QB Passer Rating

[MJS]

3 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

It is arbitrary and capricious, and makes little sense,  a perfect game by a QB would need to be 100 percent completion rate, no fumbles or negative plays by said QB, and a victory in said game. This is what a perfect QB rating actually is. 

Ok, so let's say your receiver drops a perfectly thrown pass. Does that mean you didn't play a perfect game because your teammate screwed up?

 

I think the metric shows that if you perform at a certain level, you essentially max out your chance to win. You could perhaps do better, but if you are performing at a 158.3 level, you are basically playing perfect football as a QB and giving your team the highest possible chance to win.

 

And it is weaker as a one game stat anyway. It is stronger the more games you add. I remember Geno Smith had a season with the Jets where he had a game with a perfect 158.3 rating as well as a game with a perfect 0.0 rating. That has to be rare.

[DuckyBoys]

top 5 in order  last year were Tua, Mahomes, Jimmy G, Hurts and Geno   So not sure it has a ton of merit but it heavily favors completions percentage/west coast style short pass offense

[MJS]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Passer rating, to me, has always served as a general “efficiency” metric. There’s an argument that completions are weighted too heavily, but as we know, most WR average over 10 yards per catch and running backs anywhere from 6 to 8, so completions usually equal extending drives. 
 

As with any efficiency metric in sports, there’s a way to game the system to inflate the metric (namely, checking down and taking safe completions). That doesn’t make the metric invalid, it makes it imperfect. 

Not to mention that short, sustained completions eats away the clock and keeps the ball away from the other offense. 

 

1 minute ago, DuckyBoys said:

top 5 in order  last year were Tua, Mahomes, Jimmy G, Hurts and Geno   So not sure it has a ton of merit but it heavily favors completions percentage/west coast style short pass offense

And those QB's were a combined 52-20 wins/losses last year. I'd say there is definitely correlation with passer rating and winning, and I'd bet the statistical analysis would bear that out if you ran the numbers.

[Doc Brown]

56 minutes ago, Chaos said:

What are you evaluating with the “eye test”? A subjective judgement of who is the “best qb”? An objective judgement of who is the best passer?  or something else?

It's definitely subjective which is why you have these objective measurements.  The areas that come to mind that are pry impossible to measure are how complex the offense is, what the QB is asked to do, and the quality of the personnel around them (coaches and players).

[GoBills808]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Team passer rating differential is the most predictive stat (outside of actual points scored and given up!) in all of football: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/06/23/most-importantstatpasserratingdifferential. Right now, the Bills have a team passer rating of 106.7 and opponents' collective team passer rating is 66.4. 

 

It's a good stat despite not being perfect. 

ANY/A is the QB stat most correlated w winning which is why among other reasons I prefer it when measuring QB performance

 

So I don't know if ANY/A differential is measured but that's what I would use.

[Nephilim17]

10 hours ago, Dr.Sack said:

100% 

Agreed. Also hurdles and angry run stiff arms should count. 

Subtle jabs at the opposing teams' silly emoticon t-shirts after a touchdown should count as well.

[GoBills808]

2 hours ago, arcane said:

This kind of makes sense actually. If you are only hitting at a 50% rate and have SIX HUNDRED yards, your wide receivers are doing OBCSCENE work and you are being way too risky with that ball lol. Bringing in a hyper-unrealistic scenario doesn't really prove anything. The important thing to ask about a metric is, if you watch a bunch of games and understand its general score distribution, does it match up with what you saw from a quarterback in that game? Usually it does for me, at least it does it better than QBR which I believe is not even open-source. And it's not like anyone who hates passer rating has a better metric they point to and rely on. The reality is, any time there exists something that can theoretically be quantified in one easy number there will be humans who try to do it because it's a useful tool.

Thanks- there was obviously an explanation for the "random" numbers, because nobody who develops metrics for anything just makes stuff up like OP implies. Cool to have the explanation, and that's usually the gist of it, shaping the distribution of performances so it is a bell curve around some mean to reflect the reality of the performances 

Ah, but you've identified the snag with this method yourself 

I already said ANY/A is a better metric

[FireChans]

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I already said ANY/A is a better metric

ANY/A is a flawed metric because a QB who goes 1/9 for 90 yards is rated the same as 9/9 for 90 yards. 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

ANY/A is a flawed metric because a QB who goes 1/9 for 90 yards is rated the same as 9/9 for 90 yards. 

I didn't say it had no flaws

[hondo in seattle]

I don't like either passer rating or QBR.

 

As for passer rating, as I understand it, it's about efficiency and not about productivity.

 

For example, imagine a QB plays an entire game and goes 3 of 5 for 50 yards.  The reason he doesn't throw much is because he sucks so the OC doesn't call many passing plays.  But because the D is entirely focused on the run, the QB was able to complete 3 of his 5 attempts.

 

Imagine a different QB completes 30 of 50 passes for 500 yards.  Statistically, it's the same game: 60% completion rate, 10 y/a, and all that.  But this QB was an unstoppable force, throwing on nearly every play and racking up the yards.  

 

Passer rating doesn't measure productivity, only efficiency.  It would rate the two performances equally. 

 

That's like saying a RB with 2 carries for 12 yards had as good a game as a RB who had 30 carries for 180 yards.  Both averaged 6 ypc.  But one back influenced the outcome of the game in a meaningful way, the other didn't.  

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't like either passer rating or QBR.

 

As for passer rating, as I understand it, it's about efficiency and not about productivity.

 

For example, imagine a QB plays an entire game and goes 3 of 5 for 50 yards.  The reason he doesn't throw much is because he sucks so the OC doesn't call many passing plays.  But because the D is entirely focused on the run, the QB was able to complete 3 of his 5 attempts.

 

Imagine a different QB completes 30 of 50 passes for 500 yards.  Statistically, it's the same game: 60% completion rate, 10 y/a, and all that.  But this QB was an unstoppable force, throwing on nearly every play and racking up the yards.  

 

Passer rating doesn't measure productivity, only efficiency.  It would rate the two performances equally. 

 

That's like saying a RB with 2 carries for 12 yards had as good a game as a RB who had 30 carries for 180 yards.  Both averaged 6 ypc.  But one back influenced the outcome of the game in a meaningful way, the other didn't.  

A QB who passes 50 times for 500 yards and zero TDs must’ve done something wrong lol

39 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I didn't say it had no flaws

But it’s a similar argument against passer rating. It disproportionately eliminates efficiency whereas passer rating disproportionately favors it.

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, FireChans said:

A QB who passes 50 times for 500 yards and zero TDs must’ve done something wrong lol

But it’s a similar argument against passer rating. It disproportionately eliminates efficiency whereas passer rating disproportionately favors it.

Passer rating favors completions, not efficiency

 

If they took the completion/attempt out of the equation and left the YPA alone it would be ok, still doesn't account for sacks

 

any/a also has more realistic relative values for TDs and INTs imo

 

 

[DuckyBoys]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

Not to mention that short, sustained completions eats away the clock and keeps the ball away from the other offense. 

 

And those QB's were a combined 52-20 wins/losses last year. I'd say there is definitely correlation with passer rating and winning, and I'd bet the statistical analysis would bear that out if you ran the numbers.

Can't disagree  My point is a game manager qb with a strong run game is going to look better in this system  All 5 of those qbs had good to great run games

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Passer rating favors completions, not efficiency

 

If they took the completion/attempt out of the equation and left the YPA alone it would be ok, still doesn't account for sacks

 

any/a also has more realistic relative values for TDs and INTs imo

 

 

The only positive thing that happens from passing is completions. That’s part and parcel to the rules of football.

 

Not all completions are equal. But if you aren’t completing passes, nothing good is happening. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, FireChans said:

The only positive thing that happens from passing is completions. That’s part and parcel to the rules of football.

 

Not all completions are equal. But if you aren’t completing passes, nothing good is happening. 

Completions are baking into YPA is my point

 

There's no logical reason why a completion should be worth upwards of 20yards when a TD is only worth 80

[ddaryl]

11 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:

Josh getting the “perfect” 158.3 brings to mind the issue I have with the Passer Rating.   It is so dumb.  So, Josh got the “perfect” score.  Was he perfect? No.   Did he complete all his attempts?  No.  Many QBs have received the perfect rating and there is no common defined data for them to get it.

 

First, I’ll take that part on.   To me, a perfect score should be for a QB throwing one pass for a TD for 99 yards.  The only way to match that should be to go 2 for 2 with both passes for 99 yard TDs.  Their system is flawed.  There are 4 calculations based on Pass Attempts, Completions, Passing Yards, TD Passes and INTs.   
 

One of the calculations is:

 

d = 2.375 -  (INT/ATT x 25).   
 

WTF!!  Where did they come up with the 2.375?   What does the 25 represent?
 

Then there’s a comment that if any calculation is greater than 2.375, it is set to 2.375.  If any result is less than zero, it is set to zero.  What?!!!

