Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Does anybody understand quaterback rating?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 50 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 3, 2012 9:36:36 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 9:37:05 AM PST
Lucanus says:
I was looking at some stats and noticed RG3 has a higher QBR than Tom Brady. On the season Tom has thrown for 1,000 yards more and has 9 more touchdowns. They have the same number of INTs. RG3 has 3% better completion percent. Does QBR place that much importance on completion percent? Or am I missing something here? Just curious more than anything.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating/year/2012/seasontype/2

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 9:38:10 AM PST
FOGE says:
Wearing Ugg boots bring down your QB rating.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 9:45:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 10:02:31 AM PST
no one knows what that crap means. Its one of the most useless stats in sports IMO. QBR is a little better, but still kinda lame too

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 9:47:45 AM PST
Nope, I would like to as I am a stats guy.
I think it is like Nascar. The few people I know who are really into it can't tell me how they do the scoring.

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 9:49:10 AM PST
Lucanus says:
Now I feel much better, apparently I'm not alone in being confused. Thanks for the responses. :)

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 9:50:58 AM PST
jtshiel says:
I know if a quarterback has every one of his throws go incomplete then he will end up with a 39.77% rating. So to score below that is pretty sad.

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 9:51:46 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 9:52:00 AM PST
Lucanus says:
So not making a single completion doesn't result in a 0.0% rating? Wow, that makes sense, I guess. :)

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 9:53:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 9:54:26 AM PST
If you're talking about ESPN's proprietary "Quarterback Rating" (QBR) statistic, then no. Nobody understands it except certain ESPN employees because it's a trade secret.

If you're talking about the traditional "passer rating" statistic then, yes, I understand it.

It's elucidating to first consider the college passer rating stat, since it's simpler to calculate. In essence one's passer rating is a weighted average of yards per attempt, touchdown percentage, completion percentage, and interception percentage.

The college formula is = (8.4 * Yards + 300 * touchdowns + 100*completions - 200*interceptions)/Attempts.

This formula has some glitches in it at the high and low ends, as the theoretical max (1,261.6) requires every pass to be a 99-yard touchdown and the theoretical min (-731.6) requires every pass to be a 99-yard loss.

So we want to smooth out the formula, and we do this by having each constituent (tds, yards, completions, interceptions) have a maximum and a minimum contribution to the formula. Then you smooth out the weights and add a phase or two in order to adjust the relative importance of each of the four statistics considered, and to make the numbers come out neatly (the idea was that a passer rating of 90 would be akin to getting a 90 on an exam.)

So we define the operation mm(x) as mm(x) := max(0, min (x, 2.375)) and define the weighted contributions as:

comp = (Completions/Attempts - .3) * 5
yd = (yards/attempts - 3) * 25
td = (touchdowns/attempts) * 20
int = 2.375 - ((interceptions/attempts) *25)

Then passer rating is simply = 100 * (mm(comp) + mm(yd) + mm(td) + mm(int))/6

Which is at it's heart a weighted average, massaged to keep the range manageable, and to performances approaching the max (158.3) not require exceptionally improbable circumstances.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 9:58:53 AM PST
Someone who completes no passes and has a pass intercepted more frequently than 9.5% of pass attempts will net a passer rating of 0. It's definitely the case that interceptions are worse than incompletions, so this makes sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 9:59:44 AM PST
Kirksplosion says:
It's not all that hard to understand: Hot or Not.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:17:34 AM PST
" ((interceptions/attempts) *25) "

Hah, you should have put brackets. What a moron.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:26:41 AM PST
When writing mathematics in-line, it's impossible to use too many parentheses for clarity.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:27:27 AM PST
I am kidding, you always know everything. So I decided to nitpick something simple lol.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:29:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 10:32:31 AM PST
StriderNeo15 says:
Which QBR?

I know the new one takes into account EVERY play the QB is part of, so RG3's runs and rushing TDs would be taken into affect.

It also seems like Yards per attempt is fairly important as well.

edit: ahh old school QBR.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:29:18 AM PST
R. Typo says:
Sponsored by Wikipedia.

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 10:29:29 AM PST
I look at the qb who just won the Super Bowl and he gets the only rating that matters - "World Champion"

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:29:55 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 10:31:14 AM PST
Lucanus says:
I suppose my issues with the rating system is the yards/attempts and touchdowns/attempts. I don't care how many passes it takes, scoring it the point. I'd rather have somebody who passes 7 yards with a higher TD/INT ratio over somebody who passes 15 yards with a lower ratio. It seems to me the system should be based on scoring and lack of INTs. Everything else just doesn't seem all that important. Just my 2 cents, thanks for the post. It was interesting. :)

RG3 out weighs Brady based on yards per attempts, so now I know. Though I don't agree. :)

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 10:31:36 AM PST
R. Typo says:
Tom Brady has an extremely high life rating.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:32:29 AM PST
I actually just looked at my spreadsheet I keep this stuff in.

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 10:32:36 AM PST
The only stat that matters is how many times your qb wins the last game of the season.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:34:02 AM PST
FOGE says:
Stafford is good at winning week 17. But he loses too many of the first 15 games.

Posted on Dec 3, 2012 10:34:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 10:35:25 AM PST
I meant the last game of the season...as in the Super Bowl. Stafford's head is too big...literally, what a fat head that guy has.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:36:53 AM PST
You keep a spread sheet of formulas? lol

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:37:19 AM PST
Actually, passer rating is a very good statistic (in that it correlates strongly with wins/losses) in the following sense:

Define "Defensive passer rating" as the passer rating accumulated by opposing quarterbacks, and "Passer Rating Differential" as the difference between your team's passer rating and your defensive passer rating, and you will actually invent two statistics that are strongly correlated with success (particularly playoff success).

Since 1940:
26/72 NFL champions finished #1 in Passer Rating Differential
44/72 finished in the top 3 of PRD
69/72 finished in the top 10 of PRD.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 10:38:09 AM PST
No, I keep a spreadsheet for passer rating, defensive passer rating, and pass rating differential statistics, so it has the formulas programmed in already (I probably got that from Wikipedia years ago.)
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  50
Initial post:  Dec 3, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 4, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions