Good question. I looked up his plays and it turns out Spiller had a large number of negative EPA plays in very low leverage situations. He has a net of -19 EPA when the WPA swings were only between -.01 and +.01.
So how do we interpret those two numbers next to each other? In other words, is it sort of like BABIP in baseball, where an artificially high/low number likely isn't sustainable?
It will very probably regress. The way to really interpret them is that WPA is very heavily dependent on circumstance, most of which are non-repeating. EPA is less dependent on circumstance and is more consistent/predictable. Still, both are retrospective numbers that capture the past.
If you're looking for predictive numbers, I would synthesize something between SR and EPA.
Welcome to the Advanced Football Analytics archive. This is where you can find over 1,500 ground-breaking articles full of the most innovative research and analysis of modern NFL football.
Interested in publishing your own football research, analysis, or stat-based commentary? Advanced NFL Stats Community is the site to share your thoughts and ideas. There's plenty of data available to get started. All submissions will be accepted and published. Check it out!
Support Military Families
If you enjoy Advanced Football Analytics, please consider a small donation to The Fisher House, a place where families of injured servicemen can stay while visiting their hospitalized heroes.
Random question: how does CJ Spiller have a 0.17 WPA (good for 19th among RB), but with a -12.5 EPA (12th worst)?
The only other example I could find of numbers close to those just from quickly skimming the list was Ben Tate (0.27, -8.9).
Good question. I looked up his plays and it turns out Spiller had a large number of negative EPA plays in very low leverage situations. He has a net of -19 EPA when the WPA swings were only between -.01 and +.01.
So how do we interpret those two numbers next to each other? In other words, is it sort of like BABIP in baseball, where an artificially high/low number likely isn't sustainable?
It will very probably regress. The way to really interpret them is that WPA is very heavily dependent on circumstance, most of which are non-repeating. EPA is less dependent on circumstance and is more consistent/predictable. Still, both are retrospective numbers that capture the past.
If you're looking for predictive numbers, I would synthesize something between SR and EPA.
Gotcha. So EPA is probably more representative of his real contributions then, yes?
I wouldn't say 'real' because EPA contains low-leverage 'trash' plays. But it's more stable from game to game and year to year.
> If you're looking for predictive numbers, I would synthesize something
> between SR and EPA.
Do you know if anyone has looked at median EPA/P (or something similar) as a player stat?