QBR Funhouse!

[spacedoodoopistol]

It seems like ESPN's rollout of QBR kind of fell flat on its face.......not only does no one really like it, but even their own damn box scores still use QB rating. From the start it seemed like a system designed to justify "stars", aka QBs that play for good teams. The way its loaded toward higher scores for QBs that win games - aka are on better teams - seemed pretty off-base if you're trying to evaluate a QBs performance rather than his teammates'.

And giving Smith a below-average score for this game is just ridiculous, and hard to imagine given said slant toward winning teams.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Just LOL.....from Sando's report on Smith's game:

But that one quarter and the 49ers' ultimate victory could not prevent Smith from finishing with a 28.7 QBR overall. That is partly because running backs Kendall Hunter and Frank Gore scored the pivotal touchdowns late in the game, whereas Smith's touchdown passes came when the 49ers were still trailing by wider margins.

This is an absolutely ridiculous system. Points are points, right?

 

[deep9er]

there can be no exact formula to rate QB's? we fans should remind ourselves before we start breaking down who got what.

its a given you can't insert numbers (objective) and make a subjective conclusion.

 

[MHSL82]

I'm pro-QBR,

98 of Alexander Smith's 291 passing yards were yards after the catch (YAC). We're still down near the bottom of the league in terms of total throughout the regular season, but when you compare the NE Patriots who average 120.2 YAC per game this season, 98 is pretty good.
&
Watching the QBR special on espn, I remember them saying they don't really put any weight on YAC. For the obvious reasons, a screen play shouldn't be weighted as much as a 50 yard pass in the air, even if they both go for 50 yard TDs.

I think this was addressed in the big reveal but I think it's debatable on whether it should be deducted so greatly. One, everyone is judged equally based upon YAC, no one gets them - so it doesn't appear to create injustice. Two, they quote a statement saying that it's widely known that YAC is the receiver's doing, not the QB.

However, I feel screwing all QBs equally when giving them credit does not take away from the receiver is dumb. There's no RR (receiver rating) in which YAC, drops, TDs, ETC. are weighted. So what's the problem with giving the QB credit, too? Maybe they do, but clearly this brings down their rating from percieved effect. If the QB doesn't recognize the hole and make the throw, the receiver gets zero YAC just like a drop gives a QB no credit. They claim to take drops into account, but without the published formula, how do we know the effect?

Second, I feel that it's everybody's doing, those who call the play, those who block, the QB who throws the ball and recognizes the hole up field, and of course, the receiver. To automatically discount those yards or give them diminished value turns me off from the formula. The QB is rewarded for throwing the ball far instead? What about the reciever getting to the ball? Are you going to discount big plays because the receiver did his job to get there (like he does when he gets YAC)? No. If they had an objective way to say that the receiver dodged a sure tackle that the play was not designed for, that the QB could not have recognized pre-throw, then I'd consider it. Or if they had an objective way to identify Fitzgerald catches, and it was clear the QB just threw it up, I'd consider it (though the QB still has to have guts and make the throw somewhat accurately).

Just too many things, I don't like "disincentivizing" well designed plays and good recognition by the QB. Some QBs have been accused of taking the sack to avoid the INC (though none proven) who's to say that the QB wouldn'thold off for a better, farther throw? I'm being exaggerative here because I think no QB would do that as no one cares that much about such a small factor. Short passes may win it.

And I still think that if we win, anything that made the comeback as garbage time should be removed one way or another. They brag about how this is adjusted for real analysis, why can't they adjust this? After all, much of it is subjective in one way or another (looking at stats for ten years or forty years is a subjective choice as well as the determination of 50/50 sack accountability and drops analysis).

End rant.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

there can be no exact formula to rate QB's? we fans should remind ourselves before we start breaking down who got what.

its a given you can't insert numbers (objective) and make a subjective conclusion.

Exactly.....this isn't baseball, where you can look at the box score and basically tell what happened. Stats and football aren't that great a combo.

 

[MHSL82]

Preface:

1z, this is not at all an indictment on your opinion, I have absolute respect for your opinions, my comment is directed toward 'them'.

That said, I have a huge issue with the bold. When a QB hits his receiver in stride at full speed those Y'sAC belong WAYYY MORE to the QB than they do the receiver. Those Y'sAC were made possible BECAUSE of the QB not despite him. How can they call this a QBR when one of the most difficult things to do as a QB is not even considered in the rating??

