Blind QB stat comparison

QB #1:

Yards thrown: 4830
Passing TDs: 34
Interceptions: 8
Int% per throw: 1.3%
Attempts per game: 40
Completion %: 63
Avg. per pass: 7.6
Yds per game: 302
20 yds +: 57
40 yds +: 8
Rating: 98.7
__________________
QB #2

Yards thrown: 4300
Passing TDs: 39
Interceptions: 8
Int% per throw: 1.4%
Attempts per game: 34
Completion %: 67
Avg. per pass: 7.8
Yds per game: 268
20 yds +: 54
40 yds +: 9
Rating: 108
__________________

Stats not considered by ratings formula:

QB #1s team:

2100 yards rushing
25 rushing TDs
4 rushing TDs by the QB
34.8 points per game
____________________

QB #2s team:

1700 yards
9 rushing TDs
2 rushing TDs by the QB
27.1 points per game

_____________________

Which QB was more valuable or had the better season?

I don't think I can possibly answer the question given solely the information presented.

This is hard, but points trump all. #2 from the data seems like a safe game manager that doesn't score. Is #2 Alex Smith or Tannehil?

doesntmatter1 said:

This is hard, but points trump all. #2 from the data seems like a safe game manager that doesn't score. Is #2 Alex Smith or Tannehil?

Click to expand...

When have you ever seen Tannehil or Alex Smith throw 39 touchdowns and 8 interceptions?

the one with highest QBR?

I wanted to add this to the discussion, which is a critique of QB rating:

Touchdowns
Much like the out-of-whack weight given to interceptions, passer rating gives touchdowns a bonus equivalent to 80 yards. Remember that all actual yardage gained is accounted for in yards per attempt, so this bonus is "extra" yardage awarded solely for crossing the goal line. This bonus should be equivalent to having the ball at your own 1" line vs. having 7 points and kicking the ball off. According to The Hidden Game of Football, this bonus was equivalent to about 10 yards. Others have more recently calculated the value at around 20 yards. Regardless, an 80 point bonus is way too high.

Click to expand...

Both of those stat lines are really impressive for blind QBs. Being able to see is extremely helpful at the position.

Fencer said:

Both of those stat lines are really impressive for blind QBs. Being able to see is extremely helpful at the position.

Click to expand...

That might just explain Geno Smith . . . he might be closing his eyes at the s—tfest that is the JEST offense.

How many ppg did each QB's team put up, the relevant stat.


QB1 was better.

EDIT: I didnt read "blind". Sorry.

Scoring is the biggest thing so I will take the more TD's of QB#2...that said team number one is better. 25 rushing TD? Plus 4 from the QB? Team 2 has nothing even close despite better QB play

It's close, of course, but Rodgers (QB2) probably had the better year than Brady (QB1) in 2012. He was the more efficient quarterback (better YPA and TD/INT ratio) even though the Packers had zero running game to speak of. Uneducated attacks by the likes of Peter King notwithstanding, passer efficiency rating (different from QBR) is actually a fairly good metric for evaluating QB play, in that it provides the answer to the question: on any given dropback, which quarterback is more likely to produce the better result? Thus, the statistic does not value "compilation" stats such as yards (without regard to number attempts), which I think is the correct approach. I guess the point you are trying to make is that Brady's PE rating shouldn't suffer because his team ran for a lot of TDs near the goalline rather than throwing for TDs (which would have increased his TD%, one of the key variables in the PE rating). I think that is a valid criticism, but in this case, I don't think it supports Brady having the better year, since his deficit in the TD% stat was in part a result of the Pats having an excellent running game and the Packers having a bad one.

I would say 1 had the better year just for the fact that he put the team in position to have 25 rushing TDs while only throwing for 5 less TDs.

letekro said:

It's close, of course, but Rodgers (QB2) probably had the better year than Brady (QB1) in 2012. He was the more efficient quarterback (better YPA and TD/INT ratio) even though the Packers had zero running game to speak of. Uneducated attacks by the likes of Peter King notwithstanding, passer efficiency rating (different from QBR) is actually a fairly good metric for evaluating QB play, in that it provides the answer to the question: on any given dropback, which quarterback is more likely to produce the better result? Thus, the statistic does not value "compilation" stats such as yards (without regard to number attempts), which I think is the correct approach. I guess the point you are trying to make is that Brady's PE rating shouldn't suffer because his team ran for a lot of TDs near the goalline rather than throwing for TDs (which would have increased his TD%, one of the key variables in the PE rating). I think that is a valid criticism, but in this case, I don't think it supports Brady having the better year, since his deficit in the TD% stat was in part a result of the Pats having an excellent running game and the Packers having a bad one.

