Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: More QB rating bashing

  1. #1

    More QB rating bashing

    This one is better. I took every QB that qualified over the last 3 years. They are sorted by rating (highest on the left to lowest on the right). Then I broke out each individual component, graphed against the raw rating /4. You can clearly see that INT and comp Pct is a much bigger component, just like Kiran said. yards/attempt and especially TD pct are much, much less significant.
    qbrating.jpg

    Let me know if that explanation made any sense.

  2. #2

    need a bigger chart

    qbratingbig.jpg
    click on image for full sized picture

  3. That is exactly why the QB's of the past have lower ratings. Everything back then was 7 sep drop which made for better yds/attempt but lower completion percentage. Back then, if you completed better than 50% of your passes, you were doing good. The west coast offense and it's reliance on 3 and 5 step drops helped the completion % rise and along with it, the QB ratings.

  4. #4
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4,586
    Blog Entries
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Freeland View Post
    This one is better. I took every QB that qualified over the last 3 years. They are sorted by rating (highest on the left to lowest on the right). Then I broke out each individual component, graphed against the raw rating /4. You can clearly see that INT and comp Pct is a much bigger component, just like Kiran said. yards/attempt and especially TD pct are much, much less significant.
    qbrating.jpg

    Let me know if that explanation made any sense.
    Just to be clear:

    This supports the assertion that the current QB rating system rewards lack of errors much more than it rewards tremendous success. Which supports most everybody's gut feeling that the rating system is hinky.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottDCP View Post
    Just to be clear:

    This supports the assertion that the current QB rating system rewards lack of errors much more than it rewards tremendous success. Which supports most everybody's gut feeling that the rating system is hinky.
    That is correct. Over the last 3 years there have been 98 QBs qualify for the passing title, only 1 had a higher score in the TD component of the rating than the INT component (Sage Rosenfels in '07: 15 TDs - 12 INTs in 240 attempts) and none had a higher score in yards/attempt than in completion pct.

  6. #6
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ukiah, CA
    Posts
    3,734
    That's pretty amazing consistency there. Int/Att and cmp% seem to be locked in at .5 above TD/Att and yds/Att. Except that one guy in the middle of the graph with the big spike on Int/Att. Out of curiosity, who was that? Cutler?

    Do you think the consistency might indicate that - while the "safety" stats are overvalued - the system as a whole works? TD/Att and yds/Att seem to follow the other two pretty closely, albeit .5 points lower.
    Last edited by msclemons; 07-30-2010 at 11:44 PM. Reason: I r can't grammar

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by msclemons View Post
    That's pretty amazing consistency there. Int/Att and cmp% seem to be locked in at .5 above TD/Att and yds/Att. Except that one guy in the middle of the graph with the big spike on Int/Att. Out of curiosity, who was that? Cutler?

    Do you think the consistency might indicate that - while the "safety" stats are overvalued - the system as a whole works? TD/Att and yds/Att seem to follow the other two pretty closely, albeit .5 points lower.
    I wondered the same thing about Cutler, it was actually Trent Edwards.

    I see what you're saying about the system working and I wondered the same thing, but after I thought about it that's really not the case. It does value not throwing INTs over throwing TDs. Think about if (I should probably say when) INT/Comp% was 10 times greater than TD/Yards, then TDs would have little or no value. I know that's an extreme example, but it does show that the discrepancy does affect the final rankings.

    I'll be doing a full post on this later, but after doing some more research I realized that this discrepancy didn't exist when the rating was created in 1971. All 4 graphs were similar and rating went right down the middle of them. Meaning that the rating was written specifically for the stats of the day and is outdated now.

  8. #8
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ukiah, CA
    Posts
    3,734
    The graph is a great reflection of the direction the league has gone. The short, high-percentage, low risk passing game seems to be almost universal now.

    The cmp% and yds/Att lines really show that - they're almost identical. Which means everyone is attempting throws for the same distance; cmp% and yds/att almost have a fixed ratio. (I know I phrased that wrong - it's been 20 years since my last algebra class).

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by msclemons View Post
    it's been 20 years since my last algebra class.
    Which was 5 years after mine.

  10. #10
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ukiah, CA
    Posts
    3,734
    I was trying to seem younger and more hip. You're the math wizard, is ratio the correct term there?

Similar Threads

  1. Total Quarterback Rating
    By RSConn5 in forum NFL
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-15-2011, 03:12 AM
  2. Rushing rating
    By iwatt in forum NFL
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 09:29 AM
  3. Rating the trades
    By Andy Freeland in forum NFL Draft
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2011, 08:47 PM
  4. Running Rating
    By iwatt in forum NFL
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-26-2010, 06:12 PM
  5. Proof of major flaw in QB rating
    By Andy Freeland in forum NFL
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 07-30-2010, 08:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •