There are 175 users in the forums
Originally posted by BobS:
I am waiting for an Alex Smith fan to come up with a system that makes 2-7 for 10 yards look good.
Originally posted by kray28:
Measures of "clutchness" btw....highly problematic. There is no rigorous way to define "clutch". It's a fundamentally qualitative interpretation trying to masquerade as an objective metric.
The fact that such a "measure" is in the formula for this QBR rating basically invalidates it.
Originally posted by JustaFan45:
I'm calling B.S! I can't make these numbers fit any of my Pro-Alex arguments!
Originally posted by kray28:
Basically they designed a rating system to fit their preconceived notion of what the ratings should look like. Basically a statistical version of "begging the question". Another good example of this is John Hollinger's PER system for basketball, basically weighted to assume that Michael Jordan was the greatest player to ever live, and weighting his particular statistical strengths as the most important criteria in rating everyone else.
Originally posted by aTx49er:
Might this be yet another thinly veiled alex hate thread?
Originally posted by Shaj:
I doubt it is BS. I think what they probably did is some very intense statistics involving correlation coefficients and determining what QB factors most influenced winning games and from there assigned variables and weights. The previous system was somewhat arbitrary and missed a lot of variables. I'm sure they then took this model and ran the figures for previous years to see if in fact the results supported empirical results on the field and W/L ratios. I'm sure the analysis was very much like what the A's did with Moneyball. Correlation coefficient analysis is the key here.
It also makes sense in that before, Alex was being compared to QBs he had no business being compared to, such as Carson Palmer, and now that comparison is no longer valid with this system. It however introduces some more interesting comparisons, such as why Bradford, who seemed very clutch, is so close to Smith, who is anything but. However, Bradford is just a rookie, and Smith of course is a 7 year vet.
Originally posted by Shaj:
how do you know? they can have a statistic that shows that with 7+ points deficit with one quarter or less to go, what % of the time do they win, and what is the average # of points are they able to score. This is highly calculable.
Originally posted by BobS:
I am waiting for an Alex Smith fan to come up with a system that makes 2-7 for 10 yards look good.
Originally posted by BHulman:Originally posted by Shaj:how do you know? they can have a statistic that shows that with 7+ points deficit with one quarter or less to go, what % of the time do they win, and what is the average # of points are they able to score. This is highly calculable.
How would they do it exactly? What if it was a special team or defensive play that accounted for the points? What if a running back breaks one 90 yards? What if the other team has a turnover in the red zone and after a couple of dive plays the game winning field goal is kicked? Does the QB get credit for everything or does he have to be involved in how the points are scored? Does he have to pass for X amount of yards or is handing the ball off 15 times to Jerome Bettis good enough? It seems fairly problematic to me.
Originally posted by Shaj:
Here is another ESPN categorization based on this new metric:
- Top tier: Brady, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Michael Vick, Rodgers and Drew Brees.
- Well above average: Josh Freeman, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers.
- Above average: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, David Garrard and Kerry Collins.
- Around average: Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton and Jon Kitna.
- Below average: Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Henne, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith.
- Poor: Derek Anderson, Brett Favre and Jimmy Clausen.
Originally posted by kray28:
Measures of "clutchness" btw....highly problematic. There is no rigorous way to define "clutch". It's a fundamentally qualitative interpretation trying to masquerade as an objective metric.
The fact that such a "measure" is in the formula for this QBR rating basically invalidates it.
Originally posted by kray28:
Basically they designed a rating system to fit their preconceived notion of what the ratings should look like. Basically a statistical version of "begging the question". Another good example of this is John Hollinger's PER system for basketball, basically weighted to assume that Michael Jordan was the greatest player to ever live, and weighting his particular statistical strengths as the most important criteria in rating everyone else.