20 attempts too many...

[MTSuper7]

When I saw that Brady had amassed a 117.2 QB rating this year, which is nearly 4 points lower than Manning's record setting 2004 season of 121.1, I wondered how such a thing could occur given that Brady had more TD passes, a higher completion percentage, more yards, fewer interceptions, etc. and what I found is that it came down to the fact that most categories that make up the passer rating formula are based upon "per attempt" numbers. The formula is based upon completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns per attempt, and interceptions per attempt.

 

After fiddling with some numbers here, I was able to bump Brady's rating over 121.1 by subtracting 20 attempts from his total and changing no other information. That's 1.25 attempts per game. Now, I am neither a Pats fan nor a Colts fan. I was just curious what exactly went into passer rating. And based on this information, I guess I feel like people place too much importance on this number. I'm not sure I understand exactly why each component is weighed the way it is weighed, and I'm also not sure why it seems like passer rating is so easily accepted as a fundamental statistic by which we measure a QB's performance. Then again, it's been around for 30 years now. Maybe it wasn't as accepted back in the late 1970s.

 

Anyway, I don't think there is a definitive "right" answer with respect to how passer rating ought to weigh each passing statistic. I just wondered how many people out there were initially surprised that Brady of 2007 didn't have a higher passer rating than Manning of 2004 upon initial review.

 

FWIW, here are a couple of decent reads on passer rating:

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

 

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=951

[kingfish247]

The way the Cold Hard Facts guys do YPA, I believe, is different than what goes into the QB passer rating formula.

 

They subtract sack yards lost from a team's passing yards before computing the per attempt average.

 

It's also important to note that the Cold Hard Facts guys' YPA measures a team's overall passing efficiency not an individuals stat like QB passer rating. Yeah some QBs made 99-100% of the team's pass attempts for the year but factoring in the yards lost from sacks also measures the OL's efficiency in keeping the QB off his ass (as well as the ability or inability of the QB to avoid sacks).

Edited January 3, 2008 by kingfish247

[MTSuper7]

The way the Cold Hard Facts guys do YPA, I believe, is different than what goes into the QB passer rating formula.

 

They subtract sack yards lost from a team's passing yards before computing the per attempt average.

 

It's also important to note that the Cold Hard Facts guys' YPA measures a team's overall passing efficiency not an individuals stat like QB passer rating. Yeah some QBs made 99-100% of the team's pass attempts for the year but factoring in the yards lost from sacks also measures the OL's efficiency in keeping the QB off his ass (as well as the ability or inability of the QB to avoid sacks).

 

Good point, but still an interesting read. Plus, anyone that uses Pam Anderson's breasts in a football analogy deserves props.

[budlitebrad]

Any offensive record that Brady didn't break is obviously flawed. I honestly think they should give him bonus points/yardage/etc. for great hair.

[xMRogers]

Well, subtracting 20 attempts without changing anything else makes him that much more efficient, which he wasn't. That's the key to this - that number isn't a QB rating or even a "passer" rating. It's a "passer efficiency" rating, meaning when you pass how efficient are you.

 

THen they define efficiency based on completion pctg (ok, no one would argue that), TD's per attempt (probalby inarguable), yards per attempt (this one can get a bit screwy actually) and intcp per attempt (this one I always feel is overdone in the formula).

 

Then they cap it (which I don't get) meaning that a 20 for 24 game for 275 yds, 3 TDs and 0 INT will hit 158.3 (I think - could be just off), as would 30 for 30 for 500, 7TD's and 0 picks....now, the first one will win just about every game, but the second one is undoubtedly "more" efficient

 

 

At the end of the day, this simply rewards accuracy - the rest of the stats pretty much fall in line from there as long as your not throwin gonly 4 yd passes.

 

I would like to see a rating that takes this, but adds in other factors (rushing, 3rd down conv, red zone efficiency, sack stats) and actually rates interceptions based on "back breaking (AJ Feely at end of NEP game)" / "it happens (run of the mill 2nd quarter pick around the 50 yd line)" / "hail mary at end of half" sort of scale....plus puts a simple win factor in

[Chief Dick]

Any offensive record that Brady didn't break is obviously flawed. I honestly think they should give him bonus points/yardage/etc. for great hair.

 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

FINALLY someone gets it.

[alexgaddis]

I was able to bump Brady's rating over 121.1 by subtracting 20 attempts from his total and changing no other information.

Thats funny, I was able to get the Vikings 2 more wins this year and thus a playoff berth by simply adding 5 points to their scores in two games...

[Uncle Wiggy]

20 attempts too many - otherwise known as the 2nd half of the Miami game where he looked for Moss on every play.

[MTSuper7]

Thats funny, I was able to get the Vikings 2 more wins this year and thus a playoff berth by simply adding 5 points to their scores in two games...

 

Wow, do you do stand-up comedy? I can hardly contain myself.

 

I was just trying to point out that passer rating seems like a somewhat arbitrary number, using the example of Brady (2007) and Manning (2004). In general, people tend to simply point at passer rating when looking at who had a better season, but maybe it isn't so cut and dry.

[muck]

I was just trying to point out that passer rating seems like a somewhat arbitrary number...

 

All numbers are arbitrary.

