Finding the Winning Factors Special Edition - ANPY / A vs. QB Rating
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 12:30 PM EDT
in Winning Stats
153 comments
Last week, there was a lot of hand-wringing and hair pulling about the merits of two different Quarterback measurements: Adjusted Net Passing Yards / Attempt (via Pro-Football-Reference) and the conventional Quarterback Rating. The flaws and plusses of each were fully discussed here, and I'll give you my thoughts later. What I'll do first is look how each stat leads to wins, warts and all.
Before I get started, I need to make a correction to my original ANPY/A post. When I first worked through those numbers, I used 10 yards as the multiplier for Touchdown passes (hover over the ANPY/A column on Manning's page, and you'll see it as 10 yards). However, Chase Stuart, one of the writers at P-F-R, back in October did research on that number, and determined it should be 20 yards, not 10. So I went back and corrected the original page with all the new numbers. It bumped up the Win % just a tad, just barely behind Drive Success Rate (0.04% lower).
So which one leads to more wins? I'll tell you after the jump...
Here are the Win Percentages, based on various time frames:
| Off Win % | Def Win % | Off/Def Win % | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANPY/A | QB Rating | ANPY/A | QB Rating | ANPY/A | QB Rating | |
| 5 Year | 70.8% | 68.6% | 72.2% | 70.8% | 90.8% | 88.6% |
| 8 Year | 71.2% | 69.6% | 71.0% | 70.2% | 90.0% | 88.0% |
| 13 Year | 70.3% | 69.1% | 70.7% | 70.0% | 89.1% | 87.4% |
Couple thoughts:
- The two stats are very similar, and very good, at predicting wins. However, ANPY/A beats QB Rating in every comparison, as little as it may be. Seeing 90% always will make me happy.
- We've focused our comparison of stats on the both Offense and Defense being above average, and ANPY/A beats QB Rating by about 2% in each of the time frames. In the 8 year time frame, that is about 22 more games won (out of ~1000 games).
- I've actually had the QB Rating stats for a while now, and was purposely not going to include them in the Finding the Winning Factors series, because it was so close to the ANPY/A numbers. Pretty much if one of them was good, the other would be as well, so there was no sense including them both.
Both stats are pretty good predictors of wins, with ANPY/A coming out slightly ahead. I tend to lean more towards ANPY/A being the stat of choice because it has come about from recent research, and it can be shown mathematically why each of the numbers are there. It also produces an output that is easily understood by anyone. QB Rating gives equal weight to four stats, which should not be given equal weight, and it caps, both positively and negatively, each of the stats.
Does QB Rating do a good job of measuring a QB's performance? Sure it does. There's just better ones out there.
1 recs |
153 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice job mgrex03.
I love this series!
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Snails can sleep for three years at a time.
by Cassieper on Jul 15, 2009 1:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ditto
Such a long way from three yards and a cloud of green plastic filaments..
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Jul 15, 2009 1:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
awesome stuff
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 15, 2009 1:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Depends what you're measuring.
If you want to measure the performance of the QB, Passer Rating is better. If you want to measure the performance of the team’s passing game, ANY/A is better.
Because ANY/A includes a sack component in the equation it is much more affected by the ability of the QB’s receivers to get open and the blocking performance of pass protection than Passer rating is.
Passer rating is somewhat less affected by the play of the receivers and the performance of the pass protection because the sack component is not in the equation.
Of course ANY/A is a slightly better indicator of winning because sacks are drive killers. Again, I would say “most” sacks are not the QB’s fault.
If you are going to include sacks in ANY/A, you might as well include QB fumbles (which also are mostly not the QB’s fault).
There is a reason sacks are not included in Passer Rating, and that reason is because sacks are not all that much about the passer, for the most part.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
OL is arguable, but how exactly is Passer Rating less effected by WR play?
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 15, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because,
while both equations rely on good play from receivers, the inability of receivers to get open is often a direct cause of sacks. “A coverage sack”, I think is the term. So, ANY/A is even more dependent upon good play from receivers than Passer Rating.
Not sure what you think is arguable about the O-line and their relationship to sacks. But I would say their lack of proper protection is the #1 cause of sacks.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we've had this argument
so you know how I feel about the inclusion of sacks (it doesn’t incorporate OL play, it includes both the reactions to poor line play instead of just one).
If you would be convinced by significant differences in QB sack rates, for QBs playing for the same team the same year (like the Eli Manning-Kurt Warner 2004 comparison I talked about) then I’ll run the numbers, but if not we’ll have to either agree to disagree or just repeat ourselfs from the last thread.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 15, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can agree to disagree.
I will point out that you posture this ANY/A stat as a measure of the performance of a QB. This seems to be your own perception of this. (Perhaps because the numbers work out better for Manning with this one?)
“To me, this is a much better way to rank team passing.” – Chase Stuart
It seems Mr. Chase agrees with me, that it is a reflection of the TEAM passing not the individual passing abilities of the QB.
In any event, while an interesting stat, I don’t see where this has been embraced as an important measure of anything, better than what is officially used by the NFL, by anybody other than a blogger from P-F-R and yourself.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like including all metrics that a QB can affect
That includes sacks and fumbles. And I am not just saying that because in 65 more games Manning has 13 fewer fumbles than Brady. (!!!) Let’s not even talk Kurt Warner…..
