Quarterback Rating

[Huckleberry]

NFL Passer Rating rankings:
Rk NAME RATING
1 D. Brees 101.20
2 C. Palmer 98.70
3 D. Huard 97.60
4 T. Romo 96.60
5 P. Rivers 96.30
6 P. Manning 95.90
7 D. McNabb 95.50
8 M. Bulger 90.30
9 D. Carr 87.50
10 M. Brunell 86.50
11 T. Brady 84.90
12 J. Losman 84.80
13 S. McNair 83.10
14 M. Hasselbeck 81.60
15 E. Manning 80.30
16 C. Pennington 79.60
17 J. Delhomme 79.40
18 B. Leftwich 79.00
19 B. Favre 78.00
20 J. Kitna 77.30
21 B. Roethlisberger 74.90
22 R. Grossman 74.50
23 A. Smith 74.00
24 M. Leinart 73.90
25 M. Vick 73.60
26 J. Harrington 72.90
27 C. Frye 72.00
28 B. Johnson 71.00
29 J. Plummer 70.50
30 B. Gradkowski 66.30
31 V. Young 65.70
32 A. Walter 55.00
I added runs as pass attempts and completions with appropriate yardage, rushing TDs to the total, sacks as incomplete passes with appropriate negative yardage, and fumbles lost to INTs to come up with a total turnover number. The resulting "QB Rating" rankings:
Rk NAME QB RAT
1 D. Brees 96.59
2 P. Manning 94.43
3 D. McNabb 91.73
4 T. Romo 91.64
5 C. Palmer 90.39
6 P. Rivers 89.80
7 D. Huard 88.35
8 S. McNair 80.81
9 M. Brunell 80.50
10 B. Leftwich 79.50
11 M. Bulger 78.68
12 T. Brady 76.87
13 M. Vick 75.93
14 D. Carr 75.55
15 E. Manning 74.12
16 V. Young 73.10
17 C. Pennington 72.03
18 B. Favre 71.89
19 M. Hasselbeck 71.59
20 J. Delhomme 70.55
21 J. Losman 70.43
22 M. Leinart 69.51
23 J. Harrington 69.18
24 R. Grossman 67.80
25 J. Plummer 67.38
26 A. Smith 66.50
27 B. Roethlisberger 66.46
28 J. Kitna 65.50
29 B. Johnson 64.51
30 C. Frye 62.39
31 B. Gradkowski 58.12
32 A. Walter 35.10
Effect of the new stat compared to basic rating:
Rk NAME Effect
1 V. Young 7.40
2 M. Vick 2.33
3 B. Leftwich 0.50
4 P. Manning -1.47
5 S. McNair -2.29
6 J. Plummer -3.12
7 J. Harrington -3.72
8 D. McNabb -3.77
9 M. Leinart -4.39
10 D. Brees -4.61
11 T. Romo -4.96
12 M. Brunell -6.00
13 B. Favre -6.11
14 E. Manning -6.18
15 B. Johnson -6.49
16 P. Rivers -6.50
17 R. Grossman -6.70
18 A. Smith -7.50
19 C. Pennington -7.57
20 T. Brady -8.03
21 B. Gradkowski -8.18
22 C. Palmer -8.31
23 B. Roethlisberger -8.44
24 J. Delhomme -8.85
25 D. Huard -9.25
26 C. Frye -9.61
27 M. Hasselbeck -10.01
28 M. Bulger -11.62
29 J. Kitna -11.80
30 D. Carr -11.95
31 J. Losman -14.37
32 A. Walter -19.90
As you can see, running well isn't the only way to do well in the stat. It's certainly the biggest factor, but Peyton Manning does well relative to his peers because he gets rid of the ball quickly, doesn't take sacks, and doesn't fumble. Obviously running well is the only way to get a good positive number, but being a pocket passer doesn't mean you have to take a huge hit. The guys at the bottom of the list have fumbled frequently and, of course, taken a lot of sacks. Of course, this effect stat is skewed by their passing skill. A player with a 90 passer rating will have a more negative effect number for the same running stats as a passer with a 70 passer rating. So here's the Running Rating:
Rk NAME Run Rat
1 B. Leftwich 95.47
2 P. Manning 95.31
3 V. Young 95.05
4 M. Vick 81.22
5 D. McNabb 75.90
6 S. McNair 73.88
7 T. Romo 71.73
8 P. Rivers 66.50
9 J. Plummer 60.33
10 M. Leinart 53.94
11 J. Harrington 49.53
12 C. Palmer 48.90
13 A. Smith 39.17
14 M. Brunell 38.89
15 D. Brees 38.39
16 C. Frye 38.11
17 T. Brady 37.18
18 E. Manning 36.41
19 B. Roethlisberger 35.05
20 B. Johnson 34.28
21 D. Carr 33.89
22 C. Pennington 32.56
23 B. Favre 29.05
24 B. Gradkowski 28.91
25 D. Huard 27.92
26 R. Grossman 25.93
27 J. Losman 24.86
28 M. Hasselbeck 21.34
29 M. Bulger 18.40
30 J. Kitna 9.52
31 J. Delhomme 8.78
32 A. Walter 0.00
At first it seems odd that Leftwich and Manning in particular are at the top of the list. But you have to consider that the NFL rating formula does not give negative values. If you're negative, it's a zero for that category. So this doesn't reflect the real impact of running on total value. So I removed the zero constraint (giving most of the QBs negative components for yardage and some of them negative for turnovers, i.e., fumbles lost). I also removed the 2.375 maximum constraint as they were being calculated simultaneously. The only thing this affected was Vince Young's "running completion percentage" value as his ratio of runs to sacks is the highest:
Rk NAME Run Rat*
1 V. Young 98.11
2 B. Leftwich 82.11
3 M. Vick 81.22
4 P. Manning 73.70
5 D. McNabb 69.06
6 S. McNair 63.38
7 T. Romo 56.73
8 P. Rivers 49.08
9 J. Plummer 48.00
10 M. Leinart 29.40
11 J. Harrington 26.01
12 C. Palmer 23.00
13 A. Smith 22.78
14 C. Frye 21.94
15 D. Carr 20.58
16 T. Brady 18.40
17 D. Brees 18.01
18 B. Gradkowski 17.71
19 M. Brunell 15.28
20 B. Johnson 14.96
21 C. Pennington 14.67
22 E. Manning 11.11
23 B. Roethlisberger 8.00
24 J. Losman 3.17
25 D. Huard -0.75
26 M. Hasselbeck -1.18
27 R. Grossman -4.51
28 B. Favre -8.28
29 J. Kitna -16.19
30 M. Bulger -19.74
31 J. Delhomme -26.30
32 A. Walter -44.05
I just put this up for discussion after somebody on another board asked me to calculate this. Obviously they were a Vince Young fan and I, of course, am as well. But the one thing I noticed is that Andrew Walter has, to put it mildly, struggled this year. Sticking a young guy in behind that OL may not have been wise. I thought I remembered his being fairly mobile in college (a shade less than Plummer?) so I'd be interested in hearing thoughts from Raiders fans.

[dixieflatline]

This is some seriously good analysis Huck. The problem is that QB rating is a horrible metric. Adjusting to add the QB's rushing yards helps but even then the system has some big flaws. The "running completion percentage" though is very interesting. I would love to see how a QB's numbers change as he ages. Do they gradually decline or do QBs tend to fall off a cliff as he gets older?

[Easy Mac]

So you're saying Andrew Walter really is a bad QB?

[dawgfan]

Much like the standard QB rating formula, it's really more effective as a team measurement since the quality of one's offensive line plays a big part in your running effectiveness portion (especially the number of sacks taken).

Hasselbeck is a fairly mobile QB, but he's taking a lot more sacks this year due to a much weaker O-line in front of him.

[Huckleberry]

This is some seriously good analysis Huck. The problem is that QB rating is a horrible metric. Adjusting to add the QB's rushing yards helps but even then the system has some big flaws. The "running completion percentage" though is very interesting. I would love to see how a QB's numbers change as he ages. Do they gradually decline or do QBs tend to fall off a cliff as he gets older?

I agree that the NFL formula is a horrible metric. I believe completion percentage is overemphasized and yards per attempt is underemphasized. I do, though, agree that the higher negative impact of interceptions as compared to the college rating is appropriate. Each possession is more valuable in the NFL. Whether or not the degree of emphasis is right I don't know.

I think the mobile QBs that age the best are the ones that are able to still get out of sacks by being quick enough to get out of the pocket and throw it away or else being able to quickly identify dumpoff receivers. The numbers indicate that Steve McNair does a great job of this.

I'd like to see the NFL formula modified. I don't like the 0-2.375 constraint although that usually only applies in games, not over seasons. But I also mentioned above my real beef with it. David Carr has the lowest yards per completion number in the league but it doesn't hurt so he's still in the Top 10 in passer rating. There's no way he's Top 10 in helping his team win.

[Raiders Army]

It's funny but we were having a discussion at work this morning about QB ratings. They don't make any sense. College and pro formulas are different. You can't do them in your head. You can incomplete passes but still have a perfect rating?

[Huckleberry]

Much like the standard QB rating formula, it's really more effective as a team measurement since the quality of one's offensive line plays a big part in your running effectiveness portion (especially the number of sacks taken).

Hasselbeck is a fairly mobile QB, but he's taking a lot more sacks this year due to a much weaker O-line in front of him.

I'm not sure how that differentiates it from any football statistic.

Would LaDainian Tomlinson have 29 touchdowns on the Raiders?

[dawgfan]

I'm not sure how that differentiates it from any football statistic.
It doesn't. Football statistics are much harder to parse out as indicative of individual achievement than baseball statistics - that's just the nature of the sport.

I'm just pointing out that you have to be a little careful when looking at these stats in putting too much emphasis on what they suggest about an individual player.

[dixieflatline]

I do, though, agree that the higher negative impact of interceptions as compared to the college rating is appropriate. Each possession is more valuable in the NFL. Whether or not the degree of emphasis is right I don't know.


