Correlation of Passer Rating to Winning - game by game wk 6

[PlayoffsPlease]

Passer rating is often derided as a "misleading statistic". And this information is a very small one week sample size. But 13 of the 15 games were won by the team with the QB with the higher passer rating in week 6. Kyle Orton was pretty good, with a 94 rating, 14'th best out of 30 QBs this weekend. Problem was that Mr. Brady had a 139 rating, second best of the week.

 

At the other extreme Nick Foles was pretty weak with a 79 rating, but his counter part Eli Manning had a 76 rating.

 

The two outliers are wierd, some Ryan Fitzpatrick ended up ahead of Andrew Luck. 109, to 97. That was a weird game over all. And Charlie Whitehurst (87) finished ahead of Blake Bortles (88) m and that was a close rating in a 2 point game.

 

A one week sample is very small, I get that. But 87% is a pretty decent correlation (and I do know the difference between correlation and causation)

Edited October 14, 2014 by PlayoffsPlease

[YoloinOhio]

Last week, I happened to look up the passer rating of Brady in both games vs. The Bills from last year. In game 1 it was significantly lower than EJs whose was over 100. Brady was in the 70s. In the second it was significantly lower than Thad's. Without looking it up again I think Brady was in the 60s or 70s, and Thad in the 90s.

[PlayoffsPlease]

Last week, I happened to look up the passer rating of Brady in both games vs. The Bills from last year. In game 1 it was significantly lower than EJs whose was over 100. Brady was in the 70s. In the second it was significantly lower than Thad's. Without looking it up again I think Brady was in the 60s or 70s, and Thad in the 90s.

 

Good QBs have off weeks, and mediocre QBs can have really good weeks,

 

The bar has really been raised this year with the new rules enforcement on pass interference. Last year only 11 QBs had a 90+ rating, this year 18 do so far. 90 has gone from substantially above average to below average. I sincerely believe any analysis would show that well over 75% of games are won by the team whose QB had a better day that day.

[YoloinOhio]

The issue was, we stopped their passing game both times. But they ran all over us and also ST.

[zonabb]

If you know the difference between correlation and causation (which I take you mean you know that correlation doesn't equal causation) then why bother with a statistically insignificant one week, 15 game sample size to make a point you imply is invalid anyway? Now, actually run correlation on the entire sample and then we'll have a conversation!

Edited October 14, 2014 by zonabb

[NoSaint]

Isn't passer rating differential often cited as one of the best predictors of super bowl teams?

[Greg F]

I compared the first 2 weeks of the season and found one game the first week (N. Foles - 87.45, C. Henne - 89.87). There were three games the second week:

 

B. Hoyer - 81.67 ~ D. Brees - 89.27

D. Stanton - 66.30 ~ E. Manning - 82.96

N. Foles - 84.4 ~ A. Luck - 89.3

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

more stats

 

EJ sacked 6 times in 4 games

KO sacked 7 times in 2 games

 

Rushing per game

first 4 weeks 122 ypg

next 2 weeks 58 ypg

[Maddog69]

Seems like a common sense relation between QB rating and winning.

A high QB rating generally means you QB played well. If your QB plays well, your chance of winning would be higher. Obviously there are other factors but in general, I would think this is true more often than not.

 

[NoSaint]

Seems like a common sense relation between QB rating and winning.

A high QB rating generally means you QB played well. If your QB plays well, your chance of winning would be higher. Obviously there are other factors but in general, I would think this is true more often than not.

 

right - pass and stop the pass and you should generally be in good shape.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm not a fan of passer rating. Kelly Holcomb has a career passer rating nearly identical to John Elway's.

 

One way to inflate passer rating is by attempting a lot of short, high percentage passes. The kind of passes that will bump up a QB's completion percentage. The kind of passes Holcomb attempted far more often than Elway. Other tools--such as yards per attempt, air yards per attempt, or QBR--are better at measuring a quarterback's play than passer rating.

 

Passer rating measures two things: the quality of a quarterback's play, and the extent to which a team has adopted a West Coast offense or some other offense predicated on short passes. If a QB has a high passer rating, you don't know how much of that high rating was caused by good performance, and how much was caused by an emphasis on short, high percentage passes.

 

But you could argue that both components to passer rating are correlated with winning games. Good quarterback play is correlated with winning games for obvious reasons. But adopting a West Coast offense may also be correlated with winning games. Let's face it. Most teams don't have great offensive lines. Bill Walsh designed the West Coast offense in the first place because his team didn't have a good offensive line, and he needed to do something creative coaching-wise to compensate. In a West Coast offense, the short passing game partially replaces the running game; thereby lessening the effect of the OL's poor run blocking. Also, the QB gets the ball out in a hurry, mostly negating the effect of the pass rush. If you need to hide the fact you have a bad offensive line, you're not going to do much better than a West Coast offense.

