PDA

View Full Version : ESPN Formula for QB bust indicator (not good for Stafford or Cutler)


El Minion
03-10-2009, 04:05 PM
Finding context in the Stafford debate (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-9-44/Finding-context-in-the-Stafford-debate.html)
March 10, 2009 12:00 PM

Allsport and Getty Images
According to a formula measuring college performance, Matthew Stafford, right, scored between NFL first-round busts Akili Smith and Cade McNown.
Posted by ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert

The experts are hedging. The fans are sweating. The team is making clear it is considering all of its options.

There are 47 days remaining until the 2009 NFL draft, giving the Detroit Lions some 1,125 hours before they are required to make the No. 1 overall pick. The Lions might need every minute of that span, especially if their internal discussion at all reflects the raging public debate on Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford.

A classically built, strong-armed quarterback, Stafford has not yet caught on as the consensus No. 1 pick. ESPN.com draft analyst Todd McShay, for example, said recently the Lions face a "nightmare" decision because Stafford is "not mentally ready" to take on the pressures of being the No. 1 overall pick. McShay said that scouts from at least 10 teams agreed with that assessment and added: "I just don't feel great about building my organization around him."


NFL.com Video
Find out which QBs impressed scouts with their performance at the combine.

NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock told a Detroit radio station that "there are some things about him that bother me," and even Stafford's biggest supporter advocates with a negative argument. Yes, Mel Kiper Jr. said the Lions should select Stafford primarily because "there is nobody else to take."

Even fans are getting into the act. On the day the Lions announced they were playing host to Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith, Jim of Cincinnati wrote:

Matthew Stafford? Why are people thinking he is a good fit for an 0-16 team? I have seen Stafford play. He gets rattled easily. His arm is ok but his leadership skills lack. Next year they can get a much better QB. This year they need to fill in the holes on defense and on the line.

Why all of this generalist hate against Stafford, who by all accounts offers fine character as well as the draft's strongest arm?

Our friends at ESPN Research have developed a method for fleshing out the debate with statistical analysis. Using time-honored performance standards to predict future success for "blue-chip" quarterbacks, the formula placed Stafford between Akili Smith and Cade McNown in a category reserved for busts.

Does this mean Stafford is guaranteed to crash and burn? Of course not. But this evaluation documents in specific fashion the previously ill-defined criticisms of Stafford, helping to explain why there is so much disagreement about him with the draft little more than six weeks away.

The formula takes into account three statistics: Career starts, completion percentage and touchdown-interception ratio. The theory is that experience, accuracy and production versus mistakes can provide substantive indicators for college quarterbacks.

Formula Explanation
ESPN Research developed this formula to measure quarterbacks relative to a baseline completion percentage of 60 and a touchdown-interception ratio of 2.25. The multipliers allow each figure to have equal weight with career starts, which provides an important measure of experience.
The total score is the sum of the three adjusted figures.

The separate parameters for BCS and non-BCS quarterbacks help level the statistical playing field. They are based on the assumption that NFL-caliber quarterbacks playing against non-BCS opponents are going to have inflated numbers."

For those mathematically inclined -- it took me 10 readings to get it after having nightmare flashbacks to eighth-grade algebra -- below is the formula itself. (Note: This is the updated, corrected version. The formula in the original post was incomplete. Thanks to SwampThing86 and a few others for the heads-up.)

For BCS quarterbacks
(Career Starts x 0.5) + [(Career completion pct. - 60)x5] +[(Career touchdown-INT ratio - 2.25)x10]

For non-BCS quarterbacks
(Career Starts x 0.5) + [(Career completion pct. - 60)x2.5] + [(Career touchdown-INT Ratio - 2.25)x5]

(For a complete explanation of the formula, see the text box on your right.)

To test the formula, ESPN Research plugged in the 31 quarterbacks taken in the first round over the past 12 drafts, dating back to 1997. The results are below.

You'll see the quarterbacks broken into three categories. If their college statistics translated into a value of 20 or more, there was a strong likelihood for success. (Alex Smith and Tim Couch notwithstanding.) A value between 1 and 19 essentially meant "iffy."

But the most revealing category were those quarterbacks who finished with a value of 0 or less. Every one of them failed as NFL quarterbacks. Take a look:

Scores of First-Round Quarterbacks, 1997-2008
Group I: Strong likelihood of success
Player School Draft year Score
Matt Leinart USC 2006 64.04
Philip Rivers NC State 2004 48.44
Tim Couch Kentucky 1999 47.64
Alex Smith Utah 2005 44.88
Aaron Rodgers California 2005 40.58
Peyton Manning Tennessee 1998 39.47
Jason Campbell Auburn 2005 38.75
Byron Leftwich Marshall 2003 36.39
Ben Roethlisberger Miami (Ohio) 2004 33.85
Chad Pennington Marshall 2000 33.53
Daunte Culpepper Central Florida 1999 30.00
David Carr Fresno State 2002 23.97
Joe Flacco Delaware 2008 23.92
Eli Manning Ole Miss 2004 23.14
Donovan McNabb Syracuse 1999 21.62
Group II: Hit-or-Miss
Player School Draft year Score
Brady Quinn Notre Dame 2007 18.93
JaMarcus Russell LSU 2007 18.64
Rex Grossman Florida 2003 18.39
Vince Young Texas 2006 18.21
Carson Palmer USC 2003 16.35
Matt Ryan Boston College 2008 9.14
Patrick Ramsey Tulane 2002 9.06
J.P. Losman Tulane 2004 7.86
Jay Cutler Vanderbilt 2006 2.39
Group III: Busts
Player School Draft year Score
Akili Smith Oregon 1999 0.00
Cade McNown UCLA 1999 -6.41
Joey Harrington Oregon 2002 -6.85
Michael Vick Virginia Tech 2001 -11.32
Ryan Leaf Washington St. 1998 -16.92
Jim Druckenmiller Virginia Tech 1997 -20.25
Kyle Boller California 2003 -50.67

Stafford scored a -4.45, putting him in unflattering surroundings to say the least. You never want to be on a list that includes Jim Druckenmiller and Akili Smith. Stafford's career completion percentage of 57.1 percent and his touchdown-interception ratio of 1.55 were primarily responsible for his poor showing. That left him rated well below USC quarterback Mark Sanchez and slightly behind Kansas State's Josh Freeman.

Scores for 2009 Likely First-Round Quarterbacks
Player School Score
Mark Sanchez USC 32.63
Josh Freeman Kansas State 1.94
Matthew Stafford Georgia -4.55


Stafford's numbers were dragged down by a freshman season in which Stafford completed 52.7 percent of his passes and threw 13 interceptions against seven touchdowns.

When McShay, Mayock and Jim from Cincinnati express their concerns about Stafford, it's primarily for these reasons: College quarterbacks don't typically improve their accuracy in the NFL. If his decisions were at all suspect against SEC opponents, then it's reasonable to wonder how he will react to professional defenses.

Throw in the state of the Lions, who are coming off an 0-16 season and might feel pressure to start him immediately behind an offensive line that needs help, and you understand the genesis of the Stafford debate. Where will it lead? Luckily, we have 47 days to find out.

MagicHef
03-10-2009, 04:06 PM
Always good when your made-up formula isn't supported by actual facts.

Archer81
03-10-2009, 04:08 PM
So Kiper thinks the Lions should take Stafford because there is nobody else to take? Jesus...


:Broncos:

BroncoMan4ever
03-10-2009, 04:25 PM
well lets see, 3 seasons in and Cutler has already broken some of Elway's records, and been to a pro bowl. i am going to call bull**** on that formula and say Cutler has not and will not bust. get him a defense and he is easily a top 3 QB in the league.

The Joker
03-10-2009, 04:27 PM
Look at the top 4 names.

Rivers can play, Leinart still won't be starting in his 4th year. Couch and Smith are fail.

Not the most accurate system, really.

Anaximines
03-10-2009, 04:51 PM
get him a defense and he is easily a top 3 QB in the league.

Add a running game and the sky's the limit!

summerdenver
03-10-2009, 04:52 PM
The system rates Tim Couch, Alex Smith, Davi Carr, leftwich as sure fire hits and Matt Ryan, Carson Palmer as hit or miss, which is dicey.

I think Ryan and Palmer are better QBs than the other group.

BroncosinDC
03-10-2009, 05:07 PM
It also fails to take into account the College teams they played for. It's really a poor formula, I mean its all numbers for starters, and those don't tell as much as one would like. Futhermore if a mathematical formula was that accurate drafting would be a lot easier.

