E!SPNs made up QBR and their obvious agenda

[Danger Zone]

Yeah, it's like how every time a ref makes a blatantly bad call people cry "conspiracy!" When in reality it's just incompetence. True incompetence looks suspicious because people can't believe that someone could be that stupid without doing it on purpose, but they're often wrong.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Hanlon's razor is an aphorism that recommends a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for a phenomenon (a philosophical razor).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

That said.. ESPN's coverage of Brady and the Patriots absolutely seems malicious at times. At best, as one poster very astutely pointed out, it might just be a rat****ing style of sensationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat****ing

 

[lurker1965]

...

That said.. ESPN's coverage of Brady and the Patriots absolutely seems malicious at times. At best, as one poster very astutely pointed out, it might just be a rat****ing style of sensationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat****ing

The **** makes the link not work.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

This is what I think of ESPN and their bullsh^% logic

 

[jmt57]

Maybe the Patriots can offer Brady in a trade to Dallas for Weeden, and hope that Jerrah is so dumb that he will accept.

 

[zydecochris]

Mods please merge if this thread exists but not on the first page or whatever

http://offthemonstersports.com/2015...system-is-severely-flawed-get-a-load-of-this/

Weeden ranks higher than Brady and Brady is second worst QB. Link is to off the monster sports making fun of it.

Honestly, I can't get mad at this, it is just too funny. Probably my best laugh of the day.

Maybe ESPN is more useful than I thought? Maybe ESPN can become the Monty Python of sports? Of course, Monty Python was intentionally trying to be ridiculous. ESPN makes it even MORE funny by being in that category of "unintentional humor".

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...2015/10/byrne_espns_qbr_sells_tom_brady_short

Excerpts:

[Brady] completed 20-of-27 passes (74.1 percent), averaged a fantastic 10.2 yards per attempt (YPA), passed for two touchdowns, ran for one more and committed zero turnovers. His 130.9 passer rating made it one of the 23 most efficient performances of his 16-year career. The Patriots are a perfect 23-0 in those games.

Brady is on pace to set personal records for passing yards (5,558), yards per attempt (8.7), passing accuracy (72.5 percent) and passer rating (121.5).

ESPN saw the game differently. Brady ranked 27th out of 28 QBs in Week 5, according to the network’s highly publicized but mysterious indicator, Total QB Rating.

Brady’s 24.1 “QBR” on Sunday placed him ahead of only Nick Foles (1.5 QBR). The Rams quarterback completed just 11-of-30 passes with four interceptions in a 24-10 loss to Green Bay.

Members of ESPN’s analytics team were not available for comment yesterday. But network spokesman Bill Hofheimer provided detailed explanations of ESPN’s QB-rating process. Sacks, Brady’s fumble (recovered by the Patriots) and the fact that 63 percent of the team’s passing yards came after the catch all negatively impacted his rating — to the point that one of the NFL’s best passing performances of Week 5 looks like one of the worst in the eyes of ESPN.

Houston’s Brian Hoyer (90.1 QBR) played better than Brady: He averaged 8.8 YPA and threw two TDs. But he also threw two picks and produced just three fourth-quarter points. His Texans lost, 27-20, to the Colts and 40-year-old warhorse Matt Hasselbeck (92.1).

Detroit’s Matt Stafford (33.2) and Dan Orlovsky (50.8) both played better than Brady: Stafford was benched after throwing his third pick. Orlovsky averaged an anemic 5.0 YPA with one TD and one pick in the Lions’ 42-17 loss to Arizona.

Yes, even the Cowboys’ overmatched Brandon Weeden (27.5 rating) played better than Brady: He produced just 188 yards on 39 attempts (dismal 4.8 YPA), tossed one interceptions and failed to get the Cowboys in the end zone.

Total QBR has four major flaws.

First, Total QBR is statistical pixie dust that exists only within the walls of ESPN. The network never has published a formula for QBR. Nobody can double-check the data.

“The formula is not something we give out,” said Hofheimer, citing a complex algorithm that takes in many factors beyond passing.

