Are there reliable NFL statistics that are "weighted" across era?

[richig07]

For instance, in baseball when you talk about the greatest of all-time, you have statistics like WAR, ISO, WRC+... etc... Which even the playing field between players that played in different eras.

A good example would be a conversation I had recently with a friend comparing Johnny Bench to Ivan Rodriguez. We both agreed that Pudge was slightly better defensively, with a caught stealing rate head-and-shoulders above Bench. With runners attempting to steal almost identically as much on each catcher, in eras where stolen bases were about equally as common. They also were about even in terms of passed balls.

Then we got to the subject of offense. Where I claimed that Pudge's numbers were, at least, comparable to Bench. Bench had better power numbers, but Pudge had a much better average and hits per season. He then completely dismissed that notion from my head, when he had me look up their offensive WAR, WRC+... etc... Which compares what each player was doing in comparison to the rest of the league during that time period. The runs that Bench created were far more valuable to his team, than the runs Pudge created. As runs were so much more harder to come by when Bench played, compared to the steroid-inflated 90's and early-00's that Pudge played in. Every one of Bench's hits, were worth more to his team. Than a hit by Pudge was to his.

I don't know why statistics like that aren't more common in football, when I feel like it's a sport that has EASILY the biggest gap in offensive stats across era. Soon, nearly every relevant passing record will be held by modern day QB's. Last I checked, something like 38 of the top 50 in QB rating, are from post 2000. Including guys like Jay Cutler, and Josh Freeman.

You have guys who are nothing special who will pass QB's like Elway in yardage, and we don't even acknowledge how less valuable QB yardage is today. It's the norm for a large amount of QB's to throw for 4,000 yards in a season now. When Elway played, 3,000 yards was a GREAT season. Hell, prior to Marino/Montana. It was considered a huge accomplishment for a QB just to have a positive TD/INT ratio. Guys like Bradshaw, Tarkenton, Luckman, Baugh... etc... These guys have (or nearly have) as many INT's as TD's in their career.

I had a conversation recently, about Eli Manning. Somebody brought up how he has a good hall of fame case, because on top of his two SB's. His numbers are solid historically. Well... yeah... but not when you weight them across era. Eli's numbers are great historically, but they're subpar TODAY against his own competition. He has a worse QB rating than guys like Jay Cutler and Sam Bradford.

Why don't we have more statistics, like a WAR for the NFL? So we can better compare QB's? For how much we argue over the greatest QB's ever. It seems so stupid that no one has created this, or... if they have... not made it mainstream.

 

[broncosmitty]

Tl/dr

Weighted Stats are so gay.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Short answer, yes, but probably not extremely helpful. There are some nice things being done for the draft by the Jim Cobern's of the world to weed out obviously bad and overrated prospects, but a standardized system isn't coming into existence anytime soon. And AV is brutally weak atm, imo; it's ok for long multi-player draft samples but that's about it for me.

 

[Rock Strongo]

games played

thats all i got

 

[richig07]

Tl/dr

Weighted Stats are so gay.

So, you think that Jay Cutler and Sam Bradford having a better QB rating than Elway is just about right? I guess you're right... Cutler > Elway

 

[soxfan1468927]

There are some on pro-football-reference. They have the individual seasons listed on the players page, but last I checked they don't have leaderboards or career totals. For example, Joe Montana has a 149 Rate+ for 1989 and Matt Ryan has a 140 Rate+ for last year. Showing that Montana's 112.4 passer rating in 1989 was better than Ryan's 117.1 in 2016. The rest you have to do yourself. PFR has a really easy-to-use play index.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

games played

thats all i got

The Jeter way, the compiler way.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

For instance, in baseball when you talk about the greatest of all-time, you have statistics like WAR, ISO, WRC+... etc... Which even the playing field between players that played in different eras.

A good example would be a conversation I had recently with a friend comparing Johnny Bench to Ivan Rodriguez. We both agreed that Pudge was slightly better defensively, with a caught stealing rate head-and-shoulders above Bench. With runners attempting to steal almost identically as much on each catcher, in eras where stolen bases were about equally as common. They also were about even in terms of passed balls.

Then we got to the subject of offense. Where I claimed that Pudge's numbers were, at least, comparable to Bench. Bench had better power numbers, but Pudge had a much better average and hits per season. He then completely dismissed that notion from my head, when he had me look up their offensive WAR, WRC+... etc... Which compares what each player was doing in comparison to the rest of the league during that time period. The runs that Bench created were far more valuable to his team, than the runs Pudge created. As runs were so much more harder to come by when Bench played, compared to the steroid-inflated 90's and early-00's that Pudge played in. Every one of Bench's hits, were worth more to his team. Than a hit by Pudge was to his.

I don't know why statistics like that aren't more common in football, when I feel like it's a sport that has EASILY the biggest gap in offensive stats across era. Soon, nearly every relevant passing record will be held by modern day QB's. Last I checked, something like 38 of the top 50 in QB rating, are from post 2000. Including guys like Jay Cutler, and Josh Freeman.

You have guys who are nothing special who will pass QB's like Elway in yardage, and we don't even acknowledge how less valuable QB yardage is today. It's the norm for a large amount of QB's to throw for 4,000 yards in a season now. When Elway played, 3,000 yards was a GREAT season. Hell, prior to Marino/Montana. It was considered a huge accomplishment for a QB just to have a positive TD/INT ratio. Guys like Bradshaw, Tarkenton, Luckman, Baugh... etc... These guys have (or nearly have) as many INT's as TD's in their career.

I had a conversation recently, about Eli Manning. Somebody brought up how he has a good hall of fame case, because on top of his two SB's. His numbers are solid historically. Well... yeah... but not when you weight them across era. Eli's numbers are great historically, but they're subpar TODAY against his own competition. He has a worse QB rating than guys like Jay Cutler and Sam Bradford.

Why don't we have more statistics, like a WAR for the NFL? So we can better compare QB's? For how much we argue over the greatest QB's ever. It seems so stupid that no one has created this, or... if they have... not made it mainstream.

Stats alone don't define football players, but you do have a point. Having stats weighted across eras would make the Elway vs Peyton Manning debate more credible.

I still think the eye test is best in football. I never got to see Unitas in his prime, but the guys I know that did swear he'd be a top 3 QB of this era. Kind of hard to pushback on that since I never saw his prime.

 

[richig07]

Stats alone don't define football players, but you do have a point. Having stats weighted across eras would make the Elway vs Peyton Manning debate more credible.

I still think the eye test is best in football. I never got to see Unitas in his prime, but the guys I know that did swear he'd be a top 3 QB of this era. Kind of hard to pushback on that since I never saw his prime.

Stats alone don't define football players

No, but they are heavily relied upon when compiling HOF resumes. So, it's important we get them right.

As long as HOF voters are looking at them, we need to get them right.

Right now, the mainstream does not look at passing statistics correctly across eras.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Stats alone don't define football players

No, but they are heavily relied upon when compiling HOF resumes. So, it's important we get them right.

As long as HOF voters are looking at them, we need to get them right.

Right now, the mainstream does not look at passing statistics correctly across eras.

Two names...Joe Namath, and a new one Terrell Davis.

Yes they look at stats, but you had to see Joe Willie and TD play...absent of that, IDT either one is in.

 

[richig07]

Two names...Joe Namath, and a new one Terrell Davis.

Yes they look at stats, but you had to see Joe Willie and TD play...absent of that, IDT either one is in.

I'm not fighting you on any of that stuff man. I'm just speaking, that in general... stats are viewed as being very important, and we look at them incorrectly.

For instance, I was recently pressing a guy about Eli Manning's HOF resume. He brought up how Eli will soon pass a couple of big names on the yardage list. I mean, this is a guy who I KNOW really follows the league closely. Yet, he still had never even considered how much more heavily weighed the yardage Elway threw for was, compared to Eli.

Elway throwing for 51,000 career yards > Eli throwing for 51,000 career yards
Elway 79.9 QB rating > Eli 83.7 QB rating
Elway 300 TD's > Eli 320 TD's

The average person does not understand this.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I'm not fighting you on any of that stuff man. I'm just speaking, that in general... stats are viewed as being very important, and we look at them incorrectly.

For instance, I was recently pressing a guy about Eli Manning's HOF resume. He brought up how Eli will soon pass a couple of big names on the yardage list. I mean, this is a guy who I KNOW really follows the league closely. Yet, he still had never even considered how much more heavily weighed the yardage Elway threw for was, compared to Eli.

Elway throwing for 51,000 career yards > Eli throwing for 51,000 career yards
Elway 79.9 QB rating > Eli 83.7 QB rating
Elway 300 TD's > Eli 320 TD's

The average person does not understand this.

Maybe it seems like I'm pushing back...not the case. I agree with the concept of making stats from different eras show the talent and performance of the players.

That said...it applies to other sports too. In MLB, the benchmark for HOF pitchers used to be 300 wins...the game has evolved, guys are not playing long enough, the middle relief pitcher, etc. has made it nearly impossible for even great pitchers to reach 300 wins today.

The reason I brought up those two players is because not every HOF candidate will have iron clad stats for entry...if the voters never saw Namath play...no way he gets in on stats....fast forwarding to now...Carson Palmer has 44k yds/285 TD passing, more than several players already in the HOF...but, we've seen CP play his entire career. No way is he a HOF player, his numbers are merely a by-product of the era he played in.

Again, we again on the concept of making the stats relevant...my contention is the voters still need to have seen the player's prime body of work.

 

[cdumler7]

I'm not fighting you on any of that stuff man. I'm just speaking, that in general... stats are viewed as being very important, and we look at them incorrectly.

For instance, I was recently pressing a guy about Eli Manning's HOF resume. He brought up how Eli will soon pass a couple of big names on the yardage list. I mean, this is a guy who I KNOW really follows the league closely. Yet, he still had never even considered how much more heavily weighed the yardage Elway threw for was, compared to Eli.

Elway throwing for 51,000 career yards > Eli throwing for 51,000 career yards
Elway 79.9 QB rating > Eli 83.7 QB rating
Elway 300 TD's > Eli 320 TD's

The average person does not understand this.

Yeah tough to find a way to really weigh different stats. One way could be just to average out the totals of the time compared to today's then compare the numbers of the player compared to the day to see which one in their era showed better compared to their contemporaries. Then again though that would suggest every era of football is equal. Football with just so many more moving parts that depend on each other is just tougher to translate from era to era compared to other sports. Baseball a lot of what they do is more individualized in success or failure. Basketball you can have 2-3 players completely take over a game and not really need an entire team to win.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Maybe it seems like I'm pushing back...not the case. I agree with the concept of making stats from different eras show the talent and performance of the players.

That said...it applies to other sports too. In MLB, the benchmark for HOF pitchers used to be 300 wins...the game has evolved, guys are not playing long enough, the middle relief pitcher, etc. has made it nearly impossible for even great pitchers to reach 300 wins today.

The reason I brought up those two players is because not every HOF candidate will have iron clad stats for entry...if the voters never saw Namath play...no way he gets in on stats....fast forwarding to now...Carson Palmer has 44k yds/285 TD passing, more than several players already in the HOF...but, we've seen CP play his entire career. No way is he a HOF player, his numbers are merely a by-product of the era he played in.

Again, we again on the concept of making the stats relevant...my contention is the voters still need to have seen the player's prime body of work.

Not really true. Only 1/3 of HOF pitchers have 300 wins. And plenty of guys have gotten in with well under 300 wins. Dizzy Dean comes to mind, he had half of that win total and was in on the 4th ballot.

 

[richig07]

Maybe it seems like I'm pushing back...not the case. I agree with the concept of making stats from different eras show the talent and performance of the players.

That said...it applies to other sports too. In MLB, the benchmark for HOF pitchers used to be 300 wins...the game has evolved, guys are not playing long enough, the middle relief pitcher, etc. has made it nearly impossible for even great pitchers to reach 300 wins today.

The reason I brought up those two players is because not every HOF candidate will have iron clad stats for entry...if the voters never saw Namath play...no way he gets in on stats....fast forwarding to now...Carson Palmer has 44k yds/285 TD passing, more than several players already in the HOF...but, we've seen CP play his entire career. No way is he a HOF player, his numbers are merely a by-product of the era he played in.

