PDA

View Full Version : QBR(new QB rating system)


Giantsfan1080
08-03-2011, 04:09 PM
The Total Quarterback Rating takes into account a larger number of variables than the nearly 40-year-old NFL Passer Rating system -- including down and distance, field position and importance of the game situation.
The new QBR weighs rushes, passes, sacks, fumbles, interceptions and penalties and calculate the per-play net impact of the quarterback. As an example, a pass completion on third down that yields a first down is worth more than a completion for the same yardage that doesn't result in a first down. Plays in closely contested games also count for more in the system.
It will be based on a 100-point scale, with ratings in the 70s being Pro Bowl caliber, and a rating of 50 will be considered average.

How does everyone feel about this?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6824380/new-espn-quarterback-rating-system-factors-larger-set-variables

Cigaro
08-03-2011, 04:13 PM
Seems like it may work well, but no way to know until we see whom it ranks where.

niel89
08-03-2011, 04:15 PM
This should be interesting. The perspective on QBs has been altered so much over the past years because of fantasy football. I hope that this system doesn't have some crazy outlier that really make it look crappy.

ElectricEye
08-03-2011, 04:17 PM
They showed tiers in another piece and they line up very well with what we actually see on the field. Seems like it could legit be an interesting piece of work. Pretty sure things like this have been done before though, ESPN is just hyping this one.

Giantsfan1080
08-03-2011, 04:20 PM
These were the tiers using last year's stats:


Top tier: Brady, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Michael Vick, Rodgers and Drew Brees.
Well above average: Josh Freeman, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers.
Above average: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, David Garrard and Kerry Collins.
Around average: Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton and Jon Kitna.
Below average: Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Henne, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith.
Poor: Derek Anderson, Brett Favre and Jimmy Clausen.

bearsfan_51
08-03-2011, 04:26 PM
Any metric that places Jay Culter below Ryan Fitzpatrick has some serious flaws.

Giantsfan1080
08-03-2011, 04:27 PM
Any metric that places Jay Culter below Ryan Fitzpatrick has some serious flaws.

Outlier due to all the sacks I bet.

bearsfan_51
08-03-2011, 04:28 PM
Then perhaps sacks shouldn't be part of the evaluation, or they should have a more sophisticated method for determining who is at fault for the sack.

descendency
08-03-2011, 04:30 PM
I've had this discussion numerous times with different people.

I had a coach (high school) tell me once that he thought 1/punts (or "punting fewer times") made more sense than the current QBR. I tend to agree.

ElectricEye
08-03-2011, 04:32 PM
Taking sacks into account is something I really like, actually. In the game today with all the pass rush we have, mobility and footwork within the pocket are such huge assets for a quarterback. You're going to see some stuff like that when you don't discriminate and evaluate every single play, but more than a few of the guys at the top had to deal with shaky protection last year and were able to avoid it the rush in spite of it.

Giantsfan1080
08-03-2011, 04:32 PM
Then perhaps sacks shouldn't be part of the evaluation, or they should have a more sophisticated method for determining who is at fault for the sack.

Yeah well we don't have the exact methodology in front of us right now so it's going to be interesting to see how they explain that. I'm not sure how sacks are factored in and how they consider it to be the Qb's fault or the OL.

Halsey
08-03-2011, 05:53 PM
Does this stat really matter. In the end, QBs are almost entirely measured by what their team does or does not win. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

PackerLegend
08-03-2011, 07:23 PM
Hoody Speaks Truth

9t-r2HASo5M

descendency
08-03-2011, 07:57 PM
Does this stat really matter. In the end, QBs are almost entirely measured by what their team does or does not win. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

Bill Parcells judged QBs on whether the offense scored the ball (not just passing TDs) and whether his team won. That's it.

Coaches and QBs are held to different standards than other people by everyone. Sometimes unfairly, but success = production = wins. If tackles were judged the same way, Joe Thomas would be a bad LT.

SchizophrenicBatman
08-05-2011, 03:54 PM
I'm down with any stat that has Jimmy Clausen as the worst QB in the league but the fact that they purposely avoided opponent adjustments so it wouldn't "muddy things up" is laughable

Monomach
08-05-2011, 04:02 PM
IgyLmh8A_sY

This stat is just as useless as the old QB rating.

tjsunstein
08-05-2011, 04:07 PM
There's never going to be a formula that everyone agrees on. But, that's the beauty of it.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
08-05-2011, 07:09 PM
They are talking about wanting points for clutch performance i give up on it already. "Clutch" is completely overrated.

Ness
08-05-2011, 07:37 PM
I think I'll stick with the regular system. Stats are really just a casual guide to get some kind of indication of how well a player performs, but really the old eyeball test is what is most important. I think we get wrapped up in statistics way too much sometimes. Vince Young is a recent example. In my opinion he is definitely not as good as his recent stats may lead one to believe.

