Any thoughts on this? What was so wrong with the passer rating system? It's not a listing of how good a QB is, it's how good a passer the QB is. Never claimed to be any more than that. Wonder if ESPN was trying to preemptively get something going to make Vick look better when the defenses catch up to him this year? Linky for those interested Year of the QB
one point that i think is utterly ridiculous is they place more weight on a completed pass within the last two minutes because it is "crunch time". i'll reiterate what i said in the other thread. if that is going to be the case, it should be offset by the change in defense which is probably going to be prevent.
I wasn't trying to take a shot at Vick, moreso at ESPN. They love them some Vick, and I don't think he will do as well this season. (Top 10, but not top 2-3 like he was last year) Donny makes a great point as well bringing up one of the masterminds. This new QBR would seem to prop up average/below average QBs on teams with great defenses/running games like Dilfer was in Baltimore. Perhaps there was a little ulterior motive from Dilfer. :grin:
so if the game is a blowout and the 2nd QB comes in and throws a complete pass under the 2 mins it will have more weight than a pass of the starter at the beginning of the game?
Ugh, the "clutch" stat. Not going to bother with ESPN's system when they can't even acknowledge the advanced sabemetrics used for baseball.
I don't see why they have to include in the situational stats into the total ranking. Just keep that part separate. This isnt a rating that the fans can follow. Fans aren't able keep comprehensive stats on overthrows, underthrows and completion distance at the spot the receiver catches it before he runs. I have thought that QB fumbles should go AGAINST a QB's rating somehow. A QB fumble turnover deep in his own pocket is worse than an intercepted pass way down the field. Ha, great going ESPN.
Is that really any worse than the regular QB rating though? That's a bizarre formula that no one understands either. I think the idea is just to come up with a "better" version of that. Whether this does that or not, I dunno. On the plus side, it's a simple 0-100 scale as opposed to the bizarre QB rating scale.
From the article: One way to think of it is in terms of pressure. A clutch play is defined before the play by how close the game appears to be. Down four points with three seconds to go and facing third-and-goal from the 3-yard line -- that is a high-pressure and high-clutch index situation because the play can realistically raise the odds of winning to almost 100 percent or bring them down from about 40 percent to almost zero percent. The same situation from midfield isn't as high pressure because it's very unlikely that the team will pull out the victory. Sure, a Hail Mary can pull the game out, but if it doesn't work, the team didn't fail on that play so much as it failed before then.
Just a useless piece of crap ESPN created so that it can overhype it and talk about it ad nauseum. Utterly pointless.
I think QBR is a good attempt. Regular QB rating (Or I guess "Passer Rating") IS odd and I never understood its minimum and maximum rating scale. Almost seemed it was TRYING to avoid standard 0-100 scale to look more distinctly "computational". Though reg QB rating for the most part is formulaic and based on whats in the box score, and fans if they WANTED to can compute it for themselves. No one DOES, but they at least CAN. Things like passing from the 20 yard line to the 30 yard line and the receiver runs to the 40 yard line, thats all video scouting dependent. (Though so are things like Yards After Catch which we've had around forever).
Despite it's flaws, seems the traditional passer rating does a fairly good job of identifying and separating the good qbs from the bad. Interesting to see all the elements that go into the new rating...but some valid comments I've seen is will this rating take into account dropped passes, especially if it takes into account errant throws? With regards to sacks, does it give any weight to the talent of both lines? And how does it determine if the sack is attributed to defense, the protection by the offense or simply the qb holding to the ball too long? It's nice to see it gives weight to the yards and touchdowns a quarterback achieves on the ground, but Vick seems to be the only one that would benefit greatly from that. I dunno at the end of the day I think it'll come to the same conclusion that all the other stats do as to who's elite, good/great, average and bad.
Probably so, but that's a good thing. If this thing was saying David Carr was a good QB, there'd be good reason to question it. Here are the rankings of the QBs the last 3 years: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6834507/nfl-peyton-manning-top-two-qbr-seasons The only one in the top 20 that really sticks out is Vince Young's 2009 season (which was OK, but not great) ranked 12th overall - and higher than Michael Vick's 2010 season (where he was an MVP candidate). All the other QB's in the top 20 don't seem to be a surprise at all.
I love how they put this dude at 100... 100: 2010 Jimmy Clausen CAR 397 11.7 And then if that wasn't bad enough, they add one more spot just for Chunky Trunks Russell... 101: 2009 JaMarcus Russell OAK 341 10.5
I figure it is due to clutch factors for VY, since the Titans won a bunch of close games that year, including that 4th down pass against the Cardinals. Otherwise his 2010 season was better. Vick not ranking higher is a stunner. I would think the addition of rushing stats to a rating would have made Vick's ranking higher. As far as the rating itself, it is too damn complicated, and possibly subjective. The 1 hour special really made me less interested in it. I didn't get a special for PER in basketball, and I didn't get one for WAR in baseball, and I'm getting along just fine with those stats. How about they help me measure the players that don't have stats already showing you their importance, like the Lineman.
