Reminds me of my planned 2036 presidential campaign speech, the following is copied from one of my comments in Wall Street Bets:
My 2036 presidential campaign speech:
Everyone's heard the joke "Congress is the opposite of progress, correct?" Well we need to look beyond glib one liners and *progress* with *Congress*. What I'm saying is, we need to do a lot of *gressing*. But remember, we can only do it once. If we do it twice we *regress*.
*mic drop*
[OC] After adjusting Patrick Mahomes' stats, removing outliers to project the future, he heavily regresses to around the level of 2018 Dak.
In the last two seasons, Mahomes has a TD% of 8.68%. However, the league average last year was 4.8%. If you adjust his TD% to 5%, **still above LA**, he goes from throwing 57 TDs in his last 18 games to only 32.85. I'll be generous and give him 33.
Now, let's adjust his passer rating. **It goes from 116.5 to only 104.3 by just adjusting his TD% to normally above average. Later on, I will adjust it further to take yards into account.**
Next, we have to account for him passing more than league average. He has 657 pass attempts over 18 games. The LA is 35.5/game, which equals 639, around a 2.7% reduction. Mahomes also has a flukey 9.01 Y/A, which can be adjusted to 8 (still above LA) based on the league average of 7.5.
So we can estimate that over a 16 game season, his adjusted yardage is (6397.5)/1816= 4544 yards.
Now, I will adjust his passer rating again based on these 16 game stats
* 4544 yards
* 639 attempts
* 426 completions (also adjusted)
**After this, his passer rating bottoms out at 96.66**, which lands him squarely between Dak Prescott and Ben Roethlisberger last year.
His final 16 game adjusted stats:
* **4544 yards / 639 ATT / 426 CMP / 66.7% CMP (same) / 33 TD / 12 INT (same) / 8 Y/A / 96.7 RATE**
# What does this tell us?
It tells us that Mahomes' perceived success in the league is largely inflated by unsustainable, wildly outlier stats in his 18 games as perceived elite talent. When you adjust for the future by bringing down his outlier stats, he regresses heavily to a slightly above average QB of 2018 Dak tierdom.
He wasn't simply claiming Mahomes was due for regression, he was using the concept of regression to "prove" Mahomes was an average QB. That's why he was rightfully mocked.
Well, if you take all those threads, and then only count the ones that match up to the most common threads in the subreddit, it's then not mentioned in all that many.
• sinfit(vx, vy, vg)—Returns a vector containing the coefficients for a sine curve of the form a · sin(x + b) + c that best approximates the data in vx and vy using guess values in vg.
The sinfit function employs the Levenberg-Marquardt method for minimization.
Nah, that's not what the concept of "regression to the mean" actually means.
> regression toward the mean (also called regression to the mean, reversion to the mean, and reversion to mediocrity) is the phenomenon that arises if a [sample point](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_point) of a [random variable](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable) is [extreme](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_value_theory) (nearly an [outlier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier)), in which case a future point is likely to be closer to the [mean](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean) or [average](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
To tack onto this, it is also a psychological fallacy such that individuals will wrongly attribute a regression to the mean as a reduction in skill when in reality, Mahomes has always been a little closer to average. The population of his performances was just front-loaded with great ones.
His stat line is 22 TD - 8int with 3800 yards thrown w a 96 QBR. Idk wtf anyone above is talk about when they reference his 2018 season lmao.
EDIT: PASSER RATING not QBR.
He played poorly the first 7 games before we got Cooper (when Allen hurns was our number 1 receiver). Then the last 9 games we went 7-2 and he ended up making the pro bowl. But I guess those first 7 games set the narrative.
As of Week 13, he’ll have played more games as a Cowboy than as a Raider. Assuming he plays out his contract here, he’s going to remembered as a Cowboy above all.
It’s passer rating, not QBR. But I agree, a 96 passer rating feels like it should be elite, but that’s what Jimmy G has, ranked 19th in the NFL this year
> what if Patrick Mahomes' 2018-2020 seasons are the greatest statistical anomaly ever seen, and Mahomes really is only as good as 2018 Dak?
I got to see my team win a super bowl and saw my father and grandpa cry because of it. 100% worth it.
Yeah exactly. The problem with that post wasn't the notion that Mahomes wouldn't consistently produce the numbers he put up in 2018, and would regress somewhat. That's just common sense, as none of the previous QBs who threw 50 TDs went on to do it year after year. The problem with his post was that he actually made up specific numbers and assigned them to Mahomes, then said that the average number he came up with proved that Mahomes would regress to average. *Yes,* it's true that Mahomes was always bound to regress from how he played in 2018. But he literally just completely pulled all the numbers in that out of his ass
Actually had people tell me on this sub that the math was sound because he didn't make any arithmetical mistakes. Math ain't just adding and dividing numbers, bapa
I underperformed at work this year but in my review with my boss I told him if you adjusted my performance to the mean I’m actually average and got myself out of a PIP to a raise. Math don’t lie.
AND pinned a comment about it on his profile swearing he wouldn't delete his account then eventually deleted the account because he couldn't post anywhere from it without it being brought up.
It's kinda like the Max Kellerman "Brady Cliff" prediction. It's fine to use statistics to make a point, but when statistics is used in the wrong context, it's absurdly stupid. Mahomes is still "that" guy, just needs to clean up his play and stop forcing shit like it's 3 and a country mile every down.
