Steelers average 25.3 PPG with Bell on the field. When he's off 25.3 PPG!

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/zeise-is-right/2018/03/07/leveon-bell-franchise-tag-steelers-salary-cap-josh-bell-pirates/stories/201803070122

Interesting factoid!

[The Man of Steel]

The Steelers also won a lot of football games long before Bell was ever on the roster so in the grand scheme of things it will just be business as usual whether he leaves or stays.

[feltdizz]

16 games season with Bell

16 game season without Bell!!!

FAX

[williar]

Go tell that to the FO, they're the ones holding him hostage! They must know something that everyone on here doesn't. Ya think!;)

[Northern_Blitz]

I said this in the Shazier effect post, but I don't think that looking at raw points necessarily tells you anything.

It won't be this out of balance, but let's say that the games with Bell were all against great D's (like the Jags) and the games without Bell were all against teams with crappy D's (like the Texans). Then, the fact that the points were equal would support Bell's value to the team because we would have scored more than expected when he was on the field and less than expected when off the field.

If the games were flipped and the point were equal, it would suggest that Bell was hurting the score.

I think if the writer wanted to make a better argument they would compare points scored to the avg points given up by the opposition (if the sample was bigger this probably matters less).

They might also try to account for "score effects": because if we're up by a bunch we'd be trying to kill the clock instead of score points. If we're down a lot the other team might be playing prevent and we might put up meaningless points. I know in hockey, they try to account for these effects by comparing stats when the score is "close" (which I think they define as tied or separated by 1 goal). I don't know if there is a similar metric in football.

Of course, in the Shazier effect post I showed that the average expected points were about the same with and without him so looking at total points was the same. I'm not sure if that's typical in the NFL because it was the only time I've ever done the calculation.

For whatever it's worth, I tend to believe that Bell helps the offense (but not twice as much as the next RB).

[feltdizz]

pretty sure 2 of those games were against the Browns when we sat all the key starters.

[feltdizz]

The Steelers also won a lot of football games long before Bell was ever on the roster so in the grand scheme of things it will just be business as usual whether he leaves or stays.

we lost a lot of games too

[Slapstick]

I said this in the Shazier effect post, but I don't think that looking at raw points necessarily tells you anything.

It won't be this out of balance, but let's say that the games with Bell were all against great D's (like the Jags) and the games without Bell were all against teams with crappy D's (like the Texans). Then, the fact that the points were equal would support Bell's value to the team because we would have scored more than expected when he was on the field and less than expected when off the field.

If the games were flipped and the point were equal, it would suggest that Bell was hurting the score.

I think if the writer wanted to make a better argument they would compare points scored to the avg points given up by the opposition (if the sample was bigger this probably matters less).

They might also try to account for "score effects": because if we're up by a bunch we'd be trying to kill the clock instead of score points. If we're down a lot the other team might be playing prevent and we might put up meaningless points. I know in hockey, they try to account for these effects by comparing stats when the score is "close" (which I think they define as tied or separated by 1 goal). I don't know if there is a similar metric in football.

Of course, in the Shazier effect post I showed that the average expected points were about the same with and without him so looking at total points was the same. I'm not sure if that's typical in the NFL because it was the only time I've ever done the calculation.

For whatever it's worth, I tend to believe that Bell helps the offense (but not twice as much as the next RB).

The point is that you can look at trends...given the level of parity in the league, you can view the data and make a legitimate conclusion, then drill down to look at specifics...

[Northern_Blitz]

The point is that you can look at trends...given the level of parity in the league, you can view the data and make a legitimate conclusion, then drill down to look at specifics...

I agree. I just think that only looking at the points is too simplistic to know anything and could easily lead to an incorrect conclusion.

I didn't read the article because I don't want to turn off by add blocker, but it seems like the author could have spent an extra hour or so on the article to look at the average PPG those teams gave up and compare that to the points scored.

I think that would make the point much clearer without significant extra work.

[squidkid]

pretty sure 2 of those games were against the Browns when we sat all the key starters.


those same upstart browns that are going to win more games then the saints and surprise a lot of people?

[feltdizz]

those same upstart browns that are going to win more games then the saints and surprise a lot of people?

Yes. Those Browns

[squidkid]

Yes. Those Browns


kinda shoots your argument down then, eh?

[feltdizz]

kinda shoots your argument down then, eh?

No, just means I was wrong about the Browns

[NorthCoast]

I said this in the Shazier effect post, but I don't think that looking at raw points necessarily tells you anything.

It won't be this out of balance, but let's say that the games with Bell were all against great D's (like the Jags) and the games without Bell were all against teams with crappy D's (like the Texans). Then, the fact that the points were equal would support Bell's value to the team because we would have scored more than expected when he was on the field and less than expected when off the field.

If the games were flipped and the point were equal, it would suggest that Bell was hurting the score.

I think if the writer wanted to make a better argument they would compare points scored to the avg points given up by the opposition (if the sample was bigger this probably matters less).

They might also try to account for "score effects": because if we're up by a bunch we'd be trying to kill the clock instead of score points. If we're down a lot the other team might be playing prevent and we might put up meaningless points. I know in hockey, they try to account for these effects by comparing stats when the score is "close" (which I think they define as tied or separated by 1 goal). I don't know if there is a similar metric in football.

Of course, in the Shazier effect post I showed that the average expected points were about the same with and without him so looking at total points was the same. I'm not sure if that's typical in the NFL because it was the only time I've ever done the calculation.

For whatever it's worth, I tend to believe that Bell helps the offense (but not twice as much as the next RB).Which is why Football Outsiders developed the DVOA to account for the other team's level. If anyone cared to look, they rank Bell as the 5th best back in the NFL when you factor in the competition. But yet his perceived value is 75% higher than the top RB.

[Steel Maniac]

Which is why Football Outsiders developed the DVOA to account for the other team's level. If anyone cared to look, they rank Bell as the 5th best back in the NFL when you factor in the competition. But yet his perceived value is 75% higher than the top RB.

Stop making sense; Feltz doesn’t like that. :smile:

[pittpete]

This message is hidden because feltdizz is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list


Glad i don't have to read his stupidity any more....
Very thankful that he decided to speak out and say race has something to do with the Bell negotiations:rolleyes:

[squidkid]

Glad i don't have to read his stupidity any more....
Very thankful that he decided to speak out and say race has something to do with the Bell negotiations:rolleyes:


ahhh, the felz fall back move

[feltdizz]

ahhh, the felz fall back move

They say imitation is the best form...