I’ll take Manning’s 2009 season as an example. His pct complete suffered because of something he did—what was that? Throw the ball away to avoid sacks. Either he gets an INC or he gets a 3 yard gain, both of which hurt his traditional stats unlike a sack would have. He was the most hit QB late into the season per the FO charting project, but one of the least sacked—that is adding value that is not captured in the trad stats. Would you prefer he held the ball and took a sack and as a result had a half yard better YPA and 2 pts higher pct complete? And thereby a better QB rating? BFD. I’ll take the lower numbers and fewer sacks, which result inloss of yardage and sometimes fumbles.
Now if he dumped it off and got picked, or got picked because he crumpled under pressure, then he’s hurting his team and that is rightfully picked up in trad stats. So I think the benefit to reacting well under pressure should also be captured in measuring a QB’s contributions and total value.
My $0.02.
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Jul 15, 2009 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would say
Manning is outstanding at doing everything he can to prevent a sack. The man is an incredible QB. The only one who can touch him today is Brady.
I would also say BR is the epitome of taking advantage of the sack not affecting Passer Rating. I personally think he does it on purpose to manipulate the stats. He will hold it and hold it until somebody gets free so he doesn’t have to throw so many risky passes. He knows Passer Rating means $$$$ and accolades.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
can you link the post it's from so I can read the context of the Chase Stuart quote?
Is he saying, that it’s better than QB Rating for ranking team passing, or is he saying it’s better for ranking team passing than for individual QBs (which also doesn’t mean the same thing as "it’s not as good as QB Rating for ranking individuals).
and I’m starting to get offended by you suggesting that my basis for preferring ANY/A is that it favors Peyton when I’ve already pointed out that I’ve been pro-ANY/A long before you made the post using condition splits that put Brady’s QB Rating over Peyton’s. I haven’t made that kind of accusation at you, and I would have a better basis for it since you weren’t on the record about ANY/A before the difference in their Peyton/Brady ratings was shown.
QB Rating is more widely used because it’s older. Arguing that it’s better because it’s been around longer and been widely used longer is like saying that BA is superior to OBP for those same reasons. Just because something is older doesn’t make it better, and just because something is popular doesn’t make it better, and especially when you compare something new to something old, since the new method has had much less of an opportunity to spread.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 15, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stuart's
statement is comparing passing yards and ANY/A. My quote was meant to highlight the fact he never mentions ANY/A as a measure of an individual in the entire blog piece. He uses it only in terms of rating a TEAM.
Here…
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1133
Saying “QB Rating is more widely used because it’s older.” is not necessarily so. I can assure you that if ANY/A becomes more widely accepted that it will be criticized regarding using it as an individual measure for the reasons I have noted.
From what I can see this stat is a “work in progress” anyway. Read the comments on the blog.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They've used ANY/A in indvidual player evals in other posts
and even more indicative of how they regard it as an individual stat it’s listed on every QBs player page.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 15, 2009 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you link me
to an instance where this guy Stuart (who after all is not necessarily the end-all authority on whether this stat is valid for that measurement anyway) says ANY/A is a better measure of QB performance than Passer Rating?
Every QB’s page also shows number of sacks (and sack %), but that doesn’t mean they think a majority of those are necessarily a result of the Qb’s ability or lack thereof.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's done many rankings
Of all time Greatest QB, going back to 2006…
It starts here, before he had sack numbers
And here’s another, with no mention of QB Rating
Here’s why he uses sacks in all of his QB rankings:
Third, we could choose to include sacks allowed and sack yards lost data into our system. I didn’t have this data last time around, and while it’s controversial, I think it should be used. After all, my current system would penalize a QB for an incompletion, but not for a 10-yard sack. QBs that throw the ball away and avoid sacks are actually pretty valuable. While sacks certainly aren’t solely the fault of the QB, I think including the data do more good than bad. So we can use adjusted net yards per attempt, instead of regular old AY/A (net means we subtract sack yards lost from our numerator, and add sacks to our denominator).
If he thought QB Rating was a better measure of Quarterback play, I think he would have at least mentioned it somewhere, and possibly used it. There’s no mention of QB Rating in any of these posts, and is a proponent of using sack data (and would have earlier had he had the data).
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
here are 4 posts where he chooses ANY/A as his metric for predicting and ranking QBs
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1724
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=799
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=547
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=545
A pretty ringing endorsement of ANY/A over anything else for rating QBs. I didn’t find (or really look) for him explicitly saying it’s better than QB Rating, but when he consistently chooses to use ANY/A over QB Rating I think it gets the same point across.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 15, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well,
I guess Stuart thinks including sacks is better than not.
But who is this guy and why do you listen to anything he says? He’s just a blogger on a stat site.
In any case, his evaluation here flies in the face of ANY/A being his ultimate measure of the performance of a QB.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=547
His rating of these greatest seasons does not conform to an order based on ANY/A.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I smell a contradiction here.
Just a couple posts ago, you pointed to Stuart’s quote as evidence for your argument. Now, that Shake has shown that Stuart actually supports Shake’s side, you then discredit Stuart. You can’t have it both ways like you just tried to do.
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Snails can sleep for three years at a time.
by Cassieper on Jul 15, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way.
I was in no way endorsing Stuart with my initial quote.
I was merely illustrating that the progenitor of this ANY/A was not saying it was the defining measure of individual performance; rather that it was an indicator of team performance. Since that was the crux of what we are discussing here.
So, I was not trying to have it both ways.
My questioning of Stuart has not to do with his integrity regarding his own creation. It has to do with his credentials to pronounce this of any specific worth at all.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show me someone else
Who has done such a thorough job of trying to rank QBs, across generations? Did you see his top 10? Does it look at least reasonably correct? Of course everyone will have disagreements here and there, but overall it isn’t absurd.
