A new way to evaluate passers?
by James Dator on Sep 20, 2011 1:19 PM EDT
Email
Print
We have already had the traditional passer rating for years, and this season we met ESPN's brainchild the 'Total QBR'. While I like the idea of ESPN's QBR and the way it takes into account rushing attempts, and crunch time situations the main problem is that as fans it's impossible to evaluate or understand the process by which a player is given a number. The system is fraught with subjectivity based on what is 'clutch', what is 'yards vs. expected' etc.
Today a friend of mine presented me with a system he uses, which we'll call the 'CQE' and after spending a lot of time evaluating players with his metric I have found it to be an absolutely brilliant way to distill a QBs passing ability into three basic areas, but still be nuanced enough to stratify player ratings. The formula is this:
YPA + (TD% / 8) - (INT% / 4) = CQE
Basically what this does it look at three basic areas, the yards per attempt (which most of you know I'm already a huge fan) coupled with the TD and INT rates per attempt. It's shocking to see how this system stacks up fairly closely with traditional QB ratings, except for a few changes. It's important to note before I give you the rankings to understand the guy who invented this system isn't a Panthers' fan, he's a Cowboys fan- so when it comes to Cam Newton he doesn't have a dog in the proverbial fight.
I'll give you the ratings after the jump...
The way this system is set up it has no ceiling. The traditional QB rating caps out at 158.3 while ESPN's model caps out at 100. Theoretically the CQE could last forever, but realistically nobody is going to pass for 100 yards per attempt for example.
The List
Here is the ratings of QBs through two weeks using the CQE, and in parentheses I have their current, standard QB rating:
Tom Brady, QB NE 11.39 (128.0)
Aaron Rodgers, QB GB 10.50 (126.4)
Tony Romo, QB DAL 10.32 (108.8)
Kevin Kolb, QB ARI 10.26 (110.3)
Cam Newton, QB CAR 9.54 (89.1)
Drew Brees, QB NO 8.88 (114.9)
Matthew Stafford, QB DET 8.84 (112.0)
Matt Schaub, QB HOU 8.25 (100.4)
Andy Dalton, QB CIN 8.04 (105.7)
Jason Campbell, QB OAK 8.01 (99.7)
Matt Hasselbeck, QB TEN 8.01 (94.2)
Rex Grossman, QB WSH 7.74 (90.6)
Michael Vick, QB PHI 7.57 (93.0)
Philip Rivers, QB SD 7.53 (90.8)
Ryan Fitzpatrick, QB BUF 7.53 (109.6)
Ben Roethlisberger, QB PIT 7.44 (79.4)
Jay Cutler, QB CHI 7.38 (84.1)
Eli Manning, QB NYG 7.26 (80.5)
Chad Henne, QB MIA 7.26 (79.4)
Mark Sanchez, QB NYJ 7.24 (87.7)
Kyle Orton, QB DEN 7.20 (85.4)
Sam Bradford, QB STL 6.99 (77.7)
Joe Flacco, QB BAL 6.90 (82.8)
Alex Smith, QB SF 6.89 (95.2)
Matt Ryan, QB ATL 6.52 (85.1)
Josh Freeman, QB TB 6.45 (84.4)
Colt McCoy, QB CLE 6.06 (82.2)
Donovan McNabb, QB MIN 5.66 (71.2)
Kerry Collins, QB IND 5.62 (71.4)
Tarvaris Jackson, QB SEA 5.39 (80.1)
Luke McCown, QB JAC 3.12 (30.6)
Matt Cassel, QB KC 2.84 (50.4)
What I really love about this metric is how it seems to fairly evaluate all QBs regardless of system. Completion percentage isn't overvalued, and while TDs are important a QB who moves the ball excellently, only to have his team call run plays in the redzone is rewarded. It also penalizes INTs more harshly than traditional QB ratings which adequately punishes QBs for causing costly interceptions.
Since we have such a knowledgeable fan base I thought I would run this system by you. Do you see any glaring holes in this system in terms of being able to purely evaluate QBs from a passing perspective? Sound off in the comments.
85 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just curious...
Why is the TD% divided by 8 and the INT% divided by 4? Are those just the numbers that make the formula work correctly, or do they have a significant meaning that I’m overlooking?
I think this formula is very intriguing…and I like how it puts QB’s on a semi-level playing field.
