Action figures

A stat-happy public delights in running numbers

I want to thank my readers for their response to my column about statistics. I'm glad I'm not the only one who cares about this rather neglected area of football. Not everyone agreed, naturally, so in keeping with the mentality that says, Get your broccoli out of the way first, so you can enjoy the rest of the meal, I will lead off with a rip.

From Wayne of Onalaska, Wis.: "If sports were about statistics, we'd all watch baseball. But football is about winning. Period. If Neil O'Donnell was more concerned about his statistics than his team's chances of winning, then he's got the wrong set of priorities. Anyway, who cares about rushing statistics for a QB?"

I will try to answer this rather mean-spirited diatribe point by point.

1) Winning and statistics can coexist. One does not have to be sacrificed for the other. Having an interest in the curiosities that statistics introduce should have no impact in a concern about winning. "Football is about winning. Period," is a statement that closes the door on many of the factors that make it the wonderful game that it is.

2) O'Donnell didn't complain. He merely was amazed, as I was, at the cockamamie treatment his play received.

3) I care about rushing statistics for a QB because they are interesting. They are little grace notes to the game. So are many other stats. Unfortunately, there exists a body of thinking that decrees a closed mind is a healthy mind, and I'm afraid, Wayne, that you fit neatly into that category.

Helpful advice from Rex T. of Apex, N.C., "the peak of good living," and the "highest point of the railroad between New York and Florida." Hey, I know all about Apex. Right near Everett Lake, correct? How do I know that? I looked it up in my Rand McNally. "Personal investment is the very key to lobbying," Rex says, and then advises me to try to affect my changes through the NFL Players Association. Gosh, I never thought of that. I will give them a call as soon as the draft is over. Thanks for the tip. Funny thing about the giving and receiving of advice, and as always happens with old people, a long story comes to mind.

The year is 1966 and I am a member of the Old Blue Rugby Football Club touring side, playing the Bridgend Club in Wales. During the warmups, our veteran wing forward, Clint Blume, has pulled a hamstring and he's sidelined. I am playing a different position this day, left, or loose head prop forward. Normally I play on the right side, the tight head side, in the formal scrums, and this is a much better position because you can come down with your shoulder on the neck of the guy playing inside you and "break him down," as it's called. On the other side, you're the one whose neck is getting squashed, and it's no fun, lemme tell you.

So I'm having a terrible time with my opposing prop, and then I hear Clint yelling at me from the sideline, "Reach through and grab the wing forward's jersey," the wing forward being stationed in the second row, outside the prop, sort of like a linebacker in football. So I do it, and this disrupts their scrum nicely, and I hear the guy yelling, "What the bloody 'ell are you doin'?" and they complain to the referee, who brushes them off with a "play on," and now the real muscle has gone out of their scrum and my neck feels a whole lot better.

I look over at the sideline and Clint is jumping up and down, bad leg and all, in an absolute frenzy of excitement. "You see!" he's yelling. "You see!"

The message is that there's nothing like giving advice and 1) having it followed, and 2) seeing an extremely positive result of having that advice followed, since very few people ever take advice in the first place. So, Rex, ever mindful of these facts, I will act upon your advice and let you know the outcome, and again, thank you.

P.S.: I have given the Flaming Redhead your regards.

To Mark of Shoreview, Minn.: Thanks for the compliment. As for your idea of breaking down scoring to reflect which part is credited to the offense and which to the defense, it's a great idea, but I'm afraid that the only place you'll get those kinds of statistics will be on the Web, at one of those specialized stat service sites. Why? Because the newspapers don't have room for anything but bare-bones stats. Anything deeper would cut into vital stuff such as the agate results of weekend club tennis or 32 different bowling leagues, etc. Some of them don't even have room to list the QB rating points. So, where can you find the numbers you want? Well, I just spoke to Nick Stamm of Stats, Inc., who called about the column. Or, as Vincent Verhei of Seattle kindly provided, here are a couple of other sources -- Pro Football Prospectus (www.footballproject.com) and http://snap.stats.com/snap/pfw/nfl/index.asp. Personally, I couldn't type all that without screwing it up.

Speaking of Vincent from Seattle, he mentions that he'd like to see first downs credited to individuals who accomplish them, also a "Completions Allowed," statistic applied to DBs. If, somehow, you can get on the NFL's list for weekly statistics you'll see more comprehensive numbers, such as players who lead in first downs, third-and-1 rushing leaders and third-down passing leaders, but that's about it. I receive them and love to go through them, but I've never seen them in a newspaper. In my charts I break down completions allowed by DBs, but it's tough because I'm not always completely sure whether the completion came vs. man or zone defense.

Bob of Shawnee, Okla., agrees with me on most of my complaints but disagrees about spikes and kneels. They're the team's own choice, he says, so it has to take the consequences, statistically. Sorry, but this is not about rewards or lack of same, it's about accuracy. A kneel simply is not a rushing play and shouldn't be scored as such. Bob wants to know what I think of the Broncos' Trevor Pryce moving from DT to DE. Not much. He seemed more natural inside. But Mike Shanahan says he was "quite happy" with Pryce last year so I won't argue -- at least not with Mike.