1. Joe Montana
2. Steve Young
3. Dan Marino
4. Peyton Manning
5. Fran Tarkenton
6. Dan Fouts
7. Roger Stauback
8. Ken Anderson
9. Johnny Unitas
10. Brett Favre
Have you taken a look at the top 10 in QB Rating? Tony Romo and Chad Pennington are in there. Of the top 24, 19 are still active, including Daunte Culpepper, Marc Bulger, and David Garrard.
Hell, Jeff George and Neil Lomax are higher than John Elway. Sign me up for this stat.
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are many
who would go ballistic at those rankings.
Where is Starr?
Ken Anderson is top 10???
Of, course Brady isn’t even on there.
Where is Elway?
Only 5 QBs have ever been better than Fouts???
Only 4 better than Tarkington?
No Graham?
These guys have an interesting list.
You can’t go by Passer Rating to predict the greatest ever because the game has changed. The rules have changed. (Thanks to Polian)
Passer Rating is higher overall compared to years ago.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Subjective List
By a bunch of Patriot fans. Where is their methodology, other than what they “think” is right?
Yep the game has changed, yet ANY/A can compare across generations. But it’s the inferior stat?
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ANY/A doesn't
compare across generations well. It does better because it is a yardage measurement not a number rating. Unless they change something drastically like how many yards are needed for a first down, I expect a yards type stat will remain constant, sort of.
I wasn’t aware chff were Pats fans. Seems like they are Packer fans.
Do you think that everybody who sees Brady as better than Manning is a Pat’s fan?
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've clearly never read their stuff
Or read their Bios. They are a bunch of Patriot fans.
Passer Rating doesn’t work well across generations because it weights four factors of passing the ball equally, when in reality they are not equal. That’s the biggest hang-up I have with Passer Rating, not that it doesn’t include sack data. The calculation is just wrong, and I don’t care if it’s been used by the NFL for 30 years, and is still used. When something is wrong, something is wrong.
And if you think the Passer Rating equation is correct, show me some research why, other than that the NFL uses it. We’ve shown you plenty of research on our position.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What
research have you shown? That ANY/A correlates to winning? Sure ti does, even slightly better than Passer Rating. But it should. Sacks are quite significant in stopping drives, which after all are how teams score typically. But that doesn’t change my assertion’s credibility.
As far as chff, no, I haven’t read their bios.
So, espn and chff are prejudiced for the Pats. Any others?
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every time we've made a point
We’ve linked to another source, who has run numbers and claimed that the way we are arguing is correct. We’ve actually cited 3 different sites, all with the same conclusions.
Other than saying the NFL uses it, you have provided no proof whatsoever that Passer Rating is the best way to measure a Quarterback. You saying so doesn’t make it true. You’ve never shown why sacks are almost solely out of the QB’s control, other than your opinion. We’ve shown others who have actually looked at situations statistically and found results opposite of your beliefs.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way
Those guys at CHFF absolutely loathe QB Rating…
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/7_1580_Best_passers_in_history:_Yards_Per_Attempt.html
They think just Yards/Att is the best. I think we can both agree it ain’t that simple.
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way
Those guys at CHFF absolutely loathe QB Rating…
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/7_1580_Best_passers_in_history:_Yards_Per_Attempt.html
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most loathe Passer Rating.
But it’s not Passer Rating’s fault. Football is just very hard to quantify statistically.
I’m not sold on their Y/A either. As a matter of fact I consider that very strident component of Passer Rating to be the greatest flaw of the equation.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so you think completion% and TD/INT is all that's needed?
that doesn’t consider how deep a QB is throwing at all. A QB that completes 70% of his passes and throws few picks because he throws nothing but dumpoffs (David Carr with Hou, Charlie Fry in Cle) would have a horribly skewed BabeParilli Passer Rating.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said
my MOST SIMPLE Passer Rating would be TD/INT ratio with magnitude as a considerable consideration. I did not say that was all that was needed to define the best Passer Rating. I have repeatedly said the current Passer Rating is inadequate, yet is a better measue of the performance of a QB than ANY/A is. I did not say completion % was significant. I would say that is one of the least significant stats.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was talking about Passer Rating without yards per attempt
If Y/A is your biggest problem with passer rating and comp% isn’t all that significant, all that’s left in Passer Rating is TD% and INT%.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you not read his methodology?
Which I linked above? The quoted section tells you exactly what you said he didn’t do.
Did you miss the ANY/A column in his data, on the link you sent? His “Rating” is not QB Rating.
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know
his ratings are not based on Passer Ratings in that link. But, even though he includes ANY/A as a stat he obviously is not ranking based on that stat either alone, or even especially.
Obviously he disregards Passer Rating entirely. But he also appears to consider other things than ANY/A.
Again, what are Stuart’s credentials that we even pay attention to his stat or his reasonings on it?
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He does consider other things
Like Rushing Yards. The main job of a quarterback is to pass the ball. The only passing stat he uses is ANY/A. Do you see him using another passing stat?
Stuart is someone else, an objective voice, who agrees with us. Do you have someone with a ranking system based on QB Rating? I’ve already linked that page, and just about everyone high on the career list is playing right now, including quite a few very average quarterbacks.
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I do have
have a link that endorses Passer Rating as a viable stat.
I think they carry a little more weight when it comes to football than Mr Stuart.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And their ranking system is awful
Just because the mainstream media uses it doesn’t mean it is the best.
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
your opinion is that ANY/A is better. But until someone more authoritative than you or I think it is is; it pretty much isn’t.
