Is anyone else getting a little tired of ESPN obsessing about their made-up QBR statistic? While the passer rating is/was definitely flawed and most people had no idea how to calculate it, it's nowhere near as flawed as the QBR. The passer rating combined: Completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage, and interception percentage, to form an imperfect yet somewhat effective formula to showcase how effective a quarterback was at passing the football. In other words, the final result of the formula was based on objective numbers. However, that's not fully the case with the QBR formula.
According to the QBR statistic, each quarterback is graded on a scale of 0 to 100 to display how much they contribute to a win, with 50 being "average." The formula takes into account things such as: Overthrows, underthrows, yards after the catch, and clutch plays, among others. The underlying problem with many of these categories is a certain level of subjectivity. This is especially the case with what is called the "clutch index."
In attempting to explain this part of the statistic, ESPN's own Dean Oliver said the following:
"The final major step is to look at how 'clutch' the situation was when creating expected points. A normal play has the clutch index of 1.0. For instance, first-and-goal from the 10-yard line in a game at the start of the second quarter has a clutch index of almost exactly 1.0. A more clutch situation, one late in the game when the game is close -- the same situation as above but midway through the fourth quarter, for example -- has a clutch index of about 2.0. Maximum clutch indices are about 3.0, and minimum indices are about 0.3..."
Oliver follows that up with this bit about "defensive adjustment":
"With this rating, we have intentionally not adjusted for opponents. That doesn't mean that we won't adjust for opponents as we use it but that we want QBR to be flexible for many purposes, and keeping opponents' strength out gives us that flexibility...
There will be analyses that we do on ESPN that will suggest the use of an opponent adjustment, but we will do that when needed, not up front."
Is it just me or does it appear as if ESPN has gotten really bored and is attempting to get fancy when there really is no need for it? While I know most football fans, especially over at ESPN, love to talk about the quarterback and often times make it appear as if it's the only meaningful position on the field, why must we single out such a statistic for just the quarterback? What about a pro bowl tailback, receiver, Dallas' offensive line, Seattle's secondary, etc.? Don't these other positions also contribute to a win? Sometimes even more so than a quarterback? Do we really want to say former Baltimore Ravens quarterback Trent Dilfer had more to do with the team's Super Bowl victory than its dominating defense? Also, while I'm sure some of the QBR "stats" are at least somewhat accurate in what it's trying to grade, it's difficult for me to fully buy into a statistic which combines numbers with opinion. However, even if the "stat" is accurate most of the time, it appears to be far off-base at others.
Even though Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Alex Smith played great on Monday night in a 41-14 win over the New England Patriots to improve his team's record to 2-2, he's currently ranked 24th in QBR, with a grade of 49.0, or just slightly below average according to the statistic. Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl-winning quarterback Russell Wilson, who led the Seahawks to an overtime touchdown drive in their win against the Denver Broncos a couple of weekends ago to improve his team to 2-1, is ranked 23rd in QBR, at 54.2. Ranked ahead of them are: Arizona's Drew Stanton (73.5), Cleveland's Brian Hoyer (72.1), Tampa Bay's Mike Glennon (72.0), Washington's Kirk Cousins (67.1), and St. Louis' Austin Davis (66.7). Drew Stanton's Arizona Cardinals may be 3-0, but that's more due to their defense and special teams than his play. The other four teams are a combined 4-10. Kirk Cousins turned the ball over five times by himself last week in the Redskins 45-14 loss to the New York Giants. Besides ESPN, who in the world would rather have Stanton, Hoyer, Glennon, Davis, or even Cousins starting at quarterback over Russell Wilson or even Alex Smith? Unfortunately, those aren't even the worst such numbers which have come about due to ESPN's QBR.
For example, Doug Farrar of Yahoo Sports wrote this about the QBR statistic:
"...Another thing QBR doesn't seem to take seriously is the fact that it's a bit tougher to rack up quality percentage stats when you're throwing the ball 40 times than when you're throwing it 10 - apparently, the all-knowing QBR doesn't weigh that aspect of the game. We know this because on Monday, it was revealed that Denver's Tim Tebow - he of the 4-for-10 passing day against the San Diego Chargers - had a higher total QBR than did Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers, who completed 26 passes in 39 attempts for 396 yards and two touchdowns against the Atlanta Falcons last Sunday..."
Kevin Braig of Cold, Hard Football Facts, added this:
"...Well, in 2008 Orlovsky QBRed the Lions to 10 losses in 10 games as Detroit became the first team in history to finish 0-16. Thigpen was only a little better, QBRing the Chiefs to only one win in the 14 games in which he participated.
Roethlisberger QBRed Pittsburgh to 12 regular season wins, two more wins over San Diego and Baltimore in the AFC playoffs, and concluded the season with a majestic two-minute, 78-yard, fourth-quarter scoring drive capped by a perfect TD toss to secure a Super Bowl win over the Cardinals. Cold, Hard Football Facts named that effort the third-best drive in Super Bowl history.
But according to ESPN's QBR, in 2008, both Orlovsky (51.1. QBR) and Thigpen (50.8 QBR) contributed more to winning NFL games than Super Bowl hero Roethlisberger (46.4 QBR)..."