Second, Total QBR is not actually a statistic; that is, it’s not an objective mathematical calculation that reflects performance. Instead, it’s a subjective assessment that betrays human bias. ESPN never has published a formula for Total QBR because one does not exist. Instead, it’s a judgment call.

[........]

Analysts review tape, divvy up credit and assign a score.

That ain’t football. It’s figure skating. And it ain’t statistics. It’s a beauty contest.

[.......]

Third, and most importantly, existing indicators do a much better job explaining individual and team success. Trusty old passer rating is most notable among them. It’s a phenomenal statistic because wins and losses move in virtual lockstep with passer rating.

Teams win when the quarterback passes the ball efficiently. They lose when he doesn’t. The Patriots’ big win is explained perfectly by passer rating.

Brady’s 130.9 rating was 63.9 points better than Weeden’s 67.0 — a surefire sign of a blowout victory. Teams that were plus-50 or better in passer rating margin last year were 51-1 (.981), a number consistent with historic results. The Patriots are 102-6 (.944) when Brady posts a rating of 100-plus.

Passer rating, put another way, has a high correlation to victory. Total QBR has a low correlation to victory.

The Pats’ blowout victory was statistically guaranteed by Brady’s blowout of Weeden in passer rating. But ESPN looked at this guaranteed winning performance and determined that Brady was one of the worst QBs in the NFL this week.

Fourth and finally, ESPN’s indicator makes fatal mistakes common in modern football analysis. It tries to isolate individual “credit” and blame amid a violent swirl of 22 men. It over-emphasizes factors that have zero correlation to success (yards after catch, most notably). And it over-complicates a very simple game: Teams win when they pass the ball more efficiently than opponents. Simple as that. Consider 36 percent of all NFL champions since 1940 (27-of-75) finished No. 1 in passer rating differential. No credit. No blame. Just results.

If ESPN was looking to improve upon existing stats, it failed miserably. This week’s rankings, meanwhile, betray either a bad stat or bias against Brady inside the halls of ESPN.

 

[Hael]

I'm definitely a bit of an analytics guy, but it's very clear (and has been for a very long time) that QBR is nonsense. It's essentially a mix mash of stuff that a first year undergraduate stats guy might think up, who hasn't thought through the details very carefully and who doesn't know much about football.

More than any other sport, Football is really difficult to get good statistics in, b/c so much is cross correlated with team performance, coaching performance and possibly hidden choices. That's why it can only possibly ever be done correctly by people with access to the responsibilities of both teams, including detailed knowledge of everyones assignments, and even then it introduces human bias into the stats.

As explained in the above post, QBR deducts points when the qb throws a checkdown play that leads to a large amount of yac by the receiver. But what if that play was a screen pass with no one in front of the receiver? In QBR, it would be better to put some air under the ball and have the receiver catch it 15 yards down the pitch. But no coach would ever tell a qb to throw a pass like that. The checkdown is the correct play and the correct decision.

So that really requires a human to go through the play and NOT deduct YAC from the play.

Anyway, just one example of many.

 

[Clonamery]

"....either a bad stat or bias against Brady inside the halls of ESPN."

Hah! Both a bad stat AND bias.

 

[Big-T]

" it’s a subjective assessment that betrays human bias. "

lmao what a moronic line from the ESPN guy.

 

[RobertWeathers]

My god. If they are basing some of their QBR "calculation" on the amount of time the ball is in the air and view it as a negative if the receiver is doing all the work then Joe Montana must have really sucked in the eyes of those misfits at BSPN.

 

[sambam94]

only idiots would keep putting this out

 

[Tony2046]

Espn can call Brady "****ty", "unethical", "marginal", "system type" all the way to the HOF far as I'm concerned.

I will enjoy watching BSPN crashing back to earth over the next few years. Once they start losing cable revenue Fox and other networks will be able to out bid them for MNF etc.... Karma train is heading your way BSPN.

 

[Observer]

I hope that all the rest of the QBs compete for top ESPN QB rating!

