Quincy Carter, David Carr, & Jeff Garcia get a boost?
observer
pays for that, we'd appreciate some info on what's
in that article, as its teaser gives an indication that
some quarterbacks with ... wait a minute, Jeff Garcia
already has great passer ratings, so that's even more
of a case for him -if- a change makes his passer
ratings go up (assuming the change is reasonable).
As for David Carr and Quincy, they could certainly
benefit from a change that would improve their low
ratings thus far in their careers ...
From ESPN's main NFL page:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/index
"In search of a more complete QB rating -- The NFL's
passer rating formula gets a makeover, and Jeff Garcia,
David Carr and Quincy Carter benefit. ..."
(the following requires ESPN Insider subscription)
http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/story?id=1742783
---
x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
Henry Myers
NFL Insider
Tuesday, February 24
Updated: February 25
11:25 AM ET
Quarterback is easily the most difficult position in football, perhaps in
all of sports. No other position requires a combination of intelligence,
strength, durability and quick reactions.
In 1973, the NFL devised a formula to calculate how well its quarterbacks
were playing. The result, called the NFL passer rating, was so complex that
figuring out how to calculate it might be harder than actually playing
quarterback. The formula balances four different statistics to produce a
passer rating:
a.. Completion percentage
b.. Passing yards per attempt
c.. Touchdown percentage
d.. Interception percentage
But the formula was designed using league statistics from 1960 through 1972,
and needless to say, the game has changed since then. Teams pass more often
these days, and they use more high-percentage, short passes than high-risk,
long passes. Rules also have been changed to make it easier to pass, thus
opening up the game and increasing offense.
But the formula is weighted heavily in favor of the offensive trends of the
day, with teams more inclined to run the ball, but tending to throw deep
when they did throw. Thus the number of passing yards per attempt and the
percentage of passes that produce touchdowns were actually higher in the
early '70s. But it was harder to complete those long passes and easier to
throw interceptions.
When it was introduced, the passer rating formula produced an "average"
passer rating of 66.7. Because of the current emphasis on shorter and more
controlled passing, passer ratings now average out almost 14 points higher.
But modern offenses really cry out for more modern evaluation tools. What
follows is an attempt to produce just that - a more complete passer rating.
Sacks
The passer rating formula was created before the sack became an official NFL
statistic, thus it wasn't included, and a sack is not considered a pass
attempt on the QB's stat sheet. If a quarterback throws the ball away to
avoid a sack, he protects field position and down-and-distance, but his
completion percentage, yards per attempt and touchdown percentage all take a
hit. Moreover, his passer rating suffers. But if he takes the sack, hurting
his team's chances of making a first down and maintaining possession, he can
protect his passer rating.
With the passer rating stat often used to mark incentive thresholds in
contracts, shouldn't the sack, which has become an integral piece of the
passing game, be included in the formula? A quarterback shouldn't have
incentive to take a sack. The situation can be easily rectified simply by
classifying a sack as a pass attempt and subtracting the sack yards from the
gross passing yards.
Of all quarterbacks with at least 224 pass attempts, Detroit's Joey
Harrington was the least-sacked QB for the second season in a row. He went
down just 9 times in 2003, or once every 62.6 times he dropped back to pass
(the league average is once every 16.1). Harrington also was flagged twice
for intentional grounding while trying to avoid a sack. Adding both of these
stats into the passer rating formula would lower Harrington's QB rating just
1.8 points.
At the other end of the spectrum is Buffalo's Drew Bledsoe, who was sacked
once every 10.6 pass attempts. His 49 sacks for 371 yards lost would lower
his QB rating a whopping 9.7 points.
Factoring in Sacks
Player Team Sacks +
Off. Penalties Yds Lost Att/
Sack NFL
Rating Adj.
Rating Diff.
Top 5
Joey Harrington DET 11 75 51.4 63.9 62.1 -1.8
Brad Johnson TB 20 111 29.5 81.5 78.1 -3.5
Peyton Manning IND 20 123 29.3 99.0 94.8 -4.2
Trent Green KC 20 130 27.2 92.6 88.2 -4.3
Brett Favre GB 20 142 24.6 90.4 85.6 -4.8
Bottom 5
Patrick Ramsey WAS 30 206 12.2 75.8 67.5 -8.4
Daunte Culpepper MIN 41 226 12.1 96.4 86.7 -9.7
Donovan McNabb PHI 46 280 11.4 79.6 70.6 -9.0
Kordell Stewart CHI 26 156 10.7 56.8 49.3 -7.5
Drew Bledsoe BUF 49 371 10.6 73.0 63.4 -9.7
Certainly sacks aren't entirely the fault of the quarterback, but a
statistic designed to measure a QB's efficiency should reward those who
avoid sacks and penalize those who don't. Some quarterbacks, like Bledsoe,
have shown throughout their career the propensity to hold onto the ball too
long. Bledsoe's attempts per sack have been near the bottom of the league
every season.
Running Quarterbacks
In addition to not penalizing a QB for taking sacks, the passer rating
formula also ignores positive yards a quarterback gains with his feet.
Designed to measure how well a quarterback passes the ball, the formula
doesn't account for mobile quarterbacks who can escape the pocket and pick
up yards on their own. If we change the NFL's formula to include sacks, why
not also include QB running plays?
To avoid rewriting the formula entirely, we should try to keep it as close
to the original formula as possible: A rush attempt could be included as a
pass completion. Rushing touchdowns could be added to passing touchdowns,
and fumbles lost could be counted along with interceptions.
Running Quarterbacks
Player Team Rush
Att Rush
Yds Fumbles
Lost NFL
Rating Adj.
