percyhoward
Research Tool
- Messages
- 17,062
- Reaction score
- 21,861
No, I never did any such thing. But here's what I did say (last summer) about QBR vs traditional passer rating:@percyhoward already exposed QBR and its fault as a measuring tool
Both metrics correlate strongly to wins, so they're both good. Neither is perfect.
Beneficiaries of Total QBR
Prescott, Roethlisberger, Wentz
Beneficiaries of Traditional Passer Rating
Wilson, Cousins, Smith
Cliff's Notes on why:
The best thing about Total QBR is also the worst thing: it's based on EPA. That means it takes game situation into account, but it also treats any non-pass as a designed QB run. The "game situation" aspect helps mobile QB like Wentz (great on 3rd and long), Prescott (great late in close games), and Ben, who's a little of both.
None of that shows in traditional passer rating, which gives a boost to Garbage Time Cousins and the ever-conservative Smith. On the other hand, Total QBR blames all sacks on the QB, which is what hurt Dak in 2018, and what hurts Wilson for all three years.
According to PFF, 80% of all sacks are the fault of someone other than the QB. An improvement to these two metrics would be a hybrid metric that's EPA-based but that only counts sacks that are the fault of the QB.
__________________________________________________________________
An interesting new(ish) stat is CPOE (Completion Percentage Over Expected), which takes the depth of the target into consideration to arrive at a league-average expected completion percentage for throws of that average distance. You can then rank QB according to their own completion percentage vs. that league average. This doesn't include TD-INT however.
To that end, there is a Seattle guy who has combined EPA with CPOE...