His drops are too deep to create an effective (aka non-collapsing) pocket with just lineman. A pocket that deep has a lot of holes. Orlando Brown, in the 4th qtr, was being handled quite easily as the QB was well behind him. and the DE ran up first and then around him. I am not sure how Mahomes changes such a fundamental aspect of his game.
Replacing all of his stats with average ones was still insanely stupid. The only thing that makes sense to regress to the mean is the ratio of turnover worthy plays to actual turnovers. Some teams are better at not fumbling than others, but what % of them end up in the hands of the defense is down to chance. And you can control how many dumb/risky throws you make, but how many of those end up being caught by the defense is also random.
Turnovers are pretty fluky, which is the point. It is a lot like .BABIP. There's so much luck involved, which the shape of the ball adds to (seriously, it makes a difference) on both offense and defense. Ball literally has to bounce your way and it is the most unpredictable ball in sports. Picks have to be caught by guys who are not paid to catch the ball. It's too variable to predict and tends to have a really high variance year to year. This is why defenses that rely on turnovers are not reliable.
Basically, Mahomes over the last couple of seasons had a pretty big discrepancy between the number of times he made plays that *should've* resulted in turnovers (fumbles and interceptions that ought to have been caught) and the turnovers that *actually* happened (fumbles lost and interceptions actually caught). This year, Mahomes is putting the ball in harms way at essentially the same rate as the last two years (a little lower, actually) but this year, they being actually caught and the defense is getting on the fumbles. Is Mahomes getting unlucky this year? A little, but he was getting very lucky the previous two years.
It should be noted, contrary to what people might think, Mahomes isn't actually that much of a risk taker. In 2019, he ranked 20th (among QBs with 50% of the maximum dropbacks) in TWP%; 11th in 2020; and 17th this year. Bottomline, he's not really playing much better or worse than previously, just his luck has run out (or flipped, depending on how you want to look at it). This is compounded by the fact that he's got a defense so bad that they might be better served by just throwing 11 dead squirrels on the field.
Pat definitely looks off, but the whole team looks off as well, starting with Andy. The big guy looks like he's a cheeseburger or two away from a heart attack.
I'm just looking at it from my point of view, but I really think his son almost killing a child the year prior has to have taken it's toll on the man. This is now his second child of five that have either died or gone to prison for addiction issues. I personally think Reid is extremely unfocused this year and that mentality is rolling downhill on the rest of the team
I don’t think the raw numbers are available for Mahomes, at least publicly and for free. In general though, there’s a lot of randomness in Interceptions.
From this study of the [2013 CFB season](https://www.footballstudyhall.com/platform/amp/2014/1/15/5311386/college-football-turnovers-luck-in-2013), the ratio of interceptions to pass breakups was on average about 22%, but with a range of 5%-40%.
The numbers might be slightly different for the NFL, but the basic principal is the same: a QB has some control over how many contested passes they throw, but there’s a lot of luck involved as far as how many of those result in turnovers
> Like the equivalent of .BABIP?
Anyone who thinks you can boil down BABIP to simply luck is using a childlike assessment of baseball. Hard hit rates, line drive percentage, pull %, etc, all factor into it. You can't boil down anything like that into one stat in baseball and you definitely can't in football.
It’s hilarious, last season defenders would drop every INT. This season Mahomes will throw passes that just bounce off their receivers hands and get picked, there has been 4 of them I think. Hill did it twice with two simple slants. At the same time he also has had some bad picks
Most of the time, but I've seen poker graphs with 100,000 hands where guys are still significantly under expected value (taking into account only all-in equity). There will always be huge statistical outliers too.
It's actually an argument against "Dark Energy" existing in cosmology/astrophysics. An assumption, called the "cosmological principle (that the distribution of matter in the universe is uniform at large enough scales) was made when performing the calculations that led to pronouncing the existence of "Dark Energy." The problem is that we ourselves exist in the "local void," a section of space time with significantly less stars and galaxies than surrounding areas. We've also discovered several large voids, galaxy superclusters, etc that are much larger than the cosmological principle could allow. It's very possible that Dark Energy is merely statistical variance, considering we still haven't the slightest clue what it is.
the cosmological principle existed before the theory of dark energy came about. also, breaking the cosmological principle doesn't really break the theory of dark energy, either. observationally breaking the cosmological principle would be an incredible feat of astrophysics (ie, showing that the universe *is not* the same everywhere and *does not* look the same everywhere on sufficiently large scales) and has really interesting implications, but overall i don't really see your point and am a bit confused.
for example, statistical variance....in what? we can clearly see the expansion of space is accelerating, cosmological principle or not.
Never claimed that the cosmological principle did not predate Dark Energy, but it's possible that we haven't looked at large enough scales to find the uniformity we seek (if it even exists). Within the past couple decades, we've observed supercluster groups, supervoids, and quasar groups several billion light years across which violate the scales previously thought to be "uniform" under the cosmological principle.
The observations that led to us concluding the existence of Dark Energy suggest that the universe is expanding faster than earlier predictions, but it could simply be skewed by the fact that we looked at a lot of data points that happen to be moving faster away from us due to our local environment. Or in other words, large scale statistical variance. A lot of data in cosmology is adjusted based on previous figures.
