John63":3ihasg2p said:
flv":3ihasg2p said:
Carroll has a 145-94-1 won-lost-tied record. The Sack record is way less important. A 10-yard sack on 1st down is probably very important. A 2-yard sack on 3rd down probably isn't important. Raw data always lacks context.
and the record without Wilson is under .500% with Wilson over .600%. As to raw data when it's a pattern yes it does matter and have context.
Even comparing RW's 2020 sack statistics to RW's 2012 sack statistics is essentially moot: he was a much less-mobile QB in 2020; he probably took 5-6 sacks in 2020 that he would have escaped from in 2012, maybe more some might say. He also threw like 150 more passes in 2020 than in 2012, so of course his sacks would go up this year...for BOTH reasons. And they did...from 33 (2012) to 47 (2020).
But that cant possibly tell the whole story- it needs more context...because his sack RATE in 2020 was exactly the same as in 2012. So, if he was more mobile and escaped more sacks in 2012...why did he still take the same RATE of sacks then?
Was it Pete?
Without nuance and context, data is an enigma.
Here's a statement using sack stats as it's base:
"In 2018, Russ was sacked on 10.7% of his dropbacks, and we won 10 games. In 2019, Russ was sacked on 8.5% of his dropbacks, and we won 11 games. In 2020, Russ was only sacked on 7.8% of his dropbacks, and we won 12 games. We win more games when Russ gets sacked at a lower rate."
Makes sense, huh? However, in 2016 and 2017, Russ was sacked only 7.0% and 7.2% of his dropbacks- the two lowest rates of his career- and we won 10 and 9 games, respectively.
Point being, man...there's just so much nuance inside sack data. Without context, raw sack data is a complete enigma.