Is QB Rating useless?

VACowboy

VACowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,006
Reaction score
3,896
Campbell's rating last night was 81.2. Manning's was 61.1. Which player actually performed better?
 
Doomsday101

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
VACowboy;2237689 said:
Campbell's rating last night was 81.2. Manning's was 61.1. Which player actually performed better?
Click to expand...

Wow that is hard to believe because frankly Campbell look like s***. Manning seemed to be on early in the game but flattened out as the game wore on.
 
tomson75

tomson75

Brain Dead Shill
Messages
16,720
Reaction score
1
Not completely, but Rampage is right, it's overrated.

Aikman's efficiency ratings are better IMO.
 
RainMan

RainMan

Makin' It Rain
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
0
I think QB ratings become more relevant when looking at the larger scope, like a whole season's body of work. But even then they can become vastly skewed if a QB plays conservatively, thereby completing an ungodly high percentage of his passes despite not being that good.

Campbell's rating, I would imagine, is held up only by that one touchdown pass, while Eli's was crushed by his one interception. In the bigger scheme of things, neither Campbell's TD nor Eli's INT meant much last night.

To answer your question though, yes, QB ratings can be useless. But they do provide a useful tool in judging a QB's performance, but shouldn't be taken too, too seriously in the analysis. You still have to dig a little deeper to make sure you really know the backstory.
 
CATCH17

CATCH17

1st Round Pick
Messages
67,663
Reaction score
86,203
Its dumb and I hate it.

Watch the damn games if you want to know how good a QB is.
 

dallasfaniac

Active Member
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
1
To answer your question, I could care less about them. They're like a stupid speed score that takes values and tries to apply them to reality which doesn't make any sense. The QB rating doesn't take into account that Manning threw the ball into the arms of the other team 5 times, just had most dropped. Campbell on the other hand missed both teams except on the 2 yard passes.

In the end it's only a small indicator of the performance, much more analysis needs to be done by breaking down the game snap by snap.
 
cobra

cobra

Salty *******
Messages
3,134
Reaction score
0
It is useful.

But, as with any stat, the usefulness of the stat is directly proportional to the sample size.

QB rating for 1 series? Not very useful.
QB rating for 1 half? Not very useful.
QB rating for 1 game? Moderatly more useful.

QB rating for a season? Very telling.
QB rating for a career? Extremely telling.

The way to figure out the usefulness of a particular qb rating is to look at the sample size.
 
AdamJT13

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
dallasfaniac;2237703 said:
You could always recalculate with Mannings rushing TD as a passing one.
Click to expand...

Oooh, his passer rating would soar to a lofty 71.0!

Passer rating (not "QB rating") has its flaws, but Manning didn't do well in any of the components -- he completed only 54 percent of his passes, averaged only 6.1 yards per attempt, threw an interception (and had several dropped) and didn't throw for any touchdowns (and led his team to only one TD, period). Even if you had a perfect system, he wouldn't have graded out very well.
 

DaBoys4Life

Benched
Messages
15,626
Reaction score
0
cobra;2237735 said:
It is useful.

But, as with any stat, the usefulness of the stat is directly proportional to the sample size.

QB rating for 1 series? Not very useful.
QB rating for 1 half? Not very useful.
QB rating for 1 game? Moderatly more useful.

QB rating for a season? Very telling.
QB rating for a career? Extremely telling.

The way to figure out the usefulness of a particular qb rating is to look at the sample size.
Click to expand...

I disagree

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/story.jsp?story_id=2355

thats the top 20 QB ratings off all time for careers. Only 3 HoF are in the top 20.
 
Temo

Temo

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
362
DaBoys4Life;2237745 said:
I disagree

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/story.jsp?story_id=2355

thats the top 20 QB ratings off all time for careers. Only 3 HoF are in the top 20.
Click to expand...

1,500 passes isn't a lot. That's like 4-5 seasons. Notice how of the 17 guys not in the HoF on that list, 15 were active players when that list was made. At least 5 of those active will be HoFs.

A lot of the rest will regress, since they haven't left their peaks yet. For instance, Johnny Unitas had a steller Passer rating until the last 6 seasons of his career, when he posted ratings like 30.1, 40.0, 51, 64.5 etc.

Also, consider that the league has become more passing-orientated. Just like you can't compare baseball stats from Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds, you can't compare Johnny Unitas' passer rating to, say, Drew Brees.

Although I would agree that Passer rating is best intended for season stats. And it's a fairly decent stat, as far as it goes. It does stress completion percentage a wee bit too much for my liking, but otherwise it's fairly decent.
 
tomson75

tomson75

Brain Dead Shill
Messages
16,720
Reaction score
1
Temo;2237859 said:
1,500 passes isn't a lot. That's like 4-5 seasons. Notice how of the 17 guys not in the HoF on that list, 15 were active players when that list was made. At least 5 of those active will be HoFs.

A lot of the rest will regress, since they haven't left their peaks yet. For instance, Johnny Unitas had a steller Passer rating until the last 6 seasons of his career, when he posted ratings like 30.1, 40.0, 51, 64.5 etc.

Also, consider that the league has become more passing-orientated. Just like you can't compare baseball stats from Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds, you can't compare Johnny Unitas' passer rating to, say, Drew Brees.

Although I would agree that Passer rating is best intended for season stats. And it's a fairly decent stat, as far as it goes. It does stress completion percentage a wee bit too much for my liking, but otherwise it's fairly decent.
Click to expand...

Good points...I was too lazy to do the research. Good job. ;)
 
theogt

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
Well, it has the highest correlation with winning % of any official stat. In other words, it's the best official stat there is, but that doesn't make it perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top