Can anybody explain to me what the heck is Pro Football Focus? As far as I understand, it’s a just few guys that run NFL stats through their black box to come up with analyses and prognostications. Why is their formula so much more meaningful than those of the hundreds of other basement-formed outlets that dive into NFL stats? More specifically, why does every news organization cite to their rankings when doing some type of op-ed? Why do they all of a sudden have so much credibility as a top source of “here are the PFF facts to back up my statement” when I’m reading or listening to sports pundits? How long have they been around? How have they been able to attain so much success and credibility so quickly? I never heard of them a few years ago.
2. PFF may not have been the first but it was one of the first.
3. Unlike other analytics companies, part of PFF was targeted directly to NFL teams. Being newer as I understood most NFL teams bought the PFF package which gave them more legitimacy. Many NFL teams has since starting their own in-house departments.
4. Cris Collinsworth personally invested in PFF and then used his network and media connections to raise its profile in the media.
2. PFF may not have been the first but it was one of the first.
3. Unlike other analytics companies, part of PFF was targeted directly to NFL teams. Being newer as I understood most NFL teams bought the PFF package which gave them more legitimacy. Many NFL teams has since starting their own in-house departments.
4. Cris Collinsworth personally invested in PFF and then used his network and media connections to raise its profile in the media.
Interesting. How did they first establish their connections with the NFL?
They perform two major services. Their quantitative compiling of snap and formation counts. This is what NFL teams use.
Their other service is their subjective ratings. Which is fodder for fans and media outlets, but holds little authority in meaning anything.
My impression is PFF really took off with the media after Collinsworth became an investor.
RedZone, PFF, etc go towards FF and luring in new "fans" to eat up that shit.
In reality, it is their quantitative stats on snap counts and formations based off the film
Given the sometimes sizable difference between their rankings and the eye test, along with some "catchy" names for some of their stats, they are a very smart business strategy.
The just cherry pick data to back up their biases.
Joking aside, they're basically like any other metric of evaluation, there are biases baked in that you have to keep in mind. The grades are best used for things like offensive and defensive line play where the game is more straightforward and free of context.
There's a middle ground between PFF is useless and PFF is gospel. Personally, I've always had the opinion that their take mattered more than most because they are actually watching every snap in the NFL. Most posters here are only following the ball on a televised feed.
They are doing more harm than good in the overall effort to bring "analytics" to game because what they do isn't implementing analytics, even though they want fans to believe they are to build credability.
PFF has a bunch of interesting stats, that are good fodder for debate at both the amateur and professional level. The industry needs to be pushed to dispel some of its own silly assumptions, so pushing that conversation is a good thing for football. Strong outside voices are always good to kick a stagnant industry in the ass. That’s their primary long term contribution.
Trying to grade a player is both silly and boring. It assumes not only the player executed the assignment, but even more fundamentally it assumes the play and play design were correct for the situation (plus lots of other variables). Unless you know the likelihood and value of the outcome, grading players comes down to 1) did they appear to win the one-on-one match up or 2) compile meaningful stats in the aggregate. Those are fine dimensions to look at, but not a complete picture.
The one service I really like is Football Outsiders. I think their DVOA as an attempt at "objective power rankings" to be pretty indicative of teams' offensive/defensive/overall strength.
They also have a collection of stats that the typical sports site doesn't track. It's useful to look at their stats for certain teams in specific situations (i.e. points per drive, punts per drive, 3 and outs per drive, etc).
Used in conjunction with other sources and the eye test, helps gives you a good picture on teams.
every week for whatever reason I wanted to know who played, how many snaps, run or pass play, etc.
I'd eagerly await every Tuesday morning for the Giants stats to become available.
then they made it a paid site, something like $19.99 for the season. I happily paid it for a couple years.
then for a short period of time once they became popular they revoked the individual subscriptions altogether. It was only an option for the media and/or teams and it was very expensive.
So F-them. I can get the snap counts now on pro-football-reference now or from a beat reporter who puts them in their stories.
They now I believe offer a consumer subscription again at affordable prices but like I said F-them.
I always found their ratings interesting - though polarizing, like others have said, an opinion, one data point out of many, but it was never why I frequented the site. I did always look at them though.
And it's definitely not snake oil. their stat data has been confirmed as 99+% accurate and their "PFF rating" has never been billed as analytics as far as I know, but they do believe it is statistically generated and without bias. Others disagree (with good reason some times).
Their rating nonsense has no credibility.
snake oil doesn't mean what you think it means.
What did they claim about their site that was exaggerated or even untrue?
What did they bait and switch?
Nothing. You can say their ratings are useless, but they don't claim them to be anything they're not and if that's what interests people about the site, great. They know what they're getting.
But again, the snap count data is 99+% verified accurate and that's why I paid for a $19.99 annual subscription for a couple years and the service met or exceeded my expectations. If they didn't remove it from being commercially available I'd still possibly be subscribing to them.
So, how exactly is it snake oil?