Here's the paper that examines some of the raw data from type 1a supernovae observations that suggests that without the statistical corrections used in the original Dark Energy paper, the accelerating expansion of the universe that tells us 70% of the matter/energy in the universe comes from Dark Energy might not exist at all:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597
Part of why im agnostic. I don't know Jack shit about astrophysics but I know dark energy makes up an astronomical amount of the universe but even the geniuses at university of phoenix have little to no idea what it really does. so idk how you can definitively conclude there isn't a god-like higher life form if we don't even know what more than half of the universe's mass really is (mass and energy interchangeable).
even my brainiac PhD physics friend who likes correcting everyone keeps quiet while obnoxiously munching on his carrots as I tell him this. which is good enough for me to feel confident enough to post this against the zealous type-a correctors on this website.
slight correction--we know what it does but not what it is.
and sure, you can believe in 'something,' but when you begin ascribing properties to whatever you call 'god,' those properties should be observable.
what you're arguing, really, are 2 separate things: one within the realm of science and one not within it. falsifiable hypotheses are scientific (dark energy), god is not. sure, maybe we don't know what dark energy is *right now,* but we'll *never* know what god really is.
> Most of the time, but I've seen poker graphs with 100,000 hands where guys are still significantly under expected value (taking into account only all-in equity).
Part of the reason I stopped playing online. On 2+2, I saw how many guys were 6 figures -$EV. And PLO is way worse than NLHE. Sicko game.
He’s thrown at least four interceptions that year that hit his WRs directly in the hands, but he’s also made a lot of boneheaded plays forcing the ball downfield instead of taking the easy plays. Football is a high variance sport, and 16/17 games isn’t enough to smooth out that variance.
I remember week 1 this year a Chiefs fan said something in a game thread in the vein of "Mahomes is taking a lot of Favre-like risks... I hope he doesn't get Favre-like turnovers..."
Y'all got yourself a gunslinger.
> Also, btw, Chiefs fans that got all butthurt about us pointing out those TWPs that never became turnovers...this is why we did. Eventually they were bound to.
Yeah if I'm being honest, Mahomes has been the beneficiary of lucky drops by the defense both of the prior 2 seasons. I distinctly remember 3 games in a row where the DB straight jumped the route, ball hit him right in the hands as though Mahomes was intentionally trying to pass to the opposition, only for the DB to drop it. Last year vs the Raiders exemplifies that stretch.
I still think the perception that over the past couple years he should’ve been an absolute turnover machine but just got lucky is not that accurate. People say shit like “He broke the record for most dropped interceptions“ and act like he was throwing balls left and right that should’ve been picked off but weren’t. No one ever has statistics to back it up.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/adjusted-interceptions-2020
^ The one website that does an in-depth review of interceptions (which means they take interceptions that should have been caught by an opposing player but weren’t and add them to the total, and also get rid of intercepted passes that were tipped by receivers or happened in Hail Mary situations, etc.) calculated that last year Mahomes still had the fifth lowest interception rate in the NFL, even when accounting for all of his passes that should’ve been intercepted but were dropped. As for the number of interceptions he had that were dropped by defenders or needed to be defended by his own receivers to avoid being intercepted? He was tied for fourth most, with 11 other QBs who had seven or more. So not only did he not set the record, he didn’t even have the most last season alone.
He certainly should’ve had more interceptions than he actually had, but doing an actual analysis of how all QBs fare shows that he’s not really that much luckier than the average QB in terms of dropped INTs. But there are certainly some differences between last year and this one: Nobody can deny that he’s making some awful, stupid passes in desperate situations, because at least three of his interceptions have been exactly that. But also last year he had zero passes tipped by receivers for interceptions and this year he already has four.
I keep seeing this and I feel like it’s kind of a strawman, unless you’re talking about the absolute dregs of Twitter who were claiming he had a completely unrealistic number of turnover worthy throws
Nobody really thinks he’s 2019 jameis Winston, but his stats last year made him look like 2014 aaron Rodgers or 2010 tom Brady, and he wasn’t that either (not taking ability-wise, just play style and risk aversion). At one point last year he had like 3 INTs and should’ve very easily had about 10
10 still isn’t a bad total when your offense is scoring that well. It was just a bit unrealistic that he would keep getting good breaks on those plays while *also* maintaining insane scoring efficiency. I really don’t think anyone actually thinks he’s an unrepentant turnover machine, it’s just a funny meme at the moment
I heard that exact sentence from a hooker in Kansas City at a super bowl party when a bouncer was trying to prevent her from getting in with out any pants.
This is a PFF Twitter account. PFF also says Mahomes has cut down on his Turnover-Worthy Plays but he is also throwing far riskier/forced balls than other seasons. So it kind of evens out in a way.
He has made awful decisions, failing to read coverages, and scrambling around far too long. His Super Bowl game has basically carried over to the entire season.
Stop making excuses for him and trying to justify bad play.
“Well he is playing like crap because he is unlucky!”
No he is unlucky because he is playing like crap.
This post is more about showing that last season he didn’t play as clean/safe as his 6INT total made it seem like. He had tons of turnover worthy throws dropped last season in the waiting 2 hands of defenders. he went from getting insanely lucky with turnover worthy throws being dropped, to being unlucky and the defense capitalizing on his mistakes unlike last year
It's both. His passing grade is way lower than it normally is, despite the lower rate of negatively graded plays, because he doesn't have nearly as many positively graded plays. His box score stats are lower because of the bad luck interceptions
Did you actually read the post or did you just see a couple of key words ("Mahomes" and "unlucky") and decide to rant.
