ESPN Makes Up New QB Stat

[30gut]

Love the part about excluding meaningless stats.
Like the stats Rex piled up on the Cowboys loss.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Love the part about excluding meaningless stats.
Like the stats Rex piled up on the Cowboys loss.

That wasn't meaningless. Rex brought that team out from behind a pretty sizable lead.

[SirClintonPortis]

Makes a lot of sense to me, especially including fumbles, sacks, penalties, and runs as factors in a QB's performance.

Determining "fault" isn't always easy though, but I think it will probably be more accurate, even with flawed calcuations, than the old QB rating.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Love the part about excluding meaningless stats.
Like the stats Rex piled up on the Cowboys loss.

You might be singing a different tune had Santana caught that bomb that would have given us the lead.

[GTripp0012]

If this stat kills QB rating as we know it, it will be well worth the endeavor.

Comprehensive ways to evaluate QB play have been around as long as I have, so perhaps ESPN Stats & Info isn't exactly heading into uncharted waters here. But based on the description, at least they aren't being repetitive with existing methodology, they are actually trying to incorporate elements of football beyond the play by play.

Just fearing that the methodology is going to be black boxed and that when the stat gets more advanced in future years, no one will be able to tell what changes are being made.

[JoeRedskin]

I would love to know how some of the great QB's of the past came out in this rating (Unitas, Jurgenson, Graham, Marino, Montana, etc.) but I imagine that would be impossible to determine given its a play by play analysis.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I would love to know how some of the great QB's of the past came out in this rating (Unitas, Jurgenson, Graham, Marino, Montana, etc.) but I imagine that would be impossible to determine given its a play by play analysis.

And that may be another huge benefit of a new rating scale.

Any ranking system - - such as the current one - - that can be applied to historically great QBs to compare them with current QBs is misleading because the game and the rules have changed.

Forget the numbers and just use your eyes:

Who is the better QB, Tony Romo or John Elway? Your eyes say it is Elway; the current rating system says it is not even close and Romo is far better. Romo ranks 4th all-time and Elway ranks 54th all time.

Who is the better QB, Duante Culpepper or Dan Marino? The rating system has Culpepper slightly ahead of Marino.

Who is the better QB, Mark Rypien or John Unitas? I think you have figured out what the current rating system says here...

Oh, by the way, the current rating system says that Jason Campbell and Sonny Jurgensen have identical career ratings to date (82.6) and both of them are inferior to Donovan McNabb with a rating of 85.7.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

And that may be another huge benefit of a new rating scale.

Any ranking system - - such as the current one - - that can be applied to historically great QBs to compare them with current QBs is misleading because the game and the rules have changed.

Forget the numbers and just use your eyes:

Who is the better QB, Tony Romo or John Elway? Your eyes say it is Elway; the current rating system says it is not even close and Romo is far better. Romo ranks 4th all-time and Elway ranks 54th all time.

Who is the better QB, Duante Culpepper or Dan Marino? The rating system has Culpepper slightly ahead of Marino.

Who is the better QB, Mark Rypien or John Unitas? I think you have figured out what the current rating system says here...

Oh, by the way, the current rating system says that Jason Campbell and Sonny Jurgensen have identical career ratings to date (82.6) and both of them are inferior to Donovan McNabb with a rating of 85.7.

Good points about QB rating SC, though I'd point out that using quarterback rating or something else that adjusts for era, Romo's career to age thirty blows Elway's career to that date out of the water.

The argument for Elway up until the Shanahan era was that he WAS his offense, and that statistically, he's underrated simply because he had little help. But my eyes tell me that you can't separate the way Elway played in the 80's from the way Romo plays now. The numbers just say that Romo has been far more successful at it.

But yeah, QB ratings were never designed to compare players in the seventies to guys who play today.

[diehard]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

My understanding is who is really at fault for the interception will be factored into the equation

That's easily factored in as a digital 1 or 0.

[MTK]

Sounds interesting. The current QB rating doesn't tell the whole story.

[Dirtbag59]

I knew it. We were given flack for letting JC go because he was "improving every year." ESPN's new rating suggest he's been going down hill since 2008.

45 2008 Jason Campbell WAS 654 54.8
60 2009 Jason Campbell WAS 647 49.4
70 2010 Jason Campbell OAK 479 43.8

McNabb
40 2009 Donovan McNabb PHI 569 57.3
50 2008 Donovan McNabb PHI 671 51.9
78 2010 Donovan McNabb WAS 596 41.0

So ironically we got worse at QB. Lol.

Total QBR Basics
A quick primer on the fundamentals of Total Quarterback Rating:

Scoring: 0-100, from low to high. An average QB would be at 50.
Win Probability: All QB plays are scored based on how much they contribute to a win. By determining expected point totals for almost any situation, Total QBR is able to apply points to a quarterback based on every type of play he would be involved in.
Dividing Credit: Total QBR factors in such things as overthrows, underthrows, yards after the catch and more to accurately determine how much a QB contributes to each play.
Clutch Index: How critical a certain play is based on when it happens in a game is factored into the score.

[Dirtbag59]

Vince Young at 12? Man maybe we should have picked him up. Matt Ryan also seems destined for greatness if this new system is accurate.
Rank Season QB Team Action Plays QBR
1 2009 Peyton Manning IND 660 82.3
2 2008 Peyton Manning IND 649 79.7
3 2009 Drew Brees NO 613 77.2
4 2010 Tom Brady NE 607 76.0
5 2008 Matt Ryan ATL 570 72.6
6 2008 Chad Pennington MIA 577 72.3
7 2009 Philip Rivers SD 602 71.8
8 2008 Jay Cutler DEN 741 71.3
9 2009 Matt Schaub HOU 694 71.0
10 2009 Aaron Rodgers GB 717 69.7
11 2010 Peyton Manning IND 779 69.5
12 2009 Vince Young TEN 347 69.2
13 2008 Matt Schaub HOU 474 69.2
14 2008 Philip Rivers SD 590 69.1
15 2010 Matt Ryan ATL 709 68.6
16 2010 Aaron Rodgers GB 627 67.9
17 2009 Ben Roethlisberger PIT 652 67.3
18 2010 Michael Vick PHI 547 66.6
19 2008 Kurt Warner ARI 702 66.5
20 2010 Drew Brees NO 760 65.9

[mooby]

NFL - Total Quarterback Rating shifts the way we see the position - ESPN

"QBR is scaled from 0 to 100, with 50 representing league-average performance. For a single game, a rating in the 90s is terrific; last year, Vick's six-TD Monday night symphony against the Redskins topped the charts at 99.8. For a season, any QBR above 65 is Pro Bowl-caliber, and Tom Brady led all starters with a 76.0 QBR in 2010."

[Dirtbag59]

ErenCur Eren Cur
I was interested in espn's TQBR until I heard Trent Dilfer helped developed it.... #notago
1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

[rbanerjee23]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

They'll definitely use this. I don't really know if they'll just wipe away the traditional QB rating system for the telecasts. My guess is at least initially it may be a little of both to show the difference

Don't think they'd necessarily lobby the NFL to adopt this stat, but are encouraging other media to feel free to use it. Hence the name Total Quarterback Rating, not ESPN Total Quarterback Rating

Yeah that's my feeling as well -- one really interesting development, according to what I've read about it, is that you can't have a 'perfect' quarterback rating according to the new system whereas in the old system, people could finish with 158.3 ratings i.e. perfect games.