An MVP by any other name

[jobberone]

The point is this: the others in those lists led the league (by a lot) in the rate stats AND were among the league leaders in the volume stats. Romo led Rodgers by a bit in the rate stats but finished behind him in the volume stats, and in fact was not among the league leaders in the volume stats. You can weight these things as you choose, but it's not unreasonable to give the edge to Rodgers in such a case.

OTOH, that's like saying Aikman was just very good because he didn't have volume. It's all subjective at some point.

 

[jobberone]

this is the #1 thing I do NOT get about the whole Romo vs Rogers thing ..... if it's someones (Romo) fault a team can NOT win the big one and will never be a Super Bowl contender because they (Romo) play out of control and choke at the most crucial times ..... when they (Romo) do NOT choke at the crucial time and play under control putting up measurable numbers backing up that "control" and even wins the big game(s) ..... how are they (Romo) not the most VALUABLE player on their (the Dallas Cowboys) team ???.. just a question .....

That's a good question.

 

[JD_KaPow]

So if the two QB switch yardage numbers, it's still those numbers that matter, whatever the voters think. But if we're talking about Romo's road performance, it's what the voters are thinking that matters, not the numbers.

Not exactly, but I get what you're saying. Let's try this...

The voters are idiots. They will come to their decision and then justify it by whatever means necessary, particularly when there's no overwhelmingly obvious candidate who demands to be selected. So let's leave that aside for the moment.

You've shown a number of stats and lists and argued that because Romo is surrounded by MVP winners at the top of those lists, it would be historically inconsistent for him not to get the MVP award. My issue with that is this: in the aggregate, Romo's season does not look like those other guys' seasons. You're looking only at the splits that favor Romo (the rate stats). When you look more broadly, you see that they differ from Romo in two respects. One: every single one of those guys threw a lot more passes and for a lot more yards (relative to their leagues) than Romo did. Two: every single one of those guys led their closest competitor in a lot of those stats by much more than Romo leads Rodgers. Unless I'm missing one, all those guys were simply very obvious MVPs and you don't need to get down into splits to differentiate them from the guys around them.

For those two reasons, Romo is not in the same position as any of those guys, no matter where he appears on the lists you generated.

And as far as the road data, you argued that the writers take that into account. I would argue that they don't, and I don't think you've shown anything in your lists that indicates that as an important factor. It's an epiphenomenon; there's no causal relationship there. Beyond that, I would argue that the road numbers are irrelevant to the statistical case for MVP (meaning, who actually had the better year). They're not a particularly meaningful split in that regard. I would further note that every one of the guys on that list had a better home passer rating than Romo did.

So yeah, the voters would pick Rodgers over Romo as long as they were given the slightest excuse to do so. But this year, given these performances, that choice is not historically inconsistent. And the statistical case is not clear, either. Romo led in the rate stats. Rodgers produced more volume, and produced more in the running game. The difference between them is razor thin and it's perfectly reasonable to choose either one as the MVP. I would pick Rodgers: his running is the differentiator for me. But I have no issue with concluding that Romo is the guy. I do have issue with saying that Romo is the obvious guy and the writers are breaking their own rules to keep from picking him. I have no doubt that they would break those rules in certain circumstances, but I don't see it this year.

 

[JD_KaPow]

OTOH, that's like saying Aikman was just very good because he didn't have volume. It's all subjective at some point.

Absolutely. I will note that Aikman never won the MVP, at least in part because he didn't have volume.

At some point, volume matters. Nobody would give Nick Foles the MVP last year: his rate stats were insanely great, but he only started 10 games. On the other hand, nobody voted for Matt Schaub in 2009, when he led the league in pass attempts and yards (not TD, though). You need both.

 

[percyhoward]

You've shown a number of stats and lists and argued that because Romo is surrounded by MVP winners at the top of those lists, it would be historically inconsistent for him not to get the MVP award. My issue with that is this: in the aggregate, Romo's season does not look like those other guys' seasons. You're looking only at the splits that favor Romo (the rate stats).

The only "rate stats" mentioned in the OP are passer rating, and its components. Passer rating was invented by the NFL specifically to judge passing performance and determine the passing leader for the season.

You're saying Romo had one of the all-time great seasons in passer rating, and that doesn't mean anything.

But if Rodgers had missed two games and finished virtually even with Romo in yards, that would mean something.

 

[CCBoy]

The only "rate stats" mentioned in the OP are passer rating, and its components. Passer rating was invented by the NFL specifically to judge passing performance and determine the passing leader for the season.

You're saying Romo had one of the all-time great seasons in passer rating, and that doesn't mean anything.

But if Rodgers had missed two games and finished virtually even with Romo in yards, that would mean something.

Lol, Percy...hard fact to get around trying to argue one's self right. Equal time was where Romo was better.

 

[percyhoward]

At some point, volume matters. Nobody would give Nick Foles the MVP last year: his rate stats were insanely great, but he only started 10 games.

Manning had 2,586 more yards than Foles that year.

Rodgers has 676 more yards than Romo this year.

 

[ufcrules1]

Rodgers did throw for 10 Tds against the Bears and three Tds against the Eagles but realize he did it in just over two quarters of each game . The guy left a lot of playing time because the team was demolishing teams in the first half.

Yeah, I watched those games and it was just effortless. It looked like Rodgers could just do whatever he felt like out there.

 

[ufcrules1]

Manning had 2,586 more yards than Foles that year.