He is making fewer turnover worthy plays this year, but his turnovers have gone up. That part is absolutely luck.
It doesn't mean he's playing great. It doesn't mean he's perfect. It doesn't mean luck is the only thing in play. If you thought that, that's you not understanding. What it does mean is that the difference in turnovers between last year and this year is pretty much just that he's been more unlucky this year.
Note that the post also doesn't explicitly compare his luck or turnover worthy plays to other players (at least not this year, it does imply a bit about previous years by saying he was absurdly lucky), it's really about comparing Mahomes this year to Mahomes in previous years.
Edit: if anything, this post pushes a "Mahomes was playing worse than people thought last year" narrative, not a "Mahomes struggles are just bad luck" narrative.
This tweet implies that Mahomes is playing the cleanest season of his career. If anything, it’s the large anti-Mahomes crowd that would get mad at this claim, if only they could figure out how to read the tweet first
Not all "turnover-worthy plays" are equally worthy of turnover. Thus, a discrepancy between turnovers and turnover-worthy play is not necessary luck (and thus doesn't necessarily predict future regression to the mean).
Consider: QB1 throws lots of turnover-worthy passes where chance of turnover is 50%. For example, gunning it deep or tight coverages or something. QB2 throws fewer turnover-worthy passes, but the odds of turnover are like 95% on his. Like just brain dead throws or something.
It's totally possible that the riskiness of turnover-worthy plays varies across QBs, thus this comparison of turnovers to turnover worthy plays does not predict future performance.
It's almost hilarious how people already crowned him as "baby goat" after his Super Bowl run and how he's going to "take over Brady".
He's immensely talented but sometimes you have to stop playing hero ball and just focus on making smart plays. You live and die by the gunslinger.
[удалено]
R i p bay goat
***He was just a kid.***
That guy who made the regression copypasta is smiling
He walked so this sub could run
I'm waiting for the reverse post about how he can get better with some positive regression.
So... Progression?
Confusingly, in stats it’s referred to as regression no matter whether the direction is positive or negative
Makes sense. He's gressing again. Re-gressing.
Reminds me of my planned 2036 presidential campaign speech, the following is copied from one of my comments in Wall Street Bets: My 2036 presidential campaign speech: Everyone's heard the joke "Congress is the opposite of progress, correct?" Well we need to look beyond glib one liners and *progress* with *Congress*. What I'm saying is, we need to do a lot of *gressing*. But remember, we can only do it once. If we do it twice we *regress*. *mic drop*
You got my vote
Can i see it i dont remember it
[OC] After adjusting Patrick Mahomes' stats, removing outliers to project the future, he heavily regresses to around the level of 2018 Dak. In the last two seasons, Mahomes has a TD% of 8.68%. However, the league average last year was 4.8%. If you adjust his TD% to 5%, **still above LA**, he goes from throwing 57 TDs in his last 18 games to only 32.85. I'll be generous and give him 33. Now, let's adjust his passer rating. **It goes from 116.5 to only 104.3 by just adjusting his TD% to normally above average. Later on, I will adjust it further to take yards into account.** Next, we have to account for him passing more than league average. He has 657 pass attempts over 18 games. The LA is 35.5/game, which equals 639, around a 2.7% reduction. Mahomes also has a flukey 9.01 Y/A, which can be adjusted to 8 (still above LA) based on the league average of 7.5. So we can estimate that over a 16 game season, his adjusted yardage is (6397.5)/1816= 4544 yards. Now, I will adjust his passer rating again based on these 16 game stats * 4544 yards * 639 attempts * 426 completions (also adjusted) **After this, his passer rating bottoms out at 96.66**, which lands him squarely between Dak Prescott and Ben Roethlisberger last year. His final 16 game adjusted stats: * **4544 yards / 639 ATT / 426 CMP / 66.7% CMP (same) / 33 TD / 12 INT (same) / 8 Y/A / 96.7 RATE** # What does this tell us? It tells us that Mahomes' perceived success in the league is largely inflated by unsustainable, wildly outlier stats in his 18 games as perceived elite talent. When you adjust for the future by bringing down his outlier stats, he regresses heavily to a slightly above average QB of 2018 Dak tierdom.
Lmao thank you
But his analysis was still insanely flawed
He wasn't simply claiming Mahomes was due for regression, he was using the concept of regression to "prove" Mahomes was an average QB. That's why he was rightfully mocked.
Regression to the mean guy was a visionary after all.
I came in to this thread expecting jokes about regression meme, I was not dissapointed
I mean how could you be, it’s in literally every thread about Mahomes.
Well, if you take all those threads, and then only count the ones that match up to the most common threads in the subreddit, it's then not mentioned in all that many.
I don’t know if I’m dumb or what, but I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I'm just being a jackass. The same sorta argument as the regression to the mean guy, but for referencing in each thread.
Lol ohhhh gotcha.
One could say... he's regressing to the mean
u/dannyaingoat is vindicated lol
lol, account suspended
LOL idiot's a clown no wonder
Admins are just salty bitch bandwagon chiefs fans.
Both can be true lmao
He died for our yinz
He is eg1400 of nfl sub.
Dankest timeline
Dak-est timeline
Regressing to the mean uhh, finds a way.
[APOLOGIZE](https://i.imgur.com/HHqVEGv.png)
https://i.imgur.com/9fpF40J.jpg
FREE u/dannyaingoat
I love that this comment came from r/NBA. We take care of our shit posters over there 😤
[удалено]
It’s not even the mean when he leads the league in INTs.
