On Thursday, PFF’s Sam Monson published an article on Dallas Cowboys’ cornerback Trevon Diggs. The article described the process for his low PFF grade, but it was headlined “Why Trevon Diggs’ 11 interceptions don’t reflect his PFF grade.” Diggs’ PFF grade had been fairly low compared to other cornerbacks he gets compared to so an explanation was warranted.
And what we got was… a typical analytical analysis. (Here is the link to the piece Sam wrote)
Monson initially sounds complementary of Diggs talking about how he could accomplish something that hasn’t been done in over 60 years and how he has already exceeded his draft positioning as a second-round pick. But then he addresses everyone saying the rest of the piece might come across as negative and how interceptions can skew the larger body of work that analytics tries to encompass.
However, with articles that try to use a broad spectrum of numbers to prove a point, they try to highlight numbers or statistics that complement the narrative of a piece. I do it all the time, so it doesn’t come as a surprise to me that Monson tried to do the same thing as well.
Perhaps the worst part, as a fan, about some of the numbers he highlights is that you can’t dispute the data. Its discrete and different stat trackers likely show something similar. (i.e. yards allowed) However, there are some glaringly obvious flaws in logic that I won’t try and argue, but simply pose a rebuttal.
In response to Sam Monson’s article on Dallas Cowboys’ cornerback Trevon Diggs, what are points that he makes well, and what are points he just flat out misses on?
Let’s start with the first negative he brings up…