ELI...highest paid?

[awfullyquiet]

Originally Posted by njx9

???

i'd assume you have some better comparison tool that is, more or less, "fair"?

no one disagrees that using joe schmoe's passer rating and, say, peyton mannings passer rating to make a comparison is idiotic.

but using joe schmoe's passer rating and comparing it to joe schmoe's passer rating is a relatively decent comparison tool. unless joe schmoe suddenly changes systems 3 or 4 times per game.

What makes up a passer rating anyway:

1) Completion Percentage
2) Yards per Attempt
3) Touchdowns/attempt
4) Interceptions/attempt

Are those a good description of what, positively, a quarterback should be doing. increasing 1, 2, 3, and minimizing 4?

Yes?

Then it's not a bad stat for comparison, if you're comparing, comp%, ypa, TD/attempt and INT/attempt. because, it all is based on the number of attempts you make. Why did Rivers rating get up so high? Because: he completes a high number of passes (good thing), he has a good YpA (meaning it's not all dumpoff passes, which would inflate #1), you're scoring (which is obviously important), and not intercepting (although, you're allowed one interception over 40 some passes without major penalty).

The ONLY thing the passer rating really doesn't do, is punish for stupid turnovers.

If you have a problem with the passer rating, be VERY clear that it's not with the metrics they use, but the componets of weighting that they use.

You can skew the components to say: not throwing interceptions is the most important thing... sure, but, overall, the people who excel into the following series of metrics, tend to be 'better' quarterbacks...

[Giantsfan1080]

Yeah but different offenses cater to the different things that comprise passer rating. Some QB's are in more friendly offensive systems than others not to mention hot weather and dome/cold weather QB's.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

What makes up a passer rating anyway:

1) Completion Percentage
2) Yards per Attempt
3) Touchdowns/attempt
4) Interceptions/attempt

Are those a good description of what, positively, a quarterback should be doing. increasing 1, 2, 3, and minimizing 4?

Yes?

Then it's not a bad stat for comparison, if you're comparing, comp%, ypa, TD/attempt and INT/attempt. because, it all is based on the number of attempts you make. Why did Rivers rating get up so high? Because: he completes a high number of passes (good thing), he has a good YpA (meaning it's not all dumpoff passes, which would inflate #1), you're scoring (which is obviously important), and not intercepting (although, you're allowed one interception over 40 some passes without major penalty).

The ONLY thing the passer rating really doesn't do, is punish for stupid turnovers.

If you have a problem with the passer rating, be VERY clear that it's not with the metrics they use, but the componets of weighting that they use.

You can skew the components to say: not throwing interceptions is the most important thing... sure, but, overall, the people who excel into the following series of metrics, tend to be 'better' quarterbacks...

Personally I don't believe we should punish QBs for more attempts. But that's just me.

[awfullyquiet]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Yeah but different offenses cater to the different things that comprise passer rating. Some QB's are in more friendly offensive systems than others not to mention hot weather and dome/cold weather QB's.

the former is WELL more important than the latter... especially since the favoritism towards completion rating is skewed for west coast systems... you have to be a special quarterback to break Steve Young's record (peyton).

So, suppose you reduce that component, which would you increase?

YPA? add an additional component?

Originally Posted by broth223

Personally I don't believe we should punish QBs for more attempts. But that's just me.

it's not punishing, but, instead offers diminishing returns for the more you pass.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

the former is WELL more important than the latter... especially since the favoritism towards completion rating is skewed for west coast systems... you have to be a special quarterback to break Steve Young's record (peyton).

So, suppose you reduce that component, which would you increase?

YPA? add an additional component?



it's not punishing, but, instead offers diminishing returns for the more you pass.

I'm not sure what would be "fair" to cater to all the different style offenses in the NFL. That's why I think the whole stat is pretty flawed to begin with. Unlike baseball you can't measure football in stats, especially ones that use formulas like passer rating.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Damn this thread is still going on?????

[MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)]

He won't be top paid for long. This happens every time someone becomes the highest paid at their position. The next time another top player at the position is a FA, he gets bigger money.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by njx9

tend to, but it's still a garbage metric for comparisons between two different systems. to wit, david carr was leading the league in rating briefly four or five years ago. not because he was a good quarterback, but because his completion percentage curved him higher, in spite of the fact that his "completions" came on worthless dump offs to his backs.

in the end, i'm not completely against passer rating, but it should never be the primary comparison device between 2 different qbs.



all that said, this isn't an argument against it's use in the linked article. in that case, they were comparing, say, brady's rating against himself, in which case he played every game under the same system in the "same" weather conditions (i.e. the 4th quarter of game one was ostensibly played in basically the same conditions as the first 3 quarters. i don't recall very many games starting off in 70 degree weather and deteriorating into a 15 degree blizzard in the span of a quarter).

