Guest viewing is limited

Welcome To The HFBM Boards
Hockey, Football, Baseball & MMA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gut said:
<yawn...>

A 1 point loss is not garbage time. So wrong again...blah blah blah…

Do you understand that a 1 point loss, by definition isn't garbage time...especially when we have the chance to win on the last play.

His best games were...Houston, NE, Philly, Dallas. That's 3 wins and 1 loss.

Try again...brah!
Click to expand...
300 yards in 7 games

4 losses


If Mary has to throw we lose. Period. Garbage time Mary new nickname GTM
 
520 said:
300 yards in 7 games

4 losses


If Mary has to throw we lose. Period. Garbage time Mary new nickname GTM
Click to expand...

So let's see if you can answer a simple question. If it's a one score game, is it garbage time???
 
Mary may quite literally have the lowest garbage time stats in football

13 yards in 4th quarters we had no business winning

13!!!!
 
Gut said:
Why do you think so?
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious. Because it is. Did you know that Mitchell Trubisky was better than Andrew Luck? Or that Tyrod Taylor is a top 10 QB, while Baker Mayfield is trash? We saw what both of those QBs looked like in Cleveland's offense.

Production and efficiency will tell you all you need to know about a QB, except for special cases like Kirk Cousins and Blake Bortles. But it's not like we don't know that those guys have padded stats, or really require a more advanced system to tell us that.

A system likE this is useful in the NBA, where there is not much difference from one team's system to the next, and a player can look good on paper yet actually be a liability on both ends of the floor. NBA RPM helped explain some of the things that we weren't noticing , and the real world results seem to reflect that. But I'm not seeing the same with the NFL QBR, except for the low hanging fruits. A QB has to be good in order to produce, so there is no need to really look beyond their numbers
 
Gut said:
Why do you think so?
Click to expand...
Because ESPN made it up to stay relevant among their “king of garbage time” television.
Basically ESPN analysts put a number associated with specific situations of the game. Totally made up.
It also has this wierd way of making very mediocre/bad QBs look better than they are.
 
JCBRAVE said:
Mary may quite literally have the lowest garbage time stats in football

13 yards in 4th quarters we had no business winning

13!!!!
Click to expand...
The other half to that is he also has the lowest starter yards in the league regardless of situation.
Hard to get garbage time stats with that D too.
 
abc2330 said:
It's pretty obvious. Because it is. Did you know that Mitchell Trubisky was better than Andrew Luck?
Click to expand...

Better? His qbr...or his efficiency as it relates to winning was barely higher - THIS SEASON. Which is the better QB remains to be seen.

Or that Tyrod Taylor is a top 10 QB, while Baker Mayfield is trash? We saw what both of those QBs looked like in Cleveland's offense.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about??? Taylor had a QBR of 29!!! WAY BELOW AVG! Mayfield had a much higher QBR of 53.6...which is a bit above average. Do you understand how to read these ratings?

Production and efficiency will tell you all you need to know about a QB...
Click to expand...

Which is what QBR is designed to do. Your issue is that you think counting stats are the difference between good and bad.

For example, you probably assume that Luck is better than Trubisky because Luck had more yards and td's. What you probably missed out on is that Trubisky had a higher ypa and like 200 fewer attempts. Put another way...if Trubisky had the same # of attempts, he'd have thrown for a few hundred yards MORE than Luck. Plus, Trubisky adds more TD's and yards on the ground which gets them pretty close. So Trubisky was slightly more efficient.

A system likE this is useful in the NBA, where there is not much difference from one team's system to the next...
Click to expand...
,

Really? So you think the Warriors system and the Rockets systems are essentially the same???

A QB has to be good in order to produce, so there is no need to really look beyond their numbers
Click to expand...

So Tom Brady is the 10th best qb since he was 10th in terms of TD's thrown. Right? Or is Russell Wilson the 18th best qb because he threw for 3,448yards...pathetic, right? So by your concept, Mayfield is the 17th best qb???

Or do you think these stats need to be put into some context in order to show the true value of their contribution?
 
HurrayTitans! said:
Because ESPN made it up to stay relevant among their “king of garbage time” television.
Basically ESPN analysts put a number associated with specific situations of the game. Totally made up.
It also has this wierd way of making very mediocre/bad QBs look better than they are.
Click to expand...

All comprehensive stats are made up. They are made up in an effort to quantify the value of the player. It also takes into account things like...the value of the throw given it's context in the game for winning efficiency. A 15 yard pass on 3rd and 20 is not as successful a play as an 11 yard pass on 3rd and 10...for obvious reasons. It also takes into account rushing stats which are ignored by QB rating.

What mediocre/bad qb's are helped by this?
 
Gut said:
All comprehensive stats are made up. They are made up in an effort to quantify the value of the player. It also takes into account things like...the value of the throw given it's context in the game for winning efficiency. A 15 yard pass on 3rd and 20 is not as successful a play as an 11 yard pass on 3rd and 10...for obvious reasons. It also takes into account rushing stats which are ignored by QB rating.

What mediocre/bad qb's are helped by this?
Click to expand...
Let’s use 2018 as an example,
Trubisky 3rd best QB in the league
Winston #8
Cousins and Dalton are better than Rodgers
Stafford and mayfield are 22/23 QB in the league.

2017
Top 2 QBs in the league are Wentz and Keenum
Prescott is #4.

The difference between QBR and QB rating is that despite a crazy formula for rating, it’s numbers based not ESPN analyst quantified number where a human value is given to a situation that really doesnt have a quantifiable value.
 
HurrayTitans! said:
Let’s use 2018 as an example,
Trubisky 3rd best QB in the league
Winston #8
Cousins and Dalton are better than Rodgers
Stafford and mayfield are 22/23 QB in the league.

2017
Top 2 QBs in the league are Wentz and Keenum
Prescott is #4.

The difference between QBR and QB rating is that despite a crazy formula for rating, it’s numbers based not ESPN analyst quantified number where a human value is given to a situation that really doesnt have a quantifiable value.
Click to expand...

Um...so it looks like you are confusing a few things. in effect, QBR measures the efficiency of the qb play. It doesn't measure how talented or how good a qb is. That is determined over time.

For example, is Patrick Mahomes the greatest NFL QB of all time? He certainly destroys Brady's stats...so Mahomes is better, right? Or do we have to look at their careers and the 6 rings Brady has?

One season is one season. But let's take a look at your example.

Did Trubisky have the 3rd most efficient season? Let's compare him to Rodgers since Rodgers is lower on this list than people would expect since he's considered one of the best qb's in the NFL.

Trubisky's usual counting stat numbers 2018...
66.6%_____3223yds_____24 TD's/12 INT's

Rodgers's usual counting stat numbers 2018...
62.3%_____4442yds_____25 TD's/2 INT's

Most people would say, Trubisky has a higher completion percentage, but 1200 MORE yards and 1 MORE TD and 10 fewer INT's...it's a no brainer.

But the problem with counting stats is...they are skewed massively by # of attempts. Now let's look at some quantifying stats...

Trubisky's
434 attempts_____5.5% TD_____2.8% INT_____24 sacks

Rodgers'
597 attempts_____4.2% TD_____.3% INT______49 sacks

Rodgers had an extra 163 attempts to get more counting stats. Trubisky has a higher TD % throwing the ball though Rodgers beats him in INT %. But Trubisky took a lot fewer sacks which typically kills drives. Let's equalize the numbers (give Trubisky nother 163 more passes) and see how this works...

Rodgers's usual counting stat numbers 2018...
62.3%_____4442yds_____25 TD's/2 INT's​

Trubisky's new numbers...with 597 attempts
66.6%_____4433yds_____33 TD's/16 INT's

Now, it's not so cut and dry since Trubisky clearly has higher completion %, almost the same yards but 8 more TD's. Rodgers has 14 less turnovers...so interesting thought as to which QB you'd prefer.

But let's add the last 2 elements we can see without reliving both of their seasons.

Trubisky rushed for a few hundred MORE yards and 3 TD's compared to Rodgers' 2...so now Trubisky has him beat in completion %, overall yards by a couple of hundred, 36/16 versus 27/2 in TD's while Rodgers beats him in turnovers.

Last element I see is sacks. Rodgers took 49 while Trubisky had 24 with real attempts. Equalized it's 49 sacks for Rodgers versus 33 sacks for Trubisky...that's 1 extra sack a game!

Trubisky had a better year overall in terms of efficiency. Higher completion %, more yards on avg (rushing and passing), much higher TD rate, fewer sacks,,,but Rodgers does beat him handily in turnovers.