Rating Diff.
Top 5
Kordell Stewart CHI 59 290 3 56.8 65.4 +8.5
Jeff Garcia SF 56 319 3 80.1 86.2 +6.0
David Carr HST 27 151 0 69.5 74.9 +5.4
Josh McCown ARZ 28 158 2 70.3 73.3 +3.0
Donovan McNabb PHI 71 355 3 79.6 82.6 +3.0
Bottom 5
Jake Delhomme CAR 42 39 6 80.6 76.9 -3.7
Patrick Ramsey WAS 15 62 5 75.8 72.0 -3.8
Kyle Boller BLT 30 62 5 62.4 57.9 -4.5
Aaron Brooks NO 54 175 11 88.8 82.9 -5.9
Drew Bledsoe BUF 24 29 10 73.0 66.8 -6.2
Daunte Culpepper led the league in rushing yards by a quarterback with 422,
yet he also lost six fumbles, canceling out his hard-won statistical gains.
There were several quarterbacks who saw their rating drop after we added
rushing stats. These were the traditional pocket passers who need a great
offensive line to protect them. Aaron Brooks, who gained 175 rushing yards
but led the league with 11 lost fumbles, is the exception -- a mobile QB who
actually lost rating points when his rushing stats were included.
Penalties
Regaining Lost Yards
Player Tm Penalties Yards
Donovan McNabb PHI 27 288
Matt Hasselbeck SEA 16 151
Kerry Collins NYG 15 149
Tommy Maddox PIT 15 134
Marc Bulger STL 15 113
Jeff Blake ARZ 14 139
Aaron Brooks NO 13 218
Jon Kitna CIN 13 139
Byron Leftwich JAX 12 189
Peyton Manning IND 12 126
Another play that can make a huge impact on a game but doesn't show up in
individual stats is the pass-interference penalty. In fact, penalties aren't
considered "plays" at all. While most penalties come in 5-, 10-, and 15-yard
increments, pass interference advances the ball to the spot of the
infraction on the assumption that if there hadn't been interference, the
receiver would have caught the ball. So the quarterback makes a good throw
and the receiver beats his defender, but neither the QB nor the receiver get
credit for the play in their individual statistics.
As an example, consider Kyle Boller's debut performance in Week 1 against
the Steelers. He completed 22 of 43 passes for 152 yards, with one TD and
one INT, for a less-than-stellar 57.5 passer rating. Not included in those
stats, though, are three pass interference penalties and one defensive
holding penalty totaling 100 additional yards gained. If those four
non-plays were added to Boller's stat sheet, his yards-per-attempt would
have increased 1.6 yards and his passer rating by 11.3 points.
Defensive pass interference, defensive holding and other such penalties only
occur a couple of times per game, so including them in our formula only
adjusts the overall ratings by a couple points. But still, a couple of
points here and there can make a big difference in evaluating QBs.
The Complete Quarterback Rating
The end result of our tinkering with the passer rating formula takes into
account everything a QB does on the field to help (or hinder) his team.
Here's what we have done to the formula:
e.. Pass attempts: This becomes "total plays," which consists of pass
attempts, sacks, runs and penalties.
f.. Completions: This becomes "positive plays," which consists of pass
completions, rushes and penalties.
g.. Passing yards: This becomes "total yards," which consists of passing
yards, rushing yards, net penalty yards and sack yards lost.
h.. TD pct.: This becomes "total touchdown pct.," which adds passing TDs and
rushing TDs, then divides by total plays.
i.. INT pct.: This becomes "turnover pct.," which adds interceptions and
fumbles lost, then divides by total plays.
Stats Comparison: Passer Rating vs. Adjusted Rating
Official Passer Rating Stats (Average for top 36 qualifiers)
Pass Att. Pass Com. Comp.% Pass Yards Yds / Att Pass TD INT QB Rating
393.4 233.6 58.7% 2648 6.66 15.9 12.7 78.0
Adjusted QB Rating Stats (Average for top 36 qualifiers)
Total Plays Gains Gain % Total Yds Yds/Play Total TDs Total TOs Adj.
Rating
461.3 275.1 59.1% 2700 5.76 17.4 16.1 72.7
The adjusted stats increase significantly the total number of plays upon
which a QB's performance is measured. There are modest increases in yards
gained, percentage of plays with gains, and total touchdowns over the
corresponding stats from the traditional passer rating. And there are large
decreases in yards per play and total touchdowns when runs, sacks and
fumbles are incorporated. Because of that, the average adjusted rating is
72.7, more than 4 points lower than the average NFL passer rating but still
higher than the 66.7 rating the formula originally was intended to produce
back.
The table below shows the final results. The adjusted QB rating measures how
efficient a quarterback is on the field on every play where he is the
primary ball handler. The winner? This season it was Peyton Manning,
statistically the best all-around quarterback for the first time. He led all
QBs in percentage of plays with a positive result and in total yards gained
and was second in total touchdowns.
Jeff Garcia of the 49ers led the league in this stat both in 2000 and 2001
and once again benefits from this calculation over his traditional NFL
passer rating. Garcia has strong running ability, scoring seven rushing TDs
last season, and he rarely fumbles or takes sacked, thus helping his team
avoid negative plays.
This year, the top three quarterbacks on the NFL's list are the same here,
but after that there are some major changes. Running QBs went way up across
the board, while those who did not (or could not) avoid the pass rush saw
the biggest losses. Other big movers up the board were David Carr of the
Texans, who ranked 30th in the NFL's passer rating but was 13 spots higher
in our overall QB rating, and Quincy Carter of the Cowboys, who moved up
eight spots.
