The NFL's Most Meaningful Stat
-
You did read my post right?????
Campbell was 17-23 for 145 yds, 1 td to register a 104.4 rating last week.
Sanchez was 12-24 for 172 yards and 1 td to register an 87.5 rating.
So with Sanchez's one more pass (24 to Campbell's 23) Sanchez gained 27 yards. Campbell's yards per attempt equaled only 6.3 yards Meaning if he had one more pass what campbell would have done with it is throw a 6 yard pass to bring his total up to 151 yards. STILL 20 YARDS SHY OF SANCHEZ. Both QBs threw one TD and no picks. But because Campbell completed almost 74% (17-23) of his passes as opposed to Sanchez's 50% (12-24), the passer rating gods awarded him with with a passer rating almost 20 POINTS HIGHER THAN SANCHEZ'S.
In case this is too much to follow, the simple breakdown is that Sanchez averaged 7.2 yards per attempt on Monday Night Campbell averaged 6.3 yards per attempt. With only one throw dividing them, they both threw for a single TD and no picks. Yet Campbell registered a passer rating that was nearly 20 points higher than Sanchez.
So please rethink the logic of your statement that passer rating "doesn't favor completion percentages, if favors attempts and what is done with them". Sanchez got 27 more yards with his one extra attempt and the passer rating did him no favor!
I read it. Did you read mine?
How does a stat that supposedly favors completion percentage, as you stated, when by throwing an INC pass your rating goes up?
Yes, completions are a factor as is the percentage (obviously since comp factor in). But it is only one in 4 factors. Look at your stat lines, they are almost identical (20 yards is not that much in the scheme of the formula), except the # of completions. Thus Cambell gets the bump up on the QBR over Sanchez. It's only favoring completion percentage when you try to put identical numbers up with COMP being the only variable.
Look at this one from last week:
P. Manning 36/44 309 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT 109QBR
E. Manning 8/10 173 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INT 158.3 QBR
Both guys completed 80%, but Eli's QBR is almost 50 points higher. So how is that favoring completion %?
It remains about attempts and what is done with them. Hence why ATT factors into all 4 factors in QBR, and COMP is only in 1.
Masters said:
Look at this one from last week:P. Manning 36/44 309 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT 109QBR
E. Manning 8/10 173 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INT 158.3 QBR
Break this down.
First, you CANT TELL ANYTHING as to how completion percentage disproportionately skews the Passer Rating where both QB have the same completion percentage. Because both completed 80% of their passes, Peyton and Eli get the same score for "C" and it can totally be taken out of the equation. They both get the maximum 2.375 for that one of the four "equally weighted" factors
With that out of the equation, Eli's numbers all are better following the formula. He has 17 yards per attempt to Peyton's 7. Eli has a TD for every 5 throws as compared to Petyon's one TD for every 14 throws and Peyton's one pick means that, unlike Eli, he does not get the full 2.375 points that any QB gets under "I" when he does not throw a pick (regardless of passes thrown*).
[EDITED: The formula actually does have a quirk in it as you suggest that when completion percentage dips below a certain point you can actually improve by throwing incomplete passes. That's because you reach a point where you get no points for "C" and are not penalized for going lower. For instance, when Anderson was 2/12 he was completing 17% of his passes. Under the formula for "C" anything under 30% completion percentage earns you 0 points out of the possible 2.375. But the same throws are reducing the interceptions PER Attempt. When Anderson had 12 throws and 1 pick, he was getting only .292 points for the "I" portion of the formula. When he got up to 17 throws and the same 1 pick, he was now entitled to .9 points under the "I" portion of the formula. So he was increasing his passer rating with incomplete passes, but only because he couldn't go lower than 0 with respect to "C" and you hit 0 at 30% completion percentage.
I guess the theory is "at least it wasn't an interception". Another smaller flaw in the passer rating formula.]
* A QB that throws three passes for two yards without a pick gets the same number of points for the "I" portion of the passer rating formula as a guy who throws 50 passes for 500 yards without a pick? -- 2.375.
Just think through it.
-
@shepwrite said:
I think somebody's struggling with the notion of statistical significance.It's real, guys, and part of the reason the cliche is so true: It's a quarterback league. When they line up all the playoff teams, the vast majority of those 12 quarterbacks will be at the top of the passer rating, year after year. Sometimes it's freakish, other times it's just really obvious. We've covered it here a lot.
Chicken or Egg.
Are the teams good because the QBs good, or are the QBs good because they're surrounded by a good team?
The reality is it's probably a little bit of both.... but realistically Shep, how good do you think the Browns would be this year, and how good would those 4 QBs be doing, if they were the Browns QB right now rather than BQ or DA?
-
Great thread, guys.
One thing to throw in here that's being overlooked in the mathematical sorcery and the attempts vs. completions debate:
It very well could be that the formula works so well because it takes into account the very things you are arguing about.