I believe ANY/A is actually worse than Passer rating to define QB performance. I think ANY/A is a better measure of team passing than Passer Rating is.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You still haven't shown
An individual who claims that QB Rating is the best way to measure QB Performance. Citing NFL.com proves nothing to me, other than they like using a 30 year old stat, that you have said is not good at ranking across careers.
Why are you championing a stat that can’t compare players that played no more than 5-10 years apart? Just because the league uses it?
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither can
ANY/A rank across careers apparently.
The NFL itself says it’s the best way since they have made it an official stat. They aren’t endorsing ANY/A.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
see my batting average/OBP analogy
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OBP
had been a significant stat long before it was official. The same cannot be said of ANY/A.
OBP is obvious. ANY/A is contrived.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is
The percent of the time the batter reaches base
any more obvious than
The yards a QB gains for his team per dropback.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because
the percent the batter reaches base has only to do with himself and the opponents.
The yards a QB gains per dropback has much to do with his teammates.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's entirely the differences in the sport
is obviousness is the criteria ANY/A (yards per dropback) blows QB Rating out of the water.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well,
this entire discussion has been about how ANY/A does not in fact blow Passer Rating out of the water when measuring the individual performance of a QB, as it incorporates factors which increase the influence on the QB’s rating by teammates.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine
it incorporates factors which increase the influence on the QB’s rating by teammates.
Prove to me objectively that YAC has less influence by teammates than Sacks. Use the link provided by Shake in this thread for any details on YAC and Air Yards.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and how do you define significant?
that people outside the game had realized it’s importance though statistical study and promoted it as an improvement and used it in place of the old stat in their projections and ratings.
no that’s not at all like ANY/A, no in the least.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
People inside
the game used it long before it was an official stat, OBVIOUSLY.
I think people were well aware that Ruth got on base a lot more often than his batting average.
Contrarily, in football most often a QB who gets sacked a lot is thought to have a poor line.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
really?
why do you think Kurt Warner was benched in my 2004 example when he had a passer rating in the 80s?
It was because he was taking too many sacks. If you look at Big Ben, yeah his line is regarded as bad, but nearly everyone also understands that he makes it worse by holding the ball a long time and trying to dodge and shake off sacks instead of getting rid of the ball.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anecdotal
evidence of exceptions to the rule sound compelling. But the axiom is that a team will have less sacks with better play from the O-line.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OH please
Those are the same tools who rank offenses and defenses by the yards gained/allowed. There are times those teams don’t even make the playoffs! (particularly, say, top-3 on offense—a bombs-away team like NO last year with no D to keep the game close).
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Jul 16, 2009 1:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,
every team has an offense and a defense. Usually they both have to be at least decent for a team to be successful.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by
his methodology you mean….
“After all, my current system would penalize a QB for an incompletion, but not for a 10-yard sack. QBs that throw the ball away and avoid sacks are actually pretty valuable. While sacks certainly aren’t solely the fault of the QB, I think including the data do more good than bad. So we can use adjusted net yards per attempt, instead of regular old AY/A”
I just disagree for all the reasons I have mentioned. He is just simply wrong.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could you be disagreeing because
In 65 fewer games Brady has just 2 fewer sacks than Manning? That’s a rate of 1.83 per game vs 1.16.
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Jul 16, 2009 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No,
I am not. But I’m quite sure everybody here is embracing ANY/A because of that.
I disagree because I think it’s wrong to plug the sack stat in and pin it on the QB. It’s absurd really.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I'm not the biased one, everyone else is"
even though Shake and Mgrex03 had promoted ANY/A long before this argument.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other thing I don't like about Rating
Is that it only measures things that happen when the ball leaves the QB’s hands. Sacks are the best way to measure QB play when he doesn’t get rid of the ball. It incorporates just as much of his teammates’ abilities as all the other stats. Look at how Cassel got better last year as the season went along with avoiding sacks. A QB’s contribution to sacks is much more than you’re arguing.
And adding fumbles is problematic in several ways. One, box scores don’t differentiate between running and passing fumbles. Remember, any fumbled handoff is given to the QB, no matter whose fault it is. Those clearly shouldn’t count. Fumbles caused when passing the ball are always sacks, so you’d be counting things twice. That’s not right either.
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
why you think sacks are only a measure of QB play. I think most experts in the NFL see sacks as a combination of the play of the entire passing offense rather than specifically a measure of the QB’s play.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way do sacks ONLY measure QB play
I think you are misreading us. But the sack numbers are GREATLY affected by QB play. Cassell’s season is a good example—once he figured it all out (against us, the bastard), and took MANY fewer sacks, he contributed much more to his team. The line might have improved (I think there was an injury return around mid-season) but it’s not all on the line. No way. I think his recent contract reflects that. If he was the same guy in Week 17 as he was in Week 1, he would not be a $60M man today.
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Jul 15, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cassel
is an extreme example. He truly was tripping over his own feet with indecision early on.
He’s a $60 mil man because Pioli is a dumbo. But that’s another subject.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you agree
That QB play does affect sacks. Cassel isn’t an extreme case, he’s like a lot of young QB who have played. They need time to adjust to the game
Matt Ryan first 8 games – 12 sacks
Matt Ryan second 8 games – 5 sacks
Carson Palmer first 8 games – 19 sacks
Carson Palmer next 5 games – 6 sacks (he got hurt)
And I agree, he was severely overpaid.
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
QB play can affect sacks. But I would rather have a great O-line with a QB that can’t move that well than a poor O-line with a QB that can move very well.
The point is, that by going to ANY/A as a measure of the QB, because of the inclusion of sacks, you are INCREASING the effect on his evaluation by the play of his teammates.
Again, in your examples, who did they play? What was the ability to sack of the teams they played when the sacks were less? Did they go to more of a short passing game? etc.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok then
By including Completion Percentage, you are increasing the effect on his evaluation by the play of his teammates.
By including Yards After Catch, you are increasing the effect on his evaluation by the play of his teammates.
Any stat you add will increase the effect on his evaluation by the play of his teammates. Why is 4 stats the right number?
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,
unlike baseball the performance of football players is very dependent upon the play of their teammates.
You have to measure something.
It seems advisable to me to try to reduce the influence teammates have on a stat rather than increase it. Including sacks only magnifies the impact of the teammates play on the QB’s rating.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are 4 stats the right amount?
Because they said that 30 years ago?
You’re right, you have to measure something. Why cut it where QB Rating does?
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because
adding sacks introduces something that is even MORE dependent on teammates that Passer Rating allows.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is it more dependent
than Yard after Catch? That has virtually nothing to do with a QB, yet it is considered in QB Rating.
by mgrex03 on Jul 15, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
YAC
has much to do with the QB. If the ball is delivered properly and in stride it can mean all the difference in the world for YAC.
What are you going to do, not count yards?
There are some things that HAVE to be considered when evaluating a QB. Sacks don’t HAVE to be..
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And there is just as many plays
where an awful pass is thrown, the WR breaks a tackle, and goes a long way, no thanks to the QB.
It’s the same argument as including sacks.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And there is just as many plays
where an awful pass is thrown, the WR breaks a tackle, and goes a long way, no thanks to the QB.
It’s the same argument as including sacks.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it's not the same.
You HAVE TO include yardage. There isn’t an option to not include that. But you do not HAVE to include sacks.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Air Yards has started to become compiled
Again, if there is a better way of doing something that is uncommon, I’m not opposed to using it.
You don’t HAVE TO do anything. Just because the NFL ranks teams/players by a certain stat, doesn’t make it correct.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
what would you say is the bare minimum that a realistic Passer Rating would include for stats?
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everything that is involved in QB Play
Completions, attempts, Yards (including YAC), TDs, INTs, sacks, and possibly rushing yards. Rush yards has been very difficult to use when comparing QBs, which, I presume, is why it doesn’t exist today.
Why leave out an aspect of QB play? All stats are related to his teammates. That’s why I keep asking why 4 is the magic number.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don't use
rushing yards because rushing isn’t passing. The official stat is PASSER RATING, not QB Rating.
That’s the same reason tthey don’t include sacks. Sacks aren’t passing.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok so Passer Rating is only good for evaluating Passers
not QBs. I don’t accept it was worthwhile for evaluating QBs. ANY/A is best for QBs.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it depends on how accurate you want to be
I think you can add layers and layers to refine and refine the method.
If I had just one number it would be yards, I now have a measure of total production.
if I got a second it would be attempts, now I can begin an efficiency calc.
and you keep on adding. completions, TDs, INTs, Sacks, rushing, Opponent adjustments, league average baselines, indoor/outdoor conditions, WR drops, and on and on and on. The analogy I’d make is to a microscope or telescope. How powerful do you want it? That depends on how complex you want your setup to be and how closely you feel you need to look.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I had to
make it very simplistic I would use TD/INT ratio and magnitude. That pretty much tells the story.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't be all that useful in small samples though
TDs and INTs are pretty variable and only a fraction of the total passes (which isn’t every pass play) so you would need more time to cut through the noise.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why
I said magnitude as well.
Obviously a QB who has a 32/12 ratio is doing more for his team than the QB who has a 12/4 ratio even though the latter is a better ratio.
It also is obvious the former is much more needed by their team than the latter.
But it does give you a quick simple view of how often the QB moved the team down to score and how many times they completely botched the drive.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
more research for you to ignore
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/01/air-yards-2008.html
YAC belongs primarily to the WR, and a very distance second to a QB.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm ignoring nothing.
Of course YAC is more dependent on the receiver than the QB.
I mentioned it because the post said YAC has “virtually nothing to do with a QB”, which is untrue.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
virtually nothing and the literally nothing approaches of air yards
are a lot closer to reality than giving a QB full credit for YAC. Check out the QBs in link with the highest percents of their yards from YAC. If good QBs really make it easier from WRs to gain YAC by a significant amount then the highest YAC% should come from good QBs.
Go ahead and check it out, I’ll wait.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
YAC also depends on the route
and the design of the O—a perfectly placed pass on a 10 yard curl results in, very likely, 0-4 YAC. A perfectly placed pass on a 15 yard fly pattern should result in at least 4 YAC, and maybe 80. So that depends on your OC and your receiving pool. Tall jump-ball receivers or speedsters? Precision route runners or physical inside guys? The O design/plays and stats will fit the personnel.
One could argue that YAC is more dependent on other personnel than sacks or sack rate.
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Jul 16, 2009 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure.
And I’m all for subtracting YAC from QB yards. Anything to focus on the player that is being rated being more accurately rated.
But ANY/A doesn’t subtract YAC. So by including sacks it further exaggerates the performance of teammates upon the passer’s rating.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much is too much?
Again I’ll ask why is 4 factors the magic number?
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL,
NCAA and CFL all use the four factors. None of them use sacks.
Why? I have said repeatedly why. I suspect the reasons these organizations do not use sacks are the same as mine.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it hasn't changed since 1973
The game is completely different now, and you’ve said that yourself.