Traditionally, rookies rank at the very bottom of these ratings, and the
Ravens' Kyle Boller once again shows how difficult the adjustment to the NFL
is by finishing with a 55.3 adjusted rating, 16 points below the league
average. Other inexperienced QBs like Drew Brees, Anthony Wright, Josh
McCown and Doug Johnson finished near the bottom, which only serves to
highlight how impressive Byron Leftwich's rookie season was. Not only did
Leftwich lead Jacksonville to victories in three of their last five games,
but he also ranked 20th in the adjusted ratings, the highest for a rookie in
the five years I've been calculating this statistic.
The top 38 quarterbacks ranked by pass attempts were measured.
Adjusted QB Rating
Quarterback Tm Plays Gains Gain % Yards Yds/Play TDs TOs Rating Rank
Peyton Manning IND 626 419 66.9% 4296 6.86 29 11 94.6 2
Steve McNair TEN 466 296 63.5% 3322 7.13 28 13 93.1 1
Trent Green KC 580 369 63.3% 4089 7.05 26 13 89.8 4
Jake Plummer DEN 365 236 64.7% 2379 6.52 18 9 89.3 5
Daunte Culpepper MIN 574 374 65.2% 3737 6.51 29 17 88.0 3
Brett Favre GB 519 336 64.7% 3358 6.47 32 23 85.1 6
Matt Hasselbeck SEA 609 365 59.9% 3856 6.33 28 16 82.8 8
Jeff Garcia SF 479 290 60.5% 3002 6.27 25 16 82.1 15
Jon Kitna CIN 609 375 61.6% 3580 5.88 26 19 79.1 9
Aaron Brooks NO 621 373 60.1% 3719 5.99 26 19 78.3 7
Brad Johnson TB 624 388 62.2% 3805 6.10 26 23 77.8 12
Tom Brady NE 616 371 60.2% 3535 5.74 24 17 77.7 10
Donovan McNabb PHI 622 373 60.0% 3579 5.75 19 14 76.8 16
Chad Pennington NYJ 349 216 61.9% 2086 5.98 15 14 76.2 11
Marc Bulger STL 613 380 62.0% 3745 6.11 26 28 74.3 13
Jake Delhomme CAR 524 318 60.7% 3219 6.14 20 22 73.5 14
David Carr HST 346 202 58.4% 2107 6.09 11 13 71.1 30
Quincy Carter DAL 619 369 59.6% 3498 5.65 19 24 69.4 26
Jay Fiedler MIA 374 220 58.8% 2196 5.87 14 17 69.1 24
Byron Leftwich JAX 475 276 58.1% 3013 6.34 16 22 68.9 22
Tim Couch CLV 240 138 57.5% 1333 5.55 8 9 68.6 17
Tommy Maddox PIT 588 326 55.4% 3318 5.64 18 19 68.5 19
Rich Gannon OAK 256 136 53.1% 1254 4.90 6 4 68.1 21
Kelly Holcomb CLV 342 209 61.1% 1754 5.13 10 14 67.1 20
Jeff Blake ARZ 433 252 58.2% 2395 5.53 15 19 66.9 29
Patrick Ramsey WAS 387 199 51.4% 2104 5.44 15 14 65.4 18
Joey Harrington DET 607 351 57.8% 2978 4.91 17 22 64.9 34
Kerry Collins NYG 561 316 56.3% 3132 5.58 13 21 64.4 27
Doug Johnson ATL 280 153 54.6% 1606 5.74 9 12 64.4 31
Josh McCown ARZ 224 128 57.1% 1064 4.75 6 8 63.5 28
Anthony Wright BLT 228 124 54.4% 1194 5.24 9 11 62.3 25
Drew Brees SD 405 233 57.5% 2083 5.14 11 18 62.0 32
Drew Bledsoe BUF 553 307 55.5% 2674 4.84 13 22 59.8 23
Kordell Stewart CHI 341 190 55.7% 1596 4.68 10 15 59.5 36
Rick Mirer OAK 270 142 52.6% 1251 4.63 4 7 59.4 33
Kyle Boller BLT 283 156 55.1% 1333 4.71 7 14 55.3 35
Average 461.3 275.1 59.1% 2700 5.76 17.4 16.1 72.7
Key:
j.. Plays = Pass attempts + Sacks + Rush attempts - Dropped passes
k.. Gains = Pass completions + # Rushes
l.. Gain % = # Gains / # Plays
m.. Yds/Play = (Passing yards - sack yards + rushing yards) / # Plays
n.. TDs = Passing touchdowns + Rushing touchdowns
o.. TOs = Interceptions + Fumbles Lost
p.. Rank = League rank using traditional NFL passer rating
As teams set about their search for the next Jake Delhomme or Kurt Warner,
an obscure QB who can play efficient football and lead a team to the
playoffs, here's a look at some other noteworthy QBs who didn't meet the
minimum requirements to qualify for the above list but posted impressive
numbers in the limited action they did see.