The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you. ~David Foster Wallace
I may not always be right, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while.
His idea is that a good QB should have at least a 2:1 TD/INT ratio.
So by penalizing an INT by twice as much as a TD benefits a passer his metric expresses this.
Ahh...makes sense.
The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you. ~David Foster Wallace
I may not always be right, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while.
I'll also go ahead and ask
How do the TD% and INT% get calculated?
Is it as simple as td/int passes divided by total passes?
If you do that then you start penalizing a QB too much for an INT.
Using Cam as an example:
Current (using 8 and 4): 10.29 (YPA) + 0.45 (TDs) – 1.2 (INTs) = 9.54
New (using 4 and 2): 10.29 (YPA) + 0.90 (TDs) – 2.41 (INTs) = 8.78
And yes, getting a TD or INT % is as simple as dividing the touchdowns or interceptions by number of pass attempts.
but you also reward him more for TDs
if the logic behind 8 and 4 is to take into account the 2:1 ratio, the actual numbers you divide by shouldn’t matter, as long as they fit the ratio.
Besides, the actual number for the QBE doesn’t matter since it’s an infinite scale. The number only matters in relation to other QBs or previous ratings.
The concept is that you don’t want to reward TDs too much because then it penalizes teams who run the ball in the redzone, rather than pass for TDs. The 8 and 4 hits a sweet spot in relation to typical YPA numbers
(Sigh.) TWSS.
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
TWSS...(sorry)
I kinda like power running football though. It’s iike a bloody violent ballet…
When it was working it was a thing of beauty to me. - Vagus
(Please note that from now on I shall only refer to Cam as "The Newt" and Rivera as "BAMF")
Jerry Richardson: "Bitch slapping the NFL one signing at a time" - MMA_Pitbull
by The Duke Dude on Sep 20, 2011 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
okay, I see how they differ
I’m basically changing the weight on the TD/INT statistics, which would devalue YPA. I’d be interested to see how the rankings change under a different weight.
Still, 8/4 is an objective weight, unless there was some statistical analysis done behind choosing those specifically.
Ah, but since it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, right?
So long as every QB compared is measured by the same ratio, their pecking order will remain the same, won’t it? Therefore, it’s not the actual NUMBER that matters, but the order of rank that results.
I like it. It over-weights YPA, which both James and I feel is more important than a completion %.
To give an idea using two QBs why I really love this system look no further than Cam Newton and Mark Sanchez
The CQE basically points out the difference between a playmaker and a caretaker.
Using the old QB rating Newton is an 89.1 and Sanchez is a 87.7- basically the same QB, however Newton has thrown for 340 yards more on just 15 more pass attempts. So despite the fact Cam has thrown for 1 more INT and 1 less TD he’s still much higher on the CQE scale than Sanchez because of his ability to move the chains.
The most shocking thing about this list...
Someone’s ranked lower than Luke McCown.
The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you. ~David Foster Wallace
I may not always be right, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while.
Matt Cassel is historically bad right now
I tried to find a QB who played worse… I tried Jamarcus Russell, I tried Akili Smith, I tried Ryan Leaf… nobody compares. Heck, I even tried Jimmy Clausen from last year!
The stats on Cassel are scary… 4.3 yards per attempt, just a 0.2% chance of throwing a TD and a 6.9% chance of throwing an INT!
He. Has. Been. Terrible.
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
Wow. Yeah I don’t really like the QBR, it seems to be based on “opinion” more than facts, how can someone determine exactly what each play’s magnitude is on the game?? I mean really it’s all opinion when it comes down to it. I’ll stick with the regular QB rating. =)
I agree.
Too much subjectivity with the QBR.
I think the old QB rating does a fair job. But part of that is probably b/c I’m used to it.
This system has merit, too. Interesting that it can’t really be maxed out.
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
Technically it can be 'maxed out' but in practice it never will be
If a QB was able to complete all their passes for 100 yards each, always scoring a TD and never scoring an INT we could have scores over 100, but as we see that over 10 is amazing really that’s impossible.
Yeah, I like to point out the existence of things that are highly unlikely if not impossible. I’m that guy.
For all intents and purposes, I guess you could correlate it to the ol’ scale ‘from 1 to 10.’
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
Pretty much
My friend and I have looked at the all time, historically great seasons in NFL history and the best we can find is Joe Montana in 1987.