It rewards BOTH completions and attempts and though I can see Lum and Chip's point about it being skewed towards completions, I'm not sure that I can buy the argument that's a bad thing.
It is called passer rating, after all, as in, "one who throws the ball".
Is it unreasonable to reward passers whose passes ACTUALLY COUNT, i.e., are completed? We do want the passes to be caught, right?
Seems to me that high completion % for a QB is the same as a high first-pitch strike % for a pitcher: neither GUARANTEES success (lots of other variables impact the end result in both cases) but both are highly correlated with success and in both cases you'd much rather have a high degree of success in that area than take your chances with the alternative (low completion/low strike rate).
-
definitely Shepwrite, no big or small stats can win a ball game, its the end scores that matters most
-
definitely Shepwrite, no big or small stats can win a ball game, its the end scores that matters most
definitely Shepwrite, no big or small stats can win a ball game, its the end scores that matters most
I disagree to an extent...
If your QB goes 2/17 with a pick and 22 yards, they did absolutely nothing to help you win the game.
Yes, the W was the outcome, but that player did nothing to warrant that outcome.
We could have won by MORE if we had a different QB in, a QB who wouldve done better than 2/17 with 1 int and 22yds
-
definitely Shepwrite, no big or small stats can win a ball game, its the end scores that matters most
I disagree to an extent...
If your QB goes 2/17 with a pick and 22 yards, they did absolutely nothing to help you win the game.
Yes, the W was the outcome, but that player did nothing to warrant that outcome.
We could have won by MORE if we had a different QB in, a QB who wouldve done better than 2/17 with 1 int and 22yds
I disagree to an extent...
If your QB goes 2/17 with a pick and 22 yards, they did absolutely nothing to help you win the game.
Yes, the W was the outcome, but that player did nothing to warrant that outcome.
We could have won by MORE if we had a different QB in, a QB who wouldve done better than 2/17 with 1 int and 22yds
It was 23 yards, dont dis DA man.
-
definitely Shepwrite, no big or small stats can win a ball game, its the end scores that matters most
I disagree to an extent...
If your QB goes 2/17 with a pick and 22 yards, they did absolutely nothing to help you win the game.
Yes, the W was the outcome, but that player did nothing to warrant that outcome.
We could have won by MORE if we had a different QB in, a QB who wouldve done better than 2/17 with 1 int and 22yds
I disagree to an extent...
If your QB goes 2/17 with a pick and 22 yards, they did absolutely nothing to help you win the game.
Yes, the W was the outcome, but that player did nothing to warrant that outcome.
We could have won by MORE if we had a different QB in, a QB who wouldve done better than 2/17 with 1 int and 22yds
well, they didn't lose the game. They didn't throw 15 pick-6'es.
A win is a win, the margin of victory has no meaning, this isn't NCAA.
-
Zombo said:
If you look at CHAMPIONSHIP football teams, team defensive ranking is a much more indicitive statistic for success than the starting QB's passer rating. There is an occasional exception like the year the Colts won with Manning, their defense did not rank well that year ... but do note that their Dungy Defense played lights out in the post season that year, and that is the only time Manning's offense won a championship.Do you want your QB to have a good passer rating? Sure. It means he's accurate, he not throwing a lot of interceptions and the team is moving the ball and scoring.
Passer rating is a nice indicator of passing success ... over the course of the season.
I hate when it is used game-by-game.
Coaches are not that concerned with passer ratings, they look at production. First downs, touchdowns, moving the chains, not turning it over. A lot of that is built into passer ratings, but I guarantee you that coaches don't say "oh, Soandso had a 56.5 rating last week, I'm concerned" .. no, they look at the film, break down the turnovers, look at the production. An 80 yard drive that ends with a one-yard run is as productive as an 80 yard drive that ends with a 1-yard pass to a wide open tight-end ... but one pumps up the rating and one doesn't. And a three and out with two short completions and a punt is just as unproductive as a third down deep pass that goes off the receiver's hands and is intercepted ... but one is healthy for passer ratings and one is not.
It is a nice indicator of passing success over a large sample of games. That's all.
Zombo
Good point, here's a stat: the QB with the most passing yards has never won the super bowl that same year, I think.
-
The passer rating is not something to ignore. Its a statistic so by definition sample size matters. Hence, Chip's analysis. A sample size of 25 or 30 attempts is too small. Find a QB who goes the course of a season and completes 45% of his passes for 4,500 yards, 35 TD's and 10 INT's and you'll have a nice anomoly. Point is, it usually doesn't happen. I believe its because there are only so many big plays that can be completed and that to round it out you MUST complete a high level of passes to keep the chains moving, open up big plays, etc.
So, I agree with Z that coaches don't look at the passer rating as the primary indicator of success. However, as Z stated, the things they do look at are heavily factored into the rating: decision making (INT's and completion %), first downs (completion %, total yards), TD's, etc.
Net net, if you finish a year with a below average passer rating, most coaches would look at that QB's body of work on film as subpar. They are closely related.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login