Adjusted QB Rating - Significant Non-Qualifiers
Quarterback Tm Plays Gains Gain % Yards Yds/Play TDs TOs Rating
Billy Volek TEN 86 55 64.0% 504 5.86 5 2 89.5
Tim Rattay SF 134 82 61.2% 807 6.02 7 2 89.4
Mark Brunell JAX 100 63 63.0% 460 4.60 3 0 83.8
Doug Flutie SD 213 129 60.6% 1301 6.11 11 9 77.6
Michael Vick ATL 153 93 60.8% 775 5.07 5 4 73.8
Rex Grossman CHI 841 43 53.1% 429 5.30 2 1 71.5
Chris Chandler CHI 223 124 55.6% 1045 4.69 3 7 59.4
Tim Hasselbeck WAS 207 113 54.6% 1019 4.92 5 9 58.0
Danny Kanell DEN 116 64 55.2% 445 3.84 2 5 51.8
Brian Griese MIA 150 81 54.0% 753 5.02 5 10 51.3
Jesse Palmer NYG 137 65 47.4% 481 3.51 3 5 48.3
Kurt Warner STL 72 39 54.2% 327 4.54 1 4 47.6
Kurt Kittner ATL 132 57 43.2% 426 3.23 2 6 37.6
Mike McMahon DET 41 17 41.5% 140 3.41 0 3 20.4
Chris Redman BLT 21 9 42.9% 17 0.81 0 4 10.7
"Spike" <dealw...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:96c4401rjitkfmls1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:01:41 -0600, "observer" <obse...@observer.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The following is present at ESPN Insider. If anyone
> >pays for that, we'd appreciate some info on what's
> >in that article, as its teaser gives an indication that
> >some quarterbacks with ... wait a minute, Jeff Garcia
> >already has great passer ratings, so that's even more
> >of a case for him -if- a change makes his passer
> >ratings go up (assuming the change is reasonable).
> >
> >As for David Carr and Quincy, they could certainly
> >benefit from a change that would improve their low
> >ratings thus far in their careers ...
> >
> >From ESPN's main NFL page:
> > http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/index
> >
> >"In search of a more complete QB rating -- The NFL's
> >passer rating formula gets a makeover, and Jeff Garcia,
> >David Carr and Quincy Carter benefit. ..."
> >
> >(the following requires ESPN Insider subscription)
> > http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/story?id=1742783
>
> Still doesn't give Garcia and Carr winning records though.
>
observer
formula, rethinks additional factors, and comes up with an
even more complicated passer formula, mixing non-passing
data with passing data for a different rating, not really a passer
rating, but instead, a passer-runner-sack-penalty-fumble rating.
Even though the article is written in a very "rah-rah, isn't this
much better" way, when you think about what is proposed, it
doesn't really come across as strong as the writer is trying
to make it seem.
It does mention some aspects of passer rating touched on
in this newsgroup for the past few months, such as the fact
the average passer rating has gone up over the years.
It overly penalizes quarterbacks for sacks, counting those
against a quarterback as if it's a pass attempt. It disregards
the fact that potent passing attacks have outlet receivers
-and- the more accurate passers can avoid sacks and make
completions (not always, but much of the time) with accurate
reading of blitzes, passing accuracy, and well-designed of-
fensive schemes. Throwaways are quite often results of
deficiencies in the offensive scheme, the offensive adjust-
ments, the quarterback's inability to accurately throw the ball,
and the quarterback's shortcomings in reading blitzes.
Counting a quarterback being sacked by a yard or more as
a pass attempt and counting quarterbacks running it in as
passing TDs is very contentious, heavily favoring running
QBs over pocket passers. A quarterback running it gets
credit, in the running stats, not the passing stats, and that
is as it should be. A running quarterback should benefit in
the passing stats simply by posing a running threat. Some
do, some don't. That's a matter more of passing accuracy
than anything else, and if a running quarterback is still a
lousy passer, he shouldn't gain passing credit for his run-
ning. It's simply confusing the issue. It would be like adding
passing yardage to running back stats for the few times a
runner throws the ball, or adding rushing yardage to a wide
receiver's receiving yardage stats for the few times a wide
receiver runs the ball.
It's mixing apples and oranges.
Counting pass interference and defensive holding as pass
completions, also very contentious, especially since a signifi-
cant number of pass interference calls are disputed (it's one
of the most disputed calls there is). In addition, many feel
it shouldn't be a 'spot' foul, but instead, should be a 10 or
15 yard penalty. Defensive holding counting as a completion
is highly suspicious being that there's no way one can know
if a pass would've been made and completed.
Fact of the business is, the writer is adding much more com-
plexity, and doing little but mixing run & pass & penalty & fum-
bling stats (for QBs) and penalizing pocket passers (counter
to the way in which pocket passers are the most successful
quarterbacks in the league). I suspect the writer's bias is to
favor running QBs, and to attempt to achieve that, he's trying
to throw running type information into the passer rating. I sup-
pose, next he'll want to start adjusting runner yards based on
defensive penalties that, had they not occurred, the runner
would've made much more yardage.
Oh, and what about nit-picky penalties that are major game
changers, like a movement penalty on a wide receiver apart
from the play, yet changing a 44 yard TD to a 5-yard loss, -or-
an incidental penalty like a defensive lineman lining up an inch
over the line marker, being called for offsides, and costing his
team an interception, and so on and so forth.
Perhaps the writer would want to add interceptions-that-should've
been (had the interceptor not dropped the ball, or had a penalty
not been called) -or- receptions-that-should've-been (had the
receiver not dropped the ball). I then, there's accuracy, perhaps
the writer would like to judge how well the quarterbacks hit he
receivers in stride. How about missed open receivers, the de-
gree to which quarterbacks miss open receivers, perhaps that
factor should be involved, if accuracy is the goal, regardless of
complexity, here.
- - -
Plain and simple, if you want to see quarterback running stats,
simply go to a good stats page, list the quarterbacks, and voila,
there you have it. Sacks? Same deal, they're listed on good
stats pages, though what's not listed are the whys and where-
fores.
One clear factor in passer ratings not touched on by the writer,
quality of competition. That, more than any other factor I've
run across, can have a significant impact on passer ratings,
and in a wise upgrade to passer ratings, that factor would have
to be the primary one added, so that a passer with a rating of
70 against tough competition was bumped up, and a passer
with a rating of 70 against weak competition was bumped down.
However, assigning level of competition would be very subjec-
tive and contentious, unless a simple formula (like end of year
strength of schedule -or- end of year passer defense ratings)
was arrived at.
And, speaking of complexity, what about the running game?
Many say that directly impacts a passer's performance, yet
that isn't included in the writer's list of "adjustments".
All-in-all, as mentioned previously in a detailed discussion of
this topic, very disputatious, any effort to change the passer
rating, and nowhere near as straight-forward as the writer
tried (in vain, in my opinion) to make it appear to be.
- - -
"Henry Myers" <hmy...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:o7r0c.19697$UU.14156@lakeread01...
> [see original article for details]
Rob Berryhill
news:40425...@Output.100ProofNews.com...
> Thanks for posting that. It takes a complicated passer rating
> formula, rethinks additional factors, and comes up with an
> even more complicated passer formula, mixing non-passing
> data with passing data for a different rating, not really a passer
> rating, but instead, a passer-runner-sack-penalty-fumble rating.
>
> Even though the article is written in a very "rah-rah, isn't this
> much better" way, when you think about what is proposed, it
> doesn't really come across as strong as the writer is trying
> to make it seem.
Are you crazy? The new rating ranked the QBs a LOT closer to the reality of
how they played this last year than the "normal" QBR. This rating should be
the one they use in the future.
--
---------
Rob Berryhill
Barry Wong
> Fact of the business is, the writer is adding much more com-
> plexity, and doing little but mixing run & pass & penalty & fum-
> bling stats (for QBs) and penalizing pocket passers (counter
> to the way in which pocket passers are the most successful
> quarterbacks in the league). I suspect the writer's bias is to
> favor running QBs, and to attempt to achieve that, he's trying
> to throw running type information into the passer rating. I sup-
> pose, next he'll want to start adjusting runner yards based on
> defensive penalties that, had they not occurred, the runner
> would've made much more yardage.
C'mon, Observer. He's just quoting hard statistics and giving a
reasonable interpretation to them. On what basis do you suspect a bias
on his part? What makes his use of statistics any more biased than the
current QB rating system?
So much for the idea that using statistics are intrinsically
'objective...'
JustForFun
wrote:
>Thanks for posting that. It takes a complicated passer rating
>formula, rethinks additional factors, and comes up with an
>even more complicated passer formula, mixing non-passing
>data with passing data for a different rating, not really a passer
>rating, but instead, a passer-runner-sack-penalty-fumble rating.
It's a Quarterback rating, rather than a passer rating. Much more
encompasing, being as how a QB does much more than just pass.
>Even though the article is written in a very "rah-rah, isn't this
>much better" way, when you think about what is proposed, it
>doesn't really come across as strong as the writer is trying
>to make it seem.
>
>It does mention some aspects of passer rating touched on
>in this newsgroup for the past few months, such as the fact
>the average passer rating has gone up over the years.
>
>It overly penalizes quarterbacks for sacks, counting those
>against a quarterback as if it's a pass attempt. It disregards
>the fact that potent passing attacks have outlet receivers
>-and- the more accurate passers can avoid sacks and make
>completions (not always, but much of the time) with accurate
>reading of blitzes, passing accuracy, and well-designed of-
>fensive schemes. Throwaways are quite often results of
>deficiencies in the offensive scheme, the offensive adjust-
>ments, the quarterback's inability to accurately throw the ball,
>and the quarterback's shortcomings in reading blitzes.
>
>Counting a quarterback being sacked by a yard or more as
>a pass attempt and counting quarterbacks running it in as
>passing TDs is very contentious,
It wouldn't be called passing attempt or passing TD. It would be total
plays and total TD's.
>heavily favoring running
>QBs over pocket passers.
Nonsense. One of the least sacked QB's in history was ALSO one of the
least mobile...or haven't you heard of Dan Marino? The point was, and
is, that taking a sack is better for the current QBR than throwing the
ball away...even though the latter is MUCH better than the former for
the team.
> A quarterback running it gets
>credit, in the running stats, not the passing stats, and that
>is as it should be.
Not if you are going to insist on using QBR as a measure of a QB's
worth to his team it isn't.
> A running quarterback should benefit in
>the passing stats simply by posing a running threat. Some
>do, some don't. That's a matter more of passing accuracy
>than anything else, and if a running quarterback is still a
>lousy passer, he shouldn't gain passing credit for his run-
>ning.
You are taking this way too far. He SHOULD get credit for whatever
positive (or negative) yards HE is responsible for in a true QBR. What
is needed for a semi-fair comparison is a comprehensive QUARTERBACK
rating system. Not just a passer rating. Currently the QBR DOES only
take into account passing, therefore it is NOT good for rating a
quarterbacks overall performance.
>It's simply confusing the issue. It would be like adding
>passing yardage to running back stats for the few times a
>runner throws the ball, or adding rushing yardage to a wide
>receiver's receiving yardage stats for the few times a wide
>receiver runs the ball.
The author didn't do a good job of explaining their position. They are
looking for total yards, not literally calling rushing yards passing
yards and not literally calling a rushing TD a passing TD.
>It's mixing apples and oranges.
No it isn't. It's giving the QB credit for EVERYTHING they do. Not
JUST when they put the ball in the air.
>Counting pass interference and defensive holding as pass
>completions, also very contentious, especially since a signifi-
>cant number of pass interference calls are disputed (it's one
>of the most disputed calls there is).
Huh? What are you talking about? You CAN'T dispute a PI call as it's a
judgement call.
