Just FYI - QBR is 100% bull shit

[Tacoma_canuck]

According to QBR, the top 5 QBs of the last 5 years are as follows:

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Aaron Rodgers
4. Drew Brees
5. Matt Ryan

I'd say it's pretty accurate

Actually, I'm not sure we need it to determine elite QB's. We all know those top 4 have been the best of the best the last 5 years. Don't know that I would include Ryan with those other 4, though. I guess he has been the best of the rest in the regular season but who really cares. The other four are debatable as to the order but it is nit-picking at best.

As for the thread, you are preaching to the choir here. I don't like this. Hell, I think most stats are useless on a day to day basis. Somewhat good on a career basis but that's all.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

No. Most of the numbers are decided by ESPN analysts. Statistics are objective, QBR is not.

Not sure if statistics cant be subjective... all statistics is how you use the data... even if it is subjective, the formulas are the same for everyone, it is just that there are some weird rules...

 

[JDM]

The problem is when the numbers you are starting with are also made up. Catches, yards, completions, attempts, carries, etc are completely objective. Drops aren't quite but are close. ESPN proudly admits that they use more than actual statistics, and consider their analysts ratings of plays, which makes it not statistically based.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The problem is when the numbers you are starting with are also made up. Catches, yards, completions, attempts, carries, etc are completely objective. Drops aren't quite but are close. ESPN proudly admits that they use more than actual statistics, and consider their analysts ratings of plays, which makes it not statistically based.

I am not arguing that it is a bad statistic, but what you are explaining is that they take inaccurate data... just because the data is not good does not make the computation any less of a statistic...

 

[beardown07]

I think factoring in things like 3rd down percentage, 4th quarter performance etc. is a better way to get an idea of what a QB really is, than to just have raw stats, like yds, completion percentage, etc.

Yds are probably the most misleading QB stat there is.

 

[Tacoma_canuck]

I think factoring in things like 3rd down percentage, 4th quarter performance etc. is a better way to get an idea of what a QB really is, than to just have raw stats, like yds, completion percentage, etc.

Yds are probably the most misleading QB stat there is.

Agree completely, they have always been misleading but in the current game, they are completely useless. How many 400 yd games do we see where the guy wasn't any good for 2 1/2 qtrs only to get hot late against soft defenses and still lose. And 300 yd games are a dime a dozen.

 

[JDM]

I am not arguing that it is a bad statistic, but what you are explaining is that they take inaccurate data... just because the data is not good does not make the computation any less of a statistic...

It's not inaccurate data. It's entirely made up.

 

[Wolverine830872]

Semantics, to all of you!!! Who gives a shit if it is labeled as a "statistic" or not. Its still bullshit. When I think of a "statistic" I think of yards per completion or 3rd down conversion rates. Sure, that number didn't actually happen on the field (such as 100 yards receiving would have) but its relevant to the question, how many yards did team A average on passes, or what percentage of 3rd downs did we complete? That, to me at least, is a statistic. It answers a question in a definitive matter.

QBR is more of a derivative "statistic". It answers a question (who is a better quarter back) not with objective statistics, but with a subjective formula. To simply call the "QBR" a statistic may be technically correct, it is misleading to lump it into the category of its brethren, which are based on objective data.

That being said, any rating system that doesn't have Russell Wilson as the greatest QB of all time is bullsthit

 

[JDM]

Yard an attempt is a statistic. It is based on data. QBR is not. It uses numbers made up by ESPN, who have pretty clearly demonstrated themselves to be subject to all sorts of bias.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

I've been saying QBR is B.S. since they come up with it. It's a joke. Joe Flacco had a horrible QBR last year & led his team to the Super Bowl.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Yard an attempt is a statistic. It is based on data. QBR is not. It uses numbers made up by ESPN, who have pretty clearly demonstrated themselves to be subject to all sorts of bias.

JDM, this is absolutely a semantics argument... It is just bothering me that you are using your hatred of a statistic to call it not a statistic when it clearly is... If i make up data and then plug it into a formula and create a statistic it is still a statistic... So stop turning your hatred of a stat into an ignorant comment...

 

[JDM]

JDM, this is absolutely a semantics argument... It is just bothering me that you are using your hatred of a statistic to call it not a statistic when it clearly is... If i make up data and then plug it into a formula and create a statistic it is still a statistic... So stop turning your hatred of a stat into an ignorant comment...

No, it isn't.

With your definition statistic has literally no meaning besides "number".

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Statistics is just the usage of data... where the data was gotten is irrelevant... Made up data is still data(its just not accurate or reliable). I can create any statistic using any data...

 

[JDM]

No. Made up data is not a statistic. That makes the word useless.

Also, raw data is a statistic without being used.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

No. Made up data is not a statistic. That makes the word useless.

Also, raw data is a statistic without being used.

I am done with this argument, if you wont admit what you are saying is wrong then you are just ignorant...

 

[JDM]

You can't just change what words mean.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I am not. U just have the wrong definition.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

Didn't realize what it involved until doing a little research & then saw this example:

_____________________________________________________________________

Further controversy erupted when the Total QBR system gave the Broncos' Tim Tebowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Tebow a higher rating than the Packers' Aaron Rodgershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Rodgers in their respective Week 5 contests in 2011. Noting that Rodgers completed 26 of 39 passes for 396 yards and two touchdowns in a win over the Falconshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Falcons, while Tebow completed four of 10 passes for 79 yards and a touchdown, and six rushes for 38 yards and a touchdown, in a loss to the Chargershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Chargers, Mike Floriohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Florio of Profootballtalk.com wrote that he'll "continue to ignore ESPN’s Total QBR stat."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_quarterback_rating#cite_note-10 Rodgers himself was surprised: "I saw the [QBR stats] and chuckled to myself. I played a full game, [Tebow] played the half. He completed four passes, I completed 26. I think it incorporates QB runs as well ... The weighting of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_quarterback_rating#cite_note-11

ESPN's Stats and Information Group explained that Tebow's higher rating was the result of him staging a partial comeback, taking no sacks, and having positive rushing yards and a rushing touchdown, among other factors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_quarterback_rating#cite_note-13 However, Doug Farrar of Yahoo Sportshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Sports wrote that the QBR system lacks a minimum performance frequency floor that players must meet before they can be rated, and thus it essentially penalizes Rodgers because he played throughout the entire game, while rewarding Tebow because he came off the bench in the second half in an attempt to stage a comeback


_____________________________________________________

What a bunch of BS!

 

[jakedog56]

How can anyone say that the QBR system is comprised of numbers made up by ESPN???

It is RAW DATA that is plugged into a formula that spits out numbers.

It is as clear as that!

Now, if the formula itself is flawed by giving irrelevant data too much weight or incorporating data that should not be considered, as is sometimes the case with both QBR and Total QBR, then it does not give you a 100% clear picture.

Does the QBR system or the TQBR system specifically tell you who the best QB is? No. There are many factors that are not considered or weighted incorrectly...........BUT.......all of you people that are stating that it is completely wrong and should not be used ARE JUST AS STUPID AS THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT IT IS 100% CORRECT!!!

The QBR abd TQBR ratings paint a picture. You need to look at it for what it is and interpet the data logically. To totally disregard it would be retarded.

 

[JDM]

They have claimed multiple times that there are analyst grades of each play incorporated in.

And yes, it is 100% useless. If you bring it up in a discussion you are an idiot.