It makes sense they keep using it, as they (the NFL) invented it. If in 2 months the NFL decided to scrap the Passer Rating to use for something else, would you say that stat is the best? That’s basically what you are arguing:
Whatever the NFL says is the best, is the best, no matter what statistical analysis says.
Again, you argue with “I suspect”. All the NFL gives out is the calculation, with no explanation how they came up with the numbers, or how it is still relevant today, 36 years after the inception.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scratch that.
Let me put it this way.
The only purpose of the O-line on a passing play is to give the QB time to throw the ball.
Passer Rating only measures instances where the O-line has ostensibly accomplished that.
But you instead want to use a stat that incorporates the instances where the O-line has not accomplished that (even if occasionally caused by the QB or receivers and not the O-line), and make that part of the measure of the play of the QB.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
(It would be REALLY nice if this board has an edit feature)
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only purpose of the O-line on a passing play is to give the QB time to throw the ball.
Passer Rating only measures instances where the O-line has ostensibly accomplished that.
OL play effects QB rating. Even if the QB manages to get the ball away it can be under pressure. Just because a pass is thrown doesn’t mean the OL did it’s job.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 15, 2009 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said
ostensibly.
But incorporating sacks into the measure of a QB’s performance guarantees that every time the O-line did not do it’s job it will be reflected as the QB’s performance.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so the eval should only include some of the times the OL fails?
QB Rating favors QBs that respond to OL failure by taking sacks. That’s not a preferable option to dumping off, throwing it away or in some cases throwing into tight coverage.
That also ignores guys like 04 Warner from my example who was clearly taking sacks on plays that the OL did it’s job well enough for a QB to get rid of the ball
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 15, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can agree
that Passer Rating is far from perfect.
I just think including sacks is adding gas to the fire.
If you can determine a way to assign blame to sacks and include those that are assigned to the QB, I will go along with ANY/A as a better measure.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 15, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OL play is already muddying the waters in QB Rating
ANY/A just balances the playing field.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ANY/A
just muddies it even more and in a more exaggerated way.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what bias does ANY/A have against reality
than QB Rating doesn’t?
As I’ve stressed QB Rating favors QBs that take sacks over dumpoffs and throwaways even though they are actually more valuable
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Firstly,
it’s PASSER RATING, not QB Rating. It is a measure of the QB’s passing effectiveness not his overall effectiveness as a QB.
Secondly….
ANY/A favors QBs whose O-line picks up that blitzing linebacker better than the Qb’s whose line doesn’t.
ANY/A favors a receiving corps that gets open more often.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PASSER Rating has those biases just as much
less pressure and open WRs increase PASSER Rating too.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But sacks
have nothing to do with passing, since you don’t actually pass since you are on your ass.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I would
take exception to your phrase “just as much”. Sacks are FAR more a reflection of things other than the QB.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Got any proof of that claim?
Shake has already mentioned the ’04 Giants as Exhibit A that the QB definitely matters more than you want to believe when it comes to sacks.
I give you Exhibit B, the 06-07 Eagles. McNabb is/was more sack prone than the other guys starting for him when he was hurt.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's Exhibit C:
Peyton Manning’s rookie season:
First 4 games: 11 sacks, 2.75 per game
Last 12 games: 11 sacks, 0.917 per game
So, what this shows is that Peyton took most of his sacks at a much higher rate when he was still knew to the game and didn’t necessarily knew how to avoid the puss rushers, etc. QB play has a GIANT effect on sacks.
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Snails can sleep for three years at a time.
by Cassieper on Jul 16, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
*correction
still new to the game
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Snails can sleep for three years at a time.
by Cassieper on Jul 16, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As has been stated
a number of times, there are a number of factors that could be the cause of a changed sack rate.
This evidence is circumstantial and anecdotal.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
anecdotes>nothing
and as I linked below FO’s systematic research has led them to put sacks largely on the QB.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep going the anecdotal route
While providing nothing supporting your claim, other than you claiming it.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
while the plural of anecdote is not data
the plural of “that’s absurd” doesn’t even equal anecdotes.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and of course we've cited the 3 main NFL statistical research sites for data as well
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL
adds negative yardage from a sack to TEAM passing totals, but does not to the QB’s INDIVIDUAL passing totals.
The NCAA subtracts sack yardage from rushing totals.
Obviously neither organization, by far the two most authoritative, do not include sack yardage as part of rating a QB regarding the passing game.
I think that tops 3 stat geek sites for credibility.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prove to me why the NFL is correct
Just saying they use it doesn’t make it correct. Why is it correct?
And last I checked, I’ve never seen any statistical analysis on NFL.com. Just the numbers. Show me an analysis why only putting it in the Team Passing Yards is correct.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL
is the authority on the game of football, not you or a stat geek site.
They are correct because they have the authority to define what stats measure the performance of a QB.
Why do you think the NFL includes sack stats in TEAM passing totals but not for INDIVIDUAL QBs?
Perhaps for exactly the reason I have claimed?
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd have to ask them
I don’t know the reason, only they do. Maybe because they didn’t think sacks were relevant back in 1973, and they don’t feel like spending money trying to come up with a better stat, when they have something that is still semi-relevant.
I think the NFL spends little to no time worrying about how their stats are analyzed. They just compile them, and let others do the analysis, using all the data available.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well,
you are pounding sand a bit here making the case that sacks should be included in the definitive passing stat when all three organizations that represent the game at it’s highest levels don’t include that.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So whatever the NFL says
you will believe it is the best, statistical analysis be damned?