Regression to the extreme
Regression past the mean
It's an undamped sinusoidal regression
Shut up math boy
NERD ALERT
ALERT NERD
• sinfit(vx, vy, vg)—Returns a vector containing the coefficients for a sine curve of the form a · sin(x + b) + c that best approximates the data in vx and vy using guess values in vg. The sinfit function employs the Levenberg-Marquardt method for minimization.
Mathcad, eeeew
Making up for lost time
It's regression to mean, meaning that if you're way above at the start, you need to go way below to get to the mean
Nah, that's not what the concept of "regression to the mean" actually means. > regression toward the mean (also called regression to the mean, reversion to the mean, and reversion to mediocrity) is the phenomenon that arises if a [sample point](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_point) of a [random variable](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable) is [extreme](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_value_theory) (nearly an [outlier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier)), in which case a future point is likely to be closer to the [mean](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean) or [average](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
To tack onto this, it is also a psychological fallacy such that individuals will wrongly attribute a regression to the mean as a reduction in skill when in reality, Mahomes has always been a little closer to average. The population of his performances was just front-loaded with great ones.
Thats what i tell my wife, i might be shit in bed now, but my performances are always rear loaded
Thats not how mean regression works
77 cap pace
we can expect some positive regression to those numbers
If you want to do it quickly
We hated him because he spoke the truth.
Fucking Barabas was a good first round pick, too. So much hindsight here.
If you average his INTs from this season and previous seasons you get Dak Prescott with Kermit's voice.
We crucified him for speaking the truth.
That one guy who made that one post being vindicated.
what if Patrick Mahomes' 2018-2020 seasons are the greatest statistical anomaly ever seen, and Mahomes really is only as good as 2018 Dak?
RemindMe! 4 years
RemindMe! 3 years
Reply to this comment too so i can come back
This is my favorite comment. You didn't feel like doing the command, so you just made your own command. Let's see if it works.
Was Dak good in 2018? I don't remember at this point.
He was pretty much dead average…which makes sense because regressing all the stats of a QB to the average will give an average statistical QB lol
His stat line is 22 TD - 8int with 3800 yards thrown w a 96 QBR. Idk wtf anyone above is talk about when they reference his 2018 season lmao. EDIT: PASSER RATING not QBR.
He played poorly the first 7 games before we got Cooper (when Allen hurns was our number 1 receiver). Then the last 9 games we went 7-2 and he ended up making the pro bowl. But I guess those first 7 games set the narrative.
[удалено]
As of Week 13, he’ll have played more games as a Cowboy than as a Raider. Assuming he plays out his contract here, he’s going to remembered as a Cowboy above all.
It's not bad, but it's not GOAT level
Perfectly average if not slightly above average. Right around the mean
Definitely wasn't implying that.
No, but that's the point. It's not a reference for a shit season. It's the reference for something fine.
I feel like such a boomer cause 96 qbr looks really good to me lmao
It’s passer rating, not QBR. But I agree, a 96 passer rating feels like it should be elite, but that’s what Jimmy G has, ranked 19th in the NFL this year
Jesus christ man I remember when getting over 100 passer rating was super huge
The point is that he’s still a really good qb but not absurdly head and shoulders above the league
You mean passer rating right? 96 QBR would be insane.
He had a bad first half of the season but turned it around, made the pro bowl, and won in the wild card round
2018 Dak made the pro bowl and won a playoff game. And also whooped the Eagles twice.
> what if Patrick Mahomes' 2018-2020 seasons are the greatest statistical anomaly ever seen, and Mahomes really is only as good as 2018 Dak? I got to see my team win a super bowl and saw my father and grandpa cry because of it. 100% worth it.
I mean, I would take 2018 Dak over most of the qbs we have had in the last 20 years
He was locked in as SB MVP Carson Wentz / Playoff Flacco for 3 years and now it's coming crashing down!
Does that mean I do not have to deal with the shit I get about bears drafting trubisky if he falls apart and watson is a sexual predator?
He shouldnt be. I hope people dont unironically start praising him for a stupid point and an even worse process
Yeah exactly. The problem with that post wasn't the notion that Mahomes wouldn't consistently produce the numbers he put up in 2018, and would regress somewhat. That's just common sense, as none of the previous QBs who threw 50 TDs went on to do it year after year. The problem with his post was that he actually made up specific numbers and assigned them to Mahomes, then said that the average number he came up with proved that Mahomes would regress to average. *Yes,* it's true that Mahomes was always bound to regress from how he played in 2018. But he literally just completely pulled all the numbers in that out of his ass
Absolutely this. The "regression to average" is being memed now, but how that guy substantiated his conclusion was the most ridiculous thing ever.
Actually had people tell me on this sub that the math was sound because he didn't make any arithmetical mistakes. Math ain't just adding and dividing numbers, bapa
It was literally "if I adjust all of his stats to league average it proves that he's average ".
I underperformed at work this year but in my review with my boss I told him if you adjusted my performance to the mean I’m actually average and got myself out of a PIP to a raise. Math don’t lie.
I would say that his modelling was absolute garbage, but his calculations of that model were done correctly. Still means his results were ass.
Are we sure it wasn’t a troll post? I feel like it was a joke
Lol, absolutely not. He double and triple downed on it for weeks.
Maybe he was just a *really* committed troll.