 

Another advantage to the West Coast offense is that you tend to pass the ball a lot more often than you run it. A typical QB might average around 7 yards per pass attempt; whereas a typical RB will average around 4 yards per rush. Getting those extra 3 yards per play helps the team sustain drives. I know the logic is that you want to run the ball early to punish and tire out the defensive line, so that you'll control the line of scrimmage later in the game. But the West Coast offense gives you a different way of tiring out the defensive line--a method that doesn't require you to waste lots and lots of downs running Spiller up the middle into some random DT. In a well executed West Coast offense, you keep the defense on the field for many plays per drive, keep moving the chains, and keep getting the ball out quickly. Over time, this both exhausts and demoralizes the pass rush.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Orton's Arm

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

You need balance to win consistently. w/o balance you are a one dimensional team

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Last week, I happened to look up the passer rating of Brady in both games vs. The Bills from last year. In game 1 it was significantly lower than EJs whose was over 100. Brady was in the 70s. In the second it was significantly lower than Thad's. Without looking it up again I think Brady was in the 60s or 70s, and Thad in the 90s.

 

The missing piece is that in both games, we shut the Pat's passing game down pretty effectively but they didn't need to pass - they ran all over us.

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

The missing piece is that in both games, we shut the Pat's passing game down pretty effectively but they didn't need to pass - they ran all over us.

yes, I said that above. Apparently they can't do both, lol.

[dave mcbride]

I'm not a fan of passer rating. Kelly Holcomb has a career passer rating nearly identical to John Elway's.

 

One way to inflate passer rating is by attempting a lot of short, high percentage passes. The kind of passes that will bump up a QB's completion percentage. The kind of passes Holcomb attempted far more often than Elway. Other tools--such as yards per attempt, air yards per attempt, or QBR--are better at measuring a quarterback's play than passer rating.

 

Passer rating measures two things: the quality of a quarterback's play, and the extent to which a team has adopted a West Coast offense or some other offense predicated on short passes. If a QB has a high passer rating, you don't know how much of that high rating was caused by good performance, and how much was caused by an emphasis on short, high percentage passes.

 

But you could argue that both components to passer rating are correlated with winning games. Good quarterback play is correlated with winning games for obvious reasons. But adopting a West Coast offense may also be correlated with winning games. Let's face it. Most teams don't have great offensive lines. Bill Walsh designed the West Coast offense in the first place because his team didn't have a good offensive line, and he needed to do something creative coaching-wise to compensate. In a West Coast offense, the short passing game partially replaces the running game; thereby lessening the effect of the OL's poor run blocking. Also, the QB gets the ball out in a hurry, mostly negating the effect of the pass rush. If you need to hide the fact you have a bad offensive line, you're not going to do much better than a West Coast offense.

 

Another advantage to the West Coast offense is that you tend to pass the ball a lot more often than you run it. A typical QB might average around 7 yards per pass attempt; whereas a typical RB will average around 4 yards per rush. Getting those extra 3 yards per play helps the team sustain drives. I know the logic is that you want to run the ball early to punish and tire out the defensive line, so that you'll control the line of scrimmage later in the game. But the West Coast offense gives you a different way of tiring out the defensive line--a method that doesn't require you to waste lots and lots of downs running Spiller up the middle into some random DT. In a well executed West Coast offense, you keep the defense on the field for many plays per drive, keep moving the chains, and keep getting the ball out quickly. Over time, this both exhausts and demoralizes the pass rush.

 

First this: http://www.si.com/mo...ingdifferential . Passer rating differential (using the traditional stat) is the mother of all football stats. It's virtually impossible to argue with, I think.

 

And this: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/stats/2013/5/PRD/.

 

Also, here's an interesting takedown of ESPN's total QBR rating on Cold Hard Football Facts: http://www.coldhardf...r-tv-stat/7978/ .

 

Isn't passer rating differential often cited as one of the best predictors of super bowl teams?

It is. There's no other stat that comes close.

Edited October 16, 2014 by dave mcbride

[NoSaint]

 

 

First this: http://www.si.com/mo...ingdifferential . Passer rating differential (using the traditional stat) is the mother of all football stats. It's virtually impossible to argue with, I think.

 

And this: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/stats/2013/5/PRD/.

 

Also, here's an interesting takedown of ESPN's total QBR rating on Cold Hard Football Facts: http://www.coldhardf...r-tv-stat/7978/ .

 

 

It is. There's no other stat that comes close.

