QBR Ratings

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That last sentence is borked and I cannot edit it.

What I was trying to say is that all scores count equally to the final score.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Okie Dokie. Guess serious football talk is still on hold?

How can you be so condescending? Maybe he is just in a different reality than you are presently.

 

[BlindFaith]

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/06/why-clutch-is-overrated/258179/

Here is a start explaining what I am getting at in general. QBR uses win probabilities in certain circumstances and takes the stances that a score when the game is close and late and thus the points that put them in that position are not as meaningful for some reason.

The issue in this is not just that they are grandstanding on human emotions. The issue is that they have not demonstrated that performance in general differs during those times. In essence, they are grandstanding on noise in the system.

While that last minute TD score seems oh so meaningful, when you are looking at the final score the first TD counted towards the final score just as much as one on the first quarter and discounting one late as being more 'meaningful' is baseless. Without that first quarter score the end result is still the same.

http://www.footballperspective.com/peyton-manning-matt-ryan-and-andrew-luck-are-espn-qbr-stars/

 

[BlindFaith]

That last sentence is borked and I cannot edit it.

What I was trying to say is that all scores count equally to the final score.

The link I just posted noted that the clutch bonus is no longer being calculated.
Garbage time yards and TD shouldnt be weighted the same as when the score is close.
I just dont know enough about qbr to know how much weighting goes into it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.footballperspective.com/peyton-manning-matt-ryan-and-andrew-luck-are-espn-qbr-stars/

So you doubled down on the assertion by projecting it does not posit a damn thing.

Still waiting for wholistic analysis that says the phenomenon even exists.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The link I just posted noted that the clutch bonus is no longer being calculated.
Garbage time yards and TD shouldnt be weighted the same as when the score is close.
I just dont know enough about qbr to know how much weighting goes into it.

They call it something else but win probabilities in certain circumstances is indeed 'clutch' dressed up as something else.

And you don't have a problem with them changing the stat as they go?

 

[BlindFaith]

How can you be so condescending? Maybe he is just in a different reality than you are presently.

Wow. You're an absolute pleasure. Love ya man.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You should also read your article

Although now I can’t recall if his 2012 ratings were inflated because of his 4th quarter comebacks. And I can’t check, because once ESPN decided to cap the clutch weight associated with each play, they retroactively applied the current formula across past years.

I would also point out that doing garbage like this so you can sell stats that look pretty is complete and utter garbage and makes trying to compare apples to apples a fools errand.

As explained in the footnotes to the earlier post, the scaling function that gives the “final” QBR on a 0-100 scale is nonlinear; as a result, you can’t just calculate a weighted average of the individual game QBR values to get season QBR (and presumably you then can’t just calculated a weighted average of the individual season QBR grades to get a career grade). Instead, you need to have the “points per play”-like value that’s behind QBR and calculate the weighted average of that (and weight based on the capped clutch weights, not even the action plays), then re-apply the scaling function to get it back on the 0-100 scale. So while I’m recreating QBR, I’m not recreating it the way ESPN would. That disclaimer aside, I don’t think my method will bias these results.

EQA did the same thing and it is why it was rejected. Have to love adding a nonlinear scaling so it looks pretty to people that don't know any better.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Them capping the clutch weight just goes to show even they know their normalization is garbage.

 

[BlindFaith]

They call it something else but win probabilities in certain circumstances is indeed 'clutch' dressed up as something else.

And you don't have a problem with them changing the stat as they go?

They aren't changing a stat. They are tweaking the algorithm.
I would like to know more on how it works. But the ranking does fall in line with how I would rank them.
And remember, this isnt just a passer rating. It also accounts for qbs rushing.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They aren't changing a stat. They are tweaking the algorithm.
I would like to know more on how it works. But the ranking does fall in line with how I would rank them.
And remember, this isnt just a passer rating. It also accounts for qbs rushing.

lmao

I can really only laugh at that. They aren't changing the stat, they are just changing what is used to calculate it.

fuel efficieny is miles per gallon. if they change it to miles per song on the radio then they are changing the algorithm too but it doesn't show the same thing. The two notions are not mutually exclusive and changing the algorithm is changing the stat.

 

[BlindFaith]

Them capping the clutch weight just goes to show even they know their normalization is garbage.

So you dont like the ranking. Thats cool. Im not going to spend hours and hours nit picking. Other more sophisticated stat sites use very similar algorithms.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

So you dont like the ranking. Thats cool. Im not going to spend hours and hours nit picking. Other more sophisticated stat sites use very similar algorithms.

So are all those sites basically living in the same QBR reality?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you dont like the ranking. Thats cool. Im not going to spend hours and hours nit picking. Other more sophisticated stat sites use very similar algorithms.

Similar how? I am a trained engineer that knows how to normalize data sets. I am telling you that adding a nonlinear element for aesthetics is a big no no.

That is not nitpicking. That is ********. If you want to continue to find it meaningful despite knowing that it is nonlinear is 100% you and goes to show that you are more interested in confirmation of a conclusion then letting the chips fall where they may.

