|
|
|
| Quote: |
| ...we discussed a method used by Kevin Cole of the blog Unexpected Points to assess how much a given addition to a team improves that team’s expected points added (EPA) relative to a generic replacement-level player. The approach uses a “Plus/Minus” metric that estimates how well a particular player has performed relative to the typical player in his “type,” where “type” is not just the position he plays but how he is used as defined by various standard NFL statistics (e.g., primarily slot vs. primarily wide receivers, but also number of routes, yards per route, etc.). ..... Not surprisingly, the Washington Commanders’ selection of quarterback Jayden Daniels with the No. 2 pick in the draft is scored as the most consequential addition in the division. The Giants do pretty well, with a lot of high-value additions, including the second (Jermaine Eluemunor), third (Brian Burns), and fifth (Jon Runyan Jr.) most valuable players on the list — notice also that Aaron Stinnie is No. 12 even though he is not projected to start. Malik Nabers is also there, at No. 11, the second-highest rookie in the division, but you may be surprised to find him only just above Stinnie rather than being closer to the top. That’s because even “replacement-level” receivers do some good things and at worst are mostly ignored in favor of the better receivers on the team, having little effect on expected points while “replacement-level” offensive linemen can be directly responsible for plays being blown up by the defense and contributing negative expected points (due to sacks, losses on runs, etc.). Saquon Barkley was the only Giant lost to a division team but his Plus/Minus impact on Philadelphia is less than those of Eluemunor and Runyan for the Giants. That’s not a knock on Barkley, but rather a reflection of the fact that in today’s NFL value system, OL > RB. Cole also calculates an “Improvement Index” for each team based on the players it has gained vs. lost. The Improvement Index per player added is based on the same Plus/Minus concept, with weighting by things like projected playing time, opponents, etc., but with one other major factor: The estimated improvement is relative to the player being replaced rather than a generic replacement level player. Cole doesn’t say, but the 2023 players being replaced on the Giants’ OL in 2024 might have been worse than the generic replacement-level offensive line on many teams. .... - Much more linked in article below including the effect of the coaching carousel in the NFE which is extensive this year- |
Never is a strong word, especially considering how much worse we saw the Giants be last year relative to the expectations at the time from those same pundits (same goes for Carolina, incidentally). So to say "it's never as bad as the pundits make it out to be" seems false, IMO. Sometimes the pundits are correct in their negativity. Sometimes they're not negative enough. And sometimes, as you note, it's not as bad as they predict.
But it's not never as bad. It's often as bad and sometimes worse.
Furthermore, a loss where the other team is just better than you are is watchable. A loss that is the result of your own numerous and pathetic mistakes is not watchable.
lost 2 starting OL, queen, and a bunch of depth guys. pretty much only gained henry.
10-7
It's nice that somebody thinks we've improved, but they don't actually predict any increase in wins over last season.
2023 point differential:
Baltimore +203
NYG -141
2024 point differential (based on chart):
Baltimore +128
NYG -121
For scale, in 2023 the closest team to +128 was Buffalo (+140, 11-6 record). Closest to -121 was Arizona (-125, 4-13 record).
So Baltimore is still good, Giants still stink.
Quote:
as important as the nyg adding, dallas and phi being at the bottom is perhaps more consequential - and both pass the sniff test. dallas has hardly made any moves this offseason because of their cap situation and lost tyron/biadasz/pollard/others. philly lost kelce/cox/reddick among others after already feeling the impacts of having lost hargraves and others from the SB team in 2022.
2023 point differential:
Baltimore +203
NYG -141
2024 point differential (based on chart):
Baltimore +128
NYG -121
For scale, in 2023 the closest team to +128 was Buffalo (+140, 11-6 record). Closest to -121 was Arizona (-125, 4-13 record).
So Baltimore is still good, Giants still stink.
not at all how the methodology should be used and nowhere did anyone say this means nyg > bal, but whatever floats your misery porn boat i suppose.
So, it depends on how the new players and rookies step up and how the younger players improve. I think we'll be somewhat better - maybe a middle of the pack team.
