I NEVER WANT TO SEE THE QBR STAT EVER AGAIN!!!!

[MJS]

28 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

if you take it with a grain of salt as a broad strokes feedback it’s fine. 
 

it’s certainly not the end all be all unquestionable law of ranking performances 

It's horrible. It's not fine at all.

[1ManRaid]

41 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

Oh yeah? Well Josh Allen has leg arrogance to boot! Just look at all those disgusting runs.

 

Oh I'm sure some here don't need to be told to look at his legs.

[Matt_In_NH]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

QBR likes QB runs. It is a bogus stat and always has been.

 

Maybe that is exactly what it stands for, Quarter Back Runs?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, Protocal69 said:

Do you guys know that Zach Wilson who was 14/22 64% for 102 yards 4.6 yards per completion 101 yards passing  1 TD and 0 int with 91 yards rushing on 4 att had a higher QBR (92.4) than Joe Burrow who was 37/46 80%  and threw for 525 yards 11.4 yards per completion 4TD and no ints and had a QBR (89.3)

 

Can someone please explain how this is remotely possible. Remember I think a perfect QBR is 100. ESPN should take that metric and throw it out of the window if that is the case. Crazy. 

 

They should have done so years ago.  I seem to recall one fairly publicized game where Aaron Rodgers lit it up and had a lower QBR than Tim Tebow

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/10/espns-qbr-stat-puts-tebow-ahead-of-rodgers/

 

Additional sampling of bemusement with it:

 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/espn-qbr-stat-worst-stat-tom-brady-behind-ryan-fitzpatrick-what-is-qbr

 

https://www.sports-central.org/sports/2011/08/10/espns_double-secret_qbr_still_shrouded_in_mystery.php

[hondo in seattle]

2 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

do you have actual data to back that statement up? Other than just posting a couple stat lines like the OP? I’m not trying to be rude I’m just honestly asking the question.

 

I’ve posted examples where QBR has gotten it right and passer rating wrong. I’d be curious as to what the actual data is over a very large sample size.

 

Fair question - but I don't know what objective data you want on a subjective subject.

 

We're talking about evaluating QBs.  We're all going to have different opinions.  And we're going to like whatever passing metric matches up with our own subjective evaluations.  I like passing rating better than QBR because it better reflects my own evaluations.  It's that simple. 

 

But I know passer rating has problems, too.   Just to give one example: a QB who goes 12 of 20 for 180 yards will have the same rating as the QB who goes 24 for 40 for 360 yards.  I would think the latter QB made a bigger contribution to his team.  And, presumably, the D in the latter case would have been more focused on stopping the pass than the former case, so the accomplishment (same completion pct; same yard/completion) is in fact more impressive. 

 

Some of the stat geek websites are starting to make insights into which QB stats best correlate to winning.  That takes some of the subjectivity out of it.  QB ELO is kind of interesting too.  But I think it's near impossible to remove the subjective element out of QB evaluation.  

 

 

[LabattBlue]

OUTRAGEOUS!  Now that I got my fake anger out of the way, here is how I really feel….who cares. 😂

Edited December 28, 2021 by BTB

[QCity]

5 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

Neither metric is perfect and both certainly have their flaws. And for this reason I’ve just never understood the crusade against QBR but people being perfectly fine with miss leading passer ratings.

 

 

I don't think anyone is perfectly fine with misleading passer ratings. QBR was hyped as this modern next-gen replacement, and it's fallen flat.

 

Part of the problem is the secrecy around the QBR formula. The passer rating formula is very rudimentary and most know of its flaws (i.e. the Hail Mary INT before halftime). We think one of the flaws with QBR is that it weighs rushing yards too heavily, but can't be certain because they guard their information like its the recipe for Coca-Cola, but in reality it's Faygo Orange.

[TBBills]

You can see the team that played against Zack Wilson gave up that game... they allowed him to look like the fastest player on the field.

