Passer Rating vs. Total QBR (Matt vs. Josh)

[JESSEFEFFER]

The passer rating formula has some huge flaws in that it does not account for the effect of QB run plays, sacks/ lost yardage and fumbles lost.  Basically everything a QB does when the ball doesn't leave his hand.  All of these are plays that can have a huge effect on the outcome of a game.  Enter Total QBR.  Anything that attempts to quantify a QB's production in all situations should be better in my mind and I generally would think favorably of such an approach. 

 

Most of us saw yesterday's game, it's safe to assume.  I have heard some comment about how much they liked how Josh played as it was more of a conventionally played game from the pocket with few obvious mistakes and a number of impressive throws.  He took one sack, had an inconsequential fumble on an unsuccessful 4th attempt and made some big plays to help win the game.   Here's the thing.  His total QBR was 19.6, #27 on the week.  What's an even bigger head scratcher is Matt Stafford was  rated #2 at 81.5.  That's not the same game I sat and watched from section 228.  This could be exhibit A for those of you who have been saying that QBR is a bunch of crap and you now have my attention.

[WhyteDwarf]

There is another thread talking about fudging numbers to make fans feel better about Allen, it's located here: https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/212147-josh-allen’s-adjusted-completion-percentage-727/

[row_33]

17 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

The passer rating formula has some huge flaws in that it does not account for the effect of QB run plays, sacks/ lost yardage and fumbles lost.  Basically everything a QB does when the ball doesn't leave his hand.  All of these are plays that can have a huge effect on the outcome of a game.  Enter Total QBR.  Anything that attempts to quantify a QB's production in all situations should be better in my mind and I generally would think favorably of such an approach. 

 

Most of us saw yesterday's game, it's safe to assume.  I have heard some comment about how much they liked how Josh played as it was more of a conventionally played game from the pocket with few obvious mistakes and a number of impressive throws.  He took one sack, had an inconsequential fumble on an unsuccessful 4th attempt and made some big plays to help win the game.   Here's the thing.  His total QBR was 19.6, #27 on the week.  What's an even bigger head scratcher is Matt Stafford was  rated #2 at 81.5.  That's not the same game I sat and watched from section 228.  This could be exhibit A for those of you who have been saying that QBR is a bunch of crap and you now have my attention.

 

stats are only worth 25-33% at most in a realistic assessment

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

10 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

The passer rating formula has some huge flaws in that it does not account for the effect of QB run plays, sacks/ lost yardage and fumbles lost.  Basically everything a QB does when the ball doesn't leave his hand.  All of these are plays that can have a huge effect on the outcome of a game.  Enter Total QBR.  Anything that attempts to quantify a QB's production in all situations should be better in my mind and I generally would think favorably of such an approach. 

 

Most of us saw yesterday's game, it's safe to assume.  I have heard some comment about how much they liked how Josh played as it was more of a conventionally played game from the pocket with few obvious mistakes and a number of impressive throws.  He took one sack, had an inconsequential fumble on an unsuccessful 4th attempt and made some big plays to help win the game.   Here's the thing.  His total QBR was 19.6, #27 on the week.  What's an even bigger head scratcher is Matt Stafford was  rated #2 at 81.5.  That's not the same game I sat and watched from section 228.  This could be exhibit A for those of you who have been saying that QBR is a bunch of crap and you now have my attention.

 

Here is the truth.  QB Rating is literally the most useless stat in football, and one of the most useless in all professional sports.  QBR is a substantially better tool in comparison, but there is no perfect stat system that can ever come close to analyzing game tape with your eyes.

 

One example:  QB Stats will not show the lack of separation a WR get.  For instance, QBR doesn't show what a rag doll Zay was against Slay.  It doesn't show how he was just awful, like utterly awful, at handling Slay.  Josh through a couple great passes to Zay that he couldn't even make a play on because he is not good at coming back for balls or separating from the defenders.  Most starting WRs would have made a play on the ball and caught it and Zay couldn't even get a hand on it because Slay just owned him so bad.

 

Thats just one minor example from many areas fo the game that impact a players stats...the bottom line is that stats tell ONLY part of a story.  And where QBR is really useful is ALONG SIDE film analysis, not as a stand alone product.  No stat should ever be the defining analysis on a player.  Look at Todd Gurley for example...should people look at his YPC in his Sophomore year to analyze his ability as a player?  Or should they see the awful HC Fisher, one of the worst OL in the NFL that year, a terrible WR group and a combo of Keenum and a struggling rookie in Goff as to the bigger reason?

 

Stat sheet analysis is a waste of time and lacks all context.  They need to be used in conjunction with other analytic procedures.  

 

And in this game for example:  Stat sheet doesn't show it, but was probably Allens best day as a passer.  He made a lot of great throws, and then had several dropped and also saw his so called #1 target get beat down and dominated by his defender Slay like he was a kid in the Adrian Peterson household.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here is the truth.  QB Rating is literally the most useless stat in football, and one of the most useless in all professional sports.  QBR is a substantially better tool in comparison, but there is no perfect stat system that can ever come close to analyzing game tape with your eyes.

