Peanut Retired

[Parade_Rain]

Enjoy your retirement, Charles. A very good player and an even better human being.

 

[FirstTimer]

If want to discuss what it means from a team standpoint sure turnovers are king

Ok, great shut up.

however the whole discussion has been around individual effort and the Hall of Fame.

No, it's been about the "importance" of the stat Tillman is best at.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

What are you basing this on?

Not sure where I could find what it *should be* if a team is not lucky or unlucky. I assume that as fumble totals go up, it would gravitate towards 50%. I did find this for 2012 though that says the Bears on defense recovered 59% of fumbles forced. I picked that year since it was when Tillman had by far his most forced fumbles at 10.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2013/2012-fumble-luck

 

[FirstTimer]

Since you have lost the argument on individual effort

LOL. I never questioned individual effort. I said from the beginning of this that it was about the importance of the number. You've only changed it to an effort issue in the last five posts. I was mentioning the word "important" in post #46. In fact YOU were the one who first made it an importance issue in post #39.

This "effort" deflection by you has only come about recently because you realize the "importance" angle was idiotic.

 

[modo]

Ok, great shut up.



No, it's been about the "importance" of the stat Tillman is best at.

Telling me to shut up isn't making you more right....

Answer this.....

From an individual effort standpoint, what is more impressive, forcing a fumble or recovering one?

 

[FirstTimer]

From an individual effort standpoint, what is more impressive, forcing a fumble or recovering one?

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[modo]

LOL. I never questioned individual effort. I said from the beginning of this that it was about the importance of the number. You've only changed it to an effort issue in the last five posts. I was mentioning the word "important" in post #46. In fact YOU were the one who first made it an importance issue in post #39.

This "effort" deflection by you has only come about recently because you realize the "importance" angle was idiotic.

This discussion was never based on team stats, it had to do with individual's statistics for the Hall of Fame.....your full of shit dude.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Then you're football Special person.

Getting a turnover over>>>>>>>>Not getting a turnover.

I think what he is saying is that the forced fumble part of the equation is often the more impressive part of the play that involves more skill. The recovery part is more important but relies more on luck.

 

[FirstTimer]

Not sure where I could find what it *should be* if a team is not lucky or unlucky. I assume that as fumble totals go up, it would gravitate towards 50%. I did find this for 2012 though that says the Bears on defense recovered 59% of fumbles forced. I picked that year since it was when Tillman had by far his most forced fumbles at 10.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2013/2012-fumble-luck

Yeah I've seen that chart before but it doesn't really say what the "mean" is.

 

[FirstTimer]

This discussion was never based on team stats, it had to do with individual's statistics for the Hall of Fame.....your full of shit dude.

I repeat:

LOL. I never questioned individual effort. I said from the beginning of this that it was about the importance of the number. You've only changed it to an effort issue in the last five posts. I was mentioning the word "important" in post #46. In fact YOU were the one who first made it an importance issue in post #39.

This "effort" deflection by you has only come about recently because you realize the "importance" angle was idiotic.

 

[modo]

I think what he is saying is that the forced fumble part of the equation is often the more impressive part of the play that involves more skill. The recovery part is more important but relies more on luck.

of course that is what I am saying and he knows it. He was trying marginalize Tillman's FF stat and then when I showed him that recovering the ball was more luck than skill he tried to make it about team turnovers, which this discussion was never based on.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think what he is saying is that the forced fumble part of the equation is often the more impressive part of the play that involves more skill. The recovery part is more important but relies more on luck.

Yeah, and I never disagreed with that and that was never at issue. So he's bringing forth a completely irrelevant point.

I repeat:

I never questioned individual effort. I said from the beginning of this that it was about the importance of the number. You've(modo) only changed it to an effort issue in the last five posts. I was mentioning the word "important" in post #46. In fact YOU(modo) were the one who first made it an importance issue in post #39.

This "effort" deflection by you(modo) has only come about recently because you(modo) realize the "importance" angle was idiotic.

 

[FirstTimer]

He was trying marginalize Tillman's FF stat and then when I showed him that recovering the ball was more luck than skill he tried to make it about team turnovers

LOL. I never questioned individual effort. I said from the beginning of this that it was about the importance of the number. You've only changed it to an effort issue in the last five posts. I was mentioning the word "important" in post #46. In fact YOU were the one who first made it an importance issue in post #39.

This "effort" deflection by you has only come about recently because you realize the "importance" angle was idiotic.

 

[modo]

LOL. I never questioned individual effort. I said from the beginning of this that it was about the importance of the number. You've only changed it to an effort issue in the last five posts. I was mentioning the word "important" in post #46. In fact YOU were the one who first made it an importance issue in post #39.

This "effort" deflection by you has only come about recently because you realize the "importance" angle was idiotic.

nice try.....It was always about individual effort and the Hall of Fame discussion.....

 

[Ares]

YOU GUYS ARE TRAMPLING ALL OVER PEANUT'S HoF MEMORY!

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Yeah I've seen that chart before but it doesn't really say what the "mean" is.

I just think that with all the advanced stats we have now, we should be able to get data on how many forced fumbles that each player had led to turnovers.

As for the 50% recovery rate, who knows. It looks like some say that it depends on the position player who fumbled which would increase or decrease the likeliness of recovery.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-hidden-factors-for-winning-in-the-nfl/

 

[FirstTimer]

nice try.....It was always about individual effort and the Hall of Fame discussion.....

No, no it wasn't.

In Post #39 you said a FF is nearly as important as an INT. No mention of the word "effort" in this thread until post #76

 

[FirstTimer]

I just think that with all the advanced stats we have now, we should be able to get data on how many forced fumbles that each player had led to turnovers.

Agreed. I've just never seen one.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Agreed. I've just never seen one.

So looks like for 2012, based on the football outsiders link, there were 542 total fumbles and 48.3% were kept by the offense. I am too lazy to try and look it up for every year but I would assume it would get close to 50% but who knows for sure.

 

[FirstTimer]

So looks like for 2012, based on the football outsiders link, there were 542 total fumbles and 48.3% were kept by the offense. I am too lazy to try and look it up for every year but I would assume it would get close to 50% but who knows for sure.

Yeah but I'm more interested in individual players. I've seen the team numbers before. FO also says the numbers can swing wildly so it's tough to make any established guess as to what Tillman's percentage was. If it swings wildly and Tillman is forcing different numbers of fumble every year it's tough to get a number/handle on it.