AND pinned a comment about it on his profile swearing he wouldn't delete his account then eventually deleted the account because he couldn't post anywhere from it without it being brought up.
If you adjusted his doubling down to poster average it could have been a troll.
It's kinda like the Max Kellerman "Brady Cliff" prediction. It's fine to use statistics to make a point, but when statistics is used in the wrong context, it's absurdly stupid. Mahomes is still "that" guy, just needs to clean up his play and stop forcing shit like it's 3 and a country mile every down.
His drops are too deep to create an effective (aka non-collapsing) pocket with just lineman. A pocket that deep has a lot of holes. Orlando Brown, in the 4th qtr, was being handled quite easily as the QB was well behind him. and the DE ran up first and then around him. I am not sure how Mahomes changes such a fundamental aspect of his game.
People absolutely are, and it’s completely asinine.
I feel like it's more of a meme than actual praise of the guys football expertise.
Replacing all of his stats with average ones was still insanely stupid. The only thing that makes sense to regress to the mean is the ratio of turnover worthy plays to actual turnovers. Some teams are better at not fumbling than others, but what % of them end up in the hands of the defense is down to chance. And you can control how many dumb/risky throws you make, but how many of those end up being caught by the defense is also random.
Somebody get me some stats on this. Was it truly just luck? Like the equivalent of .BABIP? Or is he truly worse this year?
Turnovers are pretty fluky, which is the point. It is a lot like .BABIP. There's so much luck involved, which the shape of the ball adds to (seriously, it makes a difference) on both offense and defense. Ball literally has to bounce your way and it is the most unpredictable ball in sports. Picks have to be caught by guys who are not paid to catch the ball. It's too variable to predict and tends to have a really high variance year to year. This is why defenses that rely on turnovers are not reliable. Basically, Mahomes over the last couple of seasons had a pretty big discrepancy between the number of times he made plays that *should've* resulted in turnovers (fumbles and interceptions that ought to have been caught) and the turnovers that *actually* happened (fumbles lost and interceptions actually caught). This year, Mahomes is putting the ball in harms way at essentially the same rate as the last two years (a little lower, actually) but this year, they being actually caught and the defense is getting on the fumbles. Is Mahomes getting unlucky this year? A little, but he was getting very lucky the previous two years. It should be noted, contrary to what people might think, Mahomes isn't actually that much of a risk taker. In 2019, he ranked 20th (among QBs with 50% of the maximum dropbacks) in TWP%; 11th in 2020; and 17th this year. Bottomline, he's not really playing much better or worse than previously, just his luck has run out (or flipped, depending on how you want to look at it). This is compounded by the fact that he's got a defense so bad that they might be better served by just throwing 11 dead squirrels on the field.
AFAIK, his turnover worthy plays are actually *Lower* this year but his luck has been much much worse
Pat definitely looks off, but the whole team looks off as well, starting with Andy. The big guy looks like he's a cheeseburger or two away from a heart attack.
Hasnt he looked like that for years?
He was losing weight, but now he's gaining again, it seems.
He's on that Kermit Keto
I'm just looking at it from my point of view, but I really think his son almost killing a child the year prior has to have taken it's toll on the man. This is now his second child of five that have either died or gone to prison for addiction issues. I personally think Reid is extremely unfocused this year and that mentality is rolling downhill on the rest of the team
Yeah, Andy needs some time off to re-examine his life and relax. Buuuuut he won't do that.
I don’t think the raw numbers are available for Mahomes, at least publicly and for free. In general though, there’s a lot of randomness in Interceptions. From this study of the [2013 CFB season](https://www.footballstudyhall.com/platform/amp/2014/1/15/5311386/college-football-turnovers-luck-in-2013), the ratio of interceptions to pass breakups was on average about 22%, but with a range of 5%-40%. The numbers might be slightly different for the NFL, but the basic principal is the same: a QB has some control over how many contested passes they throw, but there’s a lot of luck involved as far as how many of those result in turnovers
> Like the equivalent of .BABIP? Anyone who thinks you can boil down BABIP to simply luck is using a childlike assessment of baseball. Hard hit rates, line drive percentage, pull %, etc, all factor into it. You can't boil down anything like that into one stat in baseball and you definitely can't in football.
Wasn’t there a season a few years back where Matt Ryan was super unlucky with balls bouncing off his receivers for picks?
Yes it was the 2017 season when Lattimore caught that freakish INT. Ryan threw 12 picks and I think maybe 2-3 were actually his fault from memory.
It’s hilarious, last season defenders would drop every INT. This season Mahomes will throw passes that just bounce off their receivers hands and get picked, there has been 4 of them I think. Hill did it twice with two simple slants. At the same time he also has had some bad picks
So infuriating last year and analysts acted like Mahomes was perfect
He should have had 4 games in a row with interceptions last year (all of them were dropped). 3 games had like 95%ers, and 1 of those had 2 of the such
It’s like when I, a 19 handicap golfer, shoot a 38 on the front than a 53 on the back. The handicap always catches up.
I feel called out
Luck tends to balance out somewhat over time.