 

great share - pass and stop the pass.... its not rocket surgery!

[metzelaars_lives]

more stats

 

EJ sacked 6 times in 4 games

KO sacked 7 times in 2 games

 

Rushing per game

first 4 weeks 122 ypg

next 2 weeks 58 ypg

So come out and say it- you think this offense functions better with EJ Manuel than with Kyle Orton?

[metzelaars_lives]

more stats

 

EJ sacked 6 times in 4 games

KO sacked 7 times in 2 games

 

Rushing per game

first 4 weeks 122 ypg

next 2 weeks 58 ypg

And more so, are you suggesting that EJ Manuel makes the Bills a better running team than Kyle Orton? Why do you think that might be? Do you think opposing defenses fear the pass more when Manuel is in there, opening up the run game for us? Or do you think it just may have something to do with the nature of the games that Orton has played in- he's pretty much had to pass the entire second halves of both games? Me personally, I am comfortable with Orton taking a couple more sacks a game than Manuel in exchange for a guy who has a vastly superior YPA (generally seen as the most important stat for a QB at this point). Did you watch the New England game? Remember in the second half when Orton authoritatively marched our offense down the field by throwing passes to wide receivers (accurate ones), calling audibles, taking command of the offense and getting us within a score? Remember that? Does EJ Manuel do that? Exactly. See I need that in my QB. You know who takes a lot of sacks? Aaron Rodgers. And Ben Roethlisberger.

[Rocky Landing]

Passer rating is often derided as a "misleading statistic". And this information is a very small one week sample size. But 13 of the 15 games were won by the team with the QB with the higher passer rating in week 6. Kyle Orton was pretty good, with a 94 rating, 14'th best out of 30 QBs this weekend. Problem was that Mr. Brady had a 139 rating, second best of the week.

 

At the other extreme Nick Foles was pretty weak with a 79 rating, but his counter part Eli Manning had a 76 rating.

 

The two outliers are wierd, some Ryan Fitzpatrick ended up ahead of Andrew Luck. 109, to 97. That was a weird game over all. And Charlie Whitehurst (87) finished ahead of Blake Bortles (88) m and that was a close rating in a 2 point game.

 

A one week sample is very small, I get that. But 87% is a pretty decent correlation (and I do know the difference between correlation and causation)

You're unwittingly disproving your own point with this illustration.

 

The formula for the passer rating is: [(a + b + c + d)/6] x 100, whereas a = [(completions/attempts x 100) – 30] x 0.05; b = [(yards/att) – 3] x 0.25; c = (TD/att) x 20; and d = 2.375 – (interceptions/att x 25). What’s missing from this equation? A: any variables that include the performance of any other player on the field other than the quarterback. So, if a QB has no offensive line to speak of and is only given an average of 1.6 seconds to get rid of the ball before being sacked, their rating will be low. Or, if a QB is playing a superior defense, their rating will be lower. If the QB has great receivers matched up with a poor secondary, their rating will be higher. That is why Orton, a fairly mediocre QB, can have that high a rating vs. a suspect Patriots defense. It's why Aaron Rodgers, arguably one of the most consistent QBs in the league can have a 151.2 rating vs. the Bears, and a 99.7 against the Dolphins. And it utterly explains what you refer to as "outliers." There is no such thing as an outlier regarding the quarterback rating. There are no published p-values, critical values, significance levels, or confidence intervals for the passer rating. Why? A: because it is statistically meaningless; it has no use for statistical analysis.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

So come out and say it- you think this offense functions better with EJ Manuel than with Kyle Orton?

I posted numbers. Make of it what you will.

 

And more so, are you suggesting that EJ Manuel makes the Bills a better running team than Kyle Orton? Why do you think that might be? Do you think opposing defenses fear the pass more when Manuel is in there, opening up the run game for us? Or do you think it just may have something to do with the nature of the games that Orton has played in- he's pretty much had to pass the entire second halves of both games? Me personally, I am comfortable with Orton taking a couple more sacks a game than Manuel in exchange for a guy who has a vastly superior YPA (generally seen as the most important stat for a QB at this point). Did you watch the New England game? Remember in the second half when Orton authoritatively marched our offense down the field by throwing passes to wide receivers (accurate ones), calling audibles, taking command of the offense and getting us within a score? Remember that? Does EJ Manuel do that? Exactly. See I need that in my QB. You know who takes a lot of sacks? Aaron Rodgers. And Ben Roethlisberger.

More meaningless stats... 97 yards passing or 500 yards passing. If you win you look good. If you lose you look for excuses.

 

The numbers indicate nothing more than the Bills had balance with EJ.

 

the rational??? The team surrounding him.

Edited October 16, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever