Alex Smith QBR: Comparing Week 5 and Week 9

Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Right. So I assume you would have answered similarly, that something like QBR may eventually displace Passer Rating as the most used stat.

Agreed. Although I think ESPN trying constantly to cram QBR down everyone's throat is making people gag a bit.

Originally posted by Joecool:
I like the Passer Rating system because it more concretely represents that actual stats of a QB rather than the "effectiveness" of that QB. When I see a Passer Rating of 100, I know that if I look at that QB's stats, I will see some pretty numbers.

The QBR, not so much. It's too subjective and you can't decipher very much by looking at the QBR alone. That is where this measure fails. The entire purpose of a stat is the fact that you can infer something based on that stat. One can't really infer very much based on the QBR. In fact, more questions arise from the QBR such as, "he threw 3 TD's with 0INTs, so why is the rating so low. One is required to read the explanation report of the player's QBR. There's so many parts that can lower the QBR that it's not visible from the stat alone.

Therefore, the QBR fails as a stat because it requires a full report on what factors lowered that players QBR from another player who had identical hard stats but a higher QBR whereas the Passer Rating can be taken as a hard stat and the overall stats of the QB can be inferred fairly accurately.

I disagree with your criticisms of QBR but I see your point. The fluctuations are maddening - how can player A go 20/30 / 2 TD / 0 INT and get a 80+ QBR, and player B go 20/30 / 2 TD / 0 INT and have a 20 QBR?

But...if one of player A's 20 completions was a touchdown on 4th down from 20 yards out while down by six with 3 seconds left, shouldn't a "quarterback rating" credit him a little higher?

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:

Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Right. So I assume you would have answered similarly, that something like QBR may eventually displace Passer Rating as the most used stat.

Agreed. Although I think ESPN trying constantly to cram QBR down everyone's throat is making people gag a bit.

Originally posted by Joecool:
I like the Passer Rating system because it more concretely represents that actual stats of a QB rather than the "effectiveness" of that QB. When I see a Passer Rating of 100, I know that if I look at that QB's stats, I will see some pretty numbers.

The QBR, not so much. It's too subjective and you can't decipher very much by looking at the QBR alone. That is where this measure fails. The entire purpose of a stat is the fact that you can infer something based on that stat. One can't really infer very much based on the QBR. In fact, more questions arise from the QBR such as, "he threw 3 TD's with 0INTs, so why is the rating so low. One is required to read the explanation report of the player's QBR. There's so many parts that can lower the QBR that it's not visible from the stat alone.

Therefore, the QBR fails as a stat because it requires a full report on what factors lowered that players QBR from another player who had identical hard stats but a higher QBR whereas the Passer Rating can be taken as a hard stat and the overall stats of the QB can be inferred fairly accurately.

I disagree with your criticisms of QBR but I see your point. The fluctuations are maddening - how can player A go 20/30 / 2 TD / 0 INT and get a 80+ QBR, and player B go 20/30 / 2 TD / 0 INT and have a 20 QBR?

But...if one of player A's 20 completions was a touchdown on 4th down from 20 yards out while down by six with 3 seconds left, shouldn't a "quarterback rating" credit him a little higher?

One can't judge situational/emotional aspect of the game. It's about executing the play as designed and as the OC has set it up throughout the game for that play. It's not just the QB. Rating that is invalid and coaching/play design/play calling plays a large factor in that.

GOD DAMNIT!! its ROGERS NOT RODGERS. lol

The valuation of smoething intangible like clutchness makes the stat suck. Honeslty you should have a high rating if you're tossing TD's early in the game and blow a team out if you're playing well. It's too much garbage, QBR is not ready IMO.

Originally posted by 1swift:
The valuation of smoething intangible like clutchness makes the stat suck. Honeslty you should have a high rating if you're tossing TD's early in the game and blow a team out if you're playing well. It's too much garbage, QBR is not ready IMO.

i agree with this. Its a good idea and they should keep working on it, but A) I really think ESPN should stay out of the stat-making business and should give this over to someone else and B) even though passer rating is flawed, it basically does still reflect when a QB has a good game. It's less flawed than this new stat, IMO.

Both QBR and PR could be tweeked a bit. For example, excluding spikes from PR would help. But part of the problem is deciding what exactly we want to measure. If a QB throws a beautiful pass while under great pressure, and it is complete, but contributes nothing to the outcome of the game, should it count for nothing? Or something, but not as much as a game-changing pass?

Alex is a statistical outlier. How many QB's throw for 200 yards/game with a high completion percentage and only 1/2 a turnover/game? Would you rather have Alex or Phillip Rivers, based upon their play this year? And how well does QBR or PR reflect that?

Originally posted by BMoore56:
GOD DAMNIT!! its ROGERS NOT RODGERS. lol

No it's not.