Again, we again on the concept of making the stats relevant...my contention is the voters still need to have seen the player's prime body of work.

That said...it applies to other sports too. In MLB, the benchmark for HOF pitchers used to be 300 wins...the game has evolved, guys are not playing long enough, the middle relief pitcher, etc. has made it nearly impossible for even great pitchers to reach 300 wins today.

This was my point though. Advanced stats like WAR, ISO and WRC+ wipe out the difference between eras in baseball. We do not have anything like that in football. The baseball community has recognized the difference between eras, and created ways to see through the difference in numbers. WRC+ even gets rid of any advantages for having played in a better hitting park. lol

we've seen CP play his entire career. No way is he a HOF player, his numbers are merely a by-product of the era he played in.

The problem lies with players like Eli Manning. Who some will say is a HOF player, because of his two rings. Then you'll look at his numbers, out of context and compare them to HOF QB's. There absolutely will be people who don't realize why him and Elway being similar in yardage is not the same thing.

my contention is the voters still need to have seen the player's prime body of work.

I don't disagree with you on that. I just think we should have numbers that help us better view a players career, in context to the era he played in. It seems like you agree.

 

[richig07]

Yeah tough to find a way to really weigh different stats. One way could be just to average out the totals of the time compared to today's then compare the numbers of the player compared to the day to see which one in their era showed better compared to their contemporaries. Then again though that would suggest every era of football is equal. Football with just so many more moving parts that depend on each other is just tougher to translate from era to era compared to other sports. Baseball a lot of what they do is more individualized in success or failure. Basketball you can have 2-3 players completely take over a game and not really need an entire team to win.

I think there is a way to create WAR for the NFL. However, I'm not that guy... lol

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Not really true. Only 1/3 of HOF pitchers have 300 wins. And plenty of guys have gotten in with well under 300 wins. Dizzy Dean comes to mind, he had half of that win total and was in on the 4th ballot.

You're right...I didn't make my point correctly...there was a time when 300 wins meant you were an automatic HOF lock...now 300 wins is a pipe dream for most players.

 

[soxfan1468927]

You're right...I didn't make my point correctly...there was a time when 300 wins meant you were an automatic HOF lock...now 300 wins is a pipe dream for most players.

Very true. There are only 2 active pitchers that even have 200 wins (and one of them is Bartolo Colon). And there are only 8 pitchers who have 150, the youngest of which is Felix Hernandez at 31 (who has obviously been on the decline for 3 years). Kershaw has a shot since he's only 29 and could be halfway there at the end of this year. Plus he has a good team around him and an organization that will spend money. But even then, he still has to go another 9 or 10 years to get it.

 

[soxfan1468927]

That said...it applies to other sports too. In MLB, the benchmark for HOF pitchers used to be 300 wins...the game has evolved, guys are not playing long enough, the middle relief pitcher, etc. has made it nearly impossible for even great pitchers to reach 300 wins today.

This was my point though. Advanced stats like WAR, ISO and WRC+ wipe out the difference between eras in baseball. We do not have anything like that in football. The baseball community has recognized the difference between eras, and created ways to see through the difference in numbers. WRC+ even gets rid of any advantages for having played in a better hitting park. lol

we've seen CP play his entire career. No way is he a HOF player, his numbers are merely a by-product of the era he played in.

The problem lies with players like Eli Manning. Who some will say is a HOF player, because of his two rings. Then you'll look at his numbers, out of context and compare them to HOF QB's. There absolutely will be people who don't realize why him and Elway being similar in yardage is not the same thing.

my contention is the voters still need to have seen the player's prime body of work.

I don't disagree with you on that. I just think we should have numbers that help us better view a players career, in context to the era he played in. It seems like you agree.

Just FYI, ISO isn't an era-weighted stat.

 

[richig07]

Just FYI, ISO isn't an era-weighted stat.

Ah okay, I'm kind of just learning about advanced stats in baseball. Which is why I was hoping there was some for the NFL