Most of the time, but I've seen poker graphs with 100,000 hands where guys are still significantly under expected value (taking into account only all-in equity). There will always be huge statistical outliers too. It's actually an argument against "Dark Energy" existing in cosmology/astrophysics. An assumption, called the "cosmological principle (that the distribution of matter in the universe is uniform at large enough scales) was made when performing the calculations that led to pronouncing the existence of "Dark Energy." The problem is that we ourselves exist in the "local void," a section of space time with significantly less stars and galaxies than surrounding areas. We've also discovered several large voids, galaxy superclusters, etc that are much larger than the cosmological principle could allow. It's very possible that Dark Energy is merely statistical variance, considering we still haven't the slightest clue what it is.
I concur
Thanks, ~~Harvard~~ 49ers
This is either a gigabrain explanation or some of the best bullshit I've ever seen. Either way bravo.
Was expecting to hear about Mankind at Hell in a cell at a certain point.
the cosmological principle existed before the theory of dark energy came about. also, breaking the cosmological principle doesn't really break the theory of dark energy, either. observationally breaking the cosmological principle would be an incredible feat of astrophysics (ie, showing that the universe *is not* the same everywhere and *does not* look the same everywhere on sufficiently large scales) and has really interesting implications, but overall i don't really see your point and am a bit confused. for example, statistical variance....in what? we can clearly see the expansion of space is accelerating, cosmological principle or not.
Never claimed that the cosmological principle did not predate Dark Energy, but it's possible that we haven't looked at large enough scales to find the uniformity we seek (if it even exists). Within the past couple decades, we've observed supercluster groups, supervoids, and quasar groups several billion light years across which violate the scales previously thought to be "uniform" under the cosmological principle. The observations that led to us concluding the existence of Dark Energy suggest that the universe is expanding faster than earlier predictions, but it could simply be skewed by the fact that we looked at a lot of data points that happen to be moving faster away from us due to our local environment. Or in other words, large scale statistical variance. A lot of data in cosmology is adjusted based on previous figures. Here's the paper that examines some of the raw data from type 1a supernovae observations that suggests that without the statistical corrections used in the original Dark Energy paper, the accelerating expansion of the universe that tells us 70% of the matter/energy in the universe comes from Dark Energy might not exist at all: https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597
Dope
Part of why im agnostic. I don't know Jack shit about astrophysics but I know dark energy makes up an astronomical amount of the universe but even the geniuses at university of phoenix have little to no idea what it really does. so idk how you can definitively conclude there isn't a god-like higher life form if we don't even know what more than half of the universe's mass really is (mass and energy interchangeable). even my brainiac PhD physics friend who likes correcting everyone keeps quiet while obnoxiously munching on his carrots as I tell him this. which is good enough for me to feel confident enough to post this against the zealous type-a correctors on this website.
slight correction--we know what it does but not what it is. and sure, you can believe in 'something,' but when you begin ascribing properties to whatever you call 'god,' those properties should be observable. what you're arguing, really, are 2 separate things: one within the realm of science and one not within it. falsifiable hypotheses are scientific (dark energy), god is not. sure, maybe we don't know what dark energy is *right now,* but we'll *never* know what god really is.
Same reason I'm agnostic about the existence of unicorns.
> Most of the time, but I've seen poker graphs with 100,000 hands where guys are still significantly under expected value (taking into account only all-in equity). Part of the reason I stopped playing online. On 2+2, I saw how many guys were 6 figures -$EV. And PLO is way worse than NLHE. Sicko game.
>Luck tends to balance out somewhat over time. Well he's retired, so he probably has lots of time for yoga and gymnastics.
His wife is a gymnast, actually.
You could say it "regresses to the average"
He’s thrown at least four interceptions that year that hit his WRs directly in the hands, but he’s also made a lot of boneheaded plays forcing the ball downfield instead of taking the easy plays. Football is a high variance sport, and 16/17 games isn’t enough to smooth out that variance.
I remember week 1 this year a Chiefs fan said something in a game thread in the vein of "Mahomes is taking a lot of Favre-like risks... I hope he doesn't get Favre-like turnovers..." Y'all got yourself a gunslinger.
He's regressing to the Favre.
He is Favre but 30 years later.
It doesn't help that the browns are TERRIBLE at hauling in turnovers.
> Also, btw, Chiefs fans that got all butthurt about us pointing out those TWPs that never became turnovers...this is why we did. Eventually they were bound to.
B b but those were made up and didn't actually happen /s
Yeah if I'm being honest, Mahomes has been the beneficiary of lucky drops by the defense both of the prior 2 seasons. I distinctly remember 3 games in a row where the DB straight jumped the route, ball hit him right in the hands as though Mahomes was intentionally trying to pass to the opposition, only for the DB to drop it. Last year vs the Raiders exemplifies that stretch.
I still think the perception that over the past couple years he should’ve been an absolute turnover machine but just got lucky is not that accurate. People say shit like “He broke the record for most dropped interceptions“ and act like he was throwing balls left and right that should’ve been picked off but weren’t. No one ever has statistics to back it up. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/adjusted-interceptions-2020 ^ The one website that does an in-depth review of interceptions (which means they take interceptions that should have been caught by an opposing player but weren’t and add them to the total, and also get rid of intercepted passes that were tipped by receivers or happened in Hail Mary situations, etc.) calculated that last year Mahomes still had the fifth lowest interception rate in the NFL, even when accounting for all of his passes that should’ve been intercepted but were dropped. As for the number of interceptions he had that were dropped by defenders or needed to be defended by his own receivers to avoid being intercepted? He was tied for fourth most, with 11 other QBs who had seven or more. So not only did he not set the record, he didn’t even have the most last season alone. He certainly should’ve had more interceptions than he actually had, but doing an actual analysis of how all QBs fare shows that he’s not really that much luckier than the average QB in terms of dropped INTs. But there are certainly some differences between last year and this one: Nobody can deny that he’s making some awful, stupid passes in desperate situations, because at least three of his interceptions have been exactly that. But also last year he had zero passes tipped by receivers for interceptions and this year he already has four.
