Vikings Message Board.Com

Much like your other thread there are a lot of other factors that go into those numbers. The passing TD thing doesn't really surprise me, but an offense can score points in more ways than just TD passes. Every drive Ponder and AD get deep into enemy territory is 3 points so you have to give them credit for moving the ball into a position for Walsh to be so successful.

Turnovers being the most important factor isn't surprising either, as you said it's often a big point swing one way or the other. This has been Frazier's MO though, run the football, take care of the football, and play good defense. In that sense, the strategy works when Ponder (or anyone else) isn't turning the ball over.

AD getting more carries sounds simple enough but the misleading thing here is that feeding your RB is often a result of already winning or the offense already clicking / succeeding so it doesn't surprise me that when we've given AD more carries, we've won games. If you go 3 and out a lot, your RB can only get 2, maybe 3 carries if you're running on 3rd down. If you can move the chains though and run 12 plays on a drive, your RB can get 6-8 carries which is a lot more than 2 or 3 carries.

Also like your other thread, I think we have the WR's now in Jennings, Wright, Patterson, and perhaps a healthy simpson to help target that intermediate area of the field more often and successfully! It's nice to see that Ponder actually has been DECENT at it, when called upon to do it, now we should be able to!

GBFavreFan wrote:AVERAGE PASS LENGTH

In the 10 wins, Ponder’s passes were an average of 6.3 yards per completion and only 5.3 yards in the 6 losses. What this shows is that the team did better when Ponder was more efficient with his passes and not just throwing the ball willy nilly, but actually hitting guys further downfield with fewer passes. This is more evidence that having Ponder dink and dunk for 2 yards at a time doesn’t do squat for this team or for Ponder.

As mondry pointed out, more goes into these numbers than you're acknowledging and consequently, you're drawing conclusions that the numbers alone can't support. The section above is a good example. A greater yards per pass stat might indicate that the ball was being thrown downfield more often or it might just indicate that they gained more yards on the average pass play in that game. It may indicate both. However, it's just a number. It doesn't tell us where passes were thrown or caught. A 30 yard gain on a pass that travelled 5 yards in the air counts as much as a 30 yard gain on a pass that travelled 30 yards in the air.

Again, I appreciate the stats and the effort you're putting into these posts but the stats alone aren't enough to support some of the conclusions you're drawing. Stats are far more meaningful when viewed within the great context of the game and when viewed without sufficient context, they can be misleading.

By the way, here's another stat worth considering:

SACKS
Ponder was sacked a total of 15 times in the Vikings 10 wins. He was sacked 17 times in their 6 losses.

Mothman wrote:

As mondry pointed out, more goes into these numbers than you're acknowledging and consequently, you're drawing conclusions that the numbers alone can't support. The section above is a good example. A greater yards per pass stat might indicate that the ball was being thrown downfield more often or it might just indicate that they gained more yards on the average pass play in that game. It may indicate both. However, it's just a number. It doesn't tell us where passes were thrown or caught. A 30 yard gain on a pass that travelled 5 yards in the air counts as much as a 30 yard gain on a pass that travelled 30 yards in the air.

Again, I appreciate the stats and the effort you're putting into these posts but the stats alone aren't enough to support some of the conclusions you're drawing. Stats are far more meaningful when viewed within the great context of the game and when viewed without sufficient context, they can be misleading.

Mothman....What in your mind would be sufficient context that would support these opinions or yours? His opinion is no better or worse than yours and the opinions he expressed are well thought out, logical and rational. Of course there are always other factors that come into play here but it is extremely difficult to account for all factors in a game as complex as professional football to justify the aforementioned conclusions..

To Jim's point on avg pass length. Perhaps the pass length was greater in the wins because they were having more success moving the football against the defenses of the teams they beat vs. not having success moving the ball in the air against the teams they lost to.

Put in more simple terms, in the games they lost, the passing game was shut down, or taken out of the equation in spite of the run heavy schemes we face.

Same stats, different conclusion.

That isn't a bash on the OP, it just shows that you can reach different conclusions with his data parse, which is Jim's point.

Mondry I dissagree with your traditional assessment of more rush yards due to us having a lead. For most NFL teams you are right, but I think the Vikings are unique because of 28. We can generation offense with 28 without a lead. Obviously when we face a deificit of 10 points or more this ability becomes marginalized, but I would say our getting marginalized by a lead is different that most clubs.

MV711 wrote:Mothman....What in your mind would be sufficient context that would support these opinions or yours? His opinion is no better or worse than yours and the opinions he expressed are well thought out, logical and rational.

They're not always logical and that was my point. I'm not questioning the validity of his opinion (or yours), just the validity of some of his conclusions. To answer your question about context: I provided an example in my post above but I'll go into more detail.

The conclusion that a 6.3 yard average per completion in the Vikings 10 wins and a 5.3 yard average per pass play in their 6 losses shows that "Ponder was more efficient with his passes and not just throwing the ball willy nilly, but actually hitting guys further downfield with fewer passes" isn't sufficiently supported by those numbers. It's an example of a logical fallacy referred to as the hasty generalization, a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.

Average yards per completion indicates average yards gained. It's not necessarily an indication of how far downfield passes were being thrown. It might indicate that and it might not. More information is needed to draw the conclusion. How far did the passes travel in the air? How much yardage was gained after the catch?

Another example:

GB FavreFan wrote:

Ponder was picked off in only 3 of our 10 wins (TN, AZ,CH) for an average of .5 INT per game. He had an interception in 5 of our 6 losses (IND) for an average of 1.17 which was the same number of TD’s.

I went in feeling his general trepidation and ineptness is what held us back more than the turnovers. Turns out interceptions were the biggest factor against Ponder, and by only seeing that stat, one can conclude his interceptions weren’t the gimme kind on the 50 yard line, but his were likely the kind that either kills your own score or puts points on the other team’s scoreboard. Some players can throw 20 interceptions and still be a champion. Christian Ponder is clearly not that type of player.

This is another example of a hasty generalization. That INT stat on it's own does not provide enough information to adequately support the conclusion that Ponder's INTs were likely the kind that either kills a team's chance to score or puts points on the the board for the opposition. More info is needed to reach that conclusion. Where were the Vikes on the field for each INT? What were the results of the subsequent possessions by opponents? I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, just that it isn't sufficiently supported.

Another example:

LONGEST PASS

This is my favorite category because I think Ponder has a great medium ball. He’s not a 70 yard bomber, but when he throws it 25-40 I think he’s as good as anybody (and that’s where I think Greg Jennings will really pay dividends.) In the 10 wins, Ponder averaged a longest pass of 32 yards, and in the 6 losses he averaged a long ball of only 22 yards. I’ve been hardest on Ponder for not looking down field enough and this backs me up.

In the losses, his longest pass was 33 yards against the Bucs, while the rest are in the 20’s or teens. In the wins, we see Ponder throwing bombs for 54, 45, and 65. This is the guy we want to see. When he is efficient and has the confidence and conviction to throw the ball downfield, the field gets stretched, his numbers go up and we win.

Once again, the same problem arises. The evidence doesn't sufficiently support the conclusions. He's looking at completed passes and saying because the average longest completion in wins was 10 yards greater than the average longest completion in losses, that backs up his view that Ponder doesn't look downfield enough. Unfortunately, those numbers don't indicate how often Ponder looked downfield. They don't even indicate how often he attempted passes downfield. They're indicative of yards gained on the longest completion in each game. We don't know how many of those long gains came on longer passes and how many involved long runs after the catch. We don't know how often Ponder looked downfield, attempted passes downfield, etc. There's not enough evidence.

He wrote about averages in wins and losses and then pointed out that "In the losses, his longest pass was 33 yards against the Bucs, while the rest are in the 20’s or teens. In the wins, we see Ponder throwing bombs for 54, 45, and 65". In some wins we did see bombs for 54, 45 and 65 yards. In others, the longest completed passes were for 14 (AZ and STL), 16 (CHI) and 24 (SF) so is there really any correlation between the length of the longest pass Ponder completed in a game and the Vikes winning or losing?

I'm not trying to pick on anybody here. I'm simply saying that conclusions need to be supported by sufficient evidence and when they're not, they are questionable. I'm cautioning against sweeping generalizations based on inadequate evidence.

MV711 wrote:Of course there are always other factors that come into play here but it is extremely difficult to account for all factors in a game as complex as professional football to justify the aforementioned conclusions.

I agree. It is difficult but when too little evidence is presented in support of a conclusion, the conclusion is far less convincing. It can even be false.

I hope all of that helps you understand the point I was making!

mansquatch wrote:To Jim's point on avg pass length. Perhaps the pass length was greater in the wins because they were having more success moving the football against the defenses of the teams they beat vs. not having success moving the ball in the air against the teams they lost to.

Put in more simple terms, in the games they lost, the passing game was shut down, or taken out of the equation in spite of the run heavy schemes we face.

Same stats, different conclusion.

That isn't a bash on the OP, it just shows that you can reach different conclusions with his data parse, which is Jim's point.

Exactly!

GBFavreFan wrote: I thought I'd reprint the very first line of the post since many of you seemed to have missed it.

