• 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 25th, 2023

help-circle



  • It might confuse people because it’s not “official”, but ANY/A gets closer to EPA/db when you multiply the lost sack yards by 3. The 20 and 45 constants come from the general translation of epa to yards (how many epa is one yard, etc)**, and just because we already have lost sack yards as, well, yards, losing yards is disproportionately impactful compared to gaining gaining them. ex: losing 7 yards (& the down) is much more damaging than gaining 7 yards is beneficial (because of losing the down. Losing yards by penalty but redoing the down is only a fraction as harmful). The ratio isn’t the same for all yards-lost values (especially because you have to skip some, since 1-4 positive yards are typically negative EPA already), but from those I examined, 3 was basically the average, as well as a nice round number for this formula.

    When you do this, I think it appropriately rewards (or rather, doesn’t punish) the QBs that avoid sacks.

    **which, makes it odd to me that they didn’t think of sacks’ EPA impact when making the formula originally.