I understand the premise behind the screen pass argument, (though I am not sure I agree with it either) but to not measure all Y'sAC based on the same argument makes this QBR even more of a joke than it was 15 minutes ago.

Man, considering Y'sAC as an insignificant or an irrelevant measure of quarterbacking, whaaaa? Bill Walsh is laughing in his grave.

Your use of Y'sAC reminds me of something Jerry Seinfeld would insist on. What's the deal with YACs? It's not yards after catch's or catches, there's only one catch! (though the s I think is implied when you say YAC, unless it's a single yard) Are they related to theanimal from the Himalayan region (yaks)? I know, I shouldn't quit my day job for comedy.

 

[MW49ers5]

Your use of Y'sAC reminds me of something Jerry Seinfeld would insist on. What's the deal with YACs? It's not yards after catch's or catches, there's only one catch! (though the s I think is implied when you say YAC, unless it's a single yard) Are they related to the Himalayan region?

Oooo, so close - but not the Himalayan region, try another guess.

 

[MHSL82]

Just LOL.....from Sando's report on Smith's game:



This is an absolutely ridiculous system. Points are points, right?

Points are points and if they lead to a close win in a comeback they should be clutch. Re-evaluate if you need to. I know that the more you create variety in the evaluation the less comparable/measurable/reliable it becomes when it comes to rating everyone. I just don't like how they boasted that it was real effect of the QB, not as one stat. They said it like they were putting something to rest. Sando is saner when he says they are to be used in combination.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Points are points and if they lead to a close win in a comeback they should be clutch.

The first TD the Niners scored yesterday was as clutch as the last though........its a distortion in our perception to make the one scored late more important, and maybe that's what QBR is going for, a stat that matches perceptions, rather than true value. That's Definitely the goal of the "PER" stat they use for basketball, which gives players positive marks for obviously negative things like taking too many shots.

 

[MHSL82]

The first TD the Niners scored yesterday was as clutch as the last though........its a distortion in our perception to make the one scored late more important, and maybe that's what QBR is going for, a stat that matches perceptions, rather than true value. That's Definitely the goal of the "PER" stat they use for basketball, which gives players positive marks for obviously negative things like taking too many shots.

Exactly! I meant to say that points when they result in a close game should have more weight than points when the team that is down never gets close if they are going to make a distinction because when it gets close the heat is turned on (though I think the teams are always motivated). If not making a distinction is an option, I think points are points and the distinction is less important because even during a blowout, points are in attempt to get the game. (cop-out, I know - I just don't like the garbage time argument except in cases like the Kansas City last second TD last year)

 

[I_am_1z]

Preface:

1z, this is not at all an indictment on your opinion, I have absolute respect for your opinions, my comment is directed toward 'them'.

That said, I have a huge issue with the bold. When a QB hits his receiver in stride at full speed those Y'sAC belong WAYYY MORE to the QB than they do the receiver. Those Y'sAC were made possible BECAUSE of the QB not despite him. How can they call this a QBR when one of the most difficult things to do as a QB is not even considered in the rating??

I understand the premise behind the screen pass argument, (though I am not sure I agree with it either) but to not measure all Y'sAC based on the same argument makes this QBR even more of a joke than it was 15 minutes ago.

Man, considering Y'sAC as an insignificant or an irrelevant measure of quarterbacking, whaaaa? Bill Walsh is laughing in his grave.

Sure it has its drawbacks, but more times than not a receiver has to make a move get those extra yards. To look at the QBR game by game it's going to give you misleading ratings as this one here, but cumulatively QBs rank just about where they should be(hopefully). It's still in its experiment stages, ESPN may have pre-ranked where they thought QBs should rank, then possibly made a formula to match their assessment. If it was done this way, the QBR will misrepresent the truth in the end.

According to QB rating Alex Smith has had a better season than the likes of Vick, Fitzpatrick, and Rivers. On the QBR we won't see surprises like that, QBs are ranked relatively close to where they ought to be (so far), which tells me there's more truth in this formula than any alternatives that I've seen.

The QBR is not perfect, but who expected it to be?

 

[Z-Comeback]

Sure it has its drawbacks, but more times than not a receiver has to make a move get those extra yards. To look at the QBR game by game it's going to give you misleading ratings as this one here, but cumulatively QBs rank just about where they should be(hopefully). It's still in its experiment stages, ESPN may have pre-ranked where they thought QBs should rank, then possibly made a formula to match their assessment. If it was done this way, the QBR will misrepresent the truth in the end.