Originally posted by 1swift:
The valuation of smoething intangible like clutchness makes the stat suck. Honeslty you should have a high rating if you're tossing TD's early in the game and blow a team out if you're playing well. It's too much garbage, QBR is not ready IMO.

You would get a high QBR for that situation. Alex's QBR in the Tampa game was the highest ever. The thing QBR really struggles with is evaluating legit comeback stats vs. garbage time stats.

I would argue you can estimate the "clutchness" or importance of a play by looking at win probability before and after. The nice thing about looking at it that way is that it stands the test of time well. As the NFL becomes for passer friendly, Joe Montana's career 92.3 rating will slip further and further down the list. 20 years from now, kids will be wondering what the big deal was. But...in terms of critical plays, which swung the win probability decisively to our side, Joe will always rank at or close to the top.

But all you QBR detractors do make valid points.

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:
Well, stats are all about...statistics.

Niners down 23-3 at Philly have maybe a 2% chance of winning (statistically). Smith throws a TD, now we're down 23-10..maybe a 7% chance now. Even the second TD pass, to make it 23-17...still only about a 20% chance. So, two nice drives, two nice results...but only about a 20% increase in win probability. (The last TD drive to take the lead was almost all run plays, so Smith got nada for it.)

The bold & underlined is a good example of the flaws in the QBR system. It penalizes the traditional WCO use of the pass to set up the run. The running game was successful because Smith had softened the D up with passing. So, while the Eagles were expecting Harbaugh to continue what was working he threw a changeup and ran the ball down their throats. This should not penalize the QB.

This is very similar to the QB driving the ball 70 yards through the air to the opponent's one yard line and the coach choosing to run the ball three times in a row (or more). This has happened to Smith a number of times this year.

I do not think the QBR is better than the Passer rating at all. The Passer Rating uses more objective stats and it is easy to watch the game and see anomolies. Trying to analyze the QBR is impossible because of the subjectivity.

the qbr is crap

stopped following the week which alex got a 20 QBR against the eagles (and on same week romo had higher QBR than stafford when romo threw 4 second half picks and stafford threw teh winning TD)

Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
the qbr is crap

stopped following the week which alex got a 20 QBR against the eagles (and on same week romo had higher QBR than stafford when romo threw 4 second half picks and stafford threw teh winning TD)

Yup that thing don't make no sense.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:
Well, stats are all about...statistics.

Niners down 23-3 at Philly have maybe a 2% chance of winning (statistically). Smith throws a TD, now we're down 23-10..maybe a 7% chance now. Even the second TD pass, to make it 23-17...still only about a 20% chance. So, two nice drives, two nice results...but only about a 20% increase in win probability. (The last TD drive to take the lead was almost all run plays, so Smith got nada for it.)

The bold & underlined is a good example of the flaws in the QBR system. It penalizes the traditional WCO use of the pass to set up the run. The running game was successful because Smith had softened the D up with passing. So, while the Eagles were expecting Harbaugh to continue what was working he threw a changeup and ran the ball down their throats. This should not penalize the QB.

This is very similar to the QB driving the ball 70 yards through the air to the opponent's one yard line and the coach choosing to run the ball three times in a row (or more). This has happened to Smith a number of times this year.

I do not think the QBR is better than the Passer rating at all. The Passer Rating uses more objective stats and it is easy to watch the game and see anomolies. Trying to analyze the QBR is impossible because of the subjectivity.

I take exception to your bolded and underlined. Alex wouldn't get "penalized" for the drive where we ran a lot, but he wouldn't get a lot of positive credit for it either. Why should he? A below average QB can hand the ball off six times in a row.

Yes, as you point out, Alex set up that drive with a brilliant third quarter. He should get credit for those plays, but you are basically suggesting he should get credit for them when they happen and then credit for them again when running plays are successful because of them. That's double credit and wouldn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong. The Eagles game still troubles me. While I would agree with QBR's decision to not "reward" Smith with an above-average rating for handing the ball off, I strongly disagree with the seeming lack of credit it gave him for the third quarter.

I have to assume it's because of the flaw in the system we discussed above, which is a failure to give adequate credit to a TD drive that, at the time, doesn't substantially lift the win percentage, i.e. cutting a 20-point deficit to 13 late in the game.

Originally posted by LieutKaffee:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:
Well, stats are all about...statistics.

Niners down 23-3 at Philly have maybe a 2% chance of winning (statistically). Smith throws a TD, now we're down 23-10..maybe a 7% chance now. Even the second TD pass, to make it 23-17...still only about a 20% chance. So, two nice drives, two nice results...but only about a 20% increase in win probability. (The last TD drive to take the lead was almost all run plays, so Smith got nada for it.)