Ira Miller, the San Francisco Chronicle's pro football columnist, sent me an e-mail in support of my criticism of the ambiguity of recording field goal attempts as both scrimmage and non-scrimmage plays. He said he took up the issue with the NFL's vice president of PR, Greg Aiello ..."when I was president of the Pro Football Writers Association, and Aiello agreed with me and said they'd deal with it. Of course they never did." Nice going, NFL, considering Ira was president of the writers group about six or seven years ago.

Still on the subject (Boy, we got a lot this week, huh, Jimmy? I didn't think there were that many kindred spirits out there), Steve of Philly feels that I'd have a lot better chance of getting a response if I didn't insult people such as Steve Hirdt by referring to them -- him -- as "Lord Hirdt." Steve, you're absolutely right. It's what the Flaming Redhead has been telling me for years: "You have to play the game." I just can't help it. I yam what I yam, as Popeye says. As M/Sgt. Seals once put it so well in my days in the U.S. Army, "Zimmerman, when I want a smart-assed remark from you, I'll let you know." But he lied. He never did let me know, not once.

Part 2 from Steve: "Any thoughts on the Eagles' offseason?"

Yes, I have thoughts.

Next e-mail comes from ... OK, I'm sorry. See that? I just can't help being a smartass. Just talked to Andy Reid about the draft. He's toying with the idea of drafting Willis McGahee, the great Miami runner who's rehabbing his knee, in the first round because, as Reid says, "we really don't have any pressing needs right now, so this would be a good time to build for the future." Well, they lost Hugh Douglas, so I'd say they could use an edge rusher, but if the coach thinks they're set, who am I to argue?

Jonathan of Chicago agrees with me on the spike and kneel stats, and wants my take on the Bills. The good news is that Takeo Spikes and Jeff Posey are terrific pickups for the defense. The bad news is that they've lost 169 pass receptions with the departures of Peerless Price (94), Larry Centers (43) and Jay Riemersma (32). Price will be the hardest to replace, and Bobby Shaw ain't the answer. Let's see what the draft brings. As far as switching gears and going with Sam Gash instead of Centers -- blocker for receiver -- in an effort to give Travis Henry more of a featured role, it depends how much the 34-year old Gash has left, after 11 years of knocking down defenders. I don't like the acquisition of a fat, out of shape Sam Adams. Guys like this will always arrive at a new destination with much fanfare and then make a quiet exit. Overall, if the Bills can find a quality wideout, then it's a good offseason for them.

Thanks to C. Watt, Esq., of Brooklyn for your support. Yes, I'll keep trying to present my opinions, but I can't completely neglect my mock draft; in fact I'm going to have one for you next week. I'm glad you're a stat freak, as I am. The test, of course, is the quality of the ones that you invent yourself. I like the ones you mention. I have my own pass-rating system, but for teams, not only individuals, with sacks and scrambles factored in, and also, as you know, a whole set of stats for evaluating individuals, including linemen. I agree with you that personal rushing stats are skewed because one breakaway 80-yarder can lift a mundane day, say 15 carries for 20 yards, up to a flashy 6.3-yard average. Your suggestions of median yards per carry, or mean and median together, are, of course, more accurate, but if those statistics were printed, nobody would understand them. Football statistics, like everything else in life, are geared to the lowest common denominator.

Bill of Niagara Falls, N.Y., has his own statistical oddity. Why are field goals registered from the point where foot meets ball, but not punts? Good question. Maybe the stat people feel it would be too tough for the scorers to get a reading on the exact spot from which the guy punts the ball. And the counter-argument is that they have to judge the point where a kickoff or punt return begins, so what's so tough about getting the punt spot? Thus, I've neatly removed my explanation as to why they don't do it your way, which leaves me with the feeling that you are right. You'll have to pursue this one with the league by yourself, though, because I already have too much on my plate.

Dan of Columbus, Ohio, proposes different categories of interceptions, i.e, QB's fault, receiver's fault, etc. Usually the quality control coach on a team will have those broken down. And I do it myself. It's all very meaningful information, but impossible to include within the format of the stat box. And a lot of it relies on judgment. Was it caused by the receiver short-arming the ball or the passer leading him too much? etc.

Two questions on stats as they relate to sacks, which, in turn, relate to big contracts. Sean of Filmore, Calif., feels that sacks, as a statistic, are overrated. Ten sacks mean 10 good plays, so why does that indicate a good year? And Chad of Minneapolis wants to know why sackers make so much money, especially the Packers' Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila, who wore down at the end of last year.

First of all, usually a good sacker is a good forcer. In other words he has forced the QB into bad throws -- or forced him into bad situations or forced the offense to compensate by bringing more people over to block him -- which takes something away from the offense in general. The forces don't show up on official stats, but the teams keep them. I keep my own, because I think the graders breaking down the films are too liberal in their awards. For instance, if a guy is around the quarterback but the QB still completes the pass, I don't give the rusher a force. The teams do. You're right, KBJ did wear down a bit toward the end of the year, which means that they'll have to give him more relief, but you have to pay these guys because without a consistent pass rush you're a dead duck in the NFL.