[xMRogers]

I was just trying to point out that passer rating seems like a somewhat arbitrary number, using the example of Brady (2007) and Manning (2004). In general, people tend to simply point at passer rating when looking at who had a better season, but maybe it isn't so cut and dry.

 

It's not arbitrary - it measures the efficiency with which one throws based on four main components. Manning was a bit more efficient that year than Brady was this year, mostly cause I'd bet Brady threw more passes in general and wasn't afraid to air it out. Doesn't mean Manning had a better year, just a more passing efficient one. Considering they have to be both in the top 5 of passer ratings all time (if not 1 and 2), I'd say isn't any indication of their relative seasons to each other.

[Grits and Shins]

I'm thinking that you assumed that all 20 attempts you removed were incompletions. How many times did Brady throw 20 incompletions in a row?

 

Doesn't it make a difference if the 20 attempts were completions or incompletions?

[Donutrun Jellies]

All numbers are arbitrary.

Except 2. It is the perfect number and never arbitrary. Yay 2.

[MTSuper7]

It's not arbitrary - it measures the efficiency with which one throws based on four main components. Manning was a bit more efficient that year than Brady was this year, mostly cause I'd bet Brady threw more passes in general and wasn't afraid to air it out. Doesn't mean Manning had a better year, just a more passing efficient one. Considering they have to be both in the top 5 of passer ratings all time (if not 1 and 2), I'd say isn't any indication of their relative seasons to each other.

 

The statistics that are used to calculate passer rating are certainly not arbitrary numbers, but the way in which each statistic is weighted in order to arrive at the final number is arbitrary. I mean, how do we decide whether touchdowns per attempt is more important than interceptions per attempt (or, more importantly, how much more important). There is no objective way to weigh those numbers. I agree that they offer a pretty quick snapshot into a quarterback's efficiency, but my point is that I think people generally put more meaning into this number than truly exists.

[detlef]

Thats funny, I was able to get the Vikings 2 more wins this year and thus a playoff berth by simply adding 5 points to their scores in two games...

 

Wow, do you do stand-up comedy? I can hardly contain myself.

 

I was just trying to point out that passer rating seems like a somewhat arbitrary number, using the example of Brady (2007) and Manning (2004). In general, people tend to simply point at passer rating when looking at who had a better season, but maybe it isn't so cut and dry.

C'mon, that was pretty freaking funny.

 

FWIW, I forget who was saying it, some talking head like Kiper I think. So, really, FWIW. However they were saying the most important QB stat that doesn't get enough attention is YPA.

 

That said, it does seem odd that 1.25 attempts per game shouldn't make that much of a difference.

[MTSuper7]

I'm thinking that you assumed that all 20 attempts you removed were incompletions. How many times did Brady throw 20 incompletions in a row?

 

Doesn't it make a difference if the 20 attempts were completions or incompletions?

 

Your assumption is correct that I removed 20 incompletions (1.25 per game).

[Grits and Shins]

FWIW, I forget who was saying it, some talking head like Kiper I think. So, really, FWIW. However they were saying the most important QB stat that doesn't get enough attention is YPA.

 

Steve Salisbury has been saying it on Mike and Mike in the morning.

 

His point is that a higher YPA indicates that the QB is willing to go down field. QBs that can't or won't go down field aren't and won't be that successful primarily because the opposing defense can focus on the run and don't have to worry about the QB throwing over the top.

[detlef]

Your assumption is correct that I removed 20 incompletions (1.25 per game).

So that affects not only his % put his YPA, TDPA, INTPA. If you think about it, that does have some rather far-reaching effects on the data.

[Grits and Shins]

So that affects not only his % put his YPA, TDPA, INTPA. If you think about it, that does have some rather far-reaching effects on the data.

 

< NOD >

[kingfish247]

Steve Salisbury has been saying it on Mike and Mike in the morning.

 

His point is that a higher YPA indicates that the QB is willing to go down field. QBs that can't or won't go down field aren't and won't be that successful primarily because the opposing defense can focus on the run and don't have to worry about the QB throwing over the top.

YPA is definitely the best measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of a QB.

 

These days if a QB's average is above 6, or even 7, that indicates so many things... he's likely very accurate in his throws, he's hitting receivers all over the field, and he's getting first downs. Most importantly, it's also a good measure of how the team's season went...

 

 

The top 4 TEAMS in net YPA are playoff teams... the 1 and 2 seeds from both conferences.

10 of the top 16 teams in net YPA are playoff teams... TEN and NYG being the only playof teams not better than half the league.

Of the top 6 teams in net YPA that did NOT make the playoffs... HOU, CLE, and AZ finished with records of .500 or better.

 

Rivers, Ben, Tampa QBs, Jax QBs and WAS QBs didn't have huge statistical seasons. They had efficient seasons. It helps to have a huge statistical season (lots of TDs, lots of yards) but it's certainly not necessary and it definitely doesn't guarantee a trip to the playoffs. None of the teams that I just named are in the top 12 in yards, none in the top 17 in completions, and only 2 are in the top 10 in TDs.

[xMRogers]

I saw something that showed that the top 8 QB's in rating are in the playoffs - now, it was a weird thing to see, but if that's true, I would say the rating is a pretty good indication of success.