>In addition, many feel
>it shouldn't be a 'spot' foul, but instead, should be a 10 or
>15 yard penalty.
What moron thinks that? If THAT was the case, every time a player was
downfield with a chance to catch a ball he'd get mauled. Only an idiot
would advocate changing the PI rule to a 10 or 15yd. penalty.
>Defensive holding counting as a completion
>is highly suspicious being that there's no way one can know
>if a pass would've been made and completed.
I'll agree with that.
>Fact of the business is, the writer is adding much more com-
>plexity,
Quite neccessary in such a complex position which is currently judged
in a very simplistic manner now.
>and doing little but mixing run & pass & penalty & fum-
>bling stats (for QBs) and penalizing pocket passers (counter
>to the way in which pocket passers are the most successful
>quarterbacks in the league).
How do you figure? The top 3 passer rating guys in the league would
stay in exactly the same position in either system. The current system
rewards guys who hold the ball too long and take a sack over the guys
who get rid of the ball and actually help their team.
>I suspect the writer's bias is to
>favor running QBs, and to attempt to achieve that, he's trying
>to throw running type information into the passer rating.
Great. Except a QB is much more than just a "passer". He's supposed to
be the field general, the leader, the coach on the field, etc. Passer
rating ONLY addresses what he does when he throws the ball. Nothing
else.
> I sup-
>pose, next he'll want to start adjusting runner yards based on
>defensive penalties that, had they not occurred, the runner
>would've made much more yardage.
Uh, there is no runner rating system...
>Oh, and what about nit-picky penalties that are major game
>changers, like a movement penalty on a wide receiver apart
>from the play, yet changing a 44 yard TD to a 5-yard loss, -or-
>an incidental penalty like a defensive lineman lining up an inch
>over the line marker, being called for offsides, and costing his
>team an interception, and so on and so forth.
What about 'em? Dead plays. The ONLY penalty that makes sense is the
PI gain, but I'd even agree to throw that one out, too.
>Perhaps the writer would want to add interceptions-that-should've
>been
Now you are being ridiculously silly.
IOW anything that addresses anything other than pure passing is a
waste of time, eh?
observer
news:1g9x8pv.1d5g4rx70ucxeN%g...@saved.net...
The passer rating system measures passing, not sacks,
not fumbles, not running, not penalties. He's simply trying
to present a case that adding non-passing data will yield
an accurate quarterback rating which, point-in-fact, it won't.
It would yield a confused rating adding arbitrary complex-
ity and non-passing information into the passing stats. It
would bias the ratings towards running QBs. It would
change the rating system from being about purely pas-
sing to being about passing, fumbles (not a passing
activity), running (only performed by some QBs), pen-
alty impacts (with the most controversial penalty of all,
pass interference, along with defensive holding).
As stated previously (in a response to Astaroth on
January 3, 2004, regarding passer ratings, and ideas
to change it, ideas that did not include penatly-adjust-
ments or sack-adjustments) ...
The thing is, when it comes to quarterbacks, 'QB rating'
*is* 'passer rating', presently, and changing it to 'passer/
runner/receiver/touchdown scorer' rating would beget,
I suspect, a split in QB categorizations: 'pocket QBs'
rated separately from 'scrambler/runner QBs'. At the
present time, with most 'scrambler/runner QBs' being
black, and most 'pocket passers' being white, that would
bring up divisiveness based on race, and I assure you
the NFL will *never* create split categorizations that
would promote a race-divisive approach to QB ratings.
Most in the NFL, even those with 'scrambler/runner QBs',
want their quarterbacks to be perceived as passers, with
something extra. Perhaps it's best to keep it simple, rating
all QBs based on their passing, only, on a level playing
field, and leaving the something extra as something extra,
separate from 'QB ratings'.
If you combine the two, giving 'scrambler/runner QBs' a
one-up in the rating system, that's an endorsement of
'scrambler/runner QBs' over 'pocket passers'. That's an
evaluation of a QB as a passer -and- as a scrambler/runner,
something many (most?) feel is not a valid measurement
of QB skills, for that exists on an uneven playing field, as
most QBs are *not* 'scramblers/runners'.
As stated, in another post, -if- a 'scrambling/running' QB
benefits, in passing, from his 'scrambling/running' ability,
therein resides his gain from that skill, in the QB rating.
If he does not, if he in fact is hindered or injured by
'scrambling/running', it would be erroneous to give him
bonus 'points', in QB passing evaluation, for having an
extra ability that detracts from what QBs are paid 'big
bucks' to do, and that's complete passes.
I really don't think the NFL has an interest in *encour-
aging* running QBs. Instead, I think the NFL is interested
in *encouraging* efficient passing, and therein resides
the vested interest in keeping the QB rating system the
way it is, a passing measurement, not an overall measure-
ment beyond passing.
- - -
=======================
>
> [...]
observer
> "observer" wrote ...
>
> >Thanks for posting that. It takes a complicated passer rating
> >formula, rethinks additional factors, and comes up with an
> >even more complicated passer formula, mixing non-passing
> >data with passing data for a different rating, not really a passer
> >rating, but instead, a passer-runner-sack-penalty-fumble rating.
>
> It's a Quarterback rating, rather than a passer rating. Much more
> encompasing, being as how a QB does much more than just pass.
1) Adding penalties to passer ratings is dubious
2) Sacks? Already tracked, and creditable to innumerable
factors -- already part of passer ratings to the extent
than pressures/sacks impacts the passer's efficiency
3) Running? Already tracked, rushing stats
4) Intangibles? Not tracked, by the current or proposed
systems, simply due to its highly subjective nature
Quarterback's primary tasks? Passing, inspiring, leading.