The thing that’s great too is it works on classic QBs like Namath or Bradshaw too
Please tell me you've done the math and Cam is better than Bradshaw was...
It would be too funny.
Please, tell me this is true.
The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you. ~David Foster Wallace
I may not always be right, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while.
I don't think there's any question.
Turry was an average QB who rode the coat-tails of an elite defense and a solid running game.
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
Shhh...don't say that out loud.
He’s an all-time great and a true evaluator of talent.
Remember, as far as QB’s go…it’s all about the WINZ.
The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you. ~David Foster Wallace
I may not always be right, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while.
Funny how QBs get all the glory and sometimes all the blame.
That’s what Terry would have us believe. If there’s one guy who doesn’t belong in the HOF its Terry Bradshaw.
And me saying this has nothing to do with his disparaging comments about Cam…felt this way since, well, since he was voted into the HOF (along with nearly every other Steeler from during their run of 4 SBs).
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
Bradshaw Threw Deep Great, But Had Touble Connecting On Short Dumpoff Throws
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
It didn't hurt that he had two HOF WRs to throw jump balls to.
Swann and Stallworth didn’t have the gaudy statistics in what was a run-first league, but they were (and still would be, if you will) elite targets.
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
Which begs the old FB question: did the WRs make the QB, or did the QB make the WRs?
Always a little of both, but in Bradshaw’s case, he was definitely helped by his supporting cast, and the tremendous Defense that the Steelers always put on the field. With all the wins, and all the rings, he undoubtedly got more praise than he could have merited, had he QB’d for a weaker team.
As that last comment relates to Newton, can anyone say (ignoring the W/L situation thus far) that he’s produced as he has BECAUSE of a great supporting cast? I think he’s about 95% responsible for what he’s done, with the other 5% coming from a few great catches, in traffic.
Do you recall what Montana's CQE was in that '87 season?
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
I'm sorry, it was the 1989 season
He finished with a CQE of 9.44 on the season.
Next is Marino’s 1984 season where he finished with a 9.32
So at this rate (famous last words):
Cam would set a CQE record for a single season, only to be topped in the same year by four other QBs. Wow.
But obviously everyone will cool off a little bit as defenses settle in.
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
That's why I like the "+" stats in baseball
It sets it to a scale where 100 is league average. A player with an OPS+ of 110 would then be 10% better than average.
Follow me on Twitter at @JakeHumphrey91
by Jake Humphrey on Sep 20, 2011 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I like those stats too.
Even though they were created by a bunch of nerds who live in their mom’s basement and never have sex with real girls.
(Kidding, I’m a fan of the sabermetrics movement, even though I totally blow at math.)
The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you. ~David Foster Wallace
I may not always be right, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while.
Sabermetrics movement sounds like a painful experience in the bathroom.
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
by ERL on Sep 20, 2011 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Not that I know how QBR works
But assessing a play’s magnitude is possible in baseball at least. The stat is called Win Probability Added, or WPA for short.
Follow me on Twitter at @JakeHumphrey91
by Jake Humphrey on Sep 20, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
ugh...
If it were important, they’d put it on the scoreboard. ;-)
The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you. ~David Foster Wallace
I may not always be right, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while.
Careful
You’ll get traded to the Mets.
Follow me on Twitter at @JakeHumphrey91
by Jake Humphrey on Sep 20, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you. ~David Foster Wallace
I may not always be right, but even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while.
I Love The Simplicity Of The Stat
While I love the simplicity of the stat, I’ve always hated the YPA stat. The YPA duplicates others stats, twice rewarding completion percentage, and can be misleading. I’ve always prefered the straight forward YPC (Yards Per Completion), because it only measures completions, because it greatly rewards weak armed QB’s, though the difference is under a yard or 2. Some newer stats do an even better job measuring, by measuring the distance of a completed pass while in the air.
The problem with YPC
It does absolutely nothing to punish a QB for a lack of accuracy.
Chad Henne has a YPC of 13.9, but Philip Rivers has a YPC of 11.5.
By looking at YPC it appears Henne is the better QB despite throwing for 125 less yards on just 9 fewer attempts.
