Total QBR: Brees vs. Rodgers

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chip Douglass

I've only given tQBR a cursory look, but it's a major improvement from the traditional QB rating, which double counts completions and doesn't include sacks and fumbles. I have a few problems with it - it's not transparent (what's the formula for dividing credit?) and it's a compilation of other statistics. The second point is important since, IMO, tQBR too sensitive to the context of the game. Football quarters don't have weighted averages. Important throws in the first quarter carry just as much weight as important throws in the fourth quarter. This is equivalent to the nonsense I've run across in the baseball forum where people think September games "mean more" than April games, even though all wins are created equal. So it could conceivably lead to a situation where a good 4th quarter QB has a higher rating than a far more consistent one. A one-size-fits-all statistic doesn't reveal the dynamics that led to that statistic.

I agree. Even if the want to add value to 3rd down plays fine, but if I throw 3 1st half TD's I may not need to go crazy in the 4th.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chip Douglass

I've only given tQBR a cursory look, but it's a major improvement from the traditional QB rating, which double counts completions and doesn't include sacks and fumbles. I have a few problems with it - it's not transparent (what's the formula for dividing credit?) and it's a compilation of other statistics. The second point is important since, IMO, tQBR too sensitive to the context of the game. Football quarters don't have weighted averages. Important throws in the first quarter carry just as much weight as important throws in the fourth quarter. This is equivalent to the nonsense I've run across in the baseball forum where people think September games "mean more" than April games, even though all wins are created equal. So it could conceivably lead to a situation where a good 4th quarter QB has a higher rating than a far more consistent one. A one-size-fits-all statistic doesn't reveal the dynamics that led to that statistic.

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I agree. Even if the want to add value to 3rd down plays fine, but if I throw 3 1st half TD's I may not need to go crazy in the 4th.

Based on the Packers-Saints game, I don't think QBR overvalues production in the 4th because obviously Brees played a better 4th quarter but still had a far lower QBR.

[Sportsforever]

I don't know much about QBR, but does it seem right to anyone that Donovan McNabb should be higher than Mark Sanchez? I mean, the guy threw for 39 yards and a pick while his team lost. Yes, he made some plays with his feet, but that just seems off to have him grade out higher than Sanchez who put up some decent numbers for a winning team (yes, I know Sanchez didn't play a great game, but it seemed better than McNabb's abomination).

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sportsforever

I don't know much about QBR, but does it seem right to anyone that Donovan McNabb should be higher than Mark Sanchez? I mean, the guy threw for 39 yards and a pick while his team lost. Yes, he made some plays with his feet, but that just seems off to have him grade out higher than Sanchez who put up some decent numbers for a winning team (yes, I know Sanchez didn't play a great game, but it seemed better than McNabb's abomination).

To be fair, from the sound of it, it seems like the Vikings barely even had the ball in the game, and Sanchez pretty much did everything he could to lose the game but was bailed out by special teams, defense, and the kicker.

I'm a little confused how that happened too though.

[Chip Douglass]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

Based on the Packers-Saints game, I don't think QBR overvalues production in the 4th because obviously Brees played a better 4th quarter but still had a far lower QBR.

It's not so much the 4th quarter as the fact that "high leverage" situations seem to account for quite a bit of the rating, which is probably why McNabb posted a higher tQBR than Sanchez. Sanchez had 2 turnovers in the final 16 minutes. In Brees' case, he threw an incomplete pass on 4th and short at the GB 7 late in the 3rd quarter in a one possession game, which was essentially calculated as a turnover.

I'd much rather look at slash stats that provide context to a player's performance rather than apply a single number on a QB.

For example, which would you rather see when comparing two baseball players?

Jacob Ellsbury WAR: 8.2
Jose Bautista WAR: 7.8

Or:

Jose Bautista AVG/OBP/SLG, wRC+, UZR: .305/.443/.627, 186, -4.5
Jacob Ellsbury AVG/OBP/SLG, wRC+, UZR: .317/.376/.553, 149, 14

I just want more information.

[snepp]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sportsforever

I don't know much about QBR, but does it seem right to anyone that Donovan McNabb should be higher than Mark Sanchez? I mean, the guy threw for 39 yards and a pick while his team lost. Yes, he made some plays with his feet, but that just seems off to have him grade out higher than Sanchez who put up some decent numbers for a winning team (yes, I know Sanchez didn't play a great game, but it seemed better than McNabb's abomination).

Sample size.

[Watson]

Chase Daniels should start.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chrisksaint

Trust me i'm not that huge of a homer I was just using a specific example especially when you consider the title of the thread, sorry for having a differing opinion then you won't happen again.

The passive aggressive "difference of opinion" comment is just immature. I got no beef, but not letting that crap slide. Especially since I don't have an opinion either way on the QBR besides to let it play out and see how it looks with a significant amount of data. If you're difference of opinion is that we should look at it right this second and only based on what Brees did then yes, it's different than mine.