QBR and old QB rating system so far apart

[Cards_Campos]

ESPN. You gotta hand it to them. They think they just invented the forward pass. Their system is just as flawed as the old one.

How does Kolb score a 130.00 on the old one and a 44 on the QBR. I understand the brilliance of a 10 yard pass...and the WR running 70 yards. Fine. But getting the ball to him should count much more. There are hundreds of times during the week, QB's miss wide open receivers all the time. Sacks...How can you fault a QB for a sack on a blind side blitz or a blitz that a RB or Tackle miss?

Now they have some goob saying how the old system is so outdated and bad. They use Kerry Collins and Micheal Vick. Yes their ratings are close...but you can find just as bad examples in their new system. Kolb scores a 44 rating which I still can't figure out. I will take his game every sunday for the entire year and we would win 11 games...and yet based on their system he would be a bottom ranked QB.

 

[Unsterblich856]

The biggest problem in my eye is that statistics are supposed to be objective and the QBR introduces subjectivity with what's "good", "bad", "clutch" and so on. They're basically trying to give a number to the eyeball test which just doesn't work out.

 

[Nash2Amare]

Problem with Kolb not getting credit for YAC on the Doucet throw is that he was the one who audibled and noticed that Carolina was blitzing the A gap which left that part of the field wide open allowing Doucet to get those yards. If not for Kolb's knowledge of McDermott's blitzes, that play probably doesn't happen.

Pretty dumb and ESPN is pimping the hell out of it now

 

[CHOPS]

Perfect!

 

[WarnerHOF]

Perfect!

Wow, you took five years to make your first post. Nice!!!

 

[Bodha]

Perfect!

Has to be a glitch. Joined March 06 and your first post is "Perfect!" 5 years later.


my mind cant comprehend this

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Problem with Kolb not getting credit for YAC on the Doucet throw is that he was the one who audibled and noticed that Carolina was blitzing the A gap which left that part of the field wide open allowing Doucet to get those yards. If not for Kolb's knowledge of McDermott's blitzes, that play probably doesn't happen.

Pretty dumb and ESPN is pimping the hell out of it now

Agreed.

Not only that, but most times the QB has to take a hit to get a pass off. If you don't think taking a hit, getting back up, shaking it off, and re-focusing doesn't take skill then you have never played a contact sport.

There is a reason why they say, "Hits add up".

ESPN's system is not only arrogant, it proves again why they are to sports what MTV is to music.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Has to be a glitch. Joined March 06 and your first post is "Perfect!" 5 years later.


my mind cant comprehend this

I like it!

Posting Silent Bob style.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[CHOPS]

Long time lurker! Longer time being a fan though, use to listen to the cardinal games on the AM radio as a kid...AS A KID! Thats a fan.

 

[crisper57]

I rarerly sign onto ESPN to post, but I had to do it to voice my displeasure with QBR. It is fatally flawed.

First, QBR tries to assign a numerical value to intangible factors like "clutch" plays. Already, statistical bias is ingrained in the formula.

Second, while the QBR tries to differentiate between different "positive" plays (time in game, distance of pass, score at the time, etc), it makes no such effort to do so for negative plays. Perfect passes that are bobbled by the receiver and eventually intercepted will count as much as the Romo toss to Revis. A sack prior to 2 seconds will count as much as a sack after 5 seconds. Romo's choke fumble on the 1 yard line has the same value as Kolb's pitch to Beanie, even though I think the RB was at fault on that play.

Think of it like this, if you take the classic scenario of "one step forward, two steps back" and assign a QBR rating. The one step forward may count as .5 steps or 2 steps, depending on the scenario. But the two steps back will always count as (-2), regardless of scenario. To me, this will skew the QBR ratings downward.

If Romo still has a positive "clutch" rating after his performance, it is flawed. And in fact, he has a higher clutch rating than Kolb. QBR says that Kolb was the 18th best QB in Week one and that his 309 yards and 2 tds were good enough for a "below average" performance.

No one who watched all the games would say that Romo had a better day than Kolb, yet he is rated 7 spots higher than the AZ QB. In fact, Sanchez and Romo had an almost statisically identical game (300+ yards, 2 tds, 1 int), but Romo is ranked higher. Why? Romo literally choked away his team's victory on 2 stupid turnovers and Sanchez did enough to win the game.

So after all that, all I can say is QBR is garbage. It either needs to be tweaked or blown up completely. One thing is for sure, though. ESPN will push it like crack all season long so they can make news, rather than report it.

 

[CardsFan88]

All of these are useless metrics. It's like calculus. There's no real function for it but to BS.

This stuff is pure sophistry, and basing judgments on these things leads to incorrect conclusions. None of it reflects reality, just made up crap that is supposed to represent it. Sometimes it can be a close approximation between two closely equal things. But nowhere will you ever truly know if it is correct until you are shown quite the opposite.

This is the kind of stuff that should go, people waste their time coming up with stuff that will never properly place things. It's all arbitrary, and they will never come up with a bs formula that will always and forever properly place two quarterbacks against each other, let alone 32 or more.

Your eyes are better than a worthless ivy league phd's sophistry invention. It always will be.

So when using them, just keep in mind that they are wrong. Base your opinions off what you see, not what some number spit out by a flawed formula.

I'm not hating the player, I'm pointing out the whole game of developing these formulas is worthless and pure folly. It's sad people (in general) follow it like they are religion.