Quarterback's secondary tasks? Handing off, audibling (by
some), running (by some). Comebacks? Primary when a team
is trailing, and not part of either rating system. Wins-losses?
Something often mentioned when discussing passer ratings,
but not part of the proposed or previous rating system -- if it
is added to a "new" rating system, some subjective assess-
ment would have to be implemented whereby a quarterback's
percentage credit for a win or blame for a loss could be arrived
at.
Once you start down the trail of "perfecting" the passer rating,
or, if you prefer, quarterback rating, much more attention should
be paid to factors not mentioned in the writer's proposal, and
much less use of the arbitrary factors he chose should be imple-
mented, in my opinion, especially when dealing with the attri-
butes unique to 'running quarterbacks', as those attributes are
disputed as to their advantage/disadvantage in quarterback
effectiveness.
- - -
=========================
Barry Wong
It's no more confusing or arbitrary than the current system. You can
argue that it's not a more accurate measure of QB effectiveness, or that
there are good reasons to focus on the passing aspect of a QB's
performance, but the fact that such judgments can be debated only proves
that there is no single, objective measure of a QB's performance.
> As stated previously (in a response to Astaroth on
> January 3, 2004, regarding passer ratings, and ideas
> to change it, ideas that did not include penatly-adjust-
> ments or sack-adjustments) ...
>
> The thing is, when it comes to quarterbacks, 'QB rating'
> *is* 'passer rating', presently, and changing it to 'passer/
> runner/receiver/touchdown scorer' rating would beget,
> I suspect, a split in QB categorizations: 'pocket QBs'
> rated separately from 'scrambler/runner QBs'. At the
> present time, with most 'scrambler/runner QBs' being
> black, and most 'pocket passers' being white, that would
> bring up divisiveness based on race, and I assure you
> the NFL will *never* create split categorizations that
> would promote a race-divisive approach to QB ratings.
Like some people (in this very NG, no less) don't already divide up QBs
based on exactly these categorizations. Don't kid yourself -- such folk
don't need the QBR system to be overhauled to be 'race-divisive.' As for
what the NFL will do,
> Most in the NFL, even those with 'scrambler/runner QBs',
> want their quarterbacks to be perceived as passers, with
> something extra. Perhaps it's best to keep it simple, rating
> all QBs based on their passing, only, on a level playing
> field, and leaving the something extra as something extra,
> separate from 'QB ratings'.
Sez you. Perhaps it's better, as the writer of the article asserts, to
include other aspects of a QB's overall contribution when assessing a
QB's effectiveness.
> If you combine the two, giving 'scrambler/runner QBs' a
> one-up in the rating system, that's an endorsement of
> 'scrambler/runner QBs' over 'pocket passers'. That's an
> evaluation of a QB as a passer -and- as a scrambler/runner,
> something many (most?) feel is not a valid measurement
> of QB skills, for that exists on an uneven playing field, as
> most QBs are *not* 'scramblers/runners'.
So what? If you don't combine the two, you're not counting the
legitimate contribution of scrambling/runner QBs to their teams. The
ability to make plays with your feet is a skill that many (including JJ
himself) value in a QB. As for some QBs not being able to run as well,
you could make that statement about ANY skill a QB possesses. Some guys
can't throw long; maybe we should only count short passes that they can
all make.
I noticed that running QB Kordell Stewart didn't fare too well in this
system, while the much less mobile Brad Johnson seems to come out fine.
Is Trent Green as mobile as Anthony Wright? I doubt it, and Green is
rated MUCH more highly. I think passing QBs would get a fair shake. The
top rated guy is Peyton Manning, and he's not really coveted for his
amazing running ability. For the record, neither is QC, who seems to be
able to move around to avoid a sack and make an occasional play with his
feet, but seems like nothing special as a runner (he certainly isn't in
Michael Vick's category as a runner, who BTW, is rated only slightly
higher).
> As stated, in another post, -if- a 'scrambling/running' QB
> benefits, in passing, from his 'scrambling/running' ability,
> therein resides his gain from that skill, in the QB rating.
> If he does not, if he in fact is hindered or injured by
> 'scrambling/running', it would be erroneous to give him
> bonus 'points', in QB passing evaluation, for having an
> extra ability that detracts from what QBs are paid 'big
> bucks' to do, and that's complete passes.
>
> I really don't think the NFL has an interest in *encour-
> aging* running QBs. Instead, I think the NFL is interested
> in *encouraging* efficient passing, and therein resides
> the vested interest in keeping the QB rating system the
> way it is, a passing measurement, not an overall measure-
> ment beyond passing.
So you acknowledge that the current QBR system isn't a bias-less
evaluation of QB effectiveness, but actually can be used to 'encourage'
efficient passing?
The QBR as it's presently constituted may already be a good enough
measure of how a QB is playing, and you've made that argument well
enough. But it isn't objective.
JustForFun
wrote:
>"JustForFun" <justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote ...
>> "observer" wrote ...
>>
>> >Thanks for posting that. It takes a complicated passer rating
>> >formula, rethinks additional factors, and comes up with an
>> >even more complicated passer formula, mixing non-passing
>> >data with passing data for a different rating, not really a passer
>> >rating, but instead, a passer-runner-sack-penalty-fumble rating.
>>
>> It's a Quarterback rating, rather than a passer rating. Much more
>> encompasing, being as how a QB does much more than just pass.
>> [...]
>
>1) Adding penalties to passer ratings is dubious
As I addressed and you snipped.
