# QBR

1. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

QBR

Can anyone break down how this QBR rating is calculated now that it has been around for a bit.  I understand what they say the stat is show but i just don't get how they come up with the reasoning for certain numbers.  Looking at the year they rate 2012 a better year for TB than 2010. I'm just trying to figure out how they are looking at the "total" package.

I know that no stat is perfect but at least the old rating seemed more mathamatical and less judgemental.

2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

Re: QBR

In response to csylvia79's comment:

Can anyone break down how this QBR rating is calculated now that it has been around for a bit.  I understand what they say the stat is show but i just don't get how they come up with the reasoning for certain numbers.  Looking at the year they rate 2012 a better year for TB than 2010. I'm just trying to figure out how they are looking at the "total" package.

I know that no stat is perfect but at least the old rating seemed more mathamatical and less judgemental.

I assume you are referring to the ESPN Total QBR thing.  I'm pretty sure the actual algorithm is proprietary, but my understanding is that essentially plays are weighted based on a function that maps the plays to their impact on the team's probability of winning.  This function is supposed to be derived from an analysis of data from lots of previous games.  It's an interesting idea since obviously throwing a TD pass in a tie game means a lot more than throwing a TD pass when you are up or down 30, but I don't think the algorithm is particularly robust given the number of nonsensical data points it has spit out in the past.

3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

Re: QBR

In response to pcmIV's comment:

In response to csylvia79's comment:

Can anyone break down how this QBR rating is calculated now that it has been around for a bit.  I understand what they say the stat is show but i just don't get how they come up with the reasoning for certain numbers.  Looking at the year they rate 2012 a better year for TB than 2010. I'm just trying to figure out how they are looking at the "total" package.

I know that no stat is perfect but at least the old rating seemed more mathamatical and less judgemental.

I assume you are referring to the ESPN Total QBR thing.  I'm pretty sure the actual algorithm is proprietary, but my understanding is that essentially plays are weighted based on a function that maps the plays to their impact on the team's probability of winning.  It's an interesting idea since obviously throwing a TD pass in a tie game means a lot more than throwing a TD pass when you are up or down 30, but I don't think the algorithm is particularly robust given the number of nonsensical data points it has spit out in the past.

I don't know a great deal about the calculus of it but if I recall correctly there are at least a couple of subjective elements involved.  This alone makes the entire concept questionable in my judgment.

My 2 cents.

4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

Re: QBR

Here's something a little more substantive than my last contribution:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating

5. This post has been removed.

6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

Re: QBR

In response to Dusty Bottoms' comment:

Isn't there a difference between the original QBR and the ESPN version? I thought there was.  IMO, QBR can be incredibly misleading. I believe QBR is only about a decade or so old.  Any of the older QBs have their QBs added on to their resumes, since it didn't exist in earlier eras.

Overall, it's serously misleading for a stat and actually covers for a lot of poor plays by the QB.

For example, Sanchez had a QBR in the Thanksgiving night Butffumble Classic of 94.  That in itself shows you the formula is flawed.  Bloated Rex couldn't want to read that off in defense of Marky Mark before he gorged himself on a turkey dinner.

The best stats for QB are compl% and TD/INT ratio.  Yards are overrated, which factor heavily into QBR as well.

QBR is the ESPN stat.  Passer Rating is what you're talking about, and is never abbreviated to "QBR".

Passer Rating is extremely flawed, but both comp % and TD/INT ratio are heavily factored into it; yards are only factored in as yards/attempt, and that factor is capped around 13 y/att, if I recall correctly.  Passer Rating is fine for what it does, which is measure passing success.  It doesn't rate overall QB play, which is why Sanchez's butt fumble game has such a high rating; as a passer, it was one of his better games on the season.  It was his non-passing plays that made for such a horrendously poor game.