Still have seen no analysis why Passer Rating is superior, just the claims that because the NFL, NCAA, and CFL use it, it has to be the best.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So before 1984 OBP wasn't a good stat
because even though lots of statgeeks loved it, it wasn’t an official stat.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was
a great stat and was surely used by baseball people. It was just not an official stat.
OBP doesn’t replace BA. It is not a “better” version of the same thing.
But you’re talking apples and oranges. You are proposing ANY/A as a better alternative to Passer Rating.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
were sacks not a valid way to look at defenders
or offensive lines before 1982 when the NFL made them an official stat?
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's probably why it isn't included in Passer Rating
It wasn’t an official stat until 9 years after it was created.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your lack
of objectivity is showing now.
I have already clearly stated the NFL includes sacks in the TEAM passing numbers but not for the INDIVIDUAL.
This obviously was decided AFTER sacks were being counted. And they chose not to include sacks against the QB.
This obviously proves my point that sacks are a reflection of TEAM passing, not the QB.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your lack of proving anything
has been showing for a long time.
You have shown us absolutely nothing about why they are right, complete with statistical analysis. You provided a link that said they did analysis for Passer Rating from 1960-1973, when sacks were not counted, but nothing since.
Stop hiding behind “The NFL says so” argument, and show us why that is correct.
And stop with the Manning/Brady weather strawman argument. If you spent 5 minutes looking at their stats you’d realize why that argument means absolutely nothing to us.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop hiding
behind the “The stat geek sites say so and so do I” argument.
I’ll put the NFL, NCAA and CFL up against the stat geeks any day.
I know exactly why none of these arguments mean anything to you folks. You will use every means available to somehow convince yourself Manning is better than Brady. Use whatever floats your boat, but that doesn’t make it true.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We aren't hiding
We given you all our reasons why we feel that way, complete with research and analysis. That isn’t hiding.
All you’ve ever said is “The NFL says so, so it must be true”. No data, no research, no analysis.
I made no mention of Manning or Brady in the initial story. I made no mention of Manning vs. Brady in my first post on ANY/A back in February. I could care less that, in one category, Brady leads Manning. I don’t care.
I’m more interested in finding the best way to analyze quarterback, and let the best man win. That’s why I wrote about ANY/A 5 months ago, and not Passer Rating.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have said
the NFL, NCAA and CFL say rating a passer should not include sacks.
I think that is very telling and supersedes what some stat geeks have to say about it.
I have seen no “analysis” you have provided that makes a compelling case that sacks should be included in the rating of a passer.
And I think Brady leads Manning in a number of categories. But, that’s beside the point. I only mentioned it as my assessment of why the stat argument meant nothing to you.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm done then
Since you are judge of “compelling” arguments, I’m done with this. We give you no less than 5 different links saying that sacks are a measure of QB play, from 3 different sources. But it isn’t “compelling” in your opinion, because you know what you believe.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose
I just think the NFL, NCAA and CFL are more compelling sources than the stat geeks. I’ll live with that.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll toss FO's research on the pile as well
Rushing is more dependent on the offensive line than people realize, but pass protection is more dependent on the quarterback himself than people realize.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 11:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll repeat it here.
The NFL
adds negative yardage from a sack to TEAM passing totals, but does not to the QB’s INDIVIDUAL passing totals.
The NCAA subtracts sack yardage from rushing totals.
Obviously neither organization, by far the two most authoritative, do not include sack yardage as part of rating a QB regarding the passing game.
I think that tops 3 stat geek sites for credibility.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so raw yardage is the best way to evaluate offenses and defenses
because that’s what NFL.com lists?
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course that is correct
Whatever the NFL says is the best, is the best. I mean, they represent the game at the highest level, so they are unequivocally correct.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
you have sources that are more credible than the NFL, NCAA and CFL?
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have sources that give actually reasons for why their stats are how they are
instead of just an argument from authority.
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to emphasize a couple of things from that link:
- Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
- There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
- If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority’s statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Snails can sleep for three years at a time.
by Cassieper on Jul 16, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so it's a fallacy when someone says that because the NFL endorses a stat it's perfect because they are the NFL?
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is;
THREE authorities all agree that sacks should not be part of evaluating a passer.
Still not finding this research you tout as proof of the stat geeks assertions.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't matter how many authorities argue it.
It’s still a logical fallacy to assume that they are right because they are an authority.
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Snails can sleep for three years at a time.
by Cassieper on Jul 17, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the absence
of presenting logic to the contrary, the opinion of an authority is surely more than sufficient to carry the argument.
But more, their authority allows them to change the very rules of the game, and to decide what stats are pertinent and what stats aren’t.
By what possible measure do you endorse the posturings of those who have apparently appointed themselves as the ones to define what valid statistics are over those who are the caretakers of the game itself?
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 17, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL
publishes stats that you are allowed to interpret as you see fit. There are at least a few NFL stats that can be used to evaluate a team’s offense or defense.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so that is not an endorsement of Yards per game as the best method to evaluate Os and Ds, from your ultimate authority?
That's big talk for a little guy,
but I'm walkin' without reply.
-Lil Wayne "Mr. Postman"
by shake n bake on Jul 16, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL
has not endorsed a method for “rating” an offense or defense as they have for passers.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So they are a stat publisher
Not a stat analyzer?
We’ve given 3 sites who take the stats published by the NFL, analyzed them, and shown why including sack yards is better than not including them.