 

Many numbers we experience in life in the US of A are based on tens and hundreds.  Why do they have a perfect score be 158.3?
 

 

I agree there is a flaw. but I think you take it to far with the 1 pass for 99 yards argument. 

IMO it should be perfect Attempts/Catches no INTs or Fumbles.  If you go 24 for 25 thats not perfect. The QB would score high just not perfect. It should represent perfect execution from the QB for the game

[FireChans]

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Completions are baking into YPA is my point

 

There's no logical reason why a completion should be worth upwards of 20yards when a TD is only worth 80

No, they aren't.  Yards are baked into YPA. 1/10 for 100. 10/10 for 100. Same YPA. 9 completions NOT baked in.

[GoBills808]

Just now, FireChans said:

No, they aren't.  Yards are baked into YPA. 1/10 for 100. 10/10 for 100. Same YPA. 9 completions NOT baked in.

yes they are lol, they're right there. you're just figuring out that maybe they're not as important as you think

[FireChans]

29 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

yes they are lol, they're right there. you're just figuring out that maybe they're not as important as you think

How could they be there?

 

The YPA is the exact same if you complete one pass vs 10 passes.

 

Football is predicated on achieving 10 yards to achieve first downs to sustain drives. A QB who completes 1/10 passes for 100 yards is achieving the same yardage, but not contributing outside of one play. A QB going 10/10 for 100 yards could be contributing to multiple scoring drives. A QB going 1/10 cannot by definition of the rules of the game.

 

YPA exists with this gigantic blind spot. It's not that great of a stat lol.

 

You want to say completions are overvalued in passer rating. I think that's a fair critique. But they are essentially neutralized in YPA because getting lucky with a broken play is the treated the same as methodically driving on a defense.

 

Tua has consistently been a top leader in ANYPA (#1 last year, #1 this year). Is it because he is the best QB in the NFL, or because he has the some of the best big play weapons in the NFL?

 

Brock Purdy is #2 this year.  Is he the best QB? Or is it the same thing as above?

 

Josh had less ANYPA than Jared Goff last year lmao. Your stat ain't that great.

Edited October 3, 2023 by FireChans

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

How could they be there?

 

The YPA is the exact same if you complete one pass vs 10 passes.

 

Football is predicated on achieving 10 yards to achieve first downs to sustain drives. A QB who completes 1/10 passes for 100 yards is achieving the same yardage, but not contributing outside of one play. A QB going 10/10 for 100 yards could be contributing to multiple scoring drives. A QB going 1/10 cannot by definition of the rules of the game.

 

YPA exists with this gigantic blind spot. It's not that great of a stat lol.

 

You want to say completions are overvalued in passer rating. I think that's a fair critique. But they are essentially neutralized in YPA because getting lucky with a broken play is the treated the same as methodically driving on a defense.

 

Tua has consistently been a top leader in AYPA (#1 last year, #2 this year). Is it because he is the best QB in the NFL, or because he has the some of the best big play weapons in the NFL?

 

Brock Purdy is #1 this year.  Is he the best QB? Or is it the same thing as above?

 

Josh had less AYPA than Ryan Tannehill, Jared Goff, and Jimmy G last year lmao. Your stat ain't that great.

any/a is the stat i use. I don't know what apya is. Allen was 6th last year behind hurts, tua, mahomes, goff, garoppolo. passer rating would have put him 8th..not a huge difference

 

the point about completions is known...you aren't going to be able to convince me that a completion for zero yards has significantly more value than an incompletion. If you believe it that's fine.

[FireChans]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

any/a is the stat i use. I don't know what apya is. Allen was 6th last year behind hurts, tua, mahomes, goff, garoppolo. passer rating would have put him 8th..not a huge difference

 

the point about completions is known...you aren't going to be able to convince me that a completion for zero yards has significantly more value than an incompletion. If you believe it that's fine.

I'm sorry, I completely screwed up and forgot we were talking ANYA. I tried to stealth edit before you got to responding lol

 

You won't convince me that 10 completions for 10 yards each isn't better that 1/10 for 100 yards either.

[GoBills808]

24 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I'm sorry, I completely screwed up and forgot we were talking ANYA. I tried to stealth edit before you got to responding lol

 

You won't convince me that 10 completions for 10 yards each isn't better that 1/10 for 100 yards either.