Click to expand...

Here are several reasons that I think #1 is better:

If you take the rushing TDs and simply attribute them to the RBs, then yes, I agree with you. Having a potent run game really helps the passing game. QB #2 didn't have that luxury and yet he was more efficient.

But in this case, the extra 400 rushing yards over the year or 25 rush yards a game yielded 16 more touchdowns. In other words, for every 25 yards extra in rushing, you get a TD.That's huge. Compare that to the coefficient they use when they consider TDs in the passer rating formula. The guy who invented it considers a TD to be equivalent to 80 yards. TDs are HEAVILY weighted for passers. And here we have a TD for every 25 yards rushing.

As for completion %s and INTs, they are very close. In fact, Brady had many more attempts and the same INTs, for a slightly better INT rate.

The thing that puts Brady over the top is that he lead the team to the 3rd most points in NFL history, a TD more per game than the Packers. The QB rating, however, was hugely in Rodgers favor. But that's because a TD is weighted very very heavily in that measure.

When you look at the number of TDs scored by the Patriots in terms of passing/rushing balance, and then weigh that against the rush/pass yards, you wouldn't think that they could run for that many TDs. They had 2.3x as many passing yards as rushing yards, and that somehow yielded 34 pass/25 rush TDs. That's what I'm looking at right there. The rushing TDs were the result of the passing game much more than they were the result of the running game. You can make the same comparisons with the Packers and their passing TDs more closely track their passing yards. The Patriots were different. They simply ran the ball many times inside the 5 yard line, and of course Brady did his QB sneaks a few times.

Tom meets Kaepernick said:

When have you ever seen Tannehil or Alex Smith throw 39 touchdowns and 8 interceptions?

Click to expand...

Smith:
2004 Utah Utes 12 214-317 67.5 2,952 32-4 135-631-10

Tannehil:
2011 Texas A&M 13 133.2 327-531 61.6 3,744 29-15 58-306-5.34

'bout the closest they've ever gotten.

upstater1 said:

Here are several reasons that I think #1 is better:

If you take the rushing TDs and simply attribute them to the RBs, then yes, I agree with you. Having a potent run game really helps the passing game. QB #2 didn't have that luxury and yet he was more efficient.

But in this case, the extra 400 rushing yards over the year or 25 rush yards a game yielded 16 more touchdowns. In other words, for every 25 yards extra in rushing, you get a TD.That's huge. Compare that to the coefficient they use when they consider TDs in the passer rating formula. The guy who invented it considers a TD to be equivalent to 80 yards. TDs are HEAVILY weighted for passers. And here we have a TD for every 25 yards rushing.

As for completion %s and INTs, they are very close. In fact, Brady had many more attempts and the same INTs, for a slightly better INT rate.

The thing that puts Brady over the top is that he lead the team to the 3rd most points in NFL history, a TD more per game than the Packers. The QB rating, however, was hugely in Rodgers favor. But that's because a TD is weighted very very heavily in that measure.

When you look at the number of TDs scored by the Patriots in terms of passing/rushing balance, and then weigh that against the rush/pass yards, you wouldn't think that they could run for that many TDs. They had 2.3x as many passing yards as rushing yards, and that somehow yielded 34 pass/25 rush TDs. That's what I'm looking at right there. The rushing TDs were the result of the passing game much more than they were the result of the running game. You can make the same comparisons with the Packers and their passing TDs more closely track their passing yards. The Patriots were different. They simply ran the ball many times inside the 5 yard line, and of course Brady did his QB sneaks a few times.

Click to expand...

I understand your argument. I don't think it's that cut and dried though. A team that CAN run it in for the TD, WILL run it in for the TD. It is not going to take the risk of an INT, sack, false start, etc. that goes with throwing a pass. Plus, it is just harder to throw in the red zone (Brady's red zone comp. % was 50% in 2013). If the Pats did not have a good running game that could get tough yards in the red zone, Brady would have been forced to throw more in the red zone, which would have increased his TD%, but decreased his completion percentage and YPA, and almost certainly, the Patriots' ppg. Therefore, I don't see the major flaw in PER that you do. It's not a perfect stat (no one stat can tell the whole story), but I think it does a decent job and most of the criticism it receives from the mediots is unfounded.

Effectiveness can only be gauged by the teams W-L record... all the rest exists for the fantasy football world.