That says it all right there. If a Super Bowl-winning quarterback has a lower QBR than a quarterback of a team that finished 0-16, something isn't right, and it may be time for ESPN to KO the QBR.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating
http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/espns-total-qbr-stat-makes-as-much-sense-to-aaron-rodgers-as-it-does-to-me?urn=nfl,wp9534
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/qbr-espns-deeply-flawed-made-for-tv-stat/7978/
According to the QBR statistic, each quarterback is graded on a scale of 0 to 100 to display how much they contribute to a win, with 50 being "average." The formula takes into account things such as: Overthrows, underthrows, yards after the catch, and clutch plays, among others. The underlying problem with many of these categories is a certain level of subjectivity. This is especially the case with what is called the "clutch index."
In attempting to explain this part of the statistic, ESPN's own Dean Oliver said the following:
"The final major step is to look at how 'clutch' the situation was when creating expected points. A normal play has the clutch index of 1.0. For instance, first-and-goal from the 10-yard line in a game at the start of the second quarter has a clutch index of almost exactly 1.0. A more clutch situation, one late in the game when the game is close -- the same situation as above but midway through the fourth quarter, for example -- has a clutch index of about 2.0. Maximum clutch indices are about 3.0, and minimum indices are about 0.3..."
Oliver follows that up with this bit about "defensive adjustment":
"With this rating, we have intentionally not adjusted for opponents. That doesn't mean that we won't adjust for opponents as we use it but that we want QBR to be flexible for many purposes, and keeping opponents' strength out gives us that flexibility...
There will be analyses that we do on ESPN that will suggest the use of an opponent adjustment, but we will do that when needed, not up front."
Is it just me or does it appear as if ESPN has gotten really bored and is attempting to get fancy when there really is no need for it? While I know most football fans, especially over at ESPN, love to talk about the quarterback and often times make it appear as if it's the only meaningful position on the field, why must we single out such a statistic for just the quarterback? What about a pro bowl tailback, receiver, Dallas' offensive line, Seattle's secondary, etc.? Don't these other positions also contribute to a win? Sometimes even more so than a quarterback? Do we really want to say former Baltimore Ravens quarterback Trent Dilfer had more to do with the team's Super Bowl victory than its dominating defense? Also, while I'm sure some of the QBR "stats" are at least somewhat accurate in what it's trying to grade, it's difficult for me to fully buy into a statistic which combines numbers with opinion. However, even if the "stat" is accurate most of the time, it appears to be far off-base at others.
Even though Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Alex Smith played great on Monday night in a 41-14 win over the New England Patriots to improve his team's record to 2-2, he's currently ranked 24th in QBR, with a grade of 49.0, or just slightly below average according to the statistic. Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl-winning quarterback Russell Wilson, who led the Seahawks to an overtime touchdown drive in their win against the Denver Broncos a couple of weekends ago to improve his team to 2-1, is ranked 23rd in QBR, at 54.2. Ranked ahead of them are: Arizona's Drew Stanton (73.5), Cleveland's Brian Hoyer (72.1), Tampa Bay's Mike Glennon (72.0), Washington's Kirk Cousins (67.1), and St. Louis' Austin Davis (66.7). Drew Stanton's Arizona Cardinals may be 3-0, but that's more due to their defense and special teams than his play. The other four teams are a combined 4-10. Kirk Cousins turned the ball over five times by himself last week in the Redskins 45-14 loss to the New York Giants. Besides ESPN, who in the world would rather have Stanton, Hoyer, Glennon, Davis, or even Cousins starting at quarterback over Russell Wilson or even Alex Smith? Unfortunately, those aren't even the worst such numbers which have come about due to ESPN's QBR.
For example, Doug Farrar of Yahoo Sports wrote this about the QBR statistic:
"...Another thing QBR doesn't seem to take seriously is the fact that it's a bit tougher to rack up quality percentage stats when you're throwing the ball 40 times than when you're throwing it 10 - apparently, the all-knowing QBR doesn't weigh that aspect of the game. We know this because on Monday, it was revealed that Denver's Tim Tebow - he of the 4-for-10 passing day against the San Diego Chargers - had a higher total QBR than did Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers, who completed 26 passes in 39 attempts for 396 yards and two touchdowns against the Atlanta Falcons last Sunday..."
Kevin Braig of Cold, Hard Football Facts, added this:
"...Well, in 2008 Orlovsky QBRed the Lions to 10 losses in 10 games as Detroit became the first team in history to finish 0-16. Thigpen was only a little better, QBRing the Chiefs to only one win in the 14 games in which he participated.
Roethlisberger QBRed Pittsburgh to 12 regular season wins, two more wins over San Diego and Baltimore in the AFC playoffs, and concluded the season with a majestic two-minute, 78-yard, fourth-quarter scoring drive capped by a perfect TD toss to secure a Super Bowl win over the Cardinals. Cold, Hard Football Facts named that effort the third-best drive in Super Bowl history.
But according to ESPN's QBR, in 2008, both Orlovsky (51.1. QBR) and Thigpen (50.8 QBR) contributed more to winning NFL games than Super Bowl hero Roethlisberger (46.4 QBR)..."
That says it all right there. If a Super Bowl-winning quarterback has a lower QBR than a quarterback of a team that finished 0-16, something isn't right, and it may be time for ESPN to KO the QBR.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating
http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/espns-total-qbr-stat-makes-as-much-sense-to-aaron-rodgers-as-it-does-to-me?urn=nfl,wp9534
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/qbr-espns-deeply-flawed-made-for-tv-stat/7978/
Comments
Post a Comment