Rodgers has 676 more yards than Romo this year.

676 yards would be like the equivalent of like 2-3 more games worth of passing.

 

[DandyDon1722]

This is a great thread - just about every post makes a good point and I've learned a lot from everybody and got different perspectives. Nice!

My only contribution, and it's not all that great is that The Most Valuable Player in the most team sport there is seems disingenuous. But there's no doubt Rodgers and Romo were clearly the two best players at the most important position on the field. My feeling is "experts" like to be held up as "experts" and voting for Romo based on their previously held convictions about him makes them look like idiots - bad combination

C0 - MVPs. And I think that's fair. It's happened twice - in '97 & 2003. Takes everybody off the hook and the players get what they deserve.

 

[percyhoward]

676 yards would be like the equivalent of like 2-3 more games worth of passing.

Don't forget Rodgers played one more game than Romo. The difference is 26.8 yards per game.

Brees and Roethlisberger led the league, averaging 35.7 yards per game more than Rodgers.

 

[ufcrules1]

Don't forget Rodgers played one more game than Romo. The difference is 26.8 yards per game.

Brees and Roethlisberger led the league, averaging 35.7 yards per game more than Rodgers.

Also don't forget Rodgers was pulled out early in games because of dominating.

 

[dstovall5]

It sucks Romo missed that Arizona game due to injury. Him missing that game had such great implications in hindsight. If he had played healthy, chances are he wins MVP or at least betters his case, and we are the #1 seed in the NFC.

This is only another reason for us to hate Washington even more.

Also don't forget Rodgers was pulled out early in games because of dominating.

The same could be said about Romo.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The only "rate stats" mentioned in the OP are passer rating, and its components.

The only stats, period, mentioned in the OP were passer rating and its components (including passer rating, completion percentage, touchdown percentage, and yards per pass attempt). They're all rate stats.

Passer rating was invented by the NFL specifically to judge passing performance and determine the passing leader for the season.

You're saying Romo had one of the all-time great seasons in passer rating, and that doesn't mean anything.

But if Rodgers had missed two games and finished virtually even with Romo in yards, that would mean something.

Come on Percy, you're better than this. Romo and Rodgers both had two of the great seasons in passer rating. It all means something. In this case, it means. among other things, that they're both legitimate MVP candidates. It also means that this is a pretty amazing season, with two guys both performing at a historically high level. But you're trying to say that the one point difference in passer rating means EVERYTHING, and it doesn't.

If Rodgers had missed two games, that would mean something. It would mean he'd played less, and produced less, than he did. That would pretty clearly make Romo a stronger MVP candidate than Rodgers. That seems pretty darned obvious to me. A Rodgers who plays 14 games is less valuable than a Rodgers who plays 16 games (assuming the same rate of performance). Are you really trying to argue otherwise?

Finally, passer rating is not, and should not be, the be-all and end-all of quarterback evaluation. It does not take sacks into account. It does not take fumbles into account. It does not take QB running into account. It does not take quantity of production into account. All those things are part of the overall QB package and they should not be ignored. Passer rating is the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it.

 

[CCBoy]

Uh, I think that is called topic development...what a discussion is all about.

 

[percyhoward]

If Rodgers had missed two games, that would mean something. It would mean he'd played less, and produced less, than he did. That would pretty clearly make Romo a stronger MVP candidate than Rodgers. That seems pretty darned obvious to me. A Rodgers who plays 14 games is less valuable than a Rodgers who plays 16 games (assuming the same rate of performance). Are you really trying to argue otherwise?.

Absoutely. I don't think playing 14 games instead of 16 would have any effect at all. Now, 10 games, yes.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Manning had 2,586 more yards than Foles that year.

Rodgers has 676 more yards than Romo this year.

Exactly. You now agree that volume matters. The only argument seems to be where to draw the line.

Try this:
Rodgers A: 285/435/3698/30/2. That's a 113.2 passer rating (same as Romo) in 435 attempts (same as Romo) with an 8.5 ypa (same as Romo).
Rodgers B: 85/56/684/8/3. That's the rest of Rodgers' performance. That guy has a passer rating of 107.2 and a ypa of 8.1. That passer rating would beat every QB in the league other than Romo and Rodgers.

With Rodgers, you get Rodgers A (who's basically Romo) PLUS Rodgers B. (Plus all the running, which is still being ignored in all this).

I'm not saying it's definitive. You're free to argue that 684 extra yards isn't enough to tip the balance. That's cool, and there are a whole variety of good reasons to look deeper (quality of opponents, yards racked up in garbage time, etc.). But you can't dismiss it out of hand as completely irrelevant.

 

[CCBoy]

Take a statistical comparison and tell us who deserves to be middle linebacker for Dallas next season, but would you instead leave out a gut feeling as well?

We'll start to see the process in Rogers, as this injury thing plays out as well...

 

[JD_KaPow]

Absoutely. I don't think playing 14 games instead of 16 would have any effect at all. Now, 10 games, yes.

So where''s the line? Is it 11, 12 or 13?

If Rodgers had missed a game and the Packers had lost, they wouldn't have the first-round bye. If Romo had played 16 games and we beat the Cardinals, the Cowboys would be the #1 seed. There's tremendous value in simply being available to play.

 

[CCBoy]

Ouch, that was a tree...ouch, that was a tree...ouch, another tree. But going by board feet per day, without mud...I think the production will overtake in a situation where conditions are equal.