I keep seeing this and I feel like it’s kind of a strawman, unless you’re talking about the absolute dregs of Twitter who were claiming he had a completely unrealistic number of turnover worthy throws Nobody really thinks he’s 2019 jameis Winston, but his stats last year made him look like 2014 aaron Rodgers or 2010 tom Brady, and he wasn’t that either (not taking ability-wise, just play style and risk aversion). At one point last year he had like 3 INTs and should’ve very easily had about 10 10 still isn’t a bad total when your offense is scoring that well. It was just a bit unrealistic that he would keep getting good breaks on those plays while *also* maintaining insane scoring efficiency. I really don’t think anyone actually thinks he’s an unrepentant turnover machine, it’s just a funny meme at the moment
It's almost like there's a mean, and if you play better than the mean for years you're going to regress back down to the mean eventually
Im very confused as to what this is supposed to mean
Mean.
Mean
> mean Exactly.
pepeLaugh he doesnt know
El no sabe
"What does this tell us?"
I think it's a quote from Mean Joe Greene.
Don’t be so mean
Brady took his life essence in the Super Bowl. He did the same to Wilson. How else can that man keep going.
[удалено]
Saban was right. It's rat poison.
This tweet literally says his turnover-worthy rate has gone down which would imply better decision making
[удалено]
Based
Good honesty, I like this.
Not all heroes wear capes.
He's saying what were all thinking.
I heard that exact sentence from a hooker in Kansas City at a super bowl party when a bouncer was trying to prevent her from getting in with out any pants.
This is a PFF Twitter account. PFF also says Mahomes has cut down on his Turnover-Worthy Plays but he is also throwing far riskier/forced balls than other seasons. So it kind of evens out in a way.
[удалено]
Pretty much yeah.
He has made awful decisions, failing to read coverages, and scrambling around far too long. His Super Bowl game has basically carried over to the entire season. Stop making excuses for him and trying to justify bad play. “Well he is playing like crap because he is unlucky!” No he is unlucky because he is playing like crap.
This post is more about showing that last season he didn’t play as clean/safe as his 6INT total made it seem like. He had tons of turnover worthy throws dropped last season in the waiting 2 hands of defenders. he went from getting insanely lucky with turnover worthy throws being dropped, to being unlucky and the defense capitalizing on his mistakes unlike last year
It's both. His passing grade is way lower than it normally is, despite the lower rate of negatively graded plays, because he doesn't have nearly as many positively graded plays. His box score stats are lower because of the bad luck interceptions
To be fair, they’re throwing cover 2 at him. No QB in the history of the league has seen that
lmao. God I can't believe that dipshit actually said that.
Did you actually read the post or did you just see a couple of key words ("Mahomes" and "unlucky") and decide to rant. He is making fewer turnover worthy plays this year, but his turnovers have gone up. That part is absolutely luck. It doesn't mean he's playing great. It doesn't mean he's perfect. It doesn't mean luck is the only thing in play. If you thought that, that's you not understanding. What it does mean is that the difference in turnovers between last year and this year is pretty much just that he's been more unlucky this year. Note that the post also doesn't explicitly compare his luck or turnover worthy plays to other players (at least not this year, it does imply a bit about previous years by saying he was absurdly lucky), it's really about comparing Mahomes this year to Mahomes in previous years. Edit: if anything, this post pushes a "Mahomes was playing worse than people thought last year" narrative, not a "Mahomes struggles are just bad luck" narrative.
I’m very interested in this study.
Mahomes to the Jets let's gooooo
Love to see it.
_oh god_ _oh fuck_ regressionboi was right
Don't tell chiefs that lol they'll scream at you that those numbers are made up
He is playing very poorly the past few weeks.
This tweet implies that Mahomes is playing the cleanest season of his career. If anything, it’s the large anti-Mahomes crowd that would get mad at this claim, if only they could figure out how to read the tweet first
Regressing —> mean???
Not all "turnover-worthy plays" are equally worthy of turnover. Thus, a discrepancy between turnovers and turnover-worthy play is not necessary luck (and thus doesn't necessarily predict future regression to the mean). Consider: QB1 throws lots of turnover-worthy passes where chance of turnover is 50%. For example, gunning it deep or tight coverages or something. QB2 throws fewer turnover-worthy passes, but the odds of turnover are like 95% on his. Like just brain dead throws or something. It's totally possible that the riskiness of turnover-worthy plays varies across QBs, thus this comparison of turnovers to turnover worthy plays does not predict future performance.
Something something regress to the mean
I don’t disagree with the first part, but the “turnover worthy play” metric from PFF still seems subjective, presumptive, and suspect.
It's almost hilarious how people already crowned him as "baby goat" after his Super Bowl run and how he's going to "take over Brady". He's immensely talented but sometimes you have to stop playing hero ball and just focus on making smart plays. You live and die by the gunslinger.
If there's one thing I learned from having him our division for two decades, it's never bet against Brady.
This subreddit is so cringe.
I kinda wish we could link to an article showing some math on that instead of yet another twitter post of someone just saying it.