 

[borg]

The line not blocking is Brady's fault and WRs that gain YAC is Brady's fault. Gotcha.
It's as if the "creator" of QBR has Bret Favre as the template for perfect QB play. Downfield chucker who can scramble. The network that gave us 24/7/365 Favre for years has found away to extend their Favrotism.
The arrogance of this network never ceases to amaze.
You'd think the "creator" would design a rating system by working backwards....examining how successful QBs in the modern league operate to deliver victory and then configuring a system that judges QBs based on success.. Instead....a riskier 20 yd down field pass gets elevated above a safer 10 yd pass+10 YAC=20yd. Remember the old days when sideline curls were the rage...high risk, often INT'd for TDs....a pass that Brady will NEVER throw (maybe 2 min drill if desperate).....this QBR must love them.
I essence.....this QBR believes "air yards" win games .....not play design/scheme/10 other players. Brady finding a wide open slot WR 5 yds off the LOS is bad.....but Brady chucking the ball 40 yds deep into triple coverage gets rewarded if the WR can defy the odds and win the jump ball.
No wonder ESPN is flailing. Same Network that pays John Gruden $4 mill/yr for his icy stare. Style Over Substance should be their motto.
And for the NFL......Home of the Clown Car

 

[ausbacker]

It's almost as if throwing to a receiver enabling him to create yards after the catch is frowned upon by ESPN's QBR. So much for putting your guy in a position to make a play.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Apparently YAC is more detrimental to a QB (rating) than INTs.

When your system supports that logic, you might not even want to continue with the rest of the formula. While YAC is certainly a great part the receiver, it is also the QB if they are hitting them in stride or looking off a defender. Could be a great call by the QB switching the play at the LOS because of the defensive alignment, ,,,

 

[OhExaulted1]

“The formula is not something we give out,” said Hofheimer, citing a complex algorithm that takes in many factors beyond passing.

Wow, it's a super-secret highly classified formula, huh? Hopefully the only copy explaining it is written on toilet paper because that's where it belongs.

 

[patchick]

Apparently YAC is more detrimental to a QB (rating) than INTs.

When your system supports that logic, you might not even want to continue with the rest of the formula. While YAC is certainly a great part the receiver, it is also the QB if they are hitting them in stride or looking off a defender. Could be a great call by the QB switching the play at the LOS because of the defensive alignment, ,,,

Yes!! For every play like the Dion Lewis TD where the receiver makes something out of nothing, there are 5 other plays where a short toss picks up good yardage because Brady read the field well, found a receiver with room to maneuver and delivered the ball in the right spot for him to run with it.

YAC are joint product of the WR, QB and blockers. How can a good YAC count as a negative against anyone on the offense, let alone the guy who threw the ball?

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Espn can call Brady "****ty", "unethical", "marginal", "system type" all the way to the HOF far as I'm concerned.

I will enjoy watching BSPN crashing back to earth over the next few years. Once they start losing cable revenue Fox and other networks will be able to out bid them for MNF etc.... Karma train is heading your way BSPN.

Remember that both ESPN and ABC are owned by Disney. While they may operate in silos right now, ABC/Disney will not want to lose out on NFL exposure at all. If ESPN itself can no longer afford the contract, I'm sure Disney will make ABC subsidize it, which likely means more ABC cross-promotions on ESPN than ever before.

ESPN's issue will be if the ad revenue they can pull decreases due to cable cutting. If that happens, Disney may decide to just have the games on ABC itself like in the old days.

 

[rochrist]

I'm with those that say the stat is silly, but I don't see an agenda there. I mean, they invented it a couple years ago, and have tweaked it a bit since then. It isn't exactly targeting specific QBs.

I think what hurts Brady is you get more points for things like scoring TD's in close games and especially late in close games. Brady doesn't have much of that this year.

They have a major problem in that parts of the process of determing the QBR require subjective evaluation by ESPN analysts. So yeah, it's absolutely wide open to being agenda driven, or at the very least the appearance of an agenda.