.

There is no objectivity in your approach.

And where is the objectivity in yours?

Please don't tell me you consider yourself something akin to "the almighty flim-watcher," whose personal viewing of the film supersedes that of all others.

[Spider-Dan]

Even if it isn't, the resulting measurements, while perhaps being less valid, would still be something that could permit reliable comparisons among players and teams, because they'd be based on a core unit of measurement (the yard) that's indisputable and can be applied consistently by anyone.

No, DVOA is not based on "yards"; it's based on "success points," which are assigned in part (<--- this part is important) based on yards, but also based on other factors like the current down.

To say that DVOA is reliable because it's "based on yards" is a useless distinction.  PFF's pass-blocking grades are rather obviously also "based on yards": yards of penetration by the defender, yards of push by the OLineman, yards gained, yards tackled behind LOS, etc.  The overwhelming majority of metrics (if not literally all) have at least some connection to yards, which (by your logic) makes them consistently applicable by anyone.

You're still dancing around the core point, which is that DVOA is based on an arbitrarily weighted scoring system.  There is no objective argument for why a 3-yard loss (on any down! in multiple eras!) should be worth exactly -1 point.

It's a subjective stat, and if we are to believe your earlier statements, subjective stats are "unreliable" and therefore of "questionable validity".

[Dolfanalyst]

No, DVOA is not based on "yards"; it's based on "success points," which are assigned in part (<--- this part is important) based on yards, but also based on other factors like the current down.

To say that DVOA is reliable because it's "based on yards" is a useless distinction.  PFF's pass-blocking grades are rather obviously also "based on yards": yards of penetration by the defender, yards of push by the OLineman, yards gained, yards tackled behind LOS, etc.   The overwhelming majority of metrics (if not literally all) have at least some connection to yards, which (by your logic) makes them consistently applicable by anyone.

And so where is that explanation of PFF's subjective grades, i.e., "we gave Jason Fox a -1 on this play because the defender he was responsible for blocking penetrated three yards into the backfield"?  That explanation doesn't exist, and so the unit of measurement used by PFF is unknown.  The scale of measurement is known (-3 to +3, apparently), but those units haven't been specified and are therefore of unknown meaning.

And that says nothing about how consistently applied they are across players, teams, and graders, where there is obviously incredibly large room for variation that can compound itself when you consider those multiple sources of it.

Again, if we can't determine you weigh 200 with certainty because we can't determine that the scale that's weighing you is reliable, we got a problem!

You're still dancing around the core point, which is that DVOA is based on an arbitrarily weighted scoring system.  There is no objective argument for why a 3-yard loss (on any down! in multiple eras!) should be worth exactly -1 point.

If the weighted scoring system corresponds to the probability with which a team will obtain a first down on subsequent plays, how is that arbitrary?

[Rich]

That situational stuff is exactly what makes it differ from less sophisticated statistics.  A "garbage time" TD, for example, while worth equally as much as a more impactful TD in terms of the traditional QB rating formula, is worth less in the DVOA system, owing to its lesser value in terms of its probability in helping the team win.  A TD pass against a poorer defense is also worth less than a TD pass against a better defense.

But all this does is bring up a ton more questions.

How to they account for match ups? In other words, some teams match up better than others regardless of their rating. Sometimes a team is having a better or worse day than normal. Injuries. Did Brandon Marshall catch the pass against a top corner or a poor corner (see PFF actually analyzes this)?

So again, no matter how you slice it, not only is it subjective, but there is always going to be an arbitrary component into it.

And where is the objectivity in yours?

I don't cherry pick stats to further my argument while pretending that I am not cherry picking stats to further my argument.

[Phishfan]

Philbin nor Gase (you know, the topic of this thread) has been mentioned since page 2 and you guys are going nowhere. Start a more appropriate thread if we are going to continue this nonsense.