ESPN's Quarterback Ratings are a joke

[primetime]

Is there somewhere where the formula is published? It looks good to the eye test and I agree with the inclusions of the stats added to the traditional QB rating, but I'd like to see the formula.

I've asked Brian Burke, who was hired by ESPN and put in charge of it, but he said it was proprietary. This is, of course, reason to be suspect, even if I like and respect Burke as a statistician.

Mathematical models often have a real hard time reflecting reality, because you are standardizing using a set array of inputs. For instance, the macroeconomic models used to make hugely important decisions about the global economy are usually no more empirically accurate than QBR.

 

[jah]

Drew Brees had six TDs and no INTs while completing 78% of his passes this weekend and had a QBR rating of 91.7. Manning had no TDs and 1 INT while completing 72.4% of his passes and had a QBR of 93.6.

Brees threw 7 TD 1 INT, which does not detract from your point.

 

[BobDigital]

Is there somewhere where the formula is published? It looks good to the eye test and I agree with the inclusions of the stats added to the traditional QB rating, but I'd like to see the formula.

There's always the urge to improve the traditional QB rating as it leaves out important things. Incompletions hurt your rating but sacks don't affect it at all, for instance. The CHFF Real QB rating seems to address some of that, as they say "Real Quarterback Rating includes rushing attempts, rushing yards, rushing TDs, fumbles and sacks to produce a new kind of rating that measures a quarterback’s overall performance with the ball, not just as a passer when he actually releases the ball (which is all that passer rating currently measures)."

But as I can't find the rating, I can't tell if their "Advances" category which simply lists "completions + rush attempts" includes completions and rush attempts for no gain. Should that be an "advance"?

Sorry I don't really know the nuts and bolts of how the formula works except to say they stick to the passer rating formula and add those stats into it.

Passer rating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That does get into it a bit more though.

There is never going to be one perfect stat but passer rating is one of the stats I tend give a higher amount of credibility to.

 

[primetime]

Sorry I don't really know the nuts and bolts of how the formula works except to say they stick to the passer rating formula and add those stats into it.

Passer rating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That does get into it a bit more though.

There is never going to be one perfect stat but passer rating is one of the stats I tend give a higher amount of credibility to.

The primary issue with passer rating is that it was standardized based on averages in an entirely different era of football.

To Burke's credit, I think since he took over the absurd "clutch factor" weights were removed from the QBR calculation. But the model still needs substantial tuning, as it quite clearly does not reflect anything approaching reality.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry I don't really know the nuts and bolts of how the formula works except to say they stick to the passer rating formula and add those stats into it.

Passer rating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That does get into it a bit more though.

There is never going to be one perfect stat but passer rating is one of the stats I tend give a higher amount of credibility to.

Passer rating gets a bad rap, especially with regards to comparing QBs from different eras, but it's actually a damned good way to start evaluating QBs.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

"No reason to get nasty here."

Sincerely,
The word joke

 

[patchick]

ttheir formula disses a dominant performance in a wire-to-wire victory.

I'd love to see the average QBR of all "Player of the Week" performances:
Tom Brady given AFC Offensive Player of the Week award

 

[patchick]

Passer rating gets a bad rap, especially with regards to comparing QBs from different eras, but it's actually a damned good way to start evaluating QBs.

Yep, it's a lot like the Jimmy Johnson draft value chart that way. People assume the numbers are naive and off base, but they turn out to be a lot more accurate and predictive than more complicated "improvements" are.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Brees threw 7 TD 1 INT, which does not detract from your point.

Actually, I believe it's now officially 2 INTs.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Yep, it's a lot like the Jimmy Johnson draft value chart that way. People assume the numbers are naive and off base, but they turn out to be a lot more accurate and predictive than more complicated "improvements" are.

Not to be facetious, but isn't this simply because the NFL teams actually use it?

 

[patchick]

Not to be facetious, but isn't this simply because the NFL teams actually use it?

It's hard to say, kind of a chicken and egg question. The original chart was modeled on past trades. Then teams adopted it as a handy shorthand for fair value, so it naturally continued to apply. But it wouldn't have been adopted if it didn't fit GMs' existing concept of value. Round and round we go.

But the end result is that it does a good job, even while being pooh-poohed by a lot of fans.

