|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
But sometimes isn't that justifiable?
If you're just another message board hack like us, sure (though you will likely still get plenty of ridicule for it).
However, if you're trying to pass it off as something valid that is to be viewed as a benchmark rating and something that is a reliable, referenceable system? Not even remotely so, ever.
Quote:
I mean if you go by the tried and true QB rating system from last year, then Colt McCoy is as good as or better than Christian Ponder, Rex Grossman, Blaine Gabbert, Josh Freeman, Sam Bradford... and not too far behind Mark Sanchez, Joe Flacco and Andy Dalton...
Think about what you're trying to measure --- results. There is only one question and two options: How do you define results? "Points scored", and "stats accrued" are your choices. If McCoy's results are as good or better than those guys - then it is what it is. His passes may not be as pretty, he may not get the "W's", but measured results are measured results. Sure, garbage time stats skew things. So does inferior talent around you. All QB's have to play with who they've got, and all QB's get garbage time stats - on one side of the equation or the other (though, when winning, your RB usually is who gets the garbage time stats).
The QBR is an attempt to award "style points". That's it.
The reason the standard QB Rating is flawed is because you are trying to rate a position that is completely dependent upon not only the other 10 guys on your team, but who your opponent is - far more so than at any other position. That means that there is potentially dozens of other statistics that would have to be factored in to account for those things and produce something truly usable.
ESPN & Dilfer's answer to that? Cut out all of the measurable and verifiable stuff, and replace it with "well, I think... uh".
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The QBR is an attempt to award "style points". That's it.
See, I don't think it is. I think it is trying to put measurable stats in context, which is something we try to do here every day... of course there is going to be some level of subjectivity to that.
Quote:
ESPN & Dilfer's answer to that? Cut out all of the measurable and verifiable stuff, and replace it with "well, I think... uh"
I don't think that's what they are doing... they are just assigning a value that shows that a 40 yard TD pass with 2 minutes to go in a 3 point game is not the same as a 40 yard TD pass when you are down by 21 in the final 20 seconds... or that a 40 yard TD pass where you throw it 35 yards hitting a guy in stride isn't the same as a bubble screen that you throw 10 yards sideways and then have a WR break 9 tackles and race 40 yards to the end zone.
I'm not arguing that it's not subjective, of course it's subjective, I'm just arguing that because it's subjective, as long as you realize it's subjective, it's not more or less accurate than just applying straight statistical numbers to reach a conclusion.
I haven't read much on it but basically, I believe they are trying to capture effectiveness.. do they? Heck I don't know... do we have any situations where a QB is top 10 in the old ranking and bottom 10 in this ranking or vice versa? Or do the 2 line up fairly well?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
Like it or hate it, when the last scores are counted, most of the good QB's are on top of both systems, and most of the bad QB's are on the bottom of both systems.
Unless you're a media darling...
Andrew Luck -
# 32 in Passer Rating
# 6 in QBR
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
What does "media darling" have to do with his QBR?
That rating system adds in how well a player does in crunch time. Luck has been like most rookies, right up until the game is on the line, which is when he's delivered.
I think there's some credence to be found in QBR for that only.
If nothing else it helps eliminate garbage-time stats from some equations.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
QBR is much more subjective. That's all I'm saying. Question : Does Andrew Luck get QBR points for tackles after his INT's? *Just kidding, but I really hate how when he throws a pick, the announcers drool all over how he reacts after the pick, completely ignoring the fact that he threw the INT in the first place 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Hehehe...Well, that's a different story. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Like it or hate it, when the last scores are counted, most of the good QB's are on top of both systems, and most of the bad QB's are on the bottom of both systems.
Unless you're a media darling...
Andrew Luck -
# 32 in Passer Rating
# 6 in QBR
I'm not sure the intent of this but in my opinion, this is a perfect example of how the QBR is actually working.. Luck has thrown enough INTs and has a completion % that will bring his rating down... on the other hand, his team is 8-4 and he has five 4th quarter comebacks and one OT win....
So regardless of his TD/INT ratio and his YPA, whatever he's doing, is effective.. and this seems to capture that.
Is some of the 4th quarter heroics needed to overcome his own earlier mistakes? Probably.. does this rating system capture that? I would guess not... but no rating system is perfect.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
or an example of how QBR is not working.
QBR is setup to prop-up QBs who win. it takes game situations and ran models to try to "guess" the winning QB based on stats and those situations.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
or an example of how QBR is not working.
QBR is setup to prop-up QBs who win.
Typically shouldn't a QB who wins more games grade out higher than a QB that doesn't? I mean on a game by game basis sure, the better QB doesn't always win but over a longer period of time, shouldn't winning QBs grade out higher?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
or an example of how QBR is not working.
QBR is setup to prop-up QBs who win.
Typically shouldn't a QB who wins more games grade out higher than a QB that doesn't? I mean on a game by game basis sure, the better QB doesn't always win but over a longer period of time, shouldn't winning QBs grade out higher?
not necessarily. Stafford has been the better QB on many Sundays overall, but his team's defense is so terrible that he cannot always keep up.
last 2 weeks Stafford has thrown for 754yds with 4TDs and 1 INT while getting his team leads in the 4th quarter of both games. he definitely out-did Schaub but his defense was porous on the ground allowing Foster a big game (and the ref's assisted in allowing Forsett a big game as well). Andrew Luck threw 3 INTs that helped the Lions (and Stafford) build that 12pt 4th quarter lead. Schwartz took the ball out of his hands on the last 2 drives to kill clock and the Lions defense didn't hold up their end.
But, somehow that makes Luck a better QB? Nevermind those 3INTs, they didn't come in the 4th quarter (though he nearly threw another to double-covered Wayne on that last drive)?
Those INTs early count as much as those INTs late and I don't like perverting the stats to change it.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
last 2 weeks Stafford has thrown for 754yds with 4TDs and 1 INT while getting his team leads in the 4th quarter of both games. he definitely out-did Schaub but his defense was porous on the ground allowing Foster a big game (and the ref's assisted in allowing Forsett a big game as well). Andrew Luck threw 3 INTs that helped the Lions (and Stafford) build that 12pt 4th quarter lead. Schwartz took the ball out of his hands on the last 2 drives to kill clock and the Lions defense didn't hold up their end.
But, somehow that makes Luck a better QB? Nevermind those 3INTs, they didn't come in the 4th quarter (though he nearly threw another to double-covered Wayne on that last drive)?
Those INTs early count as much as those INTs late and I don't like perverting the stats to change it.
In week 12, Stafford's QBR was 72.7 and Schaub's was 52.8.. the following week Stafford's was 80.7 and Luck's was 31.4 ...
I don't think this stat is saying Stafford wasn't the better QB in both games... I also thought I was pretty clear that no stat is very valid with a one game sample or an indicator of who should have won or lost the game... just that over the longer period of time, typically, QBs who win more will have better ratings... nothing is absolute.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
Quote:
or an example of how QBR is not working.
QBR is setup to prop-up QBs who win.
Typically shouldn't a QB who wins more games grade out higher than a QB that doesn't? I mean on a game by game basis sure, the better QB doesn't always win but over a longer period of time, shouldn't winning QBs grade out higher?
All else being equal - e.g. things happening in a vacuum? Sure.
In reality? Not necessarily. It is still a team sport. The QB could do everything right and still get called a failure because some other player didn't do their job.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
oh sure, if you are actually going to go and look up the QBRs from the game.
i'm surprised Lucks is that low from the Detroit game honestly
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
LOL.. I still have no idea how the total number is calculated. If you read across the line of rating categories Luck is ahead of RGIII in almost every category, by a substantial margin in a couple.. yet you get to the end and RGIII's overall ranking is 2 points higher.. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,432
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,432 |
I've thought that the ESPN total QBR has been a load of crap for awhile now. In addition I thought it was ESPN just trying to market something new and slick that feels too made up. Let the ACTUAL quarterback rating/stat kept by the NFL be the judge.
Find what you love and let it kill you.
-Charles Bukowski
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Is ESPN's Total QBR a good stat?
|
|