Having an adequate OL, and having few on-field mistakes are the keys. Mistakes beget more mistakes, and losing begets more losing. The one thing that I do not expect is getting blown out to start the season, like last year.
correct, in 2022 the nyg were -6 with basically 0 injuries and everything going right.
in 2023 with a more talented roster obviously everything went wrong so the results were very bad, but the coaches who were replaced by the guys you named were a big part of the things that went wrong.
8 teams were + point differential in the NFC last year, and the lowest of them was Philly at just +5. If we were identifying 1 non-W/L stat for the season to grade Daboll on, it is probably getting his first positive point differential. If he does that they will be in the WC race.
there's a reason it's called an offseason index. it is aggregate point differentials of a specific set of players lost/gained and predicted snaps going forward. relating it back to full team point differentials from the year prior where real snaps played are obviously going to be very different from expected is apples/oranges.
2. Development
3. Luck
When it comes to 1 and 2 - the Giants have been miserable for nearly a decade. It would be nice to be as healthy as possible (everyone has their injuries, so you do expect them). But #2 is something the organization HAS to be better at immediately.
number 3 is usually out of our hands. But some lucky bounces, a penalty that sways our way, a mishap by the othe team, etc.. would sure be beneficial for us this year.
2. Development
3. Luck
When it comes to 1 and 2 - the Giants have been miserable for nearly a decade. It would be nice to be as healthy as possible (everyone has their injuries, so you do expect them). But #2 is something the organization HAS to be better at immediately.
number 3 is usually out of our hands. But some lucky bounces, a penalty that sways our way, a mishap by the othe team, etc.. would sure be beneficial for us this year.
The health lady has treated us very badly for quite some time now.
Great post!
2. Development
3. Luck
When it comes to 1 and 2 - the Giants have been miserable for nearly a decade. It would be nice to be as healthy as possible (everyone has their injuries, so you do expect them). But #2 is something the organization HAS to be better at immediately.
number 3 is usually out of our hands. But some lucky bounces, a penalty that sways our way, a mishap by the othe team, etc.. would sure be beneficial for us this year.
100% agree with this post. In terms of development, Neal to me could have the biggest impact on this teams success in 2024.
But Schoen was smart to bring in Eleumenor who can easily take over at RT with either Neal or Stinnie at RG if Neal can’t hack it at RT again.
Good point. Here it is in May 2023 after the draft.
In addition to my concerns about #8, BD better have the team ready to go come Week 1. One would think that he captured some valuable lessons learned from last year's terrible start. Last year's piss poor start rests with the head coach. There is no excuse for the week 1 40-0 home loss to Dallas last year. That was absolutely horrendous.
i assume your point is that this index correctly identified houston?
2022 point differential = -131
2023 offseason index = +40
2023 actual point differential improvement = +155
hmm almost like even when the offseason index is directionally correct as it was with houston the numbers don't work at all in the way you are trying to use them.
last year's index also correctly identified philly's regression, except they didnt regress by -40 points, they regressed by 128 points in point differential.
that's the weighting issue of projected vs real snaps (plus other factors, mainly coaching/player development) that makes these numbers apples/oranges. those are the force multipliers that take rosters often very comparable in talent to wider variance outcomes.
Quote:
Am I reading that right? As of March 17, so before the 2023 draft?
Good point. Here it is in May 2023 after the draft.
im pretty sure the draft only changes the improvement index slightly w/ the net of points from traded picks and possible implied positional value. i think he typically factors draft picks in as their points value based on slots so the changes w/ HOU and NYJ were likely from their trade ups.
Quote:
make it out to be.And that goes for every team, including Carolina.
Never is a strong word, especially considering how much worse we saw the Giants be last year relative to the expectations at the time from those same pundits (same goes for Carolina, incidentally). So to say "it's never as bad as the pundits make it out to be" seems false, IMO. Sometimes the pundits are correct in their negativity. Sometimes they're not negative enough. And sometimes, as you note, it's not as bad as they predict.