 

[rochrist]

EDIT: Disney losing the NFL is likely to result in losing billions in stock value and plummeting gross revenue at it's most valuable division, ESPN (along with lots of layoffs). That's not a sports fan's hot air, that is fact. And it means a man like Roger Goodell carries immense power. So do you think Disney's ESPN division and Disney's news division will avoid stories that jeopardize the NFL - Disney relationship if possible??. They don't care one iota if Brady(or the Saints) is being railroaded. They have concerns that make that kind of story irrelevant. And that is case with, though not quite as acute as Disney, of Universal, Comcast, TimeWarner, FOX corp, Universal-NBC and a whole bunch of others who below the surface have a massive reach into all corners.

Sorry for that oversight Pherein. I fixed it...

Do you have a citation for ESPN being Disney's most valuable division? Because I find that hard to believe.
Disney Media Networks makes up the largest portion of their income, but that's made up of /way/ more than just ESPN. I'd kind of expect ESPN to be pretty far down on the totem pole.

 

[rochrist]

Drew Brees had six TDs and no INTs while completing 78% of his passes this weekend and had a QBR rating of 91.7. Manning had no TDs and 1 INT while completing 72.4% of his passes and had a QBR of 93.6.

Small correction. He has /7/ TDs.

 

[primetime]

Passer rating gets a bad rap, especially with regards to comparing QBs from different eras, but it's actually a damned good way to start evaluating QBs.

The primary advantage to passer rating over any other "advanced metric" is that the formula is totally transparent. You know what's going into it and what's not. There's plenty of metrics in other sports like this (OPS in baseball, PER in basketball), but for whatever reason football metrics are all proprietary models that their creators do not share.

 

[rochrist]

The primary issue with passer rating is that it was standardized based on averages in an entirely different era of football.

To Burke's credit, I think since he took over the absurd "clutch factor" weights were removed from the QBR calculation. But the model still needs substantial tuning, as it quite clearly does not reflect anything approaching reality.

If by 'substantial tuning' you mean tossing into the garbage, then yeah.

 

[jah]

Actually, I believe it's now officially 2 INTs.

Oh really? Makes sense, since that fumble really was never a catch.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Do you have a citation for ESPN being Disney's most valuable division? Because I find that hard to believe.
Disney Media Networks makes up the largest portion of their income, but that's made up of /way/ more than just ESPN. I'd kind of expect ESPN to be pretty far down on the totem pole.

Thanks for calling me on it. I had the figure backwards. It's close to 40% valuation of Disney while ESPN's sub fees are close tat 60% number. Sorry for the incorrect information, however, it doesn't change the premise that ESPN is the biggest part of Disney's value, the NFL drives that value, Disney will not harm that relationship else hurt it's own interest. If you think otherwise I am interested in the counterpoint.
The Value of ESPN Surpasses $50 Billion
Fyi, ESPN is the third most valuable media company, dollar wise, in the world behind comcast and 21st century fox. But ESPN relies heavily on sub fees. Cord cutting and unbundling will make ESPN drop significantly. Here is part of the article that highlights that:

""ESPN’s value is derived from the massive cash flow the company generates, which is expected to reach $4.5 billion this year, up 39% from five years ago. For comparisons sake, CBS CBS -0.82% Corp., the highest rated broadcast network, had operating income of $1.6 billion last year.

ESPN’s advantage over its network and cable brethren lies in the affiliate fee and ad revenue model that generates huge sums of cash. ESPN’s average monthly affiliate fee was $5.54 in 2013, according to SNL Kagan. The next highest national cable channel was TNT at $1.33, followed by Disney Channel at $1.15 and $1.13 for the NFL Network. ESPN2 is not far behind at $0.70 with ESPNews, ESPN Classic, ESPNU and ESPN Deportes each around $0.20 a month says SNL Kagan.

While battles over affiliate fees for regional sports networks rage in Houston and Los Angeles, ESPN quietly bumps its fees 5% or more year after year with must-see programming that cable distributors can’t possibly live without. ESPN has splashed billions on sports leagues and college conferences to get its hooks in the NFL, NBA, MLB, championship golf/tennis, college football/basketball and dozens of additional offerings. The result is an expected $6.3 billion from domestic affiliate fees this year that acts as a consistent, guaranteed revenue stream for Disney.""

 

[rochrist]

Thanks for calling me on it. I had the figure backwards. It's close to 40% valuation of Disney while ESPN's sub fees are close tat 60% number. Sorry for the incorrect information, however, it doesn't change the premise that ESPN is the biggest part of Disney's value, the NFL drives that value, Disney will not harm that relationship else hurt it's own interest. If you think otherwise I am interested in the counterpoint.
Plaid Men: Growing Up, Hanson-Style

Fyi, ESPN is the third most valuable media company, dollar wise, in the world behind comcast and 21st century fox. But ESPN relies heavily on sub fees. Cord cutting and unbundling will make ESPN drop significantly. Here is part of the article that highlights that:

""ESPN’s value is derived from the massive cash flow the company generates, which is expected to reach $4.5 billion this year, up 39% from five years ago. For comparisons sake, CBS CBS -0.82% Corp., the highest rated broadcast network, had operating income of $1.6 billion last year.

ESPN’s advantage over its network and cable brethren lies in the affiliate fee and ad revenue model that generates huge sums of cash. ESPN’s average monthly affiliate fee was $5.54 in 2013, according to SNL Kagan. The next highest national cable channel was TNT at $1.33, followed by Disney Channel at $1.15 and $1.13 for the NFL Network. ESPN2 is not far behind at $0.70 with ESPNews, ESPN Classic, ESPNU and ESPN Deportes each around $0.20 a month says SNL Kagan.

While battles over affiliate fees for regional sports networks rage in Houston and Los Angeles, ESPN quietly bumps its fees 5% or more year after year with must-see programming that cable distributors can’t possibly live without. ESPN has splashed billions on sports leagues and college conferences to get its hooks in the NFL, NBA, MLB, championship golf/tennis, college football/basketball and dozens of additional offerings. The result is an expected $6.3 billion from domestic affiliate fees this year that acts as a consistent, guaranteed revenue stream for Disney.""

I'm still not clear on the numbers, although it's clear ESPN is an extremely valuable property. Disney Media Networks generated 21.2 billion in gross revenue for Disney in 2014. ESPN is part of, but not all of Disney Media Networks. It also includes all of the ABC networks, all of the A&E networks, all of the Disney networks, plus 32% of Hulu. (also, ESPN is only 80 percent owned by Disney).

Over the same period, Disney Parks and Resorts generated 15.1 billion in gross revenue, Studio Entertainment generated 7.2 billion, Consumer Products generated 4 billion, and Disney Interactive generated 1.3 billion.

So ESPN generated only a portion of that 21 billion and is only 80 percent owned by Disney while the rest of Disney generated roughly 28.5 billion. I'm not sure how that fits into things. I did find a Forbes article that says that Disney's market value is 137 billion and of that, ESPN is 50 billion, so that would be 36 percent. That article is a year and a half old now though, and since ESPN is hemoraging jobs, the picture may not be so rosy now.

It's an interesting subject. You're right that ESPN is obviously not going to do anything to harm their nfl relationship, since without it, they're nothing. On the other hand, Disney is pretty savy. I could see them dumping the thing now while the dumping is good.

 

[bbobbo]

Do you have a citation for ESPN being Disney's most valuable division? Because I find that hard to believe.
Disney Media Networks makes up the largest portion of their income, but that's made up of /way/ more than just ESPN. I'd kind of expect ESPN to be pretty far down on the totem pole.

Disney doesn't break out its ESPN revenue and income, so you have to estimate it. From the WSJ:

Disney’s ESPN Reality Show Doesn’t Convince

ESPN’s overall revenue is about 75% of Disney’s reported cable-networks revenue, according to estimates by Jefferies.

Assuming, as many analysts do, that ESPN amounts to about 25% of Disney’s operating income in 2015 and adjusting for Disney’s 80% ownership of the network, ESPN will earn about $4.5 billion in operating income on $11.9 billion of revenue in 2015.

That means ESPN is estimated to contribute about $9.5b in revenues and $3.6b in operating income to Disney in 2015.

SNL Kagan estimates that ESPN's primary channel get $6.61 per subscriber per month, and as of September of 2014, they had 95m subscribers. That more than $600m per month in revenue just from the main ESPN channel.

From their 2014 annual report:

https://cdn.thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/10k-wrap-2014_1.pdf

Just going off the prior year's numbers, ESPN alone would contribute about 19% of Disney's total revenue but nearly 28% of its operating profit. That's more than the theme parks or the movie studio segments. I would say that ESPN is one of Disney's most valuable properties.

 

[rochrist]

Just say an article speculating that ESPN was actually becoming a drag on Disney, hence the cost cutting, but that most of the significant costs /can't/ be cut.