SI.com: Romo shoots down doubters with attack on passing efficiency records

[trickblue]

That is just not the case. How is it most predictive when the passer rating system ranks Steve Young as the best all time? Is Young the most winningest, or the subjective "best", QB? Of course not.

How accurate is this system if Daunte Culpepper, Carson Palmer, Chad Pennington and Trent Green rank above undisputed QB greats like Marino, Favre, Staubach, Kelly, Aikman, Bradshaw or Starr?

When a Jake Delhomme is 40 plus slots above legends like Unitas, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Luckman, Stabler and Otto Graham, the system is patently flawed.

I agree it is a bad system... and more geared toward the pass...

The game is different these days... with different rules...

I would love to see a tough guy like Roger in this league...

 

[theogt]

I agree it is a bad system... and more geared toward the pass...

The game is different these days... with different rules...

I would love to see a tough guy like Roger in this league...

What else would a passer rating be geared toward?

 

[trickblue]

What else would a passer rating be geared toward?

Oh c'mon theo... you know what I meant... ya bastid...

A top notch QB isn't all about the pass...

 

[BAT]

You're having trouble understanding what "most predictive" means. It doesn't mean that it's a perfect. It means that it's the closest to perfect of all official stats (besides total rushing plays).

Do you actually want me to give you an explain of what correlation coefficients are? I can post the study that I did to prove that QB rating has the highest correlation with winning percentage. It's in the archives here somewhere.

The stat is flawed, but it isn't flawed due to today's QBs having better QB ratings. That phenomenon is a result of the fact that the game is very different today. Players are different. Rules are different. Playcalling is different. Schemes are different. It's just a different game with different people playing.

Regardless, every system is flawed unless it's perfect. QB rating isn't perfect. But like I said, it's the most predictive official stat there is, so if you're going to dismiss it, you have to dismiss all stats. And that's just silly.

Stats have their place. But the system needs to be updated (more like replaced) obviously, as too many factors have changed/are not taken into account thus skewing usuable results. And you can argue/delineate what "most predictive" is supposed to mean, but it is clear that when Steve Young is at the top of the QB rankings, the system is an abject failure.

 

[theogt]

Stats have their place. But the system needs to be updated (more like replaced) obviously, as too many factors have changed/are not taken into account thus skewing usuable results. And you can argue/delineate what "most predictive" is supposed to mean, but it is clear that when Steve Young is at the top of the QB rankings, the system is an abject failure.

In the 8 seasons from 91-98 when he was putting up the highest QB ratings of his career, the 49ers were 95-33 (an average record of 12-4). Seems pretty predictive to me.

Anywho, it seems shocking that someone can't understand how looking at a single event amongst hundreds cannot determine whether a statistic is predictive.

I honestly don't think the system should be updated, because I think any updates would likely make it either (i) less predictive of winning or losing or (ii) less descriptive of QB play. If any update could be made that would not run afoul of either of those, then I say let's see it.

 

[Clove]

I'm praying that Romo proves me wrong, I've been saying he doesn't have what it takes to win the big one, not because of his talent, but because of his in ability to perform in super clutch situations.

Again, I hope he proves me wrong.

 

[BAT]

In the 4 seasons from 91-94 when he was putting up the highest QB ratings of his career, the 49ers were 47-17 (an average record of 12-4). Seems pretty predictive to me.

Anywho, it seems shocking that someone can't understand how looking at a single event amongst hundreds cannot determine whether a statistic is predictive.

I honestly don't think the system should be updated, because I think any updates would likely make it either (i) less predictive of winning or losing or (ii) less descriptive of QB play.

Seriously? You think it is perfect (or as good as it gets) as is???


Final shot across the bow, then I am out, an average record of 12-4 does not justify (in my mind) placing Steve Young (1 SB appearance, 1 "disputed" championship) above players like Graham (7 championship wins out of 10 appearances), Starr (5 championship wins), Bradshaw (4 championship wins), Montana (4 championship wins), Aikman (3 championship wins), Brady (3 championship wins), Staubach (2 championship wins, 4 appearances), Elway (2 championship wins, 5 appearances),etc.

 

[Clove]

I have a good formula for deciding if a QB can play or not it's called, watching him play.

Does he consistantly complete passes.
Does he consistantly complete on 3rd down.
Does he get his team in the end zone.
Does he cut WAY down on his mistakes.
Does he win when it counts.

That's all I need, they can keep this other crap for the birds and the nerds.

 

[gbrittain]

I have a good formula for deciding if a QB can play or not it's called, watching him play.

Does he consistantly complete passes.
Does he consistantly complete on 3rd down.
Does he get his team in the end zone.
Does he cut WAY down on his mistakes.
Does he win when it counts.

That's all I need, they can keep this other crap for the birds and the nerds.

Generally true, but how many QBs do you know that consistently do all of the above and still have a pretty crappy QB rating?

 

[theogt]

Seriously? You think it is perfect (or as good as it gets) as is???

Actually, I stated just a post or two before that it's not perfect. Perhaps you didn't read it that closely.

Regardless, I can't think of a system that would index passer performance better. Perhaps you could add in a way to weight 3rd down and 4th quarter performance, though 4th quarter might distort garbage time yardage. The only thing I can think of is to adjust to the defense, like Football Outsiders does. However, you've already complained that the formula is "too complicated" and "no one understands it" so I think making it more complicated might run afoul of your other arguments. Or maybe those arguments were just silly too.

Final shot across the bow, then I am out, an average record of 12-4 does not justify (in my mind) placing Steve Young (1 SB appearance, 1 "disputed" championship) above players like Graham (7 championship wins out of 10 appearances), Starr (5 championship wins), Bradshaw (4 championship wins), Montana (4 championship wins), Aikman (3 championship wins), Brady (3 championship wins), Staubach (2 championship wins, 4 appearances), Elway (2 championship wins, 5 appearances),etc.