But it's not never as bad. It's often as bad and sometimes worse.
Fair enough.
Quote:
i assume your point is that this index correctly identified houston?
2022 point differential = -131
2023 offseason index = +40
2023 actual point differential improvement = +155
hmm almost like even when the offseason index is directionally correct as it was with houston the numbers don't work at all in the way you are trying to use them.
last year's index also correctly identified philly's regression, except they didnt regress by -40 points, they regressed by 128 points in point differential.
that's the weighting issue of projected vs real snaps (plus other factors, mainly coaching/player development) that makes these numbers apples/oranges. those are the force multipliers that take rosters often very comparable in talent to wider variance outcomes.
I didn't have a point in posting it. This is my first encounter with this data and I'm just trying to get a sense of it. My initial reaction is that the good teams seem to be on the bottom, and the poorer teams at the top. Without really researching it that makes sense: the NFL is designed to improve bad teams and worsen good teams.
Jones will either be ineffective or he'll get hurt again. Drew Lock stinks. As a side note, I'd prefer to give this season to Tommy DeVito and se what he can do with it start to finish.
So, QB is still a question mark, as is OL with this team until proven otherwise. We've brought in OL reinforcements before, only to laugh at them in hindsight.
I didn't have a point in posting it. This is my first encounter with this data and I'm just trying to get a sense of it. My initial reaction is that the good teams seem to be on the bottom, and the poorer teams at the top. Without really researching it that makes sense: the NFL is designed to improve bad teams and worsen good teams.
im reasonably familiar with it and have posted some more details on the methodology 3 months ago - Kevin Cole is generally really good and he has some good archived articles on PFF explaining his metrics uses and limitations.
i personally am more partial to straight asset appraisal like this because it is a lot simpler (more money, more high draft picks should = improvement). i think this was basically PFF's replacement for what Kevin did when he was writing there - https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-teams-2024-offseason-resources-cap-space-2024-nfl-draft
i think the biggest limitation on the type of model kevin created (beyond disagreeing with a few things in his methodology) is the exact inference you tried to make. they can/should be directionally predictive but clearly not specifically. and to your point good coaches/organizations consistently get more out of less because they draft and develop well enough to sustain losing players because of the cap (baltimore being the best example of that).
NYG rank 4th in offseason improvement index Eric on Li 3/27/2024 4:57 pm - ( New Window )
What you won't see anywhere is anyone objectively saying the Giants will win 11+ games and/or compete for the Super Bowl. Again, given where they are in their roster build some might find that alarming.
What you won't see anywhere is anyone objectively saying the Giants will win 11+ games and/or compete for the Super Bowl. Again, given where they are in their roster build some might find that alarming.
that's mostly fair. im not sure what luck could be so much worse than thomas getting hurt on blocked kick td return the first drive of the year that they win half as many games as last year, but that aside the comment i replied to in this thread was simply that the way you were trying to use this metric was wrong. it seems we both agree with the metric that the expectation should be that this year's team clearly improves?
What you won't see anywhere is anyone objectively saying the Giants will win 11+ games and/or compete for the Super Bowl. Again, given where they are in their roster build some might find that alarming.
Agreed
So...we may see a playoff game or a top 3 pick for a new QB
That's exciting...?
Quote:
To answer the fundamental question in the OP, though, how bad the Giants are will depend on injury luck and bounces of the ball. If everything goes their way like it did in 2022, they could win 9-10 games. If they have really bad luck they could win 3-4 games. If that averages out they probably win 6-8 games. How to interpret that is subjective - some might see it as progress, some might be alarmed.
What you won't see anywhere is anyone objectively saying the Giants will win 11+ games and/or compete for the Super Bowl. Again, given where they are in their roster build some might find that alarming.
that's mostly fair. im not sure what luck could be so much worse than thomas getting hurt on blocked kick td return the first drive of the year that they win half as many games as last year, but that aside the comment i replied to in this thread was simply that the way you were trying to use this metric was wrong. it seems we both agree with the metric that the expectation should be that this year's team clearly improves?
