PDA

View Full Version : Pro-Football-Reference: Ranking All QBs By Their Six Best Regular Seasons


El Minion
10-02-2009, 05:57 PM
Too big to post but for the rankings click on link, but here is how the current QB's shake out:

P.Manning>Warner>Favre>Brady>MnNabb>Garcia>Hasselbeck>Bulger>BigBen>Romo>Palmer>Collins>Delhomme>Cutler>Rivers>Vick>Campbell>Garrarad>Schaub>Leftwich>Edwards>E.Manning>Cassel

Also a surprise number one, and he's not even in the HOF.


末末末末末末末末
Ranking QBs By Their Six Best Regular Seasons (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=4142)

Posted by Neil Paine on Friday, October 2, 2009

About three years ago (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=35), Doug ranked wide receivers by the percentage of team passing yards they accounted for, and he averaged together each WR's 6 best seasons according to that metric to create a ranking. This was his reasoning:

I am a big fan of rating players by the average of their best N seasons. It's not scientific, but it generally feels right to me in terms of weighting short brilliant careers with long merely-good ones. If you rate based on totals, you're going to favor the latter over the former by crediting guys for compiling raw numbers at the end of their career even if those numbers weren't of much value. If you rate based on averages, you end up penalizing guys for hanging around past their primes. In short, I think an 600-yard season by a 37-year-old wide receiver shouldn't count for him (because 600-yard seasons grow on trees) nor against him (because 600-yard seasons are at least as good as zero-yard seasons).

In my system, a guy can hang around as long as he wants and it won't hurt him. But it won't help him either, unless he does something truly valuable. The only advantage of having a long career is that it gives you more opportunities to generate valuable seasons. Why six seasons instead of four or seven or 10? No particular reason. It just seemed right.

continue... (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=4142)

BMarsh615
10-02-2009, 06:00 PM
Elway number 34...

cutthemdown
10-02-2009, 06:17 PM
Qb about more then numbers. There is no stat for toughness and competitiveness. Elwaw number 1 in both of those.

JJJ
10-02-2009, 07:47 PM
I really like the methodology but the old foggy weighting seems flawed. It seems to overcompensate for early era QBs a bit too much.

Hard to see how Kenny Anderson 1975 has essentially the same value as Brady 2007.

And was Sid Luckman 1943 the greatest passing season of all time as this seems to indicate? It was a great year. 28 TDs in 202 passing attempts and 10.9 yards per passing attempt that year (2nd best of all time) were pretty stellar. But still a YAR so much higher than Brady 2007?

But Milt Plum being only at number 44, what a joke.