Interesting article on the playoff QB's.

[Bruce Smith]

https://www.nfl.com/news/ranking-the-14-playoff-quarterbacks-based-on-ngs-new-passing-score-metric?campaign=Twitter_atn

 

The Next Gen Stats crew has created a new metric/algorithm to analyze QBs. I never thought the PFF numbers meant anything.  They did not have face validity.  This one is very different and I think is better.  There are some surprises here too.  

[Nextmanup]

Josh Allen is 6th FYI.

 

Rodgers is best. 

 

 

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Nextmanup said:

Josh Allen is 6th FYI.

 

Rodgers is best. 

 

 

He's also only 4pts behind him.

[Bruce Smith]

Here is the methodology they used for those interested.

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/next-gen-stats-intro-to-passing-score-metric

 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

The problem is for a QB like Allen who can take over a game with his legs an passing only statistic is kind of useless. That said, it is a good sign that he is still ranked highly in a passing only statistic when he would obviously be ranked even higher if his value on the ground was taken into consideration. 

[BuffaloBill]

18 minutes ago, Bruce Smith said:

https://www.nfl.com/news/ranking-the-14-playoff-quarterbacks-based-on-ngs-new-passing-score-metric?campaign=Twitter_atn

 

The Next Gen Stats crew has created a new metric/algorithm to analyze QBs. I never thought the PFF numbers meant anything.  They did not have face validity.  This one is very different and I think is better.  There are some surprises here too.  

 

 

Interesting breakdown. I know I am a homer but JA had some very difficult weather in December.  I wonder how much better he might have been in the absence of this factor.

[LeGOATski]

9 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

The problem is for a QB like Allen who can take over a game with his legs an passing only statistic is kind of useless. That said, it is a good sign that he is still ranked highly in a passing only statistic when he would obviously be ranked even higher if his value on the ground was taken into consideration. 

Yeah, as with everything else, you need to consider the context.

 

It also doesn't account for sacks, which is fine, since it really just wants to grade the passing aspect. I feel like they could probably incorporate coverage sacks into the score. I assume they have enough data to do so. While coverage sacks are a credit to the defense, they're also an indication of the QB making a bad decision, whether it's missing a read or holding the ball too long.

 

I do like the way this is presented. I can look at it and easily tell if Allen passed the ball well or not. Then just look at the box score to see what else happened.

 

 

[ProcessAccepted]

17 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

The problem is for a QB like Allen who can take over a game with his legs an passing only statistic is kind of useless. That said, it is a good sign that he is still ranked highly in a passing only statistic when he would obviously be ranked even higher if his value on the ground was taken into consideration. 

Agreed. These rankings are really subjective and are used just for content and discussions. I'm fine with Rodgers being #1 but Stafford at #3 highlights some of the imperfections of this particular metric.

 

[Bruce Smith]

21 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

Interesting breakdown. I know I am a homer but JA had some very difficult weather in December.  I wonder how much better he might have been in the absence of this factor.

Weather no doubt plays a role.  But I think every QB on the list except Stafford faced bad weather this year.  

[Mattymafia]

45 minutes ago, Bruce Smith said:

https://www.nfl.com/news/ranking-the-14-playoff-quarterbacks-based-on-ngs-new-passing-score-metric?campaign=Twitter_atn

 

The Next Gen Stats crew has created a new metric/algorithm to analyze QBs. I never thought the PFF numbers meant anything.  They did not have face validity.  This one is very different and I think is better.  There are some surprises here too.  

Any metric that has Ryan Tannehill over Allen and Brady is not one I can get behind. 

[Bruce Smith]

The last two time both of those QBs played TN they lost.  In Brady's, case he has lost his last three to TN, one with TB and two with NE in the years of this new metric.  So it appears the metric does follow the data that matters:  scores and W/L.  It is way better than PFF metrics in my view.  I find they are off for most players.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Yeah, as with everything else, you need to consider the context.

 

It also doesn't account for sacks, which is fine, since it really just wants to grade the passing aspect. I feel like they could probably incorporate coverage sacks into the score. I assume they have enough data to do so. While coverage sacks are a credit to the defense, they're also an indication of the QB making a bad decision, whether it's missing a read or holding the ball too long.

 

I do like the way this is presented. I can look at it and easily tell if Allen passed the ball well or not. Then just look at the box score to see what else happened.

 

I dunno, Goat, they lost me at "seven different machine learning models".

 

I note that some football cognoscenti feel that a sack can be as significant as a turnover to offensive productivity.  So I absolutely feel it should be included in evaluating QB performance.

 

2 hours ago, Bruce Smith said:

https://www.nfl.com/news/ranking-the-14-playoff-quarterbacks-based-on-ngs-new-passing-score-metric?campaign=Twitter_atn

 

The Next Gen Stats crew has created a new metric/algorithm to analyze QBs. I never thought the PFF numbers meant anything.  They did not have face validity.  This one is very different and I think is better.  There are some surprises here too.  

 

I don't know what "face validity" means, but I know why I criticize ESPN "total QBR" and PFF ratings: they are "Frankenstats" where the calculations (and even the metrics on which they are based) can not and will not be simply and objectively explained; they are proprietary.  In the case of total QBR it's said to involve 10,000 lines of code.

 

I do know what "seven different machine learning models" means: it means no one, including the creators, can explain exactly what it's doing.

 

We'll see.

[Bruce Smith]

On 1/14/2022 at 1:56 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I dunno, Goat, they lost me at "seven different machine learning models".

 

I note that some football cognoscenti feel that a sack can be as significant as a turnover to offensive productivity.  So I absolutely feel it should be included in evaluating QB performance.

 

 

I don't know what "face validity" means, but I know why I criticize ESPN "total QBR" and PFF ratings: they are "Frankenstats" where the calculations (and even the metrics on which they are based) can not and will not be simply and objectively explained; they are proprietary.  In the case of total QBR it's said to involve 10,000 lines of code.

 

I do know what "seven different machine learning models" means: it means no one, including the creators, can explain exactly what it's doing.

 

We'll see.

Face validity refers to the extent to which a test appears to measure what it is intended to measure. A test in which most people would agree that the test items appear to measure what the test is intended to measure would have strong face validity.