[Protocal69]

13 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

QBR includes rushing.  Wilson rushed for 91 yards on 4 carries.  Burrow had 11 yards on 2.  There it is. 

Yeah but if you even included rushing the guy didn't have 200 yards of total offense. 100 yards passing should get you a 90+ rating I don't care how many rushing yards he had lol..

[BobbyC81]

I’ve been doing some research and found interesting stuff:

 

 

NFL and CFL formula[edit]

The NFL passer rating formula includes five variables: pass attempts, completions, passing yards, touchdown passes, and interceptions. Each of those variables is scaled to a value between 0 and 2.375, with 1.0 being statistically average (based on league data between 1960–1970). When the formula was first created, a 66.7 rating indicated an average performance, and a 100+ rating indicated an excellent performance.[3] However, passing performance has improved steadily since then and in 2017 the league average rating was 88.6,[4] and by 2020 it was 93.6.[5]

 

 

The four separate calculations can be expressed in the following equations:

 

a= ( COMP/ATT - .3).  X 5

 

b=  (YDS/ATT - 3). x 0.25

 

c=   (TD/ATT) x 20

 

d=. 2.375 -  (INT/ATT x 25)

 

where

 

ATT = Number of passing attempts

COMP = Number of completions

YDS = Passing yards

TD = Touchdown passes

INT = Interceptions

 

If the result of any calculation is greater than 2.375, it is set to 2.375. If the result is a negative number, it is set to zero.

 

 

 

Then, the above calculations are used to complete the passer rating:

 

Passer Rating =  ( (a + b + c + d)/6) x 100

 

A perfect passer rating (158.33) requires at least:

 

77.5% completion percentage (31 completions in 40 attempts)
12.5 yards per attempt
11.875% TD/ATT (1 TD/8.421ATT)
No interceptions

 

A minimum rating (0.0) requires at best:

 

30.0% completion percentage
3.0 yards per attempt
No touchdowns
9.5% INT/ATT

 

Now, I was unable to find explanations for the above formulas and why they used the numbers they did.  It still doesn’t make sense that the best a QB can get is 158.3  and that you don’t have to be perfect to get that rating.

 

To further illustrate the absurdity of this, here are the details of a Drew Brees game in December of 2019:

29 of 30 passing (96.7 completion percentage; AN NFL RECORD!)

307 passing yards

4 TD passes

no INTs

 

His calculated passer rating for that game was 148.9 so it was not perfect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sgt. Ski]

On 12/28/2021 at 1:31 AM, Protocal69 said:

Do you guys know that Zach Wilson who was 14/22 64% for 102 yards 4.6 yards per completion 101 yards passing  1 TD and 0 int with 91 yards rushing on 4 att had a higher QBR (92.4) than Joe Burrow who was 37/46 80%  and threw for 525 yards 11.4 yards per completion 4TD and no ints and had a QBR (89.3)

 

Can someone please explain how this is remotely possible. Remember I think a perfect QBR is 100. ESPN should take that metric and throw it out of the window if that is the case. Crazy. 

a perfect rating is 103.something

[BarleyNY]

12 hours ago, Protocal69 said:

Yeah but if you even included rushing the guy didn't have 200 yards of total offense. 100 yards passing should get you a 90+ rating I don't care how many rushing yards he had lol..

This is a better explanation than I can give you.

One important thing to keep in mind is that QBR is an EFFICIENCY stat not a VALUE stat.  QBs can get credit for plays where they performed well but the play was unsuccessful - drops, PIs, etc.  They also get dinged for fumbles, presnap penalties that are their fault, passes that should have been intercepted, sacks taken, etc.   There is more in the link.  

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Allen 85 against NE and Wilson 92.4 is an even worse example than Burrow. WTF it's not like Josh didn't run the ball well.

[BuffaloBill]

Like many statistics it is at best somewhat directional in helping to understand play.  It’s a bit like weather forecasting, where there is far more research and data, sometimes the data leads to conclusions, sometimes it leads to head scratching.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

35 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

Like many statistics it is at best somewhat directional in helping to understand play.  It’s a bit like weather forecasting, where there is far more research and data, sometimes the data leads to conclusions, sometimes it leads to head scratching.

sometimes to nothing....

