The NFL's Most Meaningful Stat
-
@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