I think we will get better data soon, now that Air Yards and other splits are widely available. That stuff was not available, say, 6 years ago. With better access to data comes better longitudinal comparisons and a better sense of what makes a good statistical indicator.
What I seek, across draft coverage, is better use of objective measu…
I think we will get better data soon, now that Air Yards and other splits are widely available. That stuff was not available, say, 6 years ago. With better access to data comes better longitudinal comparisons and a better sense of what makes a good statistical indicator.
What I seek, across draft coverage, is better use of objective measures/stats and clearer application of all the subjective elements, from "ooh a swim move" to personality traits. I crave specificity: "he converted 6 third-and-longs with passes past the sticks against Georgia" as opposed to "resets his feet and throws with balance and rhythm on passes between the hashes," or even "Has a QWARBASEVOA of 72.8786%, trust me that's good." I would rather have readers come away with a collage of facts and ideas than a barrage of conclusions.
I think we will get better data soon, now that Air Yards and other splits are widely available. That stuff was not available, say, 6 years ago. With better access to data comes better longitudinal comparisons and a better sense of what makes a good statistical indicator.
What I seek, across draft coverage, is better use of objective measures/stats and clearer application of all the subjective elements, from "ooh a swim move" to personality traits. I crave specificity: "he converted 6 third-and-longs with passes past the sticks against Georgia" as opposed to "resets his feet and throws with balance and rhythm on passes between the hashes," or even "Has a QWARBASEVOA of 72.8786%, trust me that's good." I would rather have readers come away with a collage of facts and ideas than a barrage of conclusions.
I am not there yet. But maybe next year.