ElectricEye
08-05-2011, 07:49 PM
I think a big part of this stuff is the effort to bring football statistics to the same level of relevance of baseball stats. There's a major sentiment out there the past few years to make sabr football stats. That just isn't possible, for a lot of reasons. Stating the obvious a bit here, but baseball is an individual sport, for the most part. The result of a hitters at bat has hardly anything to do with anyone else on the team. You can look at things like on base percentage, extra base hits, and such and just go from there.

It's not that black and white in football. There's just too many many variables, too many thing depending on one another to work in place. Did the left tackle blow his block? Was it because the quarterback was off on the protection call? Just far too much going on to fully be able to quantify it with numbers. Not without getting into extremely subjective territory, anyway. You're just going further away from your core goal by doing that and things get muddy.

...that's not to say things like this don't have value though. They just fail to express the complete picture. Like Ness said, the eyeball test is always going to be king in football. Numbers might be a quick and dirty way to qualify something, but in the end these things rarely tell us much that we don't already know. Exceptions, but rare exceptions.

Giantsfan1080
08-05-2011, 08:01 PM
I think a big part of this stuff is the effort to bring football statistics to the same level of relevance of baseball stats. There's a major sentiment out there the past few years to make sabr football stats. That just isn't possible, for a lot of reasons. Stating the obvious a bit here, but baseball is an individual sport, for the most part. The result of a hitters at bat has hardly anything to do with anyone else on the team. You can look at things like on base percentage, extra base hits, and such and just go from there.

It's not that black in white in football. There's just too many many variables, too many thing depending on one another to work in place. Did the left tackle blow his block? Was it because the quarterback was off on the protection call? Just far too much going on to fully be able to quantify it with numbers. Not without getting into extremely subjective territory, anyway. You're just going further away from your core goal by doing that and things get muddy.

...that's not to say things like this don't have value though. They just fail to express the complete picture. Like Ness said, the eyeball test is always going to be king in football. Numbers might be a quick and dirty way to qualify something, but in the end these things rarely tell us much that we don't already know. Exceptions, but rare exceptions.

Very well said and I agree with all of it. This new QBR stat though does sound at least better than the old Passer Rating system that people go by.

M.O.T.H.
08-06-2011, 05:13 AM
I think a big part of this stuff is the effort to bring football statistics to the same level of relevance of baseball stats. There's a major sentiment out there the past few years to make sabr football stats. That just isn't possible, for a lot of reasons. Stating the obvious a bit here, but baseball is an individual sport, for the most part. The result of a hitters at bat has hardly anything to do with anyone else on the team. You can look at things like on base percentage, extra base hits, and such and just go from there.

It's not that black and white in football. There's just too many many variables, too many thing depending on one another to work in place. Did the left tackle blow his block? Was it because the quarterback was off on the protection call? Just far too much going on to fully be able to quantify it with numbers. Not without getting into extremely subjective territory, anyway. You're just going further away from your core goal by doing that and things get muddy.

...that's not to say things like this don't have value though. They just fail to express the complete picture. Like Ness said, the eyeball test is always going to be king in football. Numbers might be a quick and dirty way to qualify something, but in the end these things rarely tell us much that we don't already know. Exceptions, but rare exceptions.

I've had to make this exact argument like ten times. haha. Several times on here, even. Some people just put way too much water into these newer football outsiders metrics and what not. But as you said, it tends to be completely subjective. There are too many variables, too many moving parts, complex systems, and varying assignments. The biggest of them all, is the fact that it is a team sport, opposed to a much easier to guage sport like baseball. Which is still a "team sport", per se...but indivisual performance is actually something you can break down at a much larger level, given the style of play. But, to essentially place a single football position in a box, to evaluate it, doesnt work properly. You're completely omitting key variables to formulate a skewed final statistic. All they're coming up with is a broken conclusion.

tjsunstein
08-06-2011, 11:07 AM
This system clarified nothing and complicated everything.

Nalej
08-06-2011, 02:09 PM
Anyone watching the show on it on ESPN?
It seems more like a T.Williams (GB-CB) highlight show

TheBoyWonder22
08-06-2011, 02:39 PM
I get the concept, but I don't understand how every play is weighted. What separates a 7 from a 9? I don't think these guys even know.

Nalej
08-06-2011, 06:23 PM
They talked a lot about air yards vs yac.
I understand that a bubble screen should be weighted less than a 40 yd bomb that result in the same yardage
but, my concern is, I dont think a QB should be penalized for throwing a perfect 25 yd strike that splits the coverage, with wr in stride, and the wr picks up a lot of yac on his way to the endzone.