I completely agree with everything you said except this part. Are there fewer possessions in the NFL per game? This seems unlikely especially with the new clock running rules college has put in (and no 2 minute warning). It is possible that you are right about this too but I hadn't thought about this and am curious now.

Pulling an individual's performance from the team's performance is very hard to do in football but I think people are getting closer. The team that can accurately do this first will get a huge boost.

[jbergey22]

I completely agree with everything you said except this part. Are there fewer possessions in the NFL per game? This seems unlikely especially with the new clock running rules college has put in (and no 2 minute warning). It is possible that you are right about this too but I hadn't thought about this and am curious now.

Pulling an individual's performance from the team's performance is very hard to do in football but I think people are getting closer. The team that can accurately do this first will get a huge boost.


Much fewer in the NFL...Clock runs on out of bounds plays, first downs unlike college.

[JeffW]

Huckleberry,

Check out:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb.php

If you haven't already. It's a comprehensive rating system for QBs that measures their value over a replacement level QB.

[EagleFan]

I completely agree with everything you said except this part. Are there fewer possessions in the NFL per game? This seems unlikely especially with the new clock running rules college has put in (and no 2 minute warning). It is possible that you are right about this too but I hadn't thought about this and am curious now.

Pulling an individual's performance from the team's performance is very hard to do in football but I think people are getting closer. The team that can accurately do this first will get a huge boost.

Yes. The clock does not stop as often as in college, plus the play clock for college is quicker.

[Huckleberry]

Huckleberry,

Check out:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb.php

If you haven't already. It's a comprehensive rating system for QBs that measures their value over a replacement level QB.

I like their thought process but they don't include positive rushing yards and do include all fumbles. Bad passes that a defender drops aren't counted as interceptions, so I don't see why fumbles that are retained by the offense should count against you.

I redid the passer rating formula based on emphasizing yards per attempt at the expense of completion percentage and slightly magnifying the negative effect of INTs. A possession lost in the NFL is a big deal. Results:

1 Huard 100.89
2 Brees 100.88
3 McNabb 100.15
4 Palmer 99.68
5 Rivers 97.28
6 P. Manning 96.72
7 Romo 95.88
8 Bulger 90.79
9 Brady 87.16
10 Brunell 86.41
11 Hasselbeck 86.02
12 Losman 84.87
13 Carr 84.03
14 E. Manning 83.94
15 McNair 82.79
16 Leftwich 81.10
17 Delhomme 81.05
18 Favre 80.46
19 Vick 79.80
20 Grossman 78.91
21 Pennington 77.81
22 Leinart 75.30
23 Smith 74.77
24 Kitna 74.58
25 Harrington 73.62
26 Roethlisberger 73.38
27 Plummer 72.59
28 Gradkowski 69.87
29 Young 69.68
30 Frye 69.08
31 Johnson 68.18
32 Walter 56.55

Plugging in the running (sacks, runs, fumbles) data, the QB rating looks like this:

1 McNabb 97.19
2 Brees 96.79
3 P. Manning 96.68
4 Palmer 92.95
5 Huard 92.74
6 Rivers 91.27
7 Romo 91.18
8 Leftwich 82.59
9 Bulger 81.18
10 Brunell 81.04
11 McNair 80.53
12 Brady 78.82
13 Vick 78.18
14 E. Manning 78.14
15 Hasselbeck 76.96
16 Young 75.86
17 Favre 74.29
18 Carr 73.20
19 Delhomme 72.68
20 Leinart 72.23
21 Losman 71.71
22 Grossman 71.59
23 Pennington 70.96
24 Harrington 70.21
25 Plummer 69.35
26 Smith 67.77
27 Roethlisberger 67.41
28 Kitna 65.10
29 Johnson 62.71
30 Frye 61.86
31 Gradkowski 60.15
32 Walter 38.67

[JeffW]

They have a second section for rushing.

Re: fumbles. There is a ton of statistical evidence for fumble recovery rates, etc, so it's reasonable to count fumbles as partially lost regardless of the actual outcome of the play. It's not as clear cut with interceptions and you can't separate near interceptions form incompletes without analyzing every passplay.

[Passacaglia]

A possession lost in the NFL is a big deal.

I just want to chime in to agree with this, and to bitch about how when I made fumbles and interceptions -6 points in my fantasy league, everyone cried to holy hell about it.

[stevew]

It's funny but we were having a discussion at work this morning about QB ratings. They don't make any sense. College and pro formulas are different. You can't do them in your head. You can incomplete passes but still have a perfect rating?

Pro rating is not horribly hard to guestimate in your head, once you know the ranges. It's just 4 values with a ceiling limit added together. At some point you go over the max for the rating, and that just means you get the max for that quarter.

[JeffW]

I just want to chime in to agree with this, and to bitch about how when I made fumbles and interceptions -6 points in my fantasy league, everyone cried to holy hell about it.

Yeah, well, fantasy football doesn't remotely mirror NFL football anyway.

[Passacaglia]

Yeah, well, fantasy football doesn't remotely mirror NFL football anyway.

Course not, but you can't blame me for trying...unless you're in my league, I guess.