Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JPAnalyst t1_jdqhf83 wrote

You’re looking at volume here when you need to be looking at efficiency. Players who throw more pass for more yards. This needs to be done as yards per attempt if you’re trying to glean anything meaningful out of this. And you would benefit in using a sample size of more than one season. For Example Russell Wilson’s 2023 is absolutely not indicative of the QB he has been throughout his career. Same with Tua. You’ve got an again Joe Flacco listed at 1,000 yards because he’s done, he has one foot out the door and his 2023 shouldn’t be the data used to judge his effective as it relates to his height. This is extremely flawed for so many reasons. If you aren’t looking at a players efficiency (again, not volume) over a longer period of time, you’re going to be led to a wrong conclusion.

2

KJ6BWB OP t1_jdqten0 wrote

> You’re looking at volume here when you need to be looking at efficiency. Players who throw more pass for more yards.

I did that at https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/122c5b2/american_football_starting_quarterback_pass/

Why should I let a player's past greatness affect their current stats? If they have one foot out the door to retirement now and aren't doing so great now then they aren't doing so great. And probably the overall tenor of the game has changed over time. For instance, as overall player height increased in basketball, we see an overall net increase in slam dunks over long three pointers. If you can take two or three steps and have a better chance at making more points then why not do that.

However, i admit a greater volume of data might show something different. Feel free to put that together, I'm excited to see what you come up with. :)

0