That's What I Mean About Duplicating Other Stats, Completion Percentage Is Rewarded As A Stand Alone Stat & The YPC Is A Better Stand Alone Stat Because It Doesn't Reward QB Accuracy Twice
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
YPA Does Reflect A QB's Completion Percentage By Measuring Passing Yardage Against Incomplete Passes That Contribute Nothing To The That Yardage
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
It's A Very Minor Disagreement, I Dislike YPA As A Stand Alone Stat, But It Works In This Formula
YPA works in this formula because it combines passing accuracy with the total passing yardage. I think the formula could be even better if like in team passing yardage totals the yards lost in sacks were subtacted from the QB’s passing yardage, and a QB’s rushing yardage were added to it. That would still be a very simple, easy to understand formula, and better reflect a QB’s true total performance.
I just don’t like YPA as a stand alone stat because it’s a little misleading (usually only a yard or less), in that it calculates total passing yardage based upon all passes attempted, including the incompletetions, which contribute nothing to that passing yardage total. It’s a great stat to reflect both accuracy and yardage, but it sort of short changes deep passers, and rewards short passers, because accuracy generally decreases as the distance increases..
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Would you prefer that a RB have a stat for Yds gained only on +yardage plays?
A RB’s measurement includes ALL plays that he carries the ball, including those that are stuffed at the line, and those in which he’s hit behind the line, therefore it includes negative plays.
For a QB, the YPA likewise includes the INC’s he throws, whereas you apparently only want to include his completions, and exclude the misses. That makes no sense to me.
IF A RB's YPC Included His Passing Yards, Then It Might Resemble A QB's YPA
A QB’s YPA is their total yards passing, devided by their combined number of completions and their incompletions.
A RB’s YPC is their total yards rushing, divided by their total numbers of rushing carries.
So a proper comparison of a QB’s YPA to a RB’s YPC would be to total the RB’s total rushing and pass receiving yardage, and then divide by their total number of carries and catches. It would be a great measure of their total production, but you would have no idea of how effective the RB was in his running and catching independently.
Another (maybe better) example of how a RB’s YPC would compare to a QB’s YPA stat would be to divide their total rushing yards by the number of plays they were on the field, rather than their number of carries. After all, the RB could have ran on those plays that he didn’t, it’s not his fault his number wasn’t called
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
You're talking about a whole different thing, bringing in a rusher's pass receiving yds.That's an entirely separate stat.
When I mentioned a rusher’s YPC average, it includes (as it should) his unproductive and unproductive rushes.
For you to say a QB’s efficiency should be better measured by YPC, rather than YPA, is like saying a RB should only count his productive runs, and not all the ones he’s stopped for zero or minus yardage.
Do you now see what I meant?
The incompletions must be factored in, for the QBs, and their counterpart is the unsuccessful rushes for the RBs. DeAngelo Williams may be a good example. I’m just guessing here, but we all know he gets stopped for no gain at least a 1/4 of his runs, then breaks a 15+ yarder, and maybe gains 3-5 yds the others. That’s probably a good estimation for most of the top backs. So, for illustration, let’s say a RB has 8 rushes in a game. 2 are for NG, 1 gains 20 yds, the other 5 average 5 yds. That’s a total of 45 yds in 8 carries, so YPC = 5.6. By your method of only including “successful” plays, one would have to exclude the 2 NGers (the same as you want to exclude incompletions for a QB) – so now your YPG (let’s call it yds per gain) would be 45/6, or 7.5. See how that’s not valid?
I Think You, James, & I Are Just Looking From Different Directions & Can't See The Point From The Same Angle
Both YPA and YPC (C=Catch) include pass completions that lose yardage, but YPA also counts complitions that never happen (incompletions).
YPC (Yards Per Carry) and YPC (Yards Per Catch) are the exact same stat, both count all carries and completions for both negative and positive yardge.
That’s why I hate the YPA stat (as a stand alone, it works in the formula though), it counts plays that never happend, counting 2 oposits as the same (completions and incompletions). Thus it only value is by inference, because it reflects a QB’s completion percentage, but stats should be pure fact truth, not inferences.
I guess it’s like when I started out as an accounting major. In High School, junior college, and the 1st 4 year college class, I loved accounting, because it was all about, “these are the rules”. Howevr, after the 1st 4 year college accounting class almost everything becomes “these are the exceptions to the rules”, and that just seemed somehow dishonest to me, like a betrayal. so I changed my major.
by PanthersRoar on Sep 21, 2011 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I Just Thought, The YPA Combines The Completion Percentage With The Passing Yardage, So Why Not Include A QB's Rushing Yards, & Subtract His Sack Yardage
For team passing yardage the stat subtracts lost yardage from sacks, so why not do this in this formula?
