Byrne believes that Offensive efficiency in passing should be measured by yards per attempt not net yards per completion. He also believes that sacks were allowed should be added to the attempted pass total. A sack is a pass that did not happen. The formula for this is
Net passing Yards (passing yards- yards lost attempting to pass)/ (Passes attempted+ sacks allowed)
Higher numbers mean more yard for each attempt therefore a more efficient offense
Team Yards/Attempt Rank
Montreal 7.66 3
Hamilton 6.76 7
Toronto 6.68 6
Winnipeg 7.58 5
Saskatchewan 8.08 2
Edmonton 7.17 5
Calgary 8.24 1
BC 6.81 6
It seems this statistic mirrors the true power of CFL teams. Montreal, Saskatchewan and Calgary are the powerhouses because they move the ball efficently. Hamilton which has looked good elsewhere slips here. yet I believe the bendability and scoreability index make them the most dangerous team going into these playoffs. That and a 40-3 win over Montreal , might mean they are peaking at the right time.
BC Edmonton and Toronto just are not as good. They fall more than 1 yard short of Calgary on every single attempted pass. It is easy to see why they cannot win many games.
Passing Yard/Attempt
Moderator: Team Captains
Sorry JH you just do not get it or wish to get it. Passer rating is about individuals. Passing efficiency is about comparing one team to another. I have no quibble with passer ratings or anything you said abut that stat which measures an individual QB.
Team passing efficiency is just that an attempt to measure the way the team moves the ball. Passer rating only means something to the team if the player is in the game. If he is injured lake Cavillo in Montreal or Pierce in Wpg it means squat. If their replacements are useless as they in Mtl against BC team efficiency goes way down.
Your comment on this meaning more in American football is also not well thought out. If anything efficacy would be more crucial in the 3 down game. You have only twondowns to gain 10 yards versus 3. A higher average per pass attempt connotates success and is definitely not rubbish. You can see how had it is if you are second and long in the CFL to be successful. A team whichbaverages 8+ yards per attempt is definitely going to be more successful than one which averages. More than 1.5 yards per attempt less that is a 600 yard or. More per year. That is the difference in winning or losing not one but several games .
Thanks for your comments
Team passing efficiency is just that an attempt to measure the way the team moves the ball. Passer rating only means something to the team if the player is in the game. If he is injured lake Cavillo in Montreal or Pierce in Wpg it means squat. If their replacements are useless as they in Mtl against BC team efficiency goes way down.
Your comment on this meaning more in American football is also not well thought out. If anything efficacy would be more crucial in the 3 down game. You have only twondowns to gain 10 yards versus 3. A higher average per pass attempt connotates success and is definitely not rubbish. You can see how had it is if you are second and long in the CFL to be successful. A team whichbaverages 8+ yards per attempt is definitely going to be more successful than one which averages. More than 1.5 yards per attempt less that is a 600 yard or. More per year. That is the difference in winning or losing not one but several games .
Thanks for your comments
Willie Fleming is the Best Lion ever!!
-
Toppy Vann
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 9877
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm
This is not a fan friendly stat way of doing it.
It is good for coaches but they look at all this stuff anyway.
It is good for coaches but they look at all this stuff anyway.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
Yes agreed your system measures and compares QB's. This YPA system measures teams regardless of who is at the position. It is two totally different things.
Comparing teams is different from comparing individuals. You are trying to see how a team performs with whomever is at QB. If AC is at QB for Montreal all season he will lead the league in passing efficieny personally and probably as a team as well. But what if he only plays in ten games, how do I measure team against team in a quantifiable way by looking at AC's statistics if he is not even going to play the game.
Toppy was right this is not meant to be fan friendly it is meant to be more incisive than using individual stats to analyze whether teams will win or not.
Comparing teams is different from comparing individuals. You are trying to see how a team performs with whomever is at QB. If AC is at QB for Montreal all season he will lead the league in passing efficieny personally and probably as a team as well. But what if he only plays in ten games, how do I measure team against team in a quantifiable way by looking at AC's statistics if he is not even going to play the game.
Toppy was right this is not meant to be fan friendly it is meant to be more incisive than using individual stats to analyze whether teams will win or not.
Willie Fleming is the Best Lion ever!!
I've long been a YPA guy because I tend to think completion percentage is overrated by fans, and many offences today at every level are geared towards the short passing game.
Jarious had a low completion percentage, but generally got yardage in chunks. He rarely dumped the ball off on second and long. I prefer the long incompletion there to keep the defence backed up as opposed to picking up three or five yards on a dump pass (unless those yards are critical to a FG).
Factoring sacks into a teams passing yardage is also important imo. News stories and TV stats will always look at a QBs numbers, but if a team is also going backwards 60 yards a game on sacks, those 300 yards passing are really 240, net.
There is good advanced stats work being done in the States right now. I'm not big on Football Outsiders, but KC Joyner seems very good. It is still very difficult to compare individual players in football, because there is so much going on and so much context to each play. If you think about it, picking up 8 yards on a 2nd and 15 run play isn't really as valuable as picking up 3 yards on a 2nd and 3 (talking CFL). Most defences will give you that soft 8 yards without complaint to get the ball back. However, 8 yards looks better than 3 yards on the stat sheet, even though the second play converted a first down and was likely against the teeth of the defence.
Most NHL teams are using some advanced stats, but I don't know if they will make it into the mainstream.
Jarious had a low completion percentage, but generally got yardage in chunks. He rarely dumped the ball off on second and long. I prefer the long incompletion there to keep the defence backed up as opposed to picking up three or five yards on a dump pass (unless those yards are critical to a FG).
Factoring sacks into a teams passing yardage is also important imo. News stories and TV stats will always look at a QBs numbers, but if a team is also going backwards 60 yards a game on sacks, those 300 yards passing are really 240, net.
There is good advanced stats work being done in the States right now. I'm not big on Football Outsiders, but KC Joyner seems very good. It is still very difficult to compare individual players in football, because there is so much going on and so much context to each play. If you think about it, picking up 8 yards on a 2nd and 15 run play isn't really as valuable as picking up 3 yards on a 2nd and 3 (talking CFL). Most defences will give you that soft 8 yards without complaint to get the ball back. However, 8 yards looks better than 3 yards on the stat sheet, even though the second play converted a first down and was likely against the teeth of the defence.
Most NHL teams are using some advanced stats, but I don't know if they will make it into the mainstream.
We are getting a little semantic, but I want to know what the average net gain per passing play is, not per completion. I think both stats likely have value, but I feel YPA is a more raw measure of the passing game, warts and all so to speak. We calculate rushing yards per attempt, so this mirrors that. I'm sure most teams use both and understand them better than most or all of us.JohnHenry wrote:If completion percentage is overrated Tighthead, you're supporting the YPC stat, which does not calculate a QB's completion percentage into his passing yardage. The YPA stat suggested by strait8, does calculate a QB's completion percentage into his passing yardage. I think it's valuable to know that Buck last season gained 11 YPC, while Jarious gained 14 YPC, while their YPA are 7 and 8.Tighthead wrote: I've long been a YPA guy because I tend to think completion percentage is overrated by fans, and many offences today at every level are geared towards the short passing game.
I suppose if you're analyzing team performance in a computer, the YPA stat could be useful...but so is YPC. If a team passes for 5,000 yds with 500 completions in 1000 attempts, that's 10 yds per completion or 5 yds per attempt. Or better yet, calculate the team's passing efficiency including their TD and Int ratios. Heck, throw in sacks and QB fumbles, too!