That's ok but to illustrate my point- passer rating says a completion for -1 yards is more than twice as valuable as an incompletion

 

That's incongruent imo

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

That's ok but to illustrate my point- passer rating says a completion for -1 yards is more than twice as valuable as an incompletion

 

That's incongruent imo

Totally agree, that's bonkers lol. All these stats breakdown under certain circumstances, which is why football is the hardest sport to capture statistically.

Edited October 3, 2023 by FireChans

[GoBills808]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Totally agree, that's bonkers lol. All these stats breakdown under certain circumstances, which is why football is the hardest sport to capture statistically.

🤙So not to get too into the weeds but when I say completions are baked into YPA it's not that they're assigned actual value as you pointed out but rather that the more productive passes should in theory be correlated w a higher YPA...which is why I feel also adding simple completions per attempt into passer rating skews it too hard in that direction

 

Like a completion for zero yards still goes into YPA as 0/attempt you know, it's still there 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, DuckyBoys said:

Can't disagree  My point is a game manager qb with a strong run game is going to look better in this system  All 5 of those qbs had good to great run games

Yes, game managers may rate higher than some would like, but the fact that they may be advantaged somewhat by the formula, it still isn't enough to put them on top of any lists.   

 

Career passer rating - top 20, goes like this:  

 

1Patrick Mahomes105.02017-2023kan

2Aaron Rodgers103.62005-20232TM

3Deshaun Watson101.52017-20232TM

4Russell Wilson100.32012-20232TM

5Drew Brees98.72001-20202TM

6Jimmy Garoppolo98.62014-20233TM

7Kirk Cousins98.02012-20232TM

8Dak Prescott97.72016-2023dal

9Joe Burrow97.62020-2023cin

10Tom Brady97.22000-20222TM

Lamar Jackson97.22018-2023rav

12Tony Romo97.12004-2016dal

13Justin Herbert96.92020-2023sdg

14Steve Young+96.81985-19992TM

15Peyton Manning+96.51998-20152TM

16Philip Rivers95.22004-20202TM

17Kurt Warner+93.71998-20093TM

18Matt Ryan93.62008-20222TM

19Ben Roethlisberger93.52004-2021pit

20Josh 

 

Jimmy G and Kirk G might be accused of being game managers, but that's about it on the list.  The list is littered with Hall of Famers, which suggests that the passer rating is a pretty good measure of who's good.  

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

🤙So not to get too into the weeds but when I say completions are baked into YPA it's not that they're assigned actual value as you pointed out but rather that the more productive passes should in theory be correlated w a higher YPA...which is why I feel also adding simple completions per attempt into passer rating skews it too hard in that direction

 

Like a completion for zero yards still goes into YPA as 0/attempt you know, it's still there 

There's certainly an aspect of double-dipping statistically because yardage is tied to completions more than the inverse (ie you can't get yardage without a completion but you can get a completion without yardage), so if both are counted, it skews it positively.

 

I still think there is SIGNIFICANT value in efficiency stats IRT to QB's, because football, more than any other sport, has so many factors in regards to scoring, meaning if a QB can extend drives efficiently and gain smaller amounts of yardage consistently, it will provide value beyond the sum of its parts.

 

In hockey, it's really largely shot location (to my limited knowledge). In basketball, it's shot location. Shot from X has % chance of resulting in Y points. And even those relatively simple numbers are greatly affected by WHO is taking the shot. Durant in the midrange may be statistically more efficient than a bum taking layups.

 

Even EPA, which has been around but has spiked greatly in popularity is a much more complicated stat comparative to these other sports leagues.

 

 

[Billsfan1972]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, game managers may rate higher than some would like, but the fact that they may be advantaged somewhat by the formula, it still isn't enough to put them on top of any lists.   

 

Career passer rating - top 20, goes like this:  

 

1Patrick Mahomes105.02017-2023kan

2Aaron Rodgers103.62005-20232TM

3Deshaun Watson101.52017-20232TM

4Russell Wilson100.32012-20232TM

5Drew Brees98.72001-20202TM

6Jimmy Garoppolo98.62014-20233TM

7Kirk Cousins98.02012-20232TM

8Dak Prescott97.72016-2023dal

9Joe Burrow97.62020-2023cin

10Tom Brady97.22000-20222TM

Lamar Jackson97.22018-2023rav

12Tony Romo97.12004-2016dal

13Justin Herbert96.92020-2023sdg

14Steve Young+96.81985-19992TM

15Peyton Manning+96.51998-20152TM

16Philip Rivers95.22004-20202TM

17Kurt Warner+93.71998-20093TM

18Matt Ryan93.62008-20222TM

19Ben Roethlisberger93.52004-2021pit

20Josh 

 

Jimmy G and Kirk G might be accused of being game managers, but that's about it on the list.  The list is littered with Hall of Famers, which suggests that the passer rating is a pretty good measure of who's good.  

