Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lock is the guy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Drunken.Broncoholic2 View Post

    3rd to 16th is a deviation. And there’s examples of it every year.

    its a TV networks opinion. A network that isn’t very great to begin with.
    Yes. It's like reading a stupid journal article from a psychology journal where p-values are rarer than unicorns and no study is double-blinded. Just B.S.

    "Clutch Play Efficiency" is a way to make "we pulled it out of our butts", sound scientific and objective. It's not. It's subjective this a garbage number.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Zerovoltz View Post

      I might be mistaken, but I think they've changed the formula some since....I like QBR, but it is flawed, just as QB Rating is also flawed...but when you look at a QB's oveall rating and overall QBR, they usually don't deviate much. You can generally tell who a good QB is and isn't, and most of the time the eye test gets you reasonably close without having to dig too much.
      Oh, I'm sure they have. But what is it?

      They try to brand it as driven by expert analysis. But is it really? Sure, you have to leave room for unexpected guys to have great years out of nowhere. But that's not what Prescott did. Not to a top-5 level anyway. He mopped up on scrubs in the worst division in the league. Got his ass handed to him most everywhere else.

      Meanwhile Tannehill comes out and shocks the world and puts up really much better numbers against much better competition.... QBR ain't feelin' it. He's sandwiched between Fitzmagic and Derek Carr.

      Why? Nobody knows.

      Really not a reasonable basis on which to base an argument.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AlaskaMagnum View Post

        And Prescott is top 20% while Rogers is bottom 30%...hot garbage
        Rogers was pretty mediocre this year. Your mistake is judging him based on reputation and assumption rather than relying on actual numbers.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TonyR View Post

          Rogers was pretty mediocre this year. Your mistake is judging him based on reputation and assumption rather than relying on actual numbers.

          Yes, he failed the "Clutch Play Efficiency" number, this plummeting him to the lower 3rd of the QBs while Cart is top third.

          Seriously, I crunch chemical data every day of my life. I USE statistics every day in my job. This is woo-woo science. There is no algorithm. It's two dudes watching tape drinking beer.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TonyR View Post

            I know, I should definitely start using the pronouncement of Luddites like you instead! Lol. What metric do you prefer? Passer rating has it Tannehill-Brees-LJ. Is that "better"? Are you less triggered by it since it isn't an ESPN metric?

            And I specifically said you have to be careful how you "use" it, to borrow your word. But an intelligent person can "use" it, while a reactionary one like you can throw it out and ignore it. I personally like metrics because they're an objective amalgamation of several different measurements, which is far better than looking at individual measurements. But again, you have to be smart enough to understand the limitations and applications.
            I don’t really like to use metrics to assess QBs, and only use them lightly with QBs I haven’t actually watched. At least passer rating is transparent. QBR on the other hand is nothing but a marketing ploy, and you’re a rube for buying into it. And the notion that QBR is objective is just bizarre.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TonyR View Post

              I know, I should definitely start using the pronouncement of Luddites like you instead! Lol. What metric do you prefer? Passer rating has it Tannehill-Brees-LJ. Is that "better"? Are you less triggered by it since it isn't an ESPN metric?
              Tannehill completed 70% of his passes for 22 TD's and 6 Ints in 11 games so I don't see a problem with that. I prefer passer rating as I know what comprises it. Generally you want your QB to complete a high percentage of their passes for a lot of TD's and few Ints. Outside of an outlier like LJ (who still has a high passer rating) I don't know what huge flaws passer rating has.

              It's weird that QBR has to be held as some sort of mystery formula though.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gutless Drunk View Post

                Tannehill completed 70% of his passes for 22 TD's and 6 Ints in 11 games so I don't see a problem with that. I prefer passer rating as I know what comprises it. Generally you want your QB to complete a high percentage of their passes for a lot of TD's and few Ints. Outside of an outlier like LJ (who still has a high passer rating) I don't know what huge flaws passer rating has.

                It's weird that QBR has to be held as some sort of mystery formula though.
                Yeah, I have no issue with passer rating. Just like QBR, it has it's flaws and limitations.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gutless Drunk View Post

                  It's weird that QBR has to be held as some sort of mystery formula though.
                  It’s not weird at all. First of all, the whole QBR thing exists solely to get clicks. And secondly, if they released the formula people could really pick it apart and reveal it for the joke that it is. Copyright laws would keep others from using it on their own websites, but no one would want to once the formula was exposed.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post

                    It’s not weird at all. First of all, the whole QBR thing exists solely to get clicks. And secondly, if they released the formula people could really pick it apart and reveal it for the joke that it is. Copyright laws would keep others from using it on their own websites, but no one would want to once the formula was exposed.
                    Yea...I was being facetious there.