 

One example:  QB Stats will not show the lack of separation a WR get.  For instance, QBR doesn't show what a rag doll Zay was against Slay.  It doesn't show how he was just awful, like utterly awful, at handling Slay.  Josh through a couple great passes to Zay that he couldn't even make a play on because he is not good at coming back for balls or separating from the defenders.  Most starting WRs would have made a play on the ball and caught it and Zay couldn't even get a hand on it because Slay just owned him so bad.

 

Thats just one minor example from many areas fo the game that impact a players stats...the bottom line is that stats tell ONLY part of a story.  And where QBR is really useful is ALONG SIDE film analysis, not as a stand alone product.  No stat should ever be the defining analysis on a player.  Look at Todd Gurley for example...should people look at his YPC in his Sophomore year to analyze his ability as a player?  Or should they see the awful HC Fisher, one of the worst OL in the NFL that year, a terrible WR group and a combo of Keenum and a struggling rookie in Goff as to the bigger reason?

 

Stat sheet analysis is a waste of time and lacks all context.  They need to be used in conjunction with other analytic procedures.  

 

depends what you want the stats for

 

if they pay you at least $100,000 a year to compile or discuss them, by all means that is a good reason

 

can't think of any other reason that isn't a complete waste of existence

 

 

[dubs]

9 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

The passer rating formula has some huge flaws in that it does not account for the effect of QB run plays, sacks/ lost yardage and fumbles lost.  Basically everything a QB does when the ball doesn't leave his hand.  All of these are plays that can have a huge effect on the outcome of a game.  Enter Total QBR.  Anything that attempts to quantify a QB's production in all situations should be better in my mind and I generally would think favorably of such an approach. 

 

Most of us saw yesterday's game, it's safe to assume.  I have heard some comment about how much they liked how Josh played as it was more of a conventionally played game from the pocket with few obvious mistakes and a number of impressive throws.  He took one sack, had an inconsequential fumble on an unsuccessful 4th attempt and made some big plays to help win the game.   Here's the thing.  His total QBR was 19.6, #27 on the week.  What's an even bigger head scratcher is Matt Stafford was  rated #2 at 81.5.  That's not the same game I sat and watched from section 228.  This could be exhibit A for those of you who have been saying that QBR is a bunch of crap and you now have my attention.

 

I thought those ratings were bizarre also. Possible mistake?  No way anyone watches that game yesterday and thing JA was terrible, which his QBR would suggest. 

[seregil42]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here is the truth.  QB Rating is literally the most useless stat in football, and one of the most useless in all professional sports.  QBR is a substantially better tool in comparison, but there is no perfect stat system that can ever come close to analyzing game tape with your eyes.

 

One example:  QB Stats will not show the lack of separation a WR get.  For instance, QBR doesn't show what a rag doll Zay was against Slay.  It doesn't show how he was just awful, like utterly awful, at handling Slay.  Josh through a couple great passes to Zay that he couldn't even make a play on because he is not good at coming back for balls or separating from the defenders.  Most starting WRs would have made a play on the ball and caught it and Zay couldn't even get a hand on it because Slay just owned him so bad.

 

Thats just one minor example from many areas fo the game that impact a players stats...the bottom line is that stats tell ONLY part of a story.  And where QBR is really useful is ALONG SIDE film analysis, not as a stand alone product.  No stat should ever be the defining analysis on a player.  Look at Todd Gurley for example...should people look at his YPC in his Sophomore year to analyze his ability as a player?  Or should they see the awful HC Fisher, one of the worst OL in the NFL that year, a terrible WR group and a combo of Keenum and a struggling rookie in Goff as to the bigger reason?

 

Stat sheet analysis is a waste of time and lacks all context.  They need to be used in conjunction with other analytic procedures.  

 

Your last sentence says it all.  Context is key. 

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

depends what you want the stats for

 

if they pay you at least $100,000 a year to compile or discuss them, by all means that is a good reason

 

can't think of any other reason that isn't a complete waste of existence

 

 

 

Ha very true

[CSBill]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

stats are only worth 25-33% at most in a realistic assessment

 

 

 

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's

[hondo in seattle]

I'll take passer rating over QBR but they both fall way short.  Passing games are so dependent on scheme, talent and execution that you can't take box score stats and evaluate a QB - no matter what stat lines you include or how  you weigh them.

 

Some of the analytics guys start looking at how many passes are catchable and so on.  But that still doesn't capture everything.  For example, ask a QB how frustrating it can be when WRs don't run their routes precisely.  No stat will take that into account. 

 

Good QB stats mean that team has a good passing attack going.   And that reflects well on the QB.  But it's far from the whole story.

[JESSEFEFFER]

1 minute ago, dubs said:

 

I thought those ratings were bizarre also. Possible mistake?  No way anyone watches that game yesterday and thing JA was terrible, which his QBR would suggest. 

 

Those two numbers in context say that Matt Stafford had a much more positive effect on the Lions behalf than Josh did for the Bills.  That's a statement that is unsupported by the game I watched.   

[Billsfan1972]

May be to feel better one can add the 2 PI's & 66 yards to the stats or the Deonte Thompson & Zay Jones drops (both not perfect passes, but catches made by many a wr around the league).

[Gugny]

Tyrod Taylor has a career rating of 89.6.

 

Do we need any other examples to prove that these ratings are crap?

 

 

[Bangarang]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

Tyrod Taylor has a career rating of 89.6.

 

Do we need any other examples to prove that these ratings are crap?

 

 

 

That’s a mediocre rating for a mediocre QB. Looks fair to me.

[JESSEFEFFER]

2 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

May be to feel better one can add the 2 PI's & 66 yards to the stats or the Deonte Thompson & Zay Jones drops (both not perfect passes, but catches made by many a wr around the league).

 

Fans generally felt good about this game. No need to look for the glass half full analysis to  cheer us up.  Some claimed to like it more than the previous 3 (which TQBR really liked. )  I just find it odd that Stafford was considered better by such a wide margin and, umm, the Lions lost.  

[dave mcbride]

23 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here is the truth.  QB Rating is literally the most useless stat in football, and one of the most useless in all professional sports.  QBR is a substantially better tool in comparison, but there is no perfect stat system that can ever come close to analyzing game tape with your eyes.

 

One example:  QB Stats will not show the lack of separation a WR get.  For instance, QBR doesn't show what a rag doll Zay was against Slay.  It doesn't show how he was just awful, like utterly awful, at handling Slay.  Josh through a couple great passes to Zay that he couldn't even make a play on because he is not good at coming back for balls or separating from the defenders.  Most starting WRs would have made a play on the ball and caught it and Zay couldn't even get a hand on it because Slay just owned him so bad.

 

Thats just one minor example from many areas fo the game that impact a players stats...the bottom line is that stats tell ONLY part of a story.  And where QBR is really useful is ALONG SIDE film analysis, not as a stand alone product.  No stat should ever be the defining analysis on a player.  Look at Todd Gurley for example...should people look at his YPC in his Sophomore year to analyze his ability as a player?  Or should they see the awful HC Fisher, one of the worst OL in the NFL that year, a terrible WR group and a combo of Keenum and a struggling rookie in Goff as to the bigger reason?

 

Stat sheet analysis is a waste of time and lacks all context.  They need to be used in conjunction with other analytic procedures.  

 

And in this game for example:  Stat sheet doesn't show it, but was probably Allens best day as a passer.  He made a lot of great throws, and then had several dropped and also saw his so called #1 target get beat down and dominated by his defender Slay like he was a kid in the Adrian Peterson household.

Team passer rating differential is arguably the most predictive stat in all of major team sports when it comes to team success and failure, and the evidence is fairly overwhelming. I therefore disagree with you, albeit with a caveat: differential isn't the same as an individual qb's passer rating, and unlike differential, sack yards taken aren't factored into individual qb rating. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Team passer rating differential is arguably the most predictive stat in all of major team sports when it comes to team success and failure, and the evidence is fairly overwhelming. I therefore disagree with you.

 

I said QB rating...the old QB Rating stat.  Thats why I referenced that is the single most useless stat and if you polled coaches, zero would say they pay any attention to it or use it.  Wasnt saying all QB rating systems or pass rating systems are useless, cited that specific one

Edited December 17, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[dave mcbride]

6 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I said QB rating...the old QB Rating stat.  Thats why I referenced that is the single most useless stat and if you polled coaches, zero would say they pay any attention to it or use it.  Wasnt saying all QB rating systems or pass rating systems are useless, cited that specific one

Since the old QB rating stat is the essential source for passer rating differential (the only additional element is sack yardage), I still disagree with you.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2017/10/30/the-mother-of-all-stats-is-high-on-the-chiefs-but-not-the-patriots/?utm_term=.2bf8cdd86a3e

Edited December 17, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Alphadawg7]

15 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Since the old QB rating stat is the essential source for passer rating differential (the only additional element is sack yardage), I still disagree with you.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2017/10/30/the-mother-of-all-stats-is-high-on-the-chiefs-but-not-the-patriots/?utm_term=.2bf8cdd86a3e

 

Then let's fight.  Meet me out side the nearest Applebees at 3pm for a showdown.  Don't be late.

 

Lol...all good man, I just know coaches hate that stat (QB rating) as an individual stand alone stat and it a worthless way to analyze a QB.  Using it in conjunction with other things is different, I was really just referencing the stat as a stand alone metric.

 

See you at 3pm.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Then let's fight.  Meet me out side the nearest Applebees at 3pm for a showdown.  Don't be late.

 

Lol...all good man, I just know coaches hate that stat (QB rating) as an individual stand alone stat and it a worthless way to analyze a QB.  Using it in conjunction with other things is different, I was really just referencing the stat as a stand alone metric.

 

See you at 3pm.

It's kinda like wins for starting pitchers - kinda useless, but at the same time, if a guy is winning close to 20 games year and year out, then you can assume he's probably pretty good.

Edited December 17, 2018 by dave mcbride