Throw out his rookie year and thank McD for the first 2 years and he is 99.28 in the last 3.25 years or #5......😉

[hondo in seattle]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, game managers may rate higher than some would like, but the fact that they may be advantaged somewhat by the formula, it still isn't enough to put them on top of any lists.   

 

Career passer rating - top 20, goes like this:  

 

1Patrick Mahomes105.02017-2023kan

2Aaron Rodgers103.62005-20232TM

3Deshaun Watson101.52017-20232TM

4Russell Wilson100.32012-20232TM

5Drew Brees98.72001-20202TM

6Jimmy Garoppolo98.62014-20233TM

7Kirk Cousins98.02012-20232TM

8Dak Prescott97.72016-2023dal

9Joe Burrow97.62020-2023cin

10Tom Brady97.22000-20222TM

Lamar Jackson97.22018-2023rav

12Tony Romo97.12004-2016dal

13Justin Herbert96.92020-2023sdg

14Steve Young+96.81985-19992TM

15Peyton Manning+96.51998-20152TM

16Philip Rivers95.22004-20202TM

17Kurt Warner+93.71998-20093TM

18Matt Ryan93.62008-20222TM

19Ben Roethlisberger93.52004-2021pit

20Josh 

 

Jimmy G and Kirk G might be accused of being game managers, but that's about it on the list.  The list is littered with Hall of Famers, which suggests that the passer rating is a pretty good measure of who's good.  

 

Sure, passer rating does measure something meaningful.

 

But most human evaluators of QBs wouldn't put Jimmy Garoppolo ahead of Tom Brady, for example.  

 

Because of the methodological flaws posters have noted, the passer rating top twenty is only a rough approximation of the "real" top twenty.  

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

Sure, passer rating does measure something meaningful.

 

But most human evaluators of QBs wouldn't put Jimmy Garoppolo ahead of Tom Brady, for example.  

 

Because of the methodological flaws posters have noted, the passer rating top twenty is only a rough approximation of the "real" top twenty.  

Of course.  But that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful.  If there were a perfect way to rate qbs, someone would have invented it.  

 

Passer rating is an amalgam of stats.  It's better than any one of its constituent stats.  Better than yards or TDs or INT ratio pr any of them. . 

[MJS]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

Sure, passer rating does measure something meaningful.

 

But most human evaluators of QBs wouldn't put Jimmy Garoppolo ahead of Tom Brady, for example.  

 

Because of the methodological flaws posters have noted, the passer rating top twenty is only a rough approximation of the "real" top twenty.  

You have to account for the era they played in too. Tom Brady started in an era that was more brutal and more difficult to be an efficient QB. Today you also see the west coast offense spreading things out, making it easier for QB's to read the defense and make completions.

 

If Jimmy G started playing in 2001, he would not have been as good as Tom Brady in passer rating.

 

You see a steady incline in passer rating averages over the years, and that is due to 1) legislating defense out of the game, and 2) offensive schemes making it easier for QB's.

[BobbyC81]

22 hours ago, Punch said:

More than a decade on and we're still debating JP Losman vs. Trent Edwards.

Speaking of Trent Edwards, I just finished rewatching The Office series and in the last season, when Jim Halpert was working on that sports company in Philly, a coworker comes out of a conference room and calls out to Jim “We have Trent Edwards on the phone.”

 

Trent was with the Eagles then.

[The Frankish Reich]

On 10/3/2023 at 5:12 AM, Chaos said:

Oddly for all the complaints about passer rating, over the course of a season it is pretty effective at identifying the top QBs, and it correlates very well with winning football games.  

True.

It's a weird 1970s era calculation, but if you look back at the consensus opinion - which QBs are the best/worst in a given era? - it's pretty damn good. 

I'm a baseball stats geek. For me it's like OPS+ in baseball. Kind of a weird made-up thing without a ton of "theory" behind it, but one that pretty well reflects relative performance. As a much more team game, football doesn't have any really good measures like Wins Above Replacement (WAR). 

[k2mountain]

On 10/3/2023 at 1:16 AM, BobbyC81 said:

 

 

Many numbers we experience in life in the US of A are based on tens and hundreds.  Why do they have a perfect score be 158.3?
 

 

Yeah! And why is Pi 3.14 Where did they come up with that?