                    I see QBR the same as PFF - if they still have obvious flaws are they really illuminating anything or do they exist to prop up a cottage "advance stats" industry?

                    It's the latter, ultimately harmless I guess, but personally I don't have any use for it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                      Oh, I'm sure they have. But what is it?

                      They try to brand it as driven by expert analysis. But is it really? Sure, you have to leave room for unexpected guys to have great years out of nowhere. But that's not what Prescott did. Not to a top-5 level anyway. He mopped up on scrubs in the worst division in the league. Got his ass handed to him most everywhere else.

                      Meanwhile Tannehill comes out and shocks the world and puts up really much better numbers against much better competition.... QBR ain't feelin' it. He's sandwiched between Fitzmagic and Derek Carr.

                      Why? Nobody knows.

                      Really not a reasonable basis on which to base an argument.
                      It's a good point.....QB Rating...flawed as it is....at lease everyone knows the formula.

                      I think Lamar, while highly rated in the current systems....kind of highlights a need for something grades out on the efficient running of an offense. I also think one of the most underrated aspects of quarterbacking is 3rd down conversions....short, intermediate and long...should matter. One of Mahomes traits that doesn't get enough run is the 3rd and very longs he consistantly converts.....

                      Points per possesion is a great stat, and those points happen when you convert 3rd downs instead punting or settling for 3.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TonyR View Post

                        Yeah, I have no issue with passer rating. Just like QBR, it has it's flaws and limitations.
                        Given that we don’t have access to the formula, and don’t know who’s doing the grading, what precisely are the flaws and limitations of QBR? For that matter, what are the strong points and assets of QBR? How can you know?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                          Oh, I'm sure they have. But what is it?

                          They try to brand it as driven by expert analysis. But is it really? Sure, you have to leave room for unexpected guys to have great years out of nowhere. But that's not what Prescott did. Not to a top-5 level anyway. He mopped up on scrubs in the worst division in the league. Got his ass handed to him most everywhere else.

                          Meanwhile Tannehill comes out and shocks the world and puts up really much better numbers against much better competition.... QBR ain't feelin' it. He's sandwiched between Fitzmagic and Derek Carr.

                          Why? Nobody knows.

                          Really not a reasonable basis on which to base an argument.
                          Tannehill was ****ing awesome this year. Crazy what he did after switching teams

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post

                            Given that we don’t have access to the formula, and don’t know who’s doing the grading, what precisely are the flaws and limitations of QBR? For that matter, what are the strong points and assets of QBR? How can you know?
                            Measurements like this have inherent flaws and limitations without even looking at specifics. For example, a QB's performance is impacted by things like coaching, O-line, skill position players, injuries, weather, opponents, etc. It's impossible to account for all of these variables. Passer rating is a simpler metric that uses only raw numbers. QBR is far more complex and tries to adjust for things like down, distance, field position, strength of opponent, etc. Pretty good read on the differences between the two linked below.

                            https://www.hogshaven.com/2018/3/13/...h-kirk-cousins

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TonyR View Post

                              Measurements like this have inherent flaws and limitations without even looking at specifics. For example, a QB's performance is impacted by things like coaching, O-line, skill position players, injuries, weather, opponents, etc. It's impossible to account for all of these variables. Passer rating is a simpler metric that uses only raw numbers. QBR is far more complex and tries to adjust for things like down, distance, field position, strength of opponent, etc. Pretty good read on the differences between the two linked below.

                              https://www.hogshaven.com/2018/3/13/...h-kirk-cousins
                              You didn’t really answer my question. Again, what exactly are the strengths and weaknesses of QBR, and how can you know since the formula is a mystery?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post

                                You didn’t really answer my question. Again, what exactly are the strengths and weaknesses of QBR, and how can you know since the formula is a mystery?
                                Read my post again, and then click the link. I specifically mentioned some weaknesses ("It's impossible to account for...") and strengths ("..and tries to adjust for..."). The article has formulas.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X