Why not include a QB’s rushing yards, because that is a part of his total performance?
Those 2 additions would still keep the formula rather simple, and easy for fans to understand than either the current system, or the new system being pushed by ESPN.
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks!
I hated this new rating thing until now… mainly because I didn’t understand it. I thought it was a some crazy-ass formula to figure out a players magic skills, hit points and special attacks. Haha!
"Buy the ticket, take the ride" ~ Hunter S. Thompson
by SwankTheTank on Sep 20, 2011 3:21 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Brilliant!
‘When Cam throws the ball, he gets a 1D4 boost from his arm-strength, and a 2D6 bonus for his Cammy Cam Magic.’
"We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand"
by ERL on Sep 20, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Not enough polyhedral dice for my liking, but I'll take it.
Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing you will be an idiot in the future and common sense is knowing you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques
I don't always dress like a pirate...but when I do, I do it in this picture.
Some more fun with the rating... it can be used for college too
Here was Cam Newton vs. Andrew Luck
- Newton: 10.91
- Luck: 9.62
This year in three games Luck has posted a 10.13
Yeah, but one win was against Duke
which essentially means nothing. I should know; I’m an alum and our football sux.
"Men, I want you just thinking of one word all season. One word and one word only: Super Bowl." - Bill Peterson
A promising possibility.
I really dislike the new ESPN rating. Many of those folks stopped paying attention to sports a long time ago. I’d be curious to hear how your friend arrived at this formula and why the use of 8 and 4.
Any thoughts of furthering this beyond just the blog?
I kinda like power running football though. It’s iike a bloody violent ballet…
When it was working it was a thing of beauty to me. - Vagus
(Please note that from now on I shall only refer to Cam as "The Newt" and Rivera as "BAMF")
Jerry Richardson: "Bitch slapping the NFL one signing at a time" - MMA_Pitbull
ESPN is making a power grab
I’d stick with the traditional metrics, otherwise how do you compare today’s QBs to previous ones without total recalculation?
"Men, I want you just thinking of one word all season. One word and one word only: Super Bowl." - Bill Peterson
There's a major flaw with this rating
The abbreviation. Its overly home-shopping-esque and makes me feel like doing a wrist wave after speaking the acronym.
Something to consider...
I have a question. How would Joe Montana’s numbers rank considering he threw a ton of 6 to 9 yard passes that went for big yards. Wouldn’t you have to do something with the recievers yards after the catch? Example would be J-Stews short pass for big yards. Cam didn’t get the yards J-Stew did. Why should Cam get credit?
I hope you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you've heard is not what I meant.
- Richard Nixon
On Stewarts’ 100 yard day on Sunday only 21 came from YAC. Meaning Cam Newton threw 79 of them through the air.
You Could Subtract YAC Along With My Suggestion Of Sack Yardage & Add QB's Rushing Yards To Get The Total Yardage Used In The Calculation
That’s complicating things a bit though.
You should sent the formula to NFL Network as a quick shorthand QB rating system to compete againt the ESPN system.
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
i only see one thing, unless im missing something.
It seems to penalize wc offenses due to ypa being the main metric. U could have a very efffective wc offense and those qb’s seem to be bumped down the list just due to the system.
by braves&panthers4ever on Sep 20, 2011 5:32 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Actually, it doesn't seem to matter
Joe Montana and Steve Young are two of the top three QBs ever using this metric
I really like this rating as a different perspective on the stats
but I think it may fall short in some areas. This is just based on my initial impressions, I suppose it really just depends on what aspects of a QB you want to evaluate. No single number will ever tell the entire story. Shortchanges some QBs who just work the short passes and RBs more than deep passes. Example:
Ryan Fitzpatrick is ranked 15th in CQE with the following stats:
45/71 (63.4% completion) – 14th in league
6.6 yds/attempt – 26th in league (this really hurts him under the QCE)
236 yds/game – 19th in league (important to note that the Bills are 1st in yds/game rushing)
7 passing TDs – Tied for 1st in league
1 INT – 4 QBs have thrown zero, obviously a lengthy tie for 2nd.
Just for comparison he is 6th in the league in traditional QB rating and 2nd in the new total QBR.