According to QB rating Alex Smith has had a better season than the likes of Vick, Fitzpatrick, and Rivers. On the QBR we won't see surprises like that, QBs are ranked relatively close to where they ought to be (so far), which tells me there's more truth in this formula than any alternatives that I've seen.

The QBR is not perfect, but who expected it to be?

So game by game there might be misleading ratings like this one (in your earlier post it wasn't misleading according to you) and somehow "hopefully" we will get accurate rankings at the end of the year even though QB's have to split responsibility with the OL for every sack but get zero credit for YAC.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I mean, what do I know, according to these boards your "QBR" is 3 and mine is zero.

 

[I_am_1z]

So game by game there might be misleading ratings like this one (in your earlier post it wasn't misleading according to you) and somehow "hopefully" we will get accurate rankings at the end of the year even though QB's have to split responsibility with the OL for every sack but get zero credit for YAC.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I mean, what do I know, according to these boards your "QBR" is 3 and mine is zero.

Just realized I made a mistake in my other post, I meant to write passing rating not QB rating.

I never wrote it wasn't misleading either. ESPN has yet to give out full details on the formulation. Based on last year's ratings and the ones for so far this season, I don't see a reason to doubt that this isn't going to give a fan the best impression of how QBs rank.

 

[Z-Comeback]

I'm pro-QBR,

98 of Alexander Smith's 291 passing yards were yards after the catch (YAC). We're still down near the bottom of the league in terms of total throughout the regular season, but when you compare the NE Patriots who average 120.2 YAC per game this season, 98 is pretty good.
&
Watching the QBR special on espn, I remember them saying they don't really put any weight on YAC. For the obvious reasons, a screen play shouldn't be weighted as much as a 50 yard pass in the air, even if they both go for 50 yard TDs.

You are pro QBR and you used the YAC argument to support it's supposed value. Are you now going to take the stance that it is misleading?
You can't have it both ways though I don't blame anyone for trying.

 

[MHSL82]

Alex has been criticized for lack of YAC and now he's criticized (rated lower) for too many? I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive but poor guy. Good thing he doesn't care about stats. Wins are what is important.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Sure it has its drawbacks, but more times than not a receiver has to make a move get those extra yards. To look at the QBR game by game it's going to give you misleading ratings as this one here, but cumulatively QBs rank just about where they should be(hopefully). It's still in its experiment stages, ESPN may have pre-ranked where they thought QBs should rank, then possibly made a formula to match their assessment. If it was done this way, the QBR will misrepresent the truth in the end.

According to QB rating Alex Smith has had a better season than the likes of Vick, Fitzpatrick, and Rivers. On the QBR we won't see surprises like that, QBs are ranked relatively close to where they ought to be (so far), which tells me there's more truth in this formula than any alternatives that I've seen.

The QBR is not perfect, but who expected it to be?

qbr seems like garbage and i think it'll get exposed more and more with each year that goes by

 

[Jikkle]

After this week I can't say I'm a fan of the QBR. I understand passer rating isn't a good indication either but right now I feel it's more accurate than QBR.

It's not the score of Smith by itself that is the problem but stacked up to other QBs scores this week that makes it look stupid.

Orton: 22/32 273y 3td 3int (1 pick 6) 1sack 26pt loss= 77.9 QBR?!?!
Kolb: 20/34 237y 0td 1int 1fumble 4sack 4pt loss= 32.0 QBR
Smith: 21/33 291y 2td 0int 1fumble 3sack 1pt win= 28.7 QBR

I don't know about you guys but I'm taking Smith's performance over Orton which QBR would have you believe had a way better game and Kolb's performance.

 

[Giantsmojo]

Alex has been criticized for lack of YAC and now he's criticized (rated lower) for too many? I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive but poor guy. Good thing he doesn't care about stats. Wins are what is important.

Stats are only useful when they affirm your assertions, and if they don't just ignore them.

 

[mem49er]

Stats are only useful when they affirm your assertions, and if they don't just ignore them.

There's lies, damned lies and statistics!

 

[Thepatty13]

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogESPN NFL QBR ranks: Parsing Alex Smith's showings/blogpost?blogname=nflnation&id=45986

This explains it all. Smiths plays, according to TQBR didnt affect our win prob much.