Your're right I was just commenting on passer rating as a whole. If we're talking about Eli specifically then he is "clutch" because his numbers are better in the 4th quarter than the first three.

[awfullyquiet]

Originally Posted by njx9

tend to, but it's still a garbage metric for comparisons between two different systems. to wit, david carr was leading the league in rating briefly four or five years ago. not because he was a good quarterback, but because his completion percentage curved him higher, in spite of the fact that his "completions" came on worthless dump offs to his backs.

in the end, i'm not completely against passer rating, but it should never be the primary comparison device between 2 different qbs.

it's more of a trend, or gross statistic rating as opposed to, as you said, individual games... look at the range of statistics, as well as weighted averages...

it has a lot of great points, and bad points. but, i think overwhelming is a good metric that you take with some subjectivity based on circumstances.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Originally Posted by njx9

with basically nothing to do with the original premise.

EDIT: not basically nothing, literally nothing.

Feel free as a mod to lock it if it runs its course. I do the same on our giants.com MB.

[Giantsfan1080]

This is going to get bumped up the first time Eli has a bad game. Bank on it.

[awfullyquiet]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Your're right I was just commenting on passer rating as a whole. If we're talking about Eli specifically then he is "clutch" because his numbers are better in the 4th quarter than the first three.

too small of a sample size.

you can't say 'his numbers are better in the fourth quarter'. because that doesn't give you any acknowledgement of the situation.

now, if you said, 'better in the fourth quarter while behind by seven points or less', that'd be a different metric that neither you or I have (i really need to get xml feeds from espn on games over the past few years so I can catalog said position in game).

because the giants are, yes, a run first team, and no, not a west coast offense. in games that they are UP in the fourth, he can make, high completion, low yardage passes while they're eating the clock to, i don't know, do something like pad his fourth quarter passer rating inadvertently. winning...

so. situation is important instead of throwing out stats without context.

on the other hand, ESPN does give a +/- 7 points 4th quarter stat... and what's interesting is, number one, average attempts per year is VERY SMALL comparatively, normally under 7% of attempts, but, his YPA goes up considerable amounts.

i haven't figured out why yet. over 100 attempts, it's still a noticeable jump, even though his completion rate goes up a very, very, very modest, almost negligible amount (by 1.8 points).

[Giantsfan1080]

On Sunday once Eli got the ball back with 3 minutes to go I knew the game was ours because he's proven it to us time and time again. I really don't know what it is but it's just so obvious he's better in that situation. I think it's the 2 minute offense that we have and he it helps that he chooses the play. I know when he was younger the offense was very complicated and relied on long vertical routes but when we went into the 2 minute you could see what he was capable of. I still think that the offense doesn't really "help" Eli out but regardless I'm happy with what he does.

[bigbluedefense]

anyone who doesn't believe that clutchness exists in sports is a ****** moron who never played a sport in their life.

[awfullyquiet]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

anyone who doesn't believe that clutchness exists in sports is a ****** moron who never played a sport in their life.

you're also the type of person who doesn't believe that SABR has any place in baseball too. right?

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

On Sunday once Eli got the ball back with 3 minutes to go I knew the game was ours because he's proven it to us time and time again. I really don't know what it is but it's just so obvious he's better in that situation. I think it's the 2 minute offense that we have and he it helps that he chooses the play. I know when he was younger the offense was very complicated and relied on long vertical routes but when we went into the 2 minute you could see what he was capable of. I still think that the offense doesn't really "help" Eli out but regardless I'm happy with what he does.

is it because the giants actually put him in a situation that he produces better?

if so, then why don't they put him in that situation more often?
if not, why not?

[MetSox17]

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

is it because the giants actually put him in a situation that he produces better?

if so, then why don't they put him in that situation more often?
if not, why not?

Very interested in reading the response to this.

[Giantsfan1080]

I don't know why they don't put him in a 2 minute type offense in the middle of a game once in a while. I think it would help his numbers out but we win without doing so anyway. I'm not there with the coaching staff so I'm not sure why they wouldn't do so. I think Eli puts himself in a better situation by calling his own plays. We really have to see how this season plays out thought because I think not having Shockey, Plax, Toomer, etc.; Eli can just throw to who he wants and doesn't have to worry about throwing a certain number of passes to x player. It's 100% his team now and we're going to see how that benefits or hurts him as the season goes by.

[bigbluedefense]

Clutchness exists in sports. The argument that a clutch play is no different from a play in the 1st quarter is not true, and if you ask anyone who's played this game, or any game for that matter, they'll understand what im about to say.

First off, yes, in a perfect world every play counts equally. But to expect a player to execute on every play is just not realistic. No one is going to play a perfect game. Mistakes will be made throughout the game. But when there is no room for mistakes, some players in any sport seem to rise to the occasion, while others seem to disappear.