That should absolutely be the expectation. I think the expectation should be to fight for the division, get to the playoffs, and be a legit threat to get to the NFC title game.
Quote:
In comment 16533965 Go Terps said:
Quote:
To answer the fundamental question in the OP, though, how bad the Giants are will depend on injury luck and bounces of the ball. If everything goes their way like it did in 2022, they could win 9-10 games. If they have really bad luck they could win 3-4 games. If that averages out they probably win 6-8 games. How to interpret that is subjective - some might see it as progress, some might be alarmed.
What you won't see anywhere is anyone objectively saying the Giants will win 11+ games and/or compete for the Super Bowl. Again, given where they are in their roster build some might find that alarming.
that's mostly fair. im not sure what luck could be so much worse than thomas getting hurt on blocked kick td return the first drive of the year that they win half as many games as last year, but that aside the comment i replied to in this thread was simply that the way you were trying to use this metric was wrong. it seems we both agree with the metric that the expectation should be that this year's team clearly improves?
That should absolutely be the expectation. I think the expectation should be to fight for the division, get to the playoffs, and be a legit threat to get to the NFC title game.
they got 1 game away from that unexpectedly in year 1. i think the expectation you laid out probably isn't so far from what the expectation was/should have been last year.
it obviously didn't work out last year but i think most agree daboll deserved another chance, i personally dont see any case to lower expectations of what we should expect him to be able to do. 1 good year, 1 bad year, year 3 is the tie breaker. im rooting for a dan campbell/brad holmes year 3. they entered last year owning a 12-21-1 record.
OL questions. Will the D stop the run? Will they get better rushing production from the RB's? The running game fell off big last season. Pass game should have more pop.
I think a good start is critical this year. Another slow start and I think it can get ugly fast.
I see the Ravens falling off. They had just about everything last season to close the deal. Then LJ came up small again.
In today's NFL, time of possession is a critical determinant of success. And I believe the Giants will be dead last this year because of an inability to run the ball. Opposing defenses will simply stack the line of scrimmage and take away DJ's first read. He will be a disaster trying to throw long and of course there will be no threat of DJ running this year because of his injury risk. Our defense could win some games with turnovers and stout play, but like 2017, it will more likely be that they get gassed early from being constantly on the field and are simply unable to make stops late in games.
The only possible chance I see of this being a playoff contender is if somehow Drew Lock makes a Daboll inspired leap and adds judgment and accuracy to his prodigious arm talent. That would be a game changer. Can Daboll do this? I doubt it. But he spun straw into gold two years ago - maybe he can do it again? If not, look for the Munich game to determine who the worst team in the NFL will be this year.
The OL completely imploded and we know what happened.
I believe:
This team is much better than the 2023 version
Burns offers a ripple affect that improves several others.
Nabers also offers a ripple affect that improves several others.
If OL gets fixed...the Giants can succeed.
Jones is not that good, but he is not that bad, either. QBs are very dependent.
That's insane. A +12 turnover ratio means even our terrible record was vastly inflated over the true quality of the team.
Combine that with a much harder schedule this year, and this year - right now - isn't looking very good.
I fully expect to get an enjoyable season.
That's insane. A +12 turnover ratio means even our terrible record was vastly inflated over the true quality of the team.
Combine that with a much harder schedule this year, and this year - right now - isn't looking very good.
Beg to differ re: “much harder schedule.”
Last year we played 5 vs. teams that ended up with 7 or fewer wins; 5 against 8-10 win teams; 7 vs. teams with 11+.
Based on last year’s finishes, our 24 opponents would break down to 5, 6, and 6. Not much difference.
No doubt there will be surprises. AFC North is a meat grinder, but NFC South doesn’t scare me and our division seems to have lost a bit at the top. I don’t see any reason to think there will be much change in the degree of difficulty.
That's insane. A +12 turnover ratio means even our terrible record was vastly inflated over the true quality of the team.
Combine that with a much harder schedule this year, and this year - right now - isn't looking very good.
And didn't they start the first 4 games without getting a turnover?