Russell Wilson plays poorly in the First Quarter?

[oasis]

I didn't read all of the above posts, so forgive me if someone mentioned this before:

The seahawks offense is predicated on tiring out the defense so of course offensive numbers should be better later in the game. Russell's numbers are a product of the offense. If he played for a pass-first team, his numbers would be more even throughout games.

 

[hawknation2014]

Matt Flynn, Matt Cassell, and Chad Henne were really good 1st QTR QBs.

Not worried.

I know what you're getting at, but all three had negative grades in the First Quarter, as well.

I think your misusing the presentation.

How so? :2:

 

[Jville]

Matt Flynn, Matt Cassell, and Chad Henne were really good 1st QTR QBs.

Not worried.

I know what you're getting at, but all three had negative grades in the First Quarter, as well.

I think your misusing the presentation.

How so? :2:

I haven't been able to explain it to you. I tried a couple of months ago with no success. I also pointed to the prerequisite knowledge required to discuss it.

There are posts within this thread that address misuse as well. Those posts have also had little success. With all due respect, I can only assume that the required prerequisite knowledge is missing. Please believe that there are many in the same boat .... it's not an insult.

In some ways the nature of statistics is like the nature of Xs & Os. One doesn't necessarily need prerequisite knowledge to enjoy the spectacle. But without it, one can arrive at rather erroneous perspectives and conclusions. It feeds all the inconclusive discourse of these threads. LOL

I do read personal messages ... so feel free to us the PM button.

 

[hawknation2014]

I think your misusing the presentation.

How so? :2:

I haven't been able to explain it to you. I tried a couple of months ago with no success. I also pointed to the prerequisite knowledge required to discuss it.

There are posts within this thread that address misuse as well. Those posts have also had little success. With all due respect, I can only assume that the required prerequisite knowledge is missing. Please believe that there are many in the same boat .... it's not an insult.

In some ways the nature of statistics is like the nature of Xs & Os. One doesn't necessarily need prerequisite knowledge to enjoy the spectacle. But without it, one can arrive at rather erroneous perspectives and conclusions. It feeds all the inconclusive discourse of these threads. LOL

I do read personal messages ... so feel free to us the PM button.

FYI, I have no idea what you are talking about. We have never discussed this topic before, and your only previous attempt to discuss the topic in this thread was with the opaque statement, "I think your misusing the presentation," without any further elaboration.

That's a particularly strange statement because I have not drawn any of my own conclusions from PFF's data. Instead, I have presented the data for the purposes of discussion (notice the question mark in the title?). You have chosen not to participate in this discussion, and that's perfectly fine.

What PFF is using is a stratified sample based on "QB dropbacks" in each quarter. I have studied statistics in both college and grad school (B.A., MBA, and J.D.) A sample size of 111 dropbacks is certainly large enough. The issue is the method by which PFF individually grades each dropback; this is a mostly subjective grade that can be disputed one way or the other. It's great for the purposes of discussion (which is what this thread was supposed to be!) but hardly a definitive account of an objective reality.

 

[KiwiHawk]

What PFF is using is a stratified sample based on "QB dropbacks" in each quarter. I have studied statistics in both college and grad school (B.A., MBA, and J.D.) A sample size of 111 dropbacks is certainly large enough. The issue is the method by which PFF individually grades each dropback; this is a mostly subjective grade that can be disputed one way or the other. It's great for the purposes of discussion (which is what this thread was supposed to be!) but hardly a definitive account of an objective reality.

It's not entirely true that the sample size is sufficient if there is weighting involved. Different outcomes have different weight with regard to scoring the QBs. An interception doesn't count for one bad grade over 111 dropbacks. It can negate the benefit of 10 or more completions, in which case the interception would account for 10% of the sample with regard to impact size. If you have one event that can make that great an impact, then you have to expand your margin of error to account for it, in which case the statistical variance between Wilson and the NFL norm is within the margin of error, and the result cannot be considered statistically meaningful.