Also, when you go to Passing Leaders, it sorts them by Passing Yards. Looks like the NFL ranks QBs by Yards, not Rating.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They
publish stats and sort them by “leader”. They only have one stat that I know of that is a “rating” (evaluation). That is for passers.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
History time.
My statements in ( ).
(Passer Rating was developed by a committee for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Never have sacks been used as part of the formula to evaluate the performance of a passer. Do you think all these people who have lived the game are just stupid, or do you think there is a reason they have never plugged in sacks to rating a passer?)
(Regarding the nature of passer rating -) “It is important to remember that the system is used to rate passers, not quarterbacks. Statistics do not reflect leadership, play-calling, and other intangible factors that go into making a successful professional quarterback.”
(The history of what was used to determine the best passers-)
Timeline of Methods Used by the NFL to Determine Passing Leaders
Since the NFL first started keeping official statistics in 1932, the following are the different ways in which the passing champions were determined.
1932-1937
Total yards passing
1938-1940
Percentage of completions
1941-1948
Inverse ranking system of the following categories: completions, percentage of completions, total yards, total TD passes, number of interceptions, and percentage of interceptions.
1949
The same formula used from 1941-148 except the number of interceptions was dropped from the equation.
1950-1959
Average yards gained per pass with a minimum of 100 attempts needed to qualify.
1960-1961
Inverse ranking system based on six categories: total completions, total yards, total TD passes, percentage of completions, percentage of interceptions, average gain per attempt with the principle established of at least 10 attempts per game to qualify.
1962-1971
Inverse ranking system based on four categories: Percentage of completions, total touchdown passes, percentage of interceptions, average gain per attempt.
1972
Same system used from 1962 to 1971 except that the percentage of touchdown passes was substituted for total touchdown passes.
1973-present
Rating system described above.
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/release.aspx?release_id=1303
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 5:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You forgot something from that link
Smith and Siwoff did the experimentation and statistical testing on the basis of performance standards extracted from the stats of all qualified pro football passers since 1960. The system was adopted by the NFL in 1973.
So this stat that is the end-all be-all in your world was developed by looking at passing stats from 1960 – 1973, a true golden age in Passing in the NFL. Everything is completely the same now as it was 50 years ago.
Never have sacks been used as part of the formula to evaluate the performance of a passer. Do you think all these people who have lived the game are just stupid, or do you think there is a reason they have never plugged in sacks to rating a passer?
As shake pointed out above, sacks did not become an official stat until 1982, so it’s pretty obvious why it wasn’t included in 1973.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The Passer Rating does a decent-to-good job ranking QBs. Other stats, that have been researched and analyzed in today’s game (by multiple sources all linked on this page), do a much better job at analyzing a Quarterback’s performance in today’s NFL. It makes sense why the NFL wouldn’t change it, or spend any time on it. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I replied
in the other post, the NFL DOES NOT count sacks against a PASSER’S yardage but does against a TEAM’S passing yardage.
So the loophole you’re looking for by supposing the Passer Rating not being changed when sacks started being counted does not hold water.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine
So you are content with a formula based on 1960-1973 Passing stats to analyze Quarterbacks in 2009?
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe
Passer Rating is the best measure of a passer’s performance that is available. The game has changed and QBs today generally perform better than those in the past.
I do not believe Passer Rating’s formula is the best it could be, but I would in no way include sacks within the formula unless sacks were to become somehow determined as the fault of the QB (as errors are “scored” in baseball for instance).
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's great to have a belief or opinion
But when it is based solely on a belief or opinion, it doesn’t really hold much water.
We have an opinion that is backed up with lots of data and research. But you’re right, that data and research is “absurd”, because you (and indirectly the NFL) believe sacks shouldn’t be there.
I’m done arguing until you come back with data. We’ve shown our side. We’re (still) waiting something more than your belief that the NFL is the end-all be-all on statistical analysis.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've shown me
nothing compelling. You’ve shown me some stat geeks who attempt to reinvent the wheel. They are not authoritative. They are just stat geeks.
Even your stat geeks say “Relying on stats to tell the story in the NFL, of course, is a dangerous proposition. Compared to baseball, football is extremely difficult to quantify.”.
But hey, I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
3 sites, all with data backing up their claims
Maybe you should read those 3 sites a little more, understand their argument, and then come with statistical reasons why they are wrong.
What exactly would be compelling for you then?
I know, the NFL must deem it so, because they can’t possibly be wrong, and others who have done lots more research than anyone who works for the NFL can’t possibly be right, because they aren’t the NFL.
by mgrex03 on Jul 16, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even Stuart says,
“Third, we could choose to include sacks allowed and sack yards lost data into our system. I didn’t have this data last time around, and while it’s controversial, I think it should be used.”
It’s CONTROVERSIAL. Ya think?
Just a few stat geeks trying to add a new wrinkle and willing to be wrong to push the envelope.
I’ve looked through these links provided and I’m not seeing the “research” you claim proves this point. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point me to it more clearly.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 16, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's some logic.
ANY/A cannot possibly be used as a “Passer Rating” because the sack component of the equation excludes it from possibly being that. This is because in the case of a sack, a pass never occurs.
If you want to call ANY/A a “QB Rating” you must include running which certainly can be a big part of what a QB does to help his team.
Then there remains to be resolved the argument we have been engrossed in as to whether sacks are more to be blamed on the QB or his protection.
Based on these facts, ANY/A really has no definition.
"Tonight, a dynasty is born" - Ricky Proehl
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Caligula
by BabeParilli on Jul 17, 2009 8:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Stampede Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
