I’m seeing way too much emphasis on statistics when it comes to analyzing the Heisman race.
That doesn’t mean that stats aren’t important. They are an essential element of determining the worth of a player.
However, an overreliance on stats can sometimes cause us to lose sight of what makes a player great.
I was recently emailed this statistical comparison of Colt McCoy and Texas A&M quarterback Jerrod Johnson. The writer writes:
McCoy is presumed to be the top candidate for many national quarterbacking honors.
But the numbers seem to indicate that Johnson has had just as strong of a season statistically as McCoy — or any other quarterback in the league.
It is true that Johnson has some good numbers. But if you’ve actually seen both McCoy and Johnson play, there’s just no comparison right now in their overall performance. McCoy is by far the better quarterback.
Whatever the case, the Heisman race is not about splitting hairs in the stat sheet to come up with a winner.
This is why I’ve always maintained that there is a certain statistical threshhold that a Heisman challenger must meet to be considered and then after that it’s all about the intangibles that the individual voters value in a player.
Colt McCoy, Mark Ingram and Toby Gerhart have all crossed the statistical threshhold of Heisman-worthiness for this season. C.J. Spiller and Tim Tebow are still trying to get there and may yet do so.
But once a player is considered Heisman-worthy in a given season, it is pointless to delve too much into the nuances of the numbers. Sure, some voters are going to be impressed by record-setting stats, or good performances against high-level competition. But if Mark Ingram wins the Heisman over Colt McCoy, it’s not going to be because Alabama’s schedule is ranked 41st in Sagarin while Texas’ is ranked 56th, or that Ingram played against seven top 50 defenses while McCoy played against four. None of that matters.
At this point in the season, there is general agreement that McCoy, Ingram, Gerhart, Tebow and Spiller (among others) are very good-to-great players. More than one of them is worthy of winning the 2009 Heisman Trophy.
The task now before the voters is to determine who is most worthy of being dubbed the most outstanding. Stats will play a big role in this, but they will not be the only determiner.
I couldn’t agree more. The comments section as of late has been flooded by people obsessed with comparing statistics.
Statistics do not tell us the full story. They don’t account for the intangibles which are clear to anyone who actually watches the game.
Stats are for losers. If a player leads their team to victory, they are infinitely more valuable than a player who puts up gaudy numbers and loses. This is why the Heisman is usually awarded to a player on a national title contender.
…and this is the kind of post that I really like to read from HP. No slant, no opinion, just analyzing the way the Heisman race actually works. Nothing in the post saying who should win, nothing saying what should count in who wins, but saying what actually does count and who actually will win. Nice one, HP.
Great post HP and well put. Stats are like outer-appearances, they don’t tell you everything about a person…
Jams – I’m not sure how you got that impression.
It’s language like “However, an overreliance on stats can sometimes cause us to lose sight of what makes a player great” that leads people to believe HeismanPundit buys into his analysis.
Reading the statement I quote would lead you to believe he thinks Heisman votes are looking at the right things when they cast there votes.
I also wonder what he means when he says Colt has “Heisman worthy” numbers but Tebow doesn’t. Is he saying that’s how voters see it (probably accurate) or that’s reality?
It’s definitely not reality: Tebow has 1 more TD, Colt has 400 more yards, Tebow has fewer turnovers and their ratings are 155 and 152.
Steve: Of course I buy into my own analysis. It’s why I provide it.
I pointedly remark that Heisman voters don’t only look at statistics. That is the reality, which is what I am talking about.
I look at the race as it is, not how it should be. Right now, the reality is that voters don’t see Tebow as having had a good enough season statistically and that’s why he’s not going to win. Them’s just the facts. Sorry.
The question is why you write things like “[m]ore than one of them is worthy of winning the 2009 Heisman Trophy.”
Some of the guys you say are “more than . . . worthy” have no chance of winning the Heisman (e.g. the “others”). So it leads readers to think that in that sentence you aren’t talking about who will win, but who should win.
Yes, more than one player is worthy of winning the Heisman this year. That is something we can all acknowledge.
Now, as far as how that will play out in the voting, that’s another story. I rarely if ever talk about who should win, but rather who is going to win. That should be clear after five years of writing on this site.