>2) Sacks? Already tracked, and creditable to innumerable
> factors -- already part of passer ratings to the extent
> than pressures/sacks impacts the passer's efficiency
No it doesn't. Not in the least. QB1 is under a lot of pressure all
game long and takes 6 sacks. QB2 is under a lot of pressure all game
long and takes 0 sacks, instead throwing the ball away 6 additional
times. QB1's actions has negative impact on his team but ZERO impact
on his QBR. QB2's actions have a positive impact on his team a
severely HURT his QBR.
>3) Running? Already tracked, rushing stats
Not tracked in any meaningful way where the QBR is concerned.
>4) Intangibles? Not tracked, by the current or proposed
> systems, simply due to its highly subjective nature
>
>Quarterback's primary tasks? Passing, inspiring, leading.
>
>Quarterback's secondary tasks? Handing off, audibling (by
>some), running (by some). Comebacks? Primary when a team
>is trailing, and not part of either rating system. Wins-losses?
>Something often mentioned when discussing passer ratings,
>but not part of the proposed or previous rating system -- if it
>is added to a "new" rating system, some subjective assess-
>ment would have to be implemented whereby a quarterback's
>percentage credit for a win or blame for a loss could be arrived
>at.
Also not addressed is things like how the WCO if FAR more QBR friendly
than other systems.
>Once you start down the trail of "perfecting" the passer rating,
>or, if you prefer, quarterback rating, much more attention should
>be paid to factors not mentioned in the writer's proposal, and
>much less use of the arbitrary factors he chose should be imple-
>mented, in my opinion, especially when dealing with the attri-
>butes unique to 'running quarterbacks', as those attributes are
>disputed as to their advantage/disadvantage in quarterback
>effectiveness.
Fine. Then the QBR is a meaningless stat that can NEVER be truly
defined. I'll buy that.
JustForFun
BINGO! That is EXACTLY the point I've been trying to drive home with
Observer forever.
Exactly. How can ANY ONE think it is the same for Hutch to stand back
there, hold the ball too long and fumble when he gets hit as it is for
QC to take off and run for 3 yards in the same situation? Both
situations affect the QBR exactly the same way...they don't.
Hell, I'd submit that throwing the ball is the EASY part of being an
NFL QB. They can ALL throw the ball quite well.
I'd disagree. It benefits guys who do things that are detrimental to
their team and penalizes guys who do things that are beneficial.
>But it isn't objective.
Exactly.
observer
>
> "Barry Wong" wrote ...
> >
> >The QBR as it's presently constituted may already be a good enough
> >measure of how a QB is playing, and you've made that argument well
> >enough.
>
> I'd disagree. It benefits guys who do things that are detrimental to
> their team and penalizes guys who do things that are beneficial.
BS. The passer rating is well-founded, and the best
determinant of passer performance, extant qualitative
judgements on competition. Add those, and it'd be
as near-perfect as any non-intangible non-subjective
passer rating could possibly be.
- - -
==================
JustForFun
wrote:
>"JustForFun" wrote ...
>>
>> "Barry Wong" wrote ...
>> >
>> >The QBR as it's presently constituted may already be a good enough
>> >measure of how a QB is playing, and you've made that argument well
>> >enough.
>>
>> I'd disagree. It benefits guys who do things that are detrimental to
>> their team and penalizes guys who do things that are beneficial.
>
>BS. The passer rating is well-founded, and the best
>determinant of passer performance, extant qualitative
>judgements on competition. Add those, and it'd be
>as near-perfect as any non-intangible non-subjective
>passer rating could possibly be.
Uh...so?
My point is pretty simple...a QB is much MORE than a "passer".
Get it?
TravIsGod
>how they played this last year than the "normal" QBR. This rating should be
>the one they use in the future
YES...ANY rating that shows Queercy coming out better MUST be used!
We should ONLY look at Queercy's POSITIVE plays, not his negative ones.
Trav
TravIsGod
>long and takes 0 sacks, instead throwing the ball away 6 additional
>times. QB1's actions has negative impact on his team but ZERO impact
>on his QBR. QB2's actions have a positive impact on his team a
>severely HURT his QBR.
>
Uh...they subtract off yards for sacks, you dipshit. And, six incomplete
passes are of NO significant effect on QBR.
You are SO incredibly stupid.
Trav
JustForFun
ROFLMAO...lets look at an example and find out, shall we?
Let's use 30 attempts, ten yards per completion, O int's and 0 TD's.
The first two numbers are pretty average, the last two don't skew it
one way or the other.
15/30 150yds 0, 0 = QBR 64.58
9/30 90yds 0, 0 = QBR 39.58
Nah...not significant at all....
TravIsGod
>>You are SO incredibly stupid.
>
>ROFLMAO...lets look at an example and find out, shall we?
>
>Let's use 30 attempts, ten yards per completion, O int's and 0 TD's.
Yes. Let us cherrypick an example that is completely unrealistic.
That's what you do EVERY time, isn't it?
Get your head out of your ass and Quincy's dick out of your mouth.
Trav
JustForFun
>>>
>>>You are SO incredibly stupid.
>>
>>ROFLMAO...lets look at an example and find out, shall we?
>>
>>Let's use 30 attempts, ten yards per completion, O int's and 0 TD's.
>
>Yes. Let us cherrypick an example that is completely unrealistic.
30 attempts and ten YPC are pretty average, dude. I HAD to leave int's
and TD's out the equation entirely because your claim didn't involve
them.
What do you want? 40 attempts and 30 yards per completion? 10 attempts
and 3 yards per completion. Matters not. There is a HUGE difference in
6 completions per game.
>That's what you do EVERY time, isn't it?
>
>Get your head out of your ass and Quincy's dick out of your mouth.
Quit making claims without checking to see if they are close to
reality. QBR isn't that hard to check out.