7. This post has been removed.

8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

Re: QBR

In response to Dusty Bottoms' comment:

In response to MattC05's comment:

In response to Dusty Bottoms' comment:

Isn't there a difference between the original QBR and the ESPN version? I thought there was.  IMO, QBR can be incredibly misleading. I believe QBR is only about a decade or so old.  Any of the older QBs have their QBs added on to their resumes, since it didn't exist in earlier eras.

Overall, it's serously misleading for a stat and actually covers for a lot of poor plays by the QB.

For example, Sanchez had a QBR in the Thanksgiving night Butffumble Classic of 94.  That in itself shows you the formula is flawed.  Bloated Rex couldn't want to read that off in defense of Marky Mark before he gorged himself on a turkey dinner.

The best stats for QB are compl% and TD/INT ratio.  Yards are overrated, which factor heavily into QBR as well.

QBR is the ESPN stat.  Passer Rating is what you're talking about, and is never abbreviated to "QBR".

Passer Rating is extremely flawed, but both comp % and TD/INT ratio are heavily factored into it; yards are only factored in as yards/attempt, and that factor is capped around 13 y/att, if I recall correctly.  Passer Rating is fine for what it does, which is measure passing success.  It doesn't rate overall QB play, which is why Sanchez's butt fumble game has such a high rating; as a passer, it was one of his better games on the season.  It was his non-passing plays that made for such a horrendously poor game.

Right, so they are different sets of metrics.  Passer rating isn't that old. Maybe a decade old.

His rating was high because BB took his foot of the gas in a total blowout and he added about 80 yards with NE playing backups in a prevent late in the game.

This is why that QBR thing is very miseleading. So many factors can hide what the QB really did in a game.  Bad decisions, throws at key times can then be hidden when a team takes its foot off the gas and uses clock vs trying to shut down an offense.

If a QB is doing a 2:1 ration ar minimum from game to game, that's really the best stat to see how the QB is playing, IMO.

No, QBR accounts for those factors.  Passer Rating does not.

Sanchez actually passed shockingly well in the butt fumble game.  It's easily overlooked because of how badly he and the Jets as a whole played in other aspects of the game, but he completed over 70% of his passes, for over 8 yards/attempt, and only 1 interception to go with 1 TD.  This wasn't because BB and the team took their foot off the pedal; it's because the Pats passing D played a bad game.  It didn't really matter though, since the whole Jets team was just terrible terrible.  Oh so terrible.

9. This post has been removed.

10. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazyworldoftroybrown. Show crazyworldoftroybrown's posts

Re: QBR

INT's  especially in Red Zone
3rd down completions for 1st downs
TD's in Red Zone, does not have to be a Pass either, good play calling.
Brains

Thats my own QBR

11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

Re: QBR

This post is about QBR.  You keep referencing Passer Rating, and calling it QBR.

Sanchez's QBR was NOT 92 in that game.  His QBR was 22, which is horrible, because his overall quarterback play was horrible.  His Passer Rating was 92, which is a bit above average, because he had a pretty average game passing the football.

Again: QBR = the new ESPN stat, introduced 2 years ago, measures overall quarterback play.  Possible values range from 0-100, with 50 being an "average" performance.

Passer Rating = Passer rating; has actually been around since 1971, although it gained popularity in the early 90s.  Weights the following statistics equally (although it caps comp. % and yds/att): TD/attempt, INT/attempt, Completion %, Yards/attempt.  Possible values range from 0 to 158.3.  This statistic purely measures passing performance, and NOT overall quarterback play.  An "average" passing performance has changed as the league has changed; in the 2000s, an 80-81 has generally been "average."

Statistics are useful so long as you understand what they're trying to measure, and don't discredit them simply because they don't measure something they weren't ever intended to measure.  In the case of Passer Rating, it was never meant to measure overall quarterback play, but merely passing; i.e. the act of a football leaving the quarterback's hand in a pass attempt.

12. This post has been removed.

13. This post has been removed.

Sections
Shortcuts