As far as Sean questioning the value of sacks, as compared to, say, run-stuffs for minus yardage, I agree that the sacks are overblown. My prime example has been John Randle. Here's a typical Randle series: First play, a run to his side, and he runs himself out of the action and even knocks off the guy next to him. Net gain, 10 yards. Next play is a pass, and he sacks the QB for minus-6. Wow, everyone says, what a great day Randle is having, but in my book he's on the minus side of the ledger, four yards' worth. Few people agree with me. In grading defensive linemen I give them check marks for sacks, forces, blow-ups (good penetrations that ruin the play, even if they don't make the tackle), tackles in which the ball carrier gained three yards or less, tackles on plays of more than three yards when some unusual effort was involved, forced fumbles and pass deflections. I give rushers penalty points if they get consistently blocked. At the end of the game, then at the end of the season, everyone is neatly graded, and I take the grades, put them in an envelope, seal it, mark it "Classified" and send it to the Library of Congress. For this I'm rewarded handsomely. Don't I wish.

Jack of Tampa Bay, Fla., has two gripes -- highly paid athletes who skip the voluntary workouts, and the hypocrisy of calling these workouts voluntary. Right now I believe they have to call them voluntary because there's something in the Players Association contract about limiting the amount of formal practices. When the contract expires I hope, as you do, that they get rid of the euphemistic term "voluntary." And if these practices are in the league contract, plus in a player's individual contract, then he can't skip them.

Jon, a Patriots fan from Vilnius, Lithuania (have I really written that with a straight face?), says his club needs a run-stopper, plus fresh legs in the backfield. I don't want to give away any of next week's secrets, but that's exactly what I've projected for them in the draft. Nope, it isn't Penn State's Larry Johnson I'm thinking of.

Mark of Shreveport, La., wants the Texans to take an O-lineman with their third pick in an effort to help keep David Carr alive. That's awfully high. They'll draft one or two farther down, and they're hoping Tony Boselli will be playing this year. Defense was their priority last season. Now they go the other way and I hope, as you do, that the emphasis is on people up front.

Dave of Haddonfield, N.J., wants to know if there's any position outside of kicker or punter for which I'd never use a top draft pick. Depends how you define "top." Do you mean first round or top five or six? Either way, I'd say no, there's no position I'd rule out per se. I mean, safety was supposed to be a place where you drafted people lower down, but the Cowboys took Roy Williams with the eighth pick last year and I didn't hear any complaints. Dave also asks if I've "read any good football books lately?" If you're talking about fiction, do you consider 1972 "lately?" That's the last good one I read, End Zone by Don DeLillo, and it was about a lot more than football. Before that? Saturday's Hero by Millard Lampbell in 1949. Pete Gent's North Dallas Forty was mildly amusing but it fell apart at the end. Everything else is more or less the same -- star quarterback who's really a good guy but kind of flawed, evil owner with conniving daughter, a spineless, rubber-stamp coach, gamblers who want to move in and work a fix, and all the rest of the predictable blah blah.

Ed of Chicago starts this way -- "Since you didn't answer my football question, I'll try a wine question ..." I thought we got rid of all the wine two weeks ago, but Ed, I'd be happy to answer your football question, more than happy, ecstatically happy, etc., plus the wine. The NFL question, actually, is a proposal. In OT, let the team choosing the ball take it on its own 20. No kickoff. Everything else the same. Fine, except that you're removing an interesting aspect of the game. Special teams is part of the equation, too. The wine question deals with decanting, and then moves into the area of how much aeration, or "breathing," do you want to let a wine have.

There are many reasons for decanting. If an older wine has thrown a lot of sediment, you decant it to keep the sediment out of the glass. It's tasteless but it doesn't look nice. Again, with an old wine, it might have a funky smell or taste, so the act of decanting will help clear it up more quickly, if it can actually be cleared up. Personally, I think an old wine deserves a certain amount of VIP treatment and decanting is kind of a nice touch. I've even decanted older white wines. For a younger wine, especially of the Cabernet family, which includes Bordeaux, decanting will provide, again, a quicker aeration. The problem you cited of ordering a Cabernet in a steakhouse and giving it only minimal breathing before diving in could be helped by decanting it. Better yet, order it at the beginning of the meal, before you really need it. Then they can bring it out and open it up and let it breathe before you're ready to drink it.

The subject of actually breathing a wine is a controversial one. You let it breathe to soften the tannins, and usually it's the Cabernets, which include Bordeaux, or heavier Italian wines (i.e, Barolos, Barbarescos) that are the most tannic. Heavier Rhones or Syrahs or Petite Sirahs, too. Not Pinot Noirs nor Burgundies, though. I don't decant them or give them much breathing. The same with Zinfandels. The good ones are so spicy and zippy that I don't want their flavors muted in any way, and that's what aeration does.

One more tip. If you're having steak, drink a Syrah or a Zin with it. Cabernet is better with lamb.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Paul Zimmerman covers the NFL for the magazine and SI.com. His "Inside Football" column and Mailbag appear weekly on SI.com. To send a question to Dr. Z, click here.

 

Related information

Stories

The Dr. Z archive

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video