Your body, your mind, everything changes during clutch moments. Your heart beats faster, you either get nervous or embrace the chance of being the "hero". Some people want the ball in these moments, some people want to be an observer at that moment.

I honestly think it can't be learned. Its just something youre born with. The most competitive great players of any sport are killers in the clutch, they want that ball and they just have this demeanor and natural presence in those moments that are different from other players. Some get more intense, some stay cool and laid back, but the common theme is the great clutch players in any sport live for that moment. Its no surprise that clutch players come through time and time again in those moments, whereas chokers seem to blow it more often than not at that moment.

Ive seen some guys get so nervous at those times, their knees start to shake, their voice trembles, they just crumble into a shell. Ive seen other guys just kick it up a notch and take over like a real leader. Ive seen indifferent guys who seem to bring everyone around him to his calmness and just make everyone execute better because of it.

Its definitely a different moment of the game compared to the 1st quarter. To a guy watching on tv it might not be, but ask anyone on that field what they felt like during that time, see what they say. Sports isn't a bunch of robots playing in the field.

Human emotion plays a huge role in it, and just like any adverse situation, certain people behave differently than others at those moments. The greats rise to the occasion.

Think about it. Just think about this, when you're even watching the game, and you're REALLY into the game, does your body feel the same during that final game winning drive compared to the first quarter? Of course not, just from watching it you can feel the emotion and the difference in intensity of the moment.

Now just imagine what its like for the players. Sports aren't black and white, and its not just a stat line from play to play.

Clutchness exists in sports. Tell Michael Jordan his game winning shots meant as much as his first one. He'll laugh in your face.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

you're also the type of person who doesn't believe that SABR has any place in baseball too. right?



is it because the giants actually put him in a situation that he produces better?

if so, then why don't they put him in that situation more often?
if not, why not?

i don't watch baseball.

my sports are football and basketball.

[Giantsfan1080]

Baseball is totally different from football so you can't use the SABR stats as a comparison.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by njx9

i don't buy "clutch" (although i believe that there is a reverse case of "anti-clutch"). and yes, this is from a broncos fan who grew up watching elway.

as the article suggested, good quarterbacks didn't tend to get *better* in the 4th. they just stayed good. that said, some guys shatter when there's pressure. but i don't buy that they fall apart more just because there are two minutes left.

and i've probably played sports longer than the vast majority of members on this board, thank you (and further understand the directed insinuation).

when i made my statement, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. i just skimmed the thread and saw that clutchness was being questioned, and posted what i posted. i didn't even notice who said what they said.

if you believe theres such thing as anti-clutch, then you have to believe in clutchness too. theres not one without the other.

the thing about clutch players is, most of them tend to be good players anyway. so metrically, you won't see much change in their stat sheet from the 1st quarter to the 4th.

but every now and then, you get that Robert Horry. the guy who metrics cannot explain. Sure, guys like Brady won't see a change in their numbers, bc they are good throughout the game.

But what about the Robert Horry's of the NFL? The Jordan comparisons, like Brady will see no change in their performance. But that doesn't take away from their accomplishments during those moments, it only adds to their lure.

[awfullyquiet]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

if you believe theres such thing as anti-clutch, then you have to believe in clutchness too. theres not one without the other.

Why?

Because when there's a yin, there has to be a yang?

It all depends on what you define 'clutch' is.

If clutch is: making passes.
then, why can't you make passes all the time? if it's a mental block. that's not clutch. if you can't make them on third downs. that's not clutch. if you can only make it in fourth quarters, and not second quarters. that's not clutch. that's statistical outliers...

Because lets face it, if you can consistently make the passes 'in the clutch', you should be able to on third downs, it's not like you are a pass rusher where you can reach back and give it extra effort... push harder... run faster... accuracy should never be questionably better in the clutch. making completions should never be clutch. there's zero reason why you can't be accurate all the time as opposed to being accurate some of the time. there's zero reason why you can't be making the right reads all of the time, as opposed to making the right reads some of the time... it doesn't make sense as a quarterback position.

on the other hand. anti-clutch is choking in the clutch, failing to make regular completions... missing kicks is not because you fail to put extra effort into it, but because you choke when it's on the line. you fail to perform. fail to execute consistently...

yes, clutch players tend to be good players, but that's because they're ALWAYS good.

[Bengalsrocket]

Well some of the reason could be because coverages and defensive looks are different in clutch situations, and it's possible a QB could be better at reading and dissecting those coverages and defensive looks.

[Shiver]

Usually defensive looks are less effective and more predictable in clutch situations. Either a team goes into prevent mode (Bills vs. Patriots) or a team blitzes on every down (Dolphins vs. Colts). Only the great defenses continue to mix coverages, blitz unpredictably and keep an offense on tilt in the last moments of the game. And let's face it, there are not that many great defenses in today's NFL. That is why the QB play has exploded in the last decade.