Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

No statistical measurement or index has any credibility when its variables are known only by the person who created it.

 

Also, if someone wants to start looking into its validity, calculate the correlation between QBR for a QB and wins. ESPN stated it's a measure of the totality of a QBs performance so by extension high QBRs should equate to wins since the implication is the QB matters more than any given player as evidenced by he being the only player for which such a measure exists.

Edited by zonabb
Posted

No statistical measurement or index has any credibility when its variables are known only by the person who created it.

Also, if someone wants to start looking into its validity, calculate the correlation between QBR for a QB and wins. ESPN stated it's a measure of the totality of a QBs performance so by extension high QBRs should equate to wins since the implication is the QB matters more than any given player as evidenced by he being the only player for which such a measure exists.

Those are all fair points. I like what they're trying to do, but their execution is terrible.

Posted

there are exceptions and outliers to every rule.

 

no one single statistic completely defines a player.

 

total QBR is an excellant tool. it's passer rating on steroids, giving credit or factoring in a qb's actual contribution to a play. avoiding sacks, get running yards, clutch time vs garbage time, intentional grounding, fumbles, scrambling, dropped catches, yards after catch, pass interference penalties, down, distance and much more.

×
×
  • Create New...