Lastly, don't focus on Mayfield being 'ranked' 23 or 24th...he's rated as above average and I think that is correct.
 
Gut said:
I think even before that!

I find it slightly amusing to point out blatant nonsense he just makes up! He does go into Troll-mode a lot!!!
Click to expand...
I have never made up a thing. All backed by numbers and facts
 
Gut said:
Um...so it looks like you are confusing a few things. in effect, QBR measures the efficiency of the qb play. It doesn't measure how talented or how good a qb is. That is determined over time.

For example, is Patrick Mahomes the greatest NFL QB of all time? He certainly destroys Brady's stats...so Mahomes is better, right? Or do we have to look at their careers and the 6 rings Brady has?

One season is one season. But let's take a look at your example.

Did Trubisky have the 3rd most efficient season? Let's compare him to Rodgers since Rodgers is lower on this list than people would expect since he's considered one of the best qb's in the NFL.

Trubisky's usual counting stat numbers 2018...
66.6%_____3223yds_____24 TD's/12 INT's

Rodgers's usual counting stat numbers 2018...
62.3%_____4442yds_____25 TD's/2 INT's

Most people would say, Trubisky has a higher completion percentage, but 1200 MORE yards and 1 MORE TD and 10 fewer INT's...it's a no brainer.

But the problem with counting stats is...they are skewed massively by # of attempts. Now let's look at some quantifying stats...

Trubisky's
434 attempts_____5.5% TD_____2.8% INT_____24 sacks

Rodgers'
597 attempts_____4.2% TD_____.3% INT______49 sacks

Rodgers had an extra 163 attempts to get more counting stats. Trubisky has a higher TD % throwing the ball though Rodgers beats him in INT %. But Trubisky took a lot fewer sacks which typically kills drives. Let's equalize the numbers (give Trubisky nother 163 more passes) and see how this works...

Rodgers's usual counting stat numbers 2018...
62.3%_____4442yds_____25 TD's/2 INT's​

Trubisky's new numbers...with 597 attempts
66.6%_____4433yds_____33 TD's/16 INT's

Now, it's not so cut and dry since Trubisky clearly has higher completion %, almost the same yards but 8 more TD's. Rodgers has 14 less turnovers...so interesting thought as to which QB you'd prefer.

But let's add the last 2 elements we can see without reliving both of their seasons.

Trubisky rushed for a few hundred MORE yards and 3 TD's compared to Rodgers' 2...so now Trubisky has him beat in completion %, overall yards by a couple of hundred, 36/16 versus 27/2 in TD's while Rodgers beats him in turnovers.

Last element I see is sacks. Rodgers took 49 while Trubisky had 24 with real attempts. Equalized it's 49 sacks for Rodgers versus 33 sacks for Trubisky...that's 1 extra sack a game!

Trubisky had a better year overall in terms of efficiency. Higher completion %, more yards on avg (rushing and passing), much higher TD rate, fewer sacks,,,but Rodgers does beat him handily in turnovers.

Lastly, don't focus on Mayfield being 'ranked' 23 or 24th...he's rated as above average and I think that is correct.
Click to expand...
Here’s my beef with QBR,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_quarterback_rating
It is figured out based on hypotheticals not actual performance. Like one of the basic numbers is a number based off yards to go, down, yard line. The example used is a positive number is used for a 1st and goal situation because it favors the offense. So in reality, the number is give. Regardless of actual, live gameplay outcome. This is done for every single play over and over. They also have a key part of the formula called EPA, “expected points added”. Also a number given to other players. Now how did someone give a value to “trash time”and “clutch time”? Again, made up.
Every other statistic used is based off the actual outcomes of every play throughtout the year and tallied up. Simply to me, Rating, TD/INT ratio, yards, comp %, and the lesser used stats (like sack %, INT %) based off the actual play outcomes, mean more and should absolutely be used over QBR.

I have the same complaints about baseball’s WAR (wins against replacement). ESPN uses hypothetical numbers to put a formula on a player to make an exact value if on another team.
I think we can both agree that if a player changes teams, it is unrealistic to have the EXACT same output because the situation changes, the players around change, the way the opposing team plays changes, literally everything changes.


Out of curiousity, anyone know why the NFL/ESPN haven’t retroactively figured out the QBR for all QBs? The stat really only goes back to 2007, where do the All-time greats stack up? I’d think for the love QBs get, there would be incentive to try figuring this out to continue debates on “goat” forever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top