Again, you can't cross compare eras. I have no idea why you keep ignoring this.

 

[tecolote]

Generally true, but how many QBs do you know that consistently do all of the above and still have a pretty crappy QB rating?

Rapelisburger

 

[RainMan]

But... but... but... according to SportingNews, he's not a top 100 player. Michael Vick is, though.

Romo = most absurdly underrated star player in the NFL today. Hands down.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Romo hasn't been going at this long enough to be entirely dismissed from the "top QBs in the league" discussion because of an 0-2 playoff record.

If he's 0-4 in two years, we can start talking differently. But an 0-2 playoff record -- when combined with some of the most impressive regular season statistics of all time -- is not a career killer in my book.

It's laughable that some, if not many, have started placing guys like Cutler and Rodgers above Romo. If we're dogging Romo for his 0-2 playoff record, neither of those guys has even led his team to the playoffs for cryin out loud

 

[NextGenBoys]

In the 8 seasons from 91-98 when he was putting up the highest QB ratings of his career, the 49ers were 95-33 (an average record of 12-4). Seems pretty predictive to me.

Thank you for being of one the realistic fans, and give credit to what the 49ers accomplished in the 90's instead of being a Cowboy homer.

 

[theogt]

Rapelisburger

Actually his 89 career QB rating is pretty respectable and puts him up there on the list of career QB ratings. Add to that a consistently incredible defense and you've got a recipe for a winning team.

 

[BAT]

Actually, I stated just a post or two before that it's not perfect. Perhaps you didn't read it that closely.

Regardless, I can't think of a system that would index passer performance better. Perhaps you could add in a way to weight 3rd down and 4th quarter performance, though 4th quarter might distort garbage time yardage. The only thing I can think of is to adjust to the defense, like Football Outsiders does. However, you've already complained that the formula is "too complicated" and "no one understands it" so I think making it more complicated might run afoul of your other arguments. Or maybe those arguments were just silly too.

Again, you can't cross compare eras. I have no idea why you keep ignoring this.

You are being as prickly as you are accusing me of, who's taking it personal now? And if the current passer rating system can compare eras why am I precluded? And who comes up w/the demarcation lines for "eras" anyway? You?

And you must have missed the "as good as it gets" part, right? I don't agree that the current passer rating system is good enough, it is flawed and provides flawed results that many try to peddle as objective criteria. That does not mean I have a replacement for it, although I would definitely place less emphasis on completion (if any) and more emphasis on yards gained, TDs, INTs, etc. There is no way a QB who goes 12-13 and gains 80 yards should have a higher passer rating of a QB who goes 11-20 and gains 200 yards.

 

[theogt]

You are being as prickly as you are accusing me of, who's taking it personal now?

No, I'm not being prickly at all. I couldn't possibly take a discussion about statistics personal.

And if the current passer rating system can compare eras why am I precluded?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm telling you that you can't compare QB ratings across eras.

And who comes up w/the demarcation lines for "eras" anyway? You?

Do I also have to explain to you how passing the football in the 60s is different than passing the football today? If we have to get that basic in our discussion, I'd rather not continue.

And you must have missed the "as good as it gets" part, right? I don't agree that the current passer rating system is good enough, it is flawed and provides flawed results that many try to peddle as objective criteria. That does not mean I have a replacement for it, although I would definitely place less emphasis on completion (if any) and more emphasis on yards gained, TDs, INTs, etc.

It's one thing to think that it could be improved upon. It's another to dismiss it entirely and disclaim it's predictive nature.

There is no way a QB who goes 3-3 and gains 8 yards should have a higher passer rating of a QB who goes 1-4 and gains 40 yards.

It depends on the situation, of course, but you've stumbled across the wonders of viewing a statistical analysis of a small sample size. Congrats on that.

 

[BAT]

It depends on the situation, of course, but you've stumbled across the wonders of viewing a statistical analysis of a small sample size. Congrats on that.

I could increase the sample size_multiply all the numbers I gave you by a million. The results would be just as maddening AND INCORRECT.

Is this sample size adequate enough for you?

As you can see people, other than myself, have no problems comparing across eras. Again, how effective is a calculation that has to be qualified subjectively?

 

[tecolote]

Actually his 89 career QB rating is pretty respectable and puts him up there on the list of career QB ratings. Add to that a consistently incredible defense and you've got a recipe for a winning team.

You are right theo, maybe I just wanted to say Rapelisburger.

 

[theogt]

I could increase the sample size_multiply all the numbers I gave you by a million. The results would be just as maddening AND INCORRECT.

I think you're misunderstanding the problem of a small sample size. The problem of the small sample size is that you can have results that are abnormal. Simply magnifying abmornal results does not rid you of the problem of a small sample size.

If you think you could have a passer complete 100% of his passes over 1000 passes and average 2.67 yards per pass over those 1000 passes, so be it. Me, I think that's extremely unlikely but maybe that's just me.

Is this sample size adequate enough for you?

As you can see people, other than myself, have no problems comparing across eras.

If your point is that other people make the same mistake as you -- yes, I agree, other people do make the same mistake as you.

Again, how effective is a calculation that has to be qualified subjectively?

All statistics must be look at in context. Is this some new requirement just for passer rating?

 

[Doomsday101]

yea get back to me when he's got 3 or 4 SB rings


But it will take nothing less than a Super Bowl victory or two to truly earn the right to be mentioned among these all-time greats

Well when the line starts giving him time like the 90's line gave Aikman I'll gladly get back to you. Troy was great and played big in big games he also had a line that allowed him to drop back and find the target instead of running for his life.