Are You Ready for Some Football

[Dis]

That's why a lot of those stats have qualifiers such as a minimum of 20,000 yards passing or something like that. Or perhaps a minimum of 50 games started.

[SlowwHand]

For Unitas and others to rank that low, still not right.

[Dis]

all the rating does is say how accurate a passer is (though it does reflect td numbers as well- I can't remember what else). That's why Steve Young is so high. And rightly so.

If you are so uptight about it, create a new stat. QB badass rating. One that factors playoff and superbowl wins into the equation.

[Tuberski]

QB rating Formula:



C=completions
A= Attempts
T= TD passes
I= Interceptions.

To find out what C,A,T,I actually are, numerically, read this article:

Article on QB Rating

It helps very little.

ACK!

[Lord Avalon]

Must easier to use The ORIGINAL Quarterback Rating Calculator

[Tuberski]

The article I referenced has the calculator also.

I was just showing how the calculator works.

Sorta.

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

I read an article on this awhile back.

The reason the numbers are so high is because they measure completions as a stat. The more completions you get the higher your rating.

Say you throw 5 5 yard passes successfully, that counts more then one 25 yard pass which makes folks like Elway and Unitas score lower then they should.

Another solution would be to have the average passer rating for the entire league to be recorded each year. Say one year has a much higher passer rating then another, then all the scores would have to be adjusted in order to stay close to the 'true passer rating.' This is what they do with ERA in baseball to try to measure pitchers across very different eras.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I read an article on this awhile back.

The reason the numbers are so high is because they measure completions as a stat. The more completions you get the higher your rating.

Say you throw 5 5 yard passes successfully, that counts more then one 25 yard pass which makes folks like Elway and Unitas score lower then they should.

Another solution would be to have the average passer rating for the entire league to be recorded each year. Say one year has a much higher passer rating then another, then all the scores would have to be adjusted in order to stay close to the 'true passer rating.' This is what they do with ERA in baseball to try to measure pitchers across very different eras.

But you would have to wait until the end of the year to get passer ratings.

ERA is ERA period. Earned runs allowed per 9 innings. Regardless of which era they are from. You can't possibly adjust it.

ACK!

[SlowwHand]

Just like the article stated, wins need to count the most.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
For Unitas and others to rank that low, still not right.

Well Unitas, at least, was in an era were pass interference didn't exist. Receivers could be bumped all the way down the field.

[q=Tuberski]ERA is ERA period. Earned runs allowed per 9 innings. Regardless of which era they are from. You can't possibly adjust it.[/q]

You have obviously never heard of ERA+ then (which is, btw, perhaps the best stat to use in evaluating pitchers among different eras of the game).

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#era+

ERA measured against the league average, and adjusted for ballpark factors. An ERA+ over 100 is better than average, less than 100 is below average.

I think Ben was speaking to the adjustments made in ERA and perhaps an adjustment needs to be made for passer rating, especially for the league average. Unitas may be low today, but compared to his contemporaries, he was damned good. I know some folks are trying to bring better statistical evaluation among different eras in football, but it is more difficult for football than it is for baseball (football is more complex and a variety of new rules have been added, while baseball, while changing park factors, have kept the same basic format to the game - also baseball's batter vs. pitcher dynamic makes it far, far easier to isolate player performance).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just like the article stated, wins need to count the most.

Not necessarily... a great surrounding team can win with an average (or worse) QB. You have to have a way to separate out how much contribution the QB has towards wins.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You have obviously never heard of ERA+ then (which is, btw, perhaps the best stat to use in evaluating pitchers among different eras of the game).

That's different then

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

I think Ben was speaking to the adjustments made in ERA and perhaps an adjustment needs to be made for passer rating, especially for the league average.

Yeah, that is exactly what I had in mind. You would have PR and PR+ like ERA and ERA+

Unitas may be low today, but compared to his contemporaries, he was damned good. I know some folks are trying to bring better statistical evaluation among different eras in football, but it is more difficult for football than it is for baseball (football is more complex and a variety of new rules have been added, while baseball, while changing park factors, have kept the same basic format to the game - also baseball's batter vs. pitcher dynamic makes it far, far easier to isolate player performance).

I would love to see some numbers on PR+ to see just how good folks like Unitas stacked up against his contemporaries.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Not necessarily... a great surrounding team can win with an average (or worse) QB. You have to have a way to separate out how much contribution the QB has towards wins.

*cough*Chicago *cough*

[-Jrabbit]

Another critical factor is the modern offense. Passes are short, crisp, and high percentage these days (the so-called West Coast offense). In the 60s and earlier, a QB rarely completed 60% of passes, and the number of passes per game was considerably smaller. Today, a 60% completion rate is commonplace, and (as mentioned earlier), the rules have been heavily torqued to favor the receivers.

So yeah, QB ratings are not a measure of team success, and are a poor way of comparing field general skills.