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

44 minutes ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

Allen 85 against NE and Wilson 92.4 is an even worse example than Burrow. WTF it's not like Josh didn't run the ball well.

True.
 

But also take into account the 104 pass rating for Allen. The 85 QBR was a better indicator of the game Allen actually played. You look at the 104 Passer rating and you say well he was good but not great. 

[Alphadawg7]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:00 AM, MJS said:

Nobody worth their salt takes that metric seriously. It fails time and time again to actually quantify the performance of a quarterback.

 

The real thing to wonder is why ESPN didn't throw it out years ago. They still use it, and not even as a joke.

 

All true, but its still better than the old QB rating though which is even more useless.  

 

Reality is there will never be a stat that actually accurately captures the overall performance of a position as complicated as QB in the NFL.  its literally impossible with so many variables to take into consideration.  

 

Not only do QB's in this era run a lot compared to past generations, but you have so many variables that surround the QB's and their ability to statistically show how well they are or are not playing. 

 

QB Rating stats are just simply tools created for fans and media to give a suggestive snapshot of their performance at any given time.  More context and data is always needed to truly evaluate a quarterback, and its why coaches never use either of the QB rating systems and instead look at very specific individual data points that matter more.  

[MJS]

8 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

All true, but its still better than the old QB rating though which is even more useless.  

 

Reality is there will never be a stat that actually accurately captures the overall performance of a position as complicated as QB in the NFL.  its literally impossible with so many variables to take into consideration.  

 

Not only do QB's in this era run a lot compared to past generations, but you have so many variables that surround the QB's and their ability to statistically show how well they are or are not playing. 

 

QB Rating stats are just simply tools created for fans and media to give a suggestive snapshot of their performance at any given time.  More context and data is always needed to truly evaluate a quarterback, and its why coaches never use either of the QB rating systems and instead look at very specific individual data points that matter more.  

Oh, I think passer rating does a decent job. It's problem is it doesn't take into account running, so dual threat QB's aren't properly accounted for. I'm assuming that's why QBR was initially created, but they did it all wrong.

 

But yeah, you have to take into account a lot of different things when judging a QB, and QBR is not one of those. Passer rating is, though.

 

As for the two performances mentioned, Burrow had a passer rating of 143.2, which is insanely good. Wilson had an 89.6, which is decent, but does undersell his rushing. I think that more accurately reflects their respective performances.

[Alphadawg7]

8 minutes ago, MJS said:

Oh, I think passer rating does a decent job. It's problem is it doesn't take into account running, so dual threat QB's aren't properly accounted for. I'm assuming that's why QBR was initially created, but they did it all wrong.

 

But yeah, you have to take into account a lot of different things when judging a QB, and QBR is not one of those. Passer rating is, though.

 

As for the two performances mentioned, Burrow had a passer rating of 143.2, which is insanely good. Wilson had an 89.6, which is decent, but does undersell his rushing. I think that more accurately reflects their respective performances.

 

Yeah but the old QB Rating will over value something like comp %, so a check down QB who has a pitiful game will end up with a good rating for example.  Trent Edwards is a prime example of that.  The old rating is too simplified, the new rating isn't balanced well enough to be reliable. 

 

Neither is efficient, but again, both exist for fans really, no coaching staff focuses on it.  

[MJS]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah but the old QB Rating will over value something like comp %, so a check down QB who has a pitiful game will end up with a good rating for example.  Trent Edwards is a prime example of that.  The old rating is too simplified, the new rating isn't balanced well enough to be reliable. 

 

Neither is efficient, but again, both exist for fans really, no coaching staff focuses on it.  

Passer rating also takes into account yards per attempt and TD's per attempt, so it does account for just checking it down all game. Trent Edwards has a career rating of 75.5 which not good. I think that accurately reflects him.