QBR

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Any statistics nerds among you? Obviously, football tends to be a more subjective sport than baseball, but I'm hoping football will undergo some sort of Bill James style revolution in the near future. This newly thorough method of rating quarterbacks may be the first domino to fall in that effort. At the very least, it will replace the archaic and arguably useless passer rating system.

 

Here's a good article on it...the details of the formula will be made public today, I believe.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6835090/nfl-total-quarterback-rating-shifts-way-see-position

[Pirate Angel]

Any statistics nerds among you? Obviously, football tends to be a more subjective sport than baseball, but I'm hoping football will undergo some sort of Bill James style revolution in the near future. This newly thorough method of rating quarterbacks may be the first domino to fall in that effort. At the very least, it will replace the archaic and arguably useless passer rating system.

 

Here's a good article on it...the details of the formula will be made public today, I believe.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6835090/nfl-total-quarterback-rating-shifts-way-see-position

The only statistic that matters is the W

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

The only statistic that matters is the W

 

How...irrelevant.

[MRW]

Pretty interesting... Can't comment on the specifics at all (obviously), but it's past time that a replacement was found for QB rating.

 

Here's a list of QBs for 2010 with the new stat. Based on my non-statistical impressions of what QBs actually contribute to their team, the top 10 seems quite reasonable (not 100% sure on Eli Manning, but hard to argue that the other QBs in there are rated too high). Fitzpatrick is middle of the pack - again, not surprising or outlandish.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Pretty interesting... Can't comment on the specifics at all (obviously), but it's past time that a replacement was found for QB rating.

 

Here's a list of QBs for 2010 with the new stat. Based on my non-statistical impressions of what QBs actually contribute to their team, the top 10 seems quite reasonable (not 100% sure on Eli Manning, but hard to argue that the other QBs in there are rated too high). Fitzpatrick is middle of the pack - again, not surprising or outlandish.

 

Thanks for the list. Fitzpatrick right in the middle of the pack, as I expected. It's interesting to see just how much better Brady was last year than everybody else. A full 7% ahead of number 2 Manning.

[MRW]

Thanks for the list. Fitzpatrick right in the middle of the pack, as I expected. It's interesting to see just how much better Brady was last year than everybody else. A full 7% ahead of number 2 Manning.

Just don't read the comments under that article. I have no idea why I started reading them.

[hondo in seattle]

The only statistic that matters is the W

 

Here's what they say about the QBR: "All QB plays are scored based on how much they contribute to a win."

 

Football is a team sport and QBs are expected to not to win games by themselves but to contribute. Some stat nerds and ex-players apparently got together and figured out a system to measure that contribution, rather than 'passing efficiency.'

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Hey Sage. Thanks for the link.

 

This stuff interests me a bit and as you probably know, the area of sabremetrics (which is a baseball discipline born of Bill James) has inevitably invaded the realm of NFL football.

 

There are three main groups which are developing and refining statistical algorithms to measure the performance of NFL players and teams.

 

The first one I believe was "Football Outsiders" in 2003. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/

 

The other two are "Pro Football Focus" which in a short time, has been heavily criticized around here (so is ProFootballTalk and their audience grows by leaps and bounds every day). http://www.profootballfocus.com/

 

The 3rd group of NFL Sabremetrics folks are the guys at "Cold, Hard, Football Facts who have ironically, come out in defense of the NFL's Passer Efficiency Rating. http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/

 

These are guys who are sports geeks like many of us, who played electric football, stratomatic football, fantasy football and the newer generations who play Madden.

 

Anyways, here's an SI.com article about the Cold, Hard, Football Facts guys and their defense of the NFL's passer efficiency rating:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/kerry_byrne/08/03/defending-qb-rating/index.html?sct=nfl_wr_a1

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Hey Sage. Thanks for the link.

 

This stuff interests me a bit and as you probably know, the area of sabremetrics (which is a baseball discipline born of Bill James) has inevitably invaded the realm of NFL football.

 

There are three main groups which are developing and refining statistical algorithms to measure the performance of NFL players and teams.

 

The first one I believe was "Football Outsiders" in 2003. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/

 

The other two are "Pro Football Focus" which in a short time, has been heavily criticized around here (so is ProFootballTalk and their audience grows by leaps and bounds every day). http://www.profootballfocus.com/

 

The 3rd group of NFL Sabremetrics folks are the guys at "Cold, Hard, Football Facts who have ironically, come out in defense of the NFL's Passer Efficiency Rating. http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/

 

These are guys who are sports geeks like many of us, who played electric football, stratomatic football, fantasy football and the newer generations who play Madden.

 

Anyways, here's an SI.com article about the Cold, Hard, Football Facts guys and their defense of the NFL's passer efficiency rating:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/kerry_byrne/08/03/defending-qb-rating/index.html?sct=nfl_wr_a1

 

Yeah, I'm a total sabermetrics nerd. I hate to admit it, but I've even been to a couple of the conventions.

 

Football Outsiders is one of my favorite websites, but I was unaware of the other two. I'm interested to read that article from Cold Hard Football Facts because passer rating, to me, is just short of completely useless as a statistic. As others have pointed out, it pays no attention to context and in football you absolutely cannot analyze without context. Additionally, passer rating severely overrates conservative QB play and pays no attention to plays during which the QB never throws the ball (sacks, fumbles, rushing yardage).

[nodnarb]

Good stuff. It's about time that out-of-date QB rating system has been officially updated. It was so woefully incomplete before. Giving the same value to a 3 yard pass that goes for a 50yd TD vs the perfect over-the-shoulder out route that flies 50 yards through the air...not to mention the *situational* aspect of the grading system...it's a much better analytical tool now.

 

Heh heh...tool....

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Good stuff. It's about time that out-of-date QB rating system has been officially updated. It was so woefully incomplete before. Giving the same value to a 3 yard pass that goes for a 50yd TD vs the perfect over-the-shoulder out route that flies 50 yards through the air...not to mention the *situational* aspect of the grading system...it's a much better analytical tool now.

 

Heh heh...tool....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo5DGzTXPNA

[davefan66]

I much prefer a stat that is based on 100%.

 

The thing I like about the QBR is it takes everything into account. Really shows you

how a particular QB stacks up against others. Should be a great tool for fantasy football

guys.

 

What I hate about is is the smugness that is ESPN.

[KRC]

This stuff interests me a bit and as you probably know, the area of sabremetrics (which is a baseball discipline born of Bill James) has inevitably invaded the realm of NFL football.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

Rusher Rating System

 

Right now, this is just the rushing aspect of the rating system. The receiving component will be in a future article, making it a more complete system. With normalization, you can compare performances across eras.

[Nanker]

Any statistics nerds among you? Obviously, football tends to be a more subjective sport than baseball, but I'm hoping football will undergo some sort of Bill James style revolution in the near future. This newly thorough method of rating quarterbacks may be the first domino to fall in that effort. At the very least, it will replace the archaic and arguably useless passer rating system.

 

Here's a good article on it...the details of the formula will be made public today, I believe.

 

http://espn.go.com/n...ay-see-position

So you're sayin',

 

QB RATING = [[CP + YPA + PTD + IP] / 6] * 100

CP = [A/C - 0.3] * 0.05 (with 2.375 = max value)

YPA = [Y/A- 3.0] * 0.25 (with 2.375 = max value)

PTD = [TD/A] * 0.2 (with 2.375 = max value)

IP = 2.375- [iNT/A * 0.25]

 

Where:

CP = Completion Percentage

YPA = Yards Per Attempt

PTD = Percentage TD Passes Per Attempt

IP = Interception Percentage

 

is irrelevant?

 

Pretty interesting... Can't comment on the specifics at all (obviously), but it's past time that a replacement was found for QB rating.

 

Here's a list of QBs for 2010 with the new stat. Based on my non-statistical impressions of what QBs actually contribute to their team, the top 10 seems quite reasonable (not 100% sure on Eli Manning, but hard to argue that the other QBs in there are rated too high). Fitzpatrick is middle of the pack - again, not surprising or outlandish.

 

 

I'd like to see that same list with last year's QBR included. I think it would make for a more compelling argument that the new metric is a better indicator of a QB's performance in the NFL. It would also be nice to see the ESPN data for 60,000 NFL plays over the last 3 years unblinded and their criteria for their analysis. I highly doubt it's as cut and dried as laid out in that article. I'm skeptical especially of the line, "allocates credit or blame to QBs according to how each and every play they make contributes to their team's success."

To me, that's subjective and presupposes an absolute knowledge of each play that was called and how the QB reacted to it. Did he run the play as called? If so, was it successful because of the play called or the QB's execution, or did someone else blow their assignment? Did they audible out of the call? How effective was the Line in protecting the QB? Did he execute his assignment but maybe the Back didn't chip the blitzing Safety and he had to eat the ball or rushed his throw which turned into an Inc. or a Pick 6? One could go on pretty far in analyzing football plays and still not be 100% sure of the real answer.

I can picture some of this "analysis" being done by twerps and interns at ESPN, and I doubt that all of it was completely objective. Of course I'd never suggest that some at ESPN have axes to grind. That said, it's an interesting new metric. Is it better? Maybe.

 

[Mr. WEO]

ESPN has "an axe to grind" an they do so by coming up with a desciptive metric for NFL QBs ?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

What are your thoughts on this?

 

Rusher Rating System

 

Right now, this is just the rushing aspect of the rating system. The receiving component will be in a future article, making it a more complete system. With normalization, you can compare performances across eras.

Wow Ken. Great work and I didn't know you were in the Cold, Hard, Football Facts group. Seems like it would be interesting work and fun, when the results are arrived at.

 

I really like your Rusher Rating System and the idea of normalizing stats across years to reduce the apples vs oranges aspect. I think it does a good job of trying to tackle the problem of statistical relativism across time.

 

I was surprised by how often Sayers, Simpson, and Dickerson fumbled the ball and agree wholeheartedly that this is an important measure of players at their position. That was the fatal flaw for each of those players but based on that small amount of data, it also seems like there's been a greater emphasis on "ball security" in today's NFL. Even Jim Brown, who was a man amongst boys at times had a fairly high fumble percentage although maybe not relative to his contemporaries. I wonder if your formula adequately accounts for this difference in eras and my other quibbling criticism is that I wish (because I'm lazy) you would have added columns for TD% and Fumble% just for easy reference.

 

The challenge for people like yourself I would imagine is how many different criteria to use in the formula. In a perfect world everything could be accounted for but I think also at some point that becomes totally impractical and impossible.

 

And even if it is possible, it yields very diminshed returns. I'm talking about things like how good that RB's (or QB's) offensive line was or how good their defense was because all those things have some bearing.

 

Anyways, the system that you personally devised is a great way of looking at running backs and I'm looking forward to the more comprehensive rating which includes pass receiving stats for the running backs.

 

It will enable us to compare guys like Thurman Thomas, Roger Craig, and Marcus Allen… who didn't make the cut in your initial rating. Also, I'm thinking that when you take receptions into account that Marshall Faulk will be at or near the top.

 

Great stuff, Ken, and thanks for sharing.

 

 

[Nanker]

ESPN has "an axe to grind" an they do so by coming up with a desciptive metric for NFL QBs ?

 

Perhaps you would understand, "some azzes to kiss" better.

 

Just found this innarestin' piece.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Nanker

[Mr. WEO]

Perhaps you would understand, "some azzes to kiss" better.

 

Just found this innarestin' piece.

Total QBR is probably a better measurement of a quarterback’s play than the standard passer rating, and that makes it a step forward. But it has some real flaws, which even ESPN’s own special to promote the stat couldn’t hide

.

 

Yeah, OK--I agree with this. Didn't see the azz kissin part though. Link?

[LeviF]

Found this article on the old passer rating.

 

Many fans and analysts say that the passing game has grown in importance in recent years. But that's not true. Teams certainly pass more often today than they did in the past. But passing is not more important and the success of the Saints, Packers and Rodgers are not recent phenomena.

 

The NFL has ALWAYS been dominated by teams that dominate the skies, as measured by passer rating.

 

• an incredible 40 of 69* NFL champions (58 percent) since 1940 finished the year No. 1 or No. 2 in Passer Rating Differential

 

• 67 of 69* champions (97 percent) since 1940 finished the year ranked in the top 10 in Passer Rating Differential.

 

For a little perspective, consider that 68 of 69 champions finished in the top 10 in scoring differential. That's right. Passer rating is nearly as effective at identifying winners as points.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Found this article on the old passer rating.

 

I'd like to point something out. Those defending the old passer rating system seem to be relying on its efficacy in predicting winners. Fine, it predicts winners. That isn't the point of the statistic. The point is to specifically identify the role of the quarterback in his team's success relative to his running backs, receivers, tight ends, etc.

 

Team batting average is great at predicting winners in baseball too, but sabermetricians dismissed it long ago in the context of identifying individual achievement at the plate, because it isn't comprehensive. It's the same with passer rating. It isn't a fallacious statistic, but it is rather arbitrary. Taking 4 stats, weighing them, then smushing them together isn't comprehensive enough in an age when so much other information is available.

 

Take the following example. In passer rating, if the QB dumps the ball off to his running back, who jukes two defenders while using aggressive second-level blocking by a FB and OT and scores a 50 yard TD, the QB gets the exact same amount of credit as he would if he placed a perfect bomb to a streaking WR in single coverage for a TD. In my opinion, you simply can't defend a statistic that is so poor at accounting for context.