So I'm seeing some problems here...

You have the EPA, which kinda makes sense. Then you have points above replacement and points above average...then you have rating reflecting totally different things. Like, for example, Aaron Rodgers vs Andrew Luck. Rodgers has a better PAR and PAA...but a worse QB rating? So I figure "maybe it has to do with the number of action plays - sure, Rodgers has a total EPA 8 points higher than Luck, but he's also played 28 more action plays. Maybe that has something to do with it. But I'm too lazy at math to try to figure out if they divide it by something or what...so let's look down the list and find somewhere that defies that idea."

Then I look down at Blaine Gabbert vs Josh Freeman. Gabbert has a higher EPA, fewer plays, a lower value over replacement, but is better compared to the average QB...and is worse in QBR.

Yeah, someone's gonna have to explain that formula a bit.

Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.

What makes you think RGIII leads the league in sacks avoided? Hasn't Peyton Manning historically been the leader in the that? This year, RGIII has been sacked 15 times, Peyton 10, Eli 5.

Now, to get complete context you'd need to know how often they are threatened by sacks, but even that isn't too helpful, since the Manning may see the sack coming way in advance and just get rid of the ball.

hbk72777: Eli at number 2, while Rodgers is all the way down at number 7. The cracks in the armor are starting to show. Aaron is a good qb, but not the next Brady, or Eli.

You're a funny guy. And obviously not a fan of a team that has to play Rodgers twice a year.

elguerodiablo: As far as the rankings go Luck and Locker look like great young qbs but to have them in the top 10 with Alex Smith at 11 makes the rankings seem more like a joke some stoners pulled on their boss rather than a quantitative analysis.

Really? I think its pretty clear Luck is already better than Alex Smith. I haven't watched Locker play enough yet to know.

What is puzzling about the formula is that it appears to remove YAC toward consideration of a QBs total yards. Yes, there are times when the receiver makes a phenomenal play in the open, but I would argue there are more times when the QB hits the receiver perfectly in stride, which keeps him going toward the score (see Manning's toss to Cruz). The QB should get credit for those yards as well.

To be fair, Rivers has been pretty terrible this year. I have a guy in my fantasy league who's starting him over Dalton, which is a 55 point difference in favor of Dalton right now.

DoBeDoBeDo: The Third Man: Just running a quick scan over the numbers, it seems to me that turnovers aren't weighted highly enough in the process. That's a big flaw in the system, because even a three-and-out is preferable to a pick or a lost fumble. In fact, I think you could make the argument--considering that year in, year out turnover margin is one of the most significant factors in team success--that turnovers should be the most important factor in any rating.

That depends though, is a pick 50 yards down field on 3rd and long any different than a punt? I'd say it's BETTER because all sorts of things could go wrong on the next play (bad snap, fumble, blocked punt). So in that case the TO might be the best of the potential outcomes of the drive.

Agreed. Turnovers are so incredibly hard to determine fault on. Tipped pass? Receiver run the wrong route. Huge bomb on 3rd and long which is no worse than a punt? Then there's the opposite - horrible passes the defenders just drop, stupid picks overturned because of an unrelated holding penalty.

All else being equal, unless you want to really closely analyze every play, I think turnovers are more properly attributed to teams rather than individual players when you do an aggregate analysis.

elguerodiablo: whizbangthedirtfarmer: What is puzzling about the formula is that it appears to remove YAC toward consideration of a QBs total yards. Yes, there are times when the receiver makes a phenomenal play in the open, but I would argue there are more times when the QB hits the receiver perfectly in stride, which keeps him going toward the score (see Manning's toss to Cruz). The QB should get credit for those yards as well.

That's a really great point. There was a play in the Jets-Pats game that instantly sprang to mind where Sanchez hit Keller on the sidelines and Keller made a great play to get the ball and stay inbounds. Sanchez puts that ball in a better spot and Keller runs for 15-20 more yards.

The QBR assumes perfect accuracy, it seems, and that the WR does all of the legwork (harhar) after the catch. When Manning threw to Cruz to finish off the Redskins, he threw the ball in such a way that Cruz barely had to break stride. Manning should get those yards, too. I can see a bubble screen or something of that nature awarding the yards to the WR, but for all of ESPN's talk about this rating, it is massively flawed.

On the other hand, what about WRs who make exceptional plays to grab a craptacular ball? In the Sanchez example, Sanchez threw the ball generally in the direction of Keller, and Keller made an acrobatic catch to bring it in (this holds true for almost every Fitzgerald reception). Why does Sanchez get those yards? Because he managed to coax the ball to within three yards of the receiver?

Finally, why doesn't the QB get more points for stupidly accurate throws? Andy Dalton's TD to Green against Pittsburgh awarded a few yards and the TD, but it was a throw that few QBs can make. Russel Wilson's bombs at the end of the Pats game, too, were thrown almost perfectly. Shouldn't he get extra credit for that?

The problem is that when the decision makers decide to quantify formulas with stuff like "the WR is the only one responsible for YAC," then it opens up all sorts of problems.

Im sorry ESPN but the Jake is 10X as much fun as your QBR and Im only in this for the fun.

thecpt: Well Wilson did throw a last second "touchdown" which helps his QBR score a lot.

The football gods owed that to Wilson after how his season went last year at Wisconsin.

I assume the residents of Wisconsin are now owed even more than that. (unless that was karma evening out for something I don't know about in the past).

DoBeDoBeDo: That depends though, is a pick 50 yards down field on 3rd and long any different than a punt? I'd say it's BETTER because all sorts of things could go wrong on the next play (bad snap, fumble, blocked punt). So in that case the TO might be the best of the potential outcomes of the drive.

And, of course, there are TOs that are irrelevant, like when someone intercepts a Hail Mary.

Velocity, Accuracy, and Ability to read coverages. Figure out a way to quantify them, and then you can start rating Quarterbacks numerically

Arkanaut: Maybe it takes into account the fact that Luck has virtually no supporting cast. Just throwing that out there.

Here's a weirder one: Ben Roethlisberger and Matt Ryan have the same number of Action Plays. Roethlisberger has 3 more wins added...yet is ranked lower on YAR and YAA, not to mention QBR. And I'd much rather have Atlanta's team than Pittsburgh's, not to mention getting to play in a dome. Is it just the clutchiness of beating sh*tty teams?

runaway06: ? I always thought Big Ben was the leader in sacks avoided

Is "sacks avoided" a real stat?

DamnYankees: Is "sacks avoided" a real stat?

No.

IAmRight: DamnYankees: Is "sacks avoided" a real stat?

No.

I didn't think so.

thecpt: Aren't they doubly screwed over then?

Hence the second sentence.

blunto: I hate when people try to apply baseball-type stats to football. It never works out right.

Because a baseball season has 10x the sample size and teams play everyone in the league at least 6-7 times. It'd be nice if we could do real meta-statistical analysis on football, but the limited sample size means we're abstracting from a wildly-variant set. Let's stick to the counting stats (QB rating is even a bit of a stretch).

A guy throws 4 balls that should have been caught but are instead tipped away, that cuts his season QBR a whole bunch more than a starting pitcher's bad 7-inning outing cuts his ERA, WHIP, KBB/9, RAA, etc. Football stats don't even out over a season the same way baseball stats do.