Now in my mind, a great QB doesn’t have to put up the gaudiest of stat lines, although I’ve enjoyed the attention Cam’s have gotten. A great QB can also be someone who plays within the system of their offense incredibly well. I’m not saying Fitzpatrick is a great QB, just that his numbers so far this season warrant a ranking higher than 15th in the league. Sure he has been able to lean on his running game, but any team will if defenses are giving it to them at 190 yards per game. 7 TDs to one INT and over 60% completion? That’s excellent in anyone’s book, especially considering that the are 2-0 (not that wins/losses should necessarily be in a QB rating, but it helps his case.) Anyways, I do like the rating as a new window into stats, but just like all the rest it never gives a complete picture.
I Feel The Same Way "jcbouche"
However, the YPA works in the formula by reflecting both yardage and completion percentage, though I think it could be even better if the passing yardage total subtracted yards lost due to sacks, and added a QB’s rushing yards.
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
On Fitzpatrick:
How did he get those TDs?
7 total TDs, 5 of them were on passes inside the 10 yard line on completions less than 10 yards. Granted, that takes a certain skill… but hardly the kind of playmaking skill we see from someone like Tom Brady who had 5/7 of his TDs on passes 10 yards or greater.
Let’s look at another QB with the same issue: Donovan McNabb in 2004. He finished with 3,875 yards, a 64% completion record, 31 TDs and 8 INTs.
His CQE: Just under 8.0 at 7.8, which is very close to Fitzpatrick now. Take McNabb out of a pass friendly system that doesn’t require to make plays and he’s been garbage each of the last two seasons.
That's A Great Example Of What I've Been Saying About A QB's YPA James
A QB’s YPA short changes a QB like Brady who’s passes are deeper, and rewards a QB like Fitzpatrick who’s passes are generally shorter.
“bigdavis” just brought up a RB’s YPC stat in the discussion about a QB’s YPA, and the comparision hit me, a QB’s YPA would be like a RB’s rushing yards divided by the number of plays they were on the field, rather than their number of carries.
by PanthersRoar on Sep 20, 2011 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
YPA does not reward Fitzpatrick, it does the opposite
The reason Fitz is so low is because of his low 6.6 YPA vs. Brady’s 10.7
by James Dator on Sep 20, 2011 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
This Is How Misleading YPA Is, Brady Has A Better YPA Than Cam 10.7 to 10.3 Yards, But Cam Has A Much Better YPC (C=Catch) Than Brady 14.9 to 16.8 Yards
This shows that Cam Newton is passing almost 2 yards longer on each pass than Brady, but the YPA is very misleading because it has Cam trailing Brady by .4 yards, due only to a lower completion percentage (62.7% to 71.6%). Thus Cam is short changed by YPA in comparision to Brady, because his completion percentage is lower than Brady’s, and he has a much higher YPC (Yards Per Completion) average.
Just how misleading the YPA stat is doesn’t show up well with Fitzpatrick because he has both less passing yards than Brady (472 yards to 940 yards) and a lower completion percentage 63.4% (45 of 71) than Brady’s 71.6% (63 of 88).
by PanthersRoar on Sep 21, 2011 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
thats the beauty of it
Its all about finding the perfect balance.
at some point both extremes are completely useless. A QB that throws all of his passes for 40 yards, with a horrible completion percentage but still manages a TD or two a game is still going to lose a game even though he has a great YPC
A QB that throws for 1 yard a throw with a great completion percentage still won’t win his team a game.
I really don’t see the usefulness of YPC in any sort of formula at all.
Good points, but until he screws up he is doing exactly what he needs to do to win
I just like the idea of having more context to the rating. Also it ranks Cam higher than Brees by a decent margin. I love what Cam is doing but Brees has simply had a better year so far. 64% completion, 344 yards/game, 6TDs and 0 interceptions. Cam has been great but not that good, sheer yards shouldn’t account for that much.
Very Interesting
I went back and did career numbers for some of the “greats”
Peyton Manning: 7.61
Tom Brady: 7.52
Joe Montana: 7.39
I find this an interesting method of tracking QB play. Thanks for the article.
by WhamBamThankYouCam on Sep 20, 2011 7:07 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cat Scratch Reader
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