Surely we can all agree Cutler's numbers would have been better at USC, or Florida, or any number of teams that dump people into the NFL year after year. Not to mention Patrick Ramsey is ranked higher than Cutler, and Lienart is riding the bench when the lower ranked Big Ben already had a SB ring at that point in his career.

Give me a few hours I'll come up with a formula that has a few stats that I like the rest will be either a wash or totally wrong. I'll come up with a mathematical certinity that Phillip Rivers swallows an average of 8.9 loads of seamen in a week.

Siefert needs to start looking at tapes of players not their numbers. Is it an INT because the ball was forced, was a hail mary at the end of a game, bounced out of the recicvers hands, did he run the wrong route, throw to the wrong route? You can make numbers into anything you want, the only ones that actually matter are the number of rings.

yerner
03-10-2009, 05:27 PM
seriously, wtf? when did cutler start to suck around here?

Northman
03-10-2009, 05:30 PM
So Kiper thinks the Lions should take Stafford because there is nobody else to take? Jesus...


:Broncos:

Ive been hearing that Detriot is very high on Curry and Stinky says they should go with Smith from Baylor. But the Lions arent saying anything right now.

watermock
03-10-2009, 05:41 PM
drivel

Georgia's offense was schitzo. They went from power to spread and back again.

But I agree, all the measurables are there, but I thought all 3 big 8 QB's played better.

BroncoBuff
03-10-2009, 05:41 PM
It's too late to rank Cutler "Hit or Miss" ... he's already a Hit.
.

watermock
03-10-2009, 05:43 PM
It's too late to rank Cutler "Hit or Miss" ... he's already a Hit.
.

Not according to McDummy. He's a cog in the machine. or clog.

theAPAOps5
03-10-2009, 05:44 PM
That has to be the dumbest formula ever published. Look who is on the likely to succeed list!

frerottenextelway
03-10-2009, 05:52 PM
seriously, wtf? when did cutler start to suck around here?

when we traded for elway

chrisp
03-10-2009, 05:54 PM
The formula tries to establish a general rule, not a guaranteed predictor. Whether its right or wrong there will always be exceptions.

Cutler's well-placed to be an exception becuase guys with his talent don't often play on such bad teams. that would always skew the stats on accuracy.

Bottom line though, the point of the article was to try to assess Stafford, NOT to state that Cutler is a bust, so you people all need to stop getting your panties in a bunch....:flower:

USMCBladerunner
03-10-2009, 06:08 PM
Terrible formula that predicts nothing. Even their after the fact declaration of 20 as the magic number for predicting good NFL QBs has a 30% failure rate.

Arkie
03-10-2009, 06:14 PM
The article simply states that Stafford belongs in this group when compared to other 1st rd QBs based on a formula. That's not a very pretty group to be in.

Group III: Busts
Player School Draft year Score
Akili Smith Oregon 1999 0.00
Cade McNown UCLA 1999 -6.41
Joey Harrington Oregon 2002 -6.85
Michael Vick Virginia Tech 2001 -11.32
Ryan Leaf Washington St. 1998 -16.92
Jim Druckenmiller Virginia Tech 1997 -20.25
Kyle Boller California 2003 -50.67

Merlin
03-10-2009, 06:32 PM
Any idiot that has a little understanding of stats would have thrown away the formula and denied ALL ownership after he saw what it spit out. The outcome as compared to reality was all over the place. I can throw darts blindfolded and get similar if not better outcomes. The funny thing is they actually publicized it. Some true morons running that place.

PS it was interesting that its players falling in the minus category were failures, so maybe at that level it has value, but the sample is a little small and may have no statistical significance.

Dedhed
03-10-2009, 06:49 PM
If you put together a formula and the first results come back with glaring misses, you may want to reconsider your setup.

Alex Smith
David Carr
Jason Campbell
Byron Leftwich

broncofan7
03-10-2009, 07:04 PM
It's too late to rank Cutler "Hit or Miss" ... he's already a Hit.
.

Yes indeed. This 'formula' seems to be as precise Jim Cramer's stock picking 'formula'.....

BroncoMan4ever
03-10-2009, 08:21 PM
it isn't really just the player that defines whether or not a QB will be a bust or a hit.

it depends on the team in a lot of cases, the coaching, the players around him. very few QB's have been able to be any good without talent around them or good coaching. Cutler has performed amazingly considering no running game and a defense allowing 28 a game his entire time as a starter. there are few if any QB's in the league who could have replicated what Jay has done in his 2 years as a starter.