I didn't miss that line. It just doesn't pertain to the point I made about providing sufficient evidence, which was about specific factors associated with the conclusions you drew in your post. Acknowledging that there are many intangibles and factors involved in wins and losses doesn't make drawing a conclusion about how often the QB was hitting receivers downfield based solely on yards gained per completion any more logical.

Again, I want to reiterate that I appreciate the time and effort you're putting into these posts. They're interesting, I enjoy reading them and they're good fuel for conversation.

Mothman wrote: I didn't miss that line. It just doesn't pertain to the point I made about providing sufficient evidence, which was about specific factors associated with the conclusions you drew in your post. Acknowledging that there are many intangibles and factors involved in wins and losses doesn't make drawing a conclusion about how often the QB was hitting receivers downfield based solely on yards gained per completion any more logical.

You pontificate your opinions rather well but that doesn't make them right or wrong or better or worse. One can draw many conclusions from what has been stated but they are only OPINIONS and not facts by any means. Too many variables and intangibles in this case.

MV711 wrote: You pontificate your opinions rather well but that doesn't make them right or wrong or better or worse. One can draw many conclusions from what has been stated but they are only OPINIONS and not facts by any means. Too many variables and intangibles in this case.

The same can be said about your views or anyone's opinions regarding these stats and results.

There will always be a lot of variables and intangibles, which is exactly what Jim was saying. So I assume you are agreeing with him.

Very interesting thread. OP, you did a lot of work and put a lot of thought into your analysis. Thanks for doing that and for giving me an interesting lunch-time read!

But please do not get so defensive about Moth's critiques. He's spot on. You're considering these stats in a vacuum, and that can lead to incorrect conclusions. Context is everything.

Good initial post and good critique JIm. I enjoyed this thread; it illustrates the impressive level of dialogue and analysis of this site. It's by far the best forum for intelligent Vikings fans.

The question is just what the heck is a Mana Mana?

The question is WHO CARES?

HOHOHOAHAHAHA

Sorry couldn't resist.

Everyone apprecaites your posting data. However, when you post data and draw conclusions from it, you invite folks to interpret the data and your conclusions and have their own opinions.

Consider that the criticism Jim made wasn't so much that you are wrong, but that one could just as easily reach completely different conclusions from your Data. That in of itself questions all of the conclusions made from the data. However, do not lose sight of that fact that you provided data that created conversation and given that it is May in the NFL season that is all we really have to disucss, so in that sense I say Bravo!

GBFavreFan wrote:I thought it was pretty clear, by how I wrote them, (particularly that line about how there are more factors to winning and losing then these) that the observations I made were not absolute. But this post, (Did we forget this is an internet post not a college thesis?) contained many generalizations (hence adding a qualification to almost every statement I made.) But I wasn’t aware of how dangerous sweeping generalizations were, so I want to thank Mothman for stepping up and protecting everyone. I’m sure if he didn’t, people would be driving off the road getting into car accidents, getting into unnecessary fights at sports bars, buying Ponder jerseys, etc. and since when are we not allowed to make generalizations? Isn’t this a fan forum? Isn’t this sports? I’ve seen economic articles in the Wall Street Journal based on a limited number of stats and tons of generalizations, and they seem to get away with it. Is that sort of thing not allowed here?

Nobody said anything about what's allowed. You're allowed to voice your opinions and post your thoughts on this fan forum but please, don't play the victim when someone doesn't react to your efforts the way you'd like. If you're posting on a message board, a place that is all about discussion, then expect what you post to be discussed. If you only wanted to take the time to post the stats you did, that's fine. I don't expect anyone to write a college thesis to express their thoughts about the Vikings. However, I didn't think the stats you posted were enough to support some of the conclusions that accompanied them and I explained why. Instead of apparently taking offense at that, why not address it directly and continue the discussion?

But if my statements in this internet post didn’t seem right to you, instead of just sitting back and criticizing like the old men in the Muppet Show, take all that negative energy and instead dig up the stats to support your criticism.

Because my criticism wasn't based on statistics. It was a criticism regarding logic and I supported it by explaining where the logical fallacies in drawing conclusions based on insufficient evidence lie. I didn't say you were wrong about what you concluded. I simply pointed out that the evidence wasn't sufficient to support it and I made every effort to be respectful and impersonal in my comments. I didn't attack you or make snide comments about you like those you just made about me above.

For instance your attack of my conclusion about Ponder’s long completions. Why don’t you look up where his incomplete passes went? Post something like “actually Ponder threw it X times beyond 30 yards in those losses … or the yards after the catch in the X games was greater in the wins, etc.” Instead you crap on statements you clearly didn’t get (I never said Ponder’s long passes determine if they win, for instance) and add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

I felt I added something of value to the conversation. I'm genuinely sorry you felt otherwise. I don't think I posted that you claimed Ponder’s long passes determine if they win and I did post some additional information in support of my points.

