dave mcbride Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 That is a limitation, but so is every other rating. I do understand the concept though in that it tries to quantify the concept of scoring and getting in a position to score. A QB can have multiple INT, but he will have a higher QBR if he had more scores and more drives that nearly resulted in scores as opposed to the guy who doesn't have any INTs, but rarely crosses the 50 yd line. I think the QBR vs. the old rating is an interesting debate. The new system definitely factors in some important elements that had previously been ignored. However, the thing about the old rating is that while it may not be great for one or two games, it's fabulous for an entire season. Outside of points scored and given up, is there a better predictor of success than the differential between a team's offensive and defensive (old-style) QB ratings?
Rob's House Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) More evidence that QBR is a flawed system. EJ gets an 8.4 for his effort in SD (238 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT) and Cousins gets a 13.9 for 257 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT with a lost fumble). Not sure what the problem is. It weighs stats based on context. We tend to make waaay too much of the raw TD/INT ratio. Think of it this way: Is it worse to throw An INT 35 yds down field, or go 3 and out? Not much difference. Plus, when you throw one of those down 20 points late in the 4th it's just as inconsequential as a stat padding garbage time TD. Plus, it's not like 13.9 is even a halfway decent score, so what's the issue? Edited September 26, 2014 by Rob's House
26CornerBlitz Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Not sure what the problem is. It weighs stats based on context. We tend to make waaay too much of the raw TD/INT ratio. Think of it this way: Is it worse to throw An INT 35 yds down field, or go 3 and out? Not much difference. Plus, when you throw one of those down 20 points late in the 4th it's just as inconsequential as a stat padding garbage time TD. Plus, it's not like 13.9 is even a halfway decent score, so what's the issue? The comparative TD/Int Ratio between in addition to a fumble by Cousins for a total of 5 turnovers is my issue. You can have your opinion, but a 5 turnover night by a QB is a much performance in my book. QBR is hog slop.
Rob's House Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 The comparative TD/Int Ratio between in addition to a fumble by Cousins for a total of 5 turnovers is my issue. You can have your opinion, but a 5 turnover night by a QB is a much performance in my book. QBR is hog slop. And a 13.9 is a much rating. What's your gripe?
Boolay Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Is there any need to discuss a stat (Passer rating) that ranks Chad Pennington higher life time than (Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, John Elway, Brett Favre, Roger Staubach, etc. etc.) ? It is the most worthless stat in sports.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 And a 13.9 is a much rating. What's your gripe? I already stated what it is. You can disagree or not. There will be no long, drawn out debate with you on this. Bye Now!
Tyrod's Tailor Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I would like to see the Bills come out throwing one of these weeks. 5 or more dropbacks by EJ to start the game. They can be safe passes, but we need to be doing more to get him into a rhythm.
Rob's House Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I'm beginning to think that 26CornerBlitz is not in fact EJ's mom, as has been alleged, but is actually EJ Manuel himself. Funny you say that. I was thinking his primary beef with QBR was that Manuel came out a few points behind Cousins and that if the roles were reversed he'd be making my argument.
Tyrod's Tailor Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Yep. I am. Busted! Then get back to work! And tell the guards to hold a block for more than half a second on Sunday if you don't mind.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) Funny you say that. I was thinking his primary beef with QBR was that Manuel came out a few points behind Cousins and that if the roles were reversed he'd be making my argument. And you'd be wrong because I posted against QBR in this very thread well before last night's game Nice try. Edited September 26, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz
John from Riverside Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Not sure what the problem is. It weighs stats based on context. We tend to make waaay too much of the raw TD/INT ratio. Think of it this way: Is it worse to throw An INT 35 yds down field, or go 3 and out? Not much difference. Plus, when you throw one of those down 20 points late in the 4th it's just as inconsequential as a stat padding garbage time TD. Plus, it's not like 13.9 is even a halfway decent score, so what's the issue? I dont think it puts too much weight on it at all Turnovers are one of the big deciding factors in winning football games.
Rob's House Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I dont think it puts too much weight on it at all Turnovers are one of the big deciding factors in winning football games. They are. But not all turnovers have equal impact as I explained. A pass on 3rd and 10 that's intercepted 40 yards down field has the same effect as a 5 yd completion +/- a few yards. A pick 6 in the red zone can be disastrous. But on a raw stat sheet and traditional QB rating they are treated exactly the same. QBR differentiates. That, in a nutshell, is why it's a vastly superior metric.
thebandit27 Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 They are. But not all turnovers have equal impact as I explained. A pass on 3rd and 10 that's intercepted 40 yards down field has the same effect as a 5 yd completion +/- a few yards. A pick 6 in the red zone can be disastrous. But on a raw stat sheet and traditional QB rating they are treated exactly the same. QBR differentiates. That, in a nutshell, is why it's a vastly superior metric. QBR appears to be, over the long-term, very useful. In snapshots, however, I don't think it's as applicable. I'm just guessing that it'll take 6-8 games worth of analytical data to iron itself out as an accurate representation.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 QBR appears to be, over the long-term, very useful. In snapshots, however, I don't think it's as applicable. I'm just guessing that it'll take 6-8 games worth of analytical data to iron itself out as an accurate representation. I've been ignoring QBR ever since this happened: http://awfulannouncing.com/2011-articles/espns-new-qbr-stat-isnt-perfect-after-all.html
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I've been ignoring QBR ever since this happened: http://awfulannounci...-after-all.html Wow. That's quite a takedown.
FireChan Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I've been ignoring QBR ever since this happened: http://awfulannounci...-after-all.html So, you don't see the "long-term" argument as valid? Passer rating has the exact same problems.
Wayne Cubed Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I've been ignoring QBR ever since this happened: http://awfulannouncing.com/2011-articles/espns-new-qbr-stat-isnt-perfect-after-all.html Pretty much that... When you have to come out and explain your stat, like that, then imo it's not a stat, it's an opinion. If a QB and his team are dominant, that QB could end up with a lower QBR than a QB who's team sucks but has more "clutch plays". So, you don't see the "long-term" argument as valid? Passer rating has the exact same problems. Sure, it could. The problem is what happens when a team has a dominant defense? The QB with the dominant team is able to put up points early and the defense holds, for the majority of the season. Very few "clutch plays", therefore a lower QBR. That QB could still have a great season, but have a low QBR.
Rob's House Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I've been ignoring QBR ever since this happened: http://awfulannouncing.com/2011-articles/espns-new-qbr-stat-isnt-perfect-after-all.html That article is absolutely horrible. If logic were a woman that writer would be guilty of rape. QBR appears to be, over the long-term, very useful. In snapshots, however, I don't think it's as applicable. I'm just guessing that it'll take 6-8 games worth of analytical data to iron itself out as an accurate representation. I agree. But that's true of most stats.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 That article is absolutely horrible. If logic were a woman that writer would be guilty of rape. I agree. But that's true of most stats. QBR = hot garbage. There's my formula.
papazoid Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I've been ignoring QBR ever since this happened: http://awfulannouncing.com/2011-articles/espns-new-qbr-stat-isnt-perfect-after-all.html one QB played a half a game....and your mind is made up. another QB played 13 games ....and that's proof of nothing.
Recommended Posts