The bold & underlined is a good example of the flaws in the QBR system. It penalizes the traditional WCO use of the pass to set up the run. The running game was successful because Smith had softened the D up with passing. So, while the Eagles were expecting Harbaugh to continue what was working he threw a changeup and ran the ball down their throats. This should not penalize the QB.

This is very similar to the QB driving the ball 70 yards through the air to the opponent's one yard line and the coach choosing to run the ball three times in a row (or more). This has happened to Smith a number of times this year.

I do not think the QBR is better than the Passer rating at all. The Passer Rating uses more objective stats and it is easy to watch the game and see anomolies. Trying to analyze the QBR is impossible because of the subjectivity.

I take exception to your bolded and underlined. Alex wouldn't get "penalized" for the drive where we ran a lot, but he wouldn't get a lot of positive credit for it either. Why should he? A below average QB can hand the ball off six times in a row.

Yes, as you point out, Alex set up that drive with a brilliant third quarter. He should get credit for those plays, but you are basically suggesting he should get credit for them when they happen and then credit for them again when running plays are successful because of them. That's double credit and wouldn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong. The Eagles game still troubles me. While I would agree with QBR's decision to not "reward" Smith with an above-average rating for handing the ball off, I strongly disagree with the seeming lack of credit it gave him for the third quarter.

I have to assume it's because of the flaw in the system we discussed above, which is a failure to give adequate credit to a TD drive that, at the time, doesn't substantially lift the win percentage, i.e. cutting a 20-point deficit to 13 late in the game.

They were playing back because of the time remaining and they thought we were going to continue passing like most teams. They weren't scared of A . Smith, more likely looking for a pick.

Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
I take exception to your bolded and underlined. Alex wouldn't get "penalized" for the drive where we ran a lot, but he wouldn't get a lot of positive credit for it either. Why should he? A below average QB can hand the ball off six times in a row.

Yes, as you point out, Alex set up that drive with a brilliant third quarter. He should get credit for those plays, but you are basically suggesting he should get credit for them when they happen and then credit for them again when running plays are successful because of them. That's double credit and wouldn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong. The Eagles game still troubles me. While I would agree with QBR's decision to not "reward" Smith with an above-average rating for handing the ball off, I strongly disagree with the seeming lack of credit it gave him for the third quarter.

I have to assume it's because of the flaw in the system we discussed above, which is a failure to give adequate credit to a TD drive that, at the time, doesn't substantially lift the win percentage, i.e. cutting a 20-point deficit to 13 late in the game.

No, not suggesting that Smith be given credit for running plays but am pointing out that game situations dictate a QB's ability to be awarded points. There is really no way to objectively use context in any rating system. That is why I prefer just the bare numbers as a rating system and let those who viewed the game evaluate the intangibles. We could see Montana take over a game...it was viceral. If he threw for one touchdown but they ran for three more, he still was controlling the tempo and feel of the game. Can't really translate that to a numerical system.

I recall a QB measure that came out when Montana was riding high and it showed that he was very mediocre. Compared to Marino, Elway, Fouts--guys who threw for yards and piled up numbers--he just wasn't impressive and they were considered much better. Some argued that if Walsh had Marino he would have won more super bowls. That's fun to me! Why not? Of course, I think there is more to QBing than yards...like points and wins, and would not take any QB over Montana, but I like the debate.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
The bold & underlined is a good example of the flaws in the QBR system. It penalizes the traditional WCO use of the pass to set up the run. The running game was successful because Smith had softened the D up with passing. So, while the Eagles were expecting Harbaugh to continue what was working he threw a changeup and ran the ball down their throats. This should not penalize the QB.

This is very similar to the QB driving the ball 70 yards through the air to the opponent's one yard line and the coach choosing to run the ball three times in a row (or more). This has happened to Smith a number of times this year.

I do not think the QBR is better than the Passer rating at all. The Passer Rating uses more objective stats and it is easy to watch the game and see anomolies. Trying to analyze the QBR is impossible because of the subjectivity.

QBR's attempt to provide context is definitely not perfect. Like you said, some game situations could, through no fault of the QB, make it impossible (or too easy) to get a good rating. A team with an atrocious defense would almost immediately blow any chance for a win and thus consign any Qb stats as "garbage" very quickly.

Or what about substitutions? I'm reminded of the 2009 game vs. Houston when Alex came in at the half facing a big deficit, and threw 3 tds to Davis in a failed comeback bid. I wonder if QBR would even give him a chance?

But...

Arguing the passer rating uses "more objective stats" doesn't cut much ice with me. Passer rating is just some algorithm that heavily weights completion percentage and interception percentage. It's not gospel or anything, just some guy's guesses on what factors to focus on. It really hasn't stood the test of time at all in measuring qb play. Johnny Unitas has a career passer rating of 78.2. Joe Namath has a lower career rating than Joey Harrington.