I was hoping by just ignoring your many posts this would stop, but it’s not. In the future Mothman, why not just save the headaches for everyone and stop replying to my posts, and everyone will just have to survive without you protecting them from generalized conclusions.

I don't know why you seem to have such a problem with my replies to your posts because you don't react this way when others express critical thoughts about what you write. Whatever the reason, it seems personal and I wish you'd get over it because my reasons for responding to your posts are definitely not personal. I took issue with something you wrote about football and I tried to do so respectfully and intelligently. I'm here to talk about the Vikings and if you are too, I don't understand why you have a problem with an intelligent rebuttal. Is there some reason to take the observation that a stat indicating passing yards gained doesn't necessarily reflect the distance passes travelled down the field personally, as you seem to have done? Is there some reason to believe that's an attempt to stifle what you're allowed to post?

I meant no offense earlier and I mean no offense now but your reaction baffles me.

MV711 wrote:pontificate your opinions rather well but that doesn't make them right or wrong or better or worse. One can draw many conclusions from what has been stated but they are only OPINIONS and not facts by any means. Too many variables and intangibles in this case.

First: thank you. I try to express myself well.

Second, I don't think we're just talking about a difference of opinion. For example, stating that average yards per completion numbers are an indication of yards gained and, on their own, don't necessarily indicate how far downfield passes were targeted isn't an opinion. It's a fact. An average yards gained per completion stat indicates average yards gained per completion. It can't tell us anything more. It's just data with no accompanying information. Do you see my point?

Mothman wrote: First: thank you. I try to express myself well.

Second, I don't think we're just talking about a difference of opinion. For example, stating that average yards per completion numbers are an indication of yards gained and, on their own, don't necessarily indicate how far downfield passes were targeted isn't an opinion. It's a fact. An average yards gained per completion stat indicates average yards gained per completion. It can't tell us anything more. It's just data with no accompanying information. Do you see my point?

You're overcomplicating the issue with the original poster...He didn't state his comments as being gospel, only his simple analysis and opinion. Some people take their opinions rather seriously and others don't. He may be sensitive to your comments on his post but he as well as everyone is entitled to their comments/opinions, right or wrong.

I give him props for his post in that I had a feeling some would be hammering him for simply stating his opinion, well thought out or not. He may not have written a doctorial thesis on this topic but I can't fault him for that!!

As Vike fans, lets just hope Ponder performs to our high expectations of a franchise QB.

GBFavreFan wrote: I appreciate your sentiment, but Jim's critiques were merely stating the obvious. The stats I presented are being analyzed in a vacuum? The answer to that is no #### Sherlock. That's why I keep saying these statements aren't absolute repeatedly. You're acting like I wrote this as if I figured out some magic formula that I had to share with the world and I was ready to call the Wilf's to hire me or something. I qualified my statements repeatedly as not absolute. These were only singular conclusions and I made no bones about that, nor did I state or imply what I wrote here is the limit of truth.

It's interesting to see what conclusions people come up with from the same data, however Jim failed to come up with any conclusions of his own, he just said mine weren't right without adding any statistical information that might actually enhance the conversation, only to say "you're wrong you're generalizing". This didn't take a lot of time for me, other than to pull these stats and write down a conclusion from that stat and guess what the meaning behind it is. Do you hear detectives complain they can't solve a case because they don't have enough information? That's the beauty of it, guessing the meaning behind something based on the information that is presented. If someone wants to take it a step further and investigate another layer of stats that would be great.

Maybe I am oversensitive to his replies, because this isn't the first time and he tends to sprinkle insulting words into his posts and I'm not going to get into a war of insults on a sports forum. And I have no problem with what anyone else posted on this thread, but it's annoying when Mothman constantly criticizes when he never makes any sort of statement or conclusion that hadn't been said by at least 50 other people. So if someone is going to be so critical, they need to stop being so safe and conservative with their own opinions, show some guts and make some bold statements of his own, and leave himself open to some criticism once in a while.

That's just it, we don't need more stats. We need better argumentation with the data you've supplied. Seriously, thanks for making a really interesting post with all kinds of valuable raw data. Moth, others and I see some holes in the conclusions you draw from that data and we have all done it in what I perceive to be a respectful way. I don't get why you're being so sensitive about these posts. Perhaps you expected a different reaction? I don't know, but there's no need to be disrespectful (no sh!t sherlock?); it doesn't help your cause.

This is a place for respectful and (hopefully) intelligent dialogue. I hope you continue to contribute to that.