 

[wileedog]

Them capping the clutch weight just goes to show even they know their normalization is garbage.

You will notice that in a sport like baseball, one almost driven fanatically by numbers and algorithms, the idea of "clutch" has been thoroughly discarded in key stats like WAR.

Only a media company would somehow rate TD's in the last minute of the 4th quarter as more meaningful than TD's in the first quarter, because only someone who wants to drive ratings and story bylines would try to create a metric around "clutch."

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

You will notice that in a sport like baseball, one almost driven fanatically by numbers and algorithms, the idea of "clutch" has been thoroughly discarded in key stats like WAR.

Only a media company would somehow rate TD's in the last minute of the 4th quarter as more meaningful than TD's in the first quarter, because only someone who wants to drive ratings and story bylines would try to create a metric around "clutch."

But isnt "clutch" the reason all the E-Lie lovers claim E-Lie is better than Romo?

 

[BlindFaith]

lmao

I can really only laugh at that. They aren't changing the stat, they are just changing what is used to calculate it.

fuel efficieny is miles per gallon. if they change it to miles per song on the radio then they are changing the algorithm too but it doesn't show the same thing. The two notions are not mutually exclusive and changing the algorithm is changing the stat.

Ok, I'll give you that. But I dont consider a computated algorithm a stat. Goes for qbr or passer rating or the like. Those just take actual stats and plug them into a formula. The formula itself is open for debate.

 

[theSHOW]

My QBR goes something like this, with an actual verbal evaluation included:

RKPLAYERPASS EPARUN EPASACK EPAPEN EPATOTAL EPAACT PLAYSQB PARQB PAATOTAL QBR
1Tony Romo, DAL69.10.8-20.53.552.964372.519.1---1000.0 awesome
2Peyton Manning, DEN117.3-2.2-10.85.4109.7757151.088.2---82.9 awesome
3Philip Rivers, SD91.8-1.6-14.93.779.0671102.246.5---71.7 sux
4Drew Brees, NO96.93.1-24.75.180.4776114.950.5---70.5 awesome
5Nick Foles, PHI48.65.3-15.23.342.042961.425.7---69.0 becoming awesome
6Aaron Rodgers, GB42.46.9-14.62.937.636551.821.5---68.7 awesome
7Colin Kaepernick, SF64.218.6-23.12.562.259283.834.7---68.6 sux
8Jay Cutler, CHI42.36.0-10.20.138.241555.821.4---66.4 sux
9Andrew Luck, IND42.821.2-21.412.655.372086.626.8---62.0 jury is still out
10Matt Ryan, ATL77.24.0-27.510.363.977390.926.8---61.1 sux

11Tom Brady, NE76.11.6-25.812.864.774988.025.9---61.1 awesome
12Josh McCown, CHI41.35.9-5.22.544.626956.834.5---60.1 sat up in coffin, will lay back down soon
13Russell Wilson, SEA62.611.6-28.10.346.360667.216.9---58.9 sux
14Cam Newton, CAR51.921.0-30.95.447.465267.012.9---56.2 sux
15Andy Dalton, CIN55.14.6-16.65.248.471572.813.5---55.8 sux
Those are official evaluations.

awsome

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

I haven't seen much discussion on this. Maybe I missed it. But there seems to be a lot of merit to these rankings.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

RKPLAYERPASS EPARUN EPASACK EPAPEN EPATOTAL EPAACT PLAYSQB PARQB PAATOTAL QBR
1Josh McCown, CHI41.35.9-5.22.544.626956.834.5---85.1
2Peyton Manning, DEN117.3-2.2-10.85.4109.7757151.088.2---82.9
3Philip Rivers, SD91.8-1.6-14.93.779.0671102.246.5---71.7
4Drew Brees, NO96.93.1-24.75.180.4776114.950.5---70.5
5Nick Foles, PHI48.65.3-15.23.342.042961.425.7---69.0
6Aaron Rodgers, GB42.46.9-14.62.937.636551.821.5---68.7
7Colin Kaepernick, SF64.218.6-23.12.562.259283.834.7---68.6
8Jay Cutler, CHI42.36.0-10.20.138.241555.821.4---66.4
9Andrew Luck, IND42.821.2-21.412.655.372086.626.8---62.0
10Matt Ryan, ATL77.24.0-27.510.363.977390.926.8---61.1

11Tom Brady, NE76.11.6-25.812.864.774988.025.9---61.1
12Tony Romo, DAL69.10.8-20.53.552.964372.519.1---59.5
13Russell Wilson, SEA62.611.6-28.10.346.360667.216.9---58.9
14Cam Newton, CAR51.921.0-30.95.447.465267.012.9---56.2
15Andy Dalton, CIN55.14.6-16.65.248.471572.813.5---55.8

E-Lie not in the top 15?

Wouldnt a HOF QB at least rank in the top 15 every year? Especially in the prime of his career?

 

[wileedog]

But isnt "clutch" the reason all the E-Lie lovers claim E-Lie is better than Romo?

That's Exhibit A. The defense rests.