NFL QB: Closest to Perfection

[Pinseeker75]

If you think Brees is overrated then your football knowledge just a little bit below the cheerleader on the sidelines.....

 

[buried_in_snow]

No. There can be small edge cases that rely on a scorers judgement, but if the bulk of your numbers are subjective it has minimal value.

The analysis of statistics can be subjective.

 

[JDM]

The analysis of statistics can be subjective.

The stats themselves are not. Even complex stats, while the formula may have some subjectivity to it, it is applied equally to all. Passer rating, for example, you could argue that aspects of it could be different, but actually applying it is completely objective.

There's a difference between that an an analyst who almost certainly has biases rating each play arbitrarily and combining them.

 

[buried_in_snow]

The stats themselves are not. Even complex stats, while the formula may have some subjectivity to it, it is applied equally to all. Passer rating, for example, you could argue that aspects of it could be different, but actually applying it is completely objective.

There's a difference between that an an analyst who almost certainly has biases rating each play arbitrarily and combining them.

Sure.

But then I pose: what do you do with stats?

You analyze teams/players with them, right?

That's where it becomes subjective.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

I saw JDM's favorite teams and I'm assuming this boils down to, once again, a Manning Brady debate. But no matter how you look at it, stats or opinion, it looks like Manning is still superior to Brady.

 

[JDM]

Sure.

But then I pose: what do you do with stats?

You analyze teams/players with them, right?

That's where it becomes subjective.

Of course, but using something that isn't statistics based just puts you a further level removed from reality. Statistics is one level. Analysis of those statistics is another level. Analysis of those analyzed statistics is a third level.

 

[JDM]

I saw JDM's favorite teams and I'm assuming this boils down to, once again, a Manning Brady debate. But no matter how you look at it, stats or opinion, it looks like Manning is still superior to Brady.

It has nothing to do with Brady vs Manning. Feel free to show me the stats that you believe so convincingly demonstrate Manning's superiority, without this arbitrary and subjective number, and we'll see where that goes.

But my issue with this number has nothing to do with that. It has to do with ESPN selling their number like it has some inherent value as a fact when it is as subjective as the vast majority of the information they provide.

 

[buried_in_snow]

Of course, but using something that isn't statistics based just puts you a further level removed from reality. Statistics is one level. Analysis of those statistics is another level. Analysis of those analyzed statistics is a third level.

To me I enjoy some metrics.

Football Outsiders has one called "DVOA" which I think sometimes offers a lot more than just a pure statistical number.

 

[Skin'EmAll]

Has ESPN ever fully disclosed their QBR? Or is it still a matter of subjective homerism on what they felt was a good or bad play by the QB?

lol, they did have a show explaining it completely. I believe one example was if a QB threw a Hail Mary pass right before half time and it was intercepted or if a WR bobbled a pass and a defender picked it off, they don't hold the QB accountable for such situations. It was a while ago, but they basically were trying to make excuses for QBs to have better ratings??? i dunno

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

Just not a huge Peyton fan his stats are great and possibly the best ever, but he just doesn't win enough in the post season for myself.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

It has nothing to do with Brady vs Manning. Feel free to show me the stats that you believe so convincingly demonstrate Manning's superiority, without this arbitrary and subjective number, and we'll see where that goes.

But my issue with this number has nothing to do with that. It has to do with ESPN selling their number like it has some inherent value as a fact when it is as subjective as the vast majority of the information they provide.

Everybody has an agenda, and if you think ESPN is using QBR to prop up or tear down certain QBs, then that's your right. I think Jaws, Young and Dilfer do a great job in their analyzation of QBs. They certainly tell me more about the performance of a QB than just looking at a boxscore on Monday morning or watching highlights sunday night.

 

[buried_in_snow]

Just not a huge Peyton fan his stats are great and possibly the best ever, but he just doesn't win enough in the post season for myself.

Goes back to:

QBs get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses.

I blame Fantasy Football and the masses that live by it.

 

[JDM]

To me I enjoy some metrics.

Football Outsiders has one called "DVOA" which I think sometimes offers a lot more than just a pure statistical number.

My understanding is that that is still a pure statistical number. It uses a lot more stats than typical stats, but it does not rely on an analyst throwing opinions into every play and affecting the numbers, which is what ESPN has implied they do. It has a (complex) formula and sticks to it.

 

[buried_in_snow]

Everybody has an agenda, and if you think ESPN is using QBR to prop up or tear down certain QBs, then that's your right. I think Jaws, Young and Dilfer do a great job in their analyzation of QBs. They certainly tell me more about the performance of a QB than just looking at a boxscore on Monday morning or watching highlights sunday night.

Says the one who claims he knows everything about Montana from watching ESPN Classic

 

[JDM]

Everybody has an agenda, and if you think ESPN is using QBR to prop up or tear down certain QBs, then that's your right. I think Jaws, Young and Dilfer do a great job in their analyzation of QBs. They certainly tell me more about the performance of a QB than just looking at a boxscore on Monday morning or watching highlights sunday night.

The fact that they have an agenda is why I don't value the number. It it was completely objective and applied universally using solely stats, I would consider it. When it has the analysts interject opinion, it loses it's value.

 

[buried_in_snow]

My understanding is that that is still a pure statistical number. It uses a lot more stats than typical stats, but it does not rely on an analyst throwing opinions into every play and affecting the numbers, which is what ESPN has implied they do. It has a (complex) formula and sticks to it.

Are you talking about DVOA (bolded part)?

DVOA is a metric:

THE SHORT VERSION:

DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on situation. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent. DVOA is a percentage, so a team with a DVOA of 10.0% is 10 percent better than the average team, and a quarterback with a DVOA of -20.0% is 20 percent worse than the average quarterback. Because DVOA measures scoring, defenses are better when they are negative.

Basically it's a human being weighting pure stats/numbers for what they believe means more (or less)

 

[buried_in_snow]

The fact that they have an agenda is why I don't value the number. It it was completely objective and applied universally using solely stats, I would consider it. When it has the analysts interject opinion, it loses it's value.

Alright, here's more fuel for the fire

Who had the better season statistically? RGKnee or Luck?

 

[JDM]

Are you talking about DVOA (bolded part)?

DVOA is a metric:



Basically it's a human being weighting pure stats/numbers for what they believe means more (or less)

My understanding was that there is a formula that weights them based on down, distance, situation, etc, which are all measurables. If they actually go through and decide things by hand, that loses some value to me as well (but less than ESPNs, because ESPNs motivations are different).

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

The fact that they have an agenda is why I don't value the number. It it was completely objective and applied universally using solely stats, I would consider it. When it has the analysts interject opinion, it loses it's value.

I don't mind looking deeper into "stats". Not all interceptions are equal. Not all completions are equally difficult to make. A QB with a 65% completion % while dinking and dunking all over the field is not necessarily a more "accurate" passer than a QB with a 60% completion % who takes shots down the field more often. This is the kind of subjectivity stats can have.

 

[buried_in_snow]

My understanding was that there is a formula that weights them based on down, distance, situation, etc, which are all measurables. If they actually go through and decide things by hand, that loses some value to me as well (but less than ESPNs, because ESPNs motivations are different).

Whether it's done by an algorithm or by hand, makes no difference to me.

Stats existed way before computers and I trust them the same as current ones.