QBR?

[Trackmaster]

I realize that this may have been posted awhile ago, but this made-up stat that ESPN created still irks me, as it seems to specifically smear Flacco's name, and build up RGIII.

Some background: it was a stat that was supposed to be take in "all" factors of the QB position, and objective measure the performance of a QB in a game, or throughout a season, on a 0-100 scale, with 50 being average. Keep in mind, the formula is secret, and nobody besides the people at ESPN know what actually goes into it. It is of particular interest to Ravens fans, because this past season, Flacco posted the two lowest ratings of all time, since the stat was invented a few years ago. The two games were:

10/21 Balt @ Hou 14-43 L QBR: 0.3

Yes, this is all a game we would like to forget, but the worst game by a QB in the past 5 years? Look at the stats: 21 for 43, 147 yards, 1 TD 2 INT. Putrid, yes, but worst in years? Come on. There have been some 6 INT games out there.

12/16 Den @ Balt 17-34 L QBR: 0.4

This is a much better example of how flawed the QBR is. Notice how the QBR is virtually identical to the other game. Look at the stats: 20 for 40, 254 yards, 2 TD's, and 1 INT. Yes, he lost, and it wasn't close, but in what world are those poor passing numbers? Again, when I think of worst in years, I think of 80 yards, 1 TD, and 6 INTs.

The point of uncovering new and innovative stats are supposed to be that they are indicative of future performance as opposed to just measuring what already happened. Is that what the QBR did? A few weeks later, Flacco went out beat the same team, on the road with two freak kick/punt returns for TD's. And, despite posting the two "worst" regular season games in years (worse than Sanchez, and the brigade of Browns QB's apparently) he goes out and has one of the top 5 post season performances of all time over. Meaning that for four straight games, he made four of the best defenses in the league look like nothing.

The point being, I think that Flacco's regular seasons have been underrated, and the postseason wasn't a fluke. It's only been in the past 10 years that QB's have to put up 4500 yards and 40 TD's a year to be noticed. I think that Flacco's 3600-3800 yards and 20+ TD, 10 INT consistent numbers should be more than enough to put teams in positions to win.

And, while people say that it's unfair to focus solely on those four games, isn't it also unfair to focus only on the 16 regular season games? Let's combine his regular season and post season, that comes out to 5,000 yards, 33 TD's, and 10 INT's over 19 games (not counting week 17 as he only played a few minutes). I'd say those numbers might start turning some heads.

[TheSpiderWebb]

I also have always wondered what the hell kind of formula they us for this. It seems that completion percentage counts for 95% of your score, and 50% or worse completion is an automatic 0

[GOTA]

No one has picked it up so it's really just for the ESPN talking heads to debate. Continue ignoring it.

[BigPlayReceiver]

Yeah, I can't dig QBR just yet, if I ever will.

Somewhat of an exaggerated example, but Joe could roll up 24/37/260/3/1 across an entire game for a 35-10 victory, but that QBR could be lower than his 15/33/215/2/0 performance the following week, if both of those TDs were tossed with under 4 minutes in the game, including a 7-for-8 on the game-winning drive.

[HoustonRaven]

It throws in late game stats and weights them higher than stats gathered during other parts of the game.

I understand the premise but it's terrible flawed. It's going to go away in 2-3 years.

[BcRaven]

Look it's almost as simple as Fahrenheit to centigrade temperature. Take 104F for instance. Subtract 32 (72) then divide by 9 (8), then times by 5 = 40. Simple right? With QBR you take % of passes completed, then divide by the # of INTs, then times by TD passes, subtract 2 points for fumbles, a point each for sacks, then multiply by the number of rushing QB yards/divided by 2.35, finally....and this is most important...divide by the number of $ your sister-in-law has screwed you out of, and then you've got it ... Bc

[arnie_uk]

It throws in late game stats and weights them higher than stats gathered during other parts of the game.

I understand the premise but it's terrible flawed. It's going to go away in 2-3 years.

If you score 5 tds in the first qtr you don't need tds in the second half. Yet you gen penalised for that?

[jonboy79]

If you score 5 tds in the first qtr you don't need tds in the second half. Yet you gen penalised for that?

correct... Better to play horribly all game and be heroic in the clutch then play heroically all game and hand the ball off because there is no clutch..

[arnie_uk]

Well that's a totally fucked up logic

[MarkS]

It throws in late game stats and weights them higher than stats gathered during other parts of the game.

I understand the premise but it's terrible flawed. It's going to go away in 2-3 years.

I'd love to believe that.

But we live in an age when amateur websites like PFF and Football Outsiders are popping up left and right. Run by complete amateurs with no football background and no experience whatsoever in statistical analysis, they are nonetheless generating reams of new "statistics" that the mainstream media (and fans) are now picking up on and treating like fact.

If sites like these can gain a foothold and (seeming) respectability, It's almost trivial for a monolithic sports giant like ESPN to force the QBR stat down our throats until it becomes accepted and commonplace. The only reason this wouldn't happen is if ESPN just decides not to bother.

[BigPlayReceiver]

I'd love to believe that.

But we live in an age when amateur websites like PFF and Football Outsiders are popping up left and right. Run by complete amateurs with no football background and no experience whatsoever in statistical analysis, they are nonetheless generating reams of new "statistics" that the mainstream media (and fans) are now picking up on and treating like fact.

If sites like these can gain a foothold and (seeming) respectability, It's almost trivial for a monolithic sports giant like ESPN to force the QBR stat down our throats until it becomes accepted and commonplace. The only reason this wouldn't happen is if ESPN just decides not to bother.

All stats need context. They are worthless otherwise, which is a problem with the QBR. No one knows the formula, so the context is a mystery. And b/c it's proprietary, CBS, NBC, Fox and NFLN will never get onboard or support it...nor will fans care after too long.

[PerpetuallyBored74]

Here's the formula (or as much as ESPN is willing to reveal):

### Win Probability: All QB plays are scored based on how much they contribute to a win. By determining expected point totals for almost any situation, Total QBR is able to apply points to a quarterback based on every type of play he would be involved in.
### Dividing Credit: Total QBR factors in such things as overthrows, underthrows, yards after the catch and more to accurately determine how much a QB contributes to each play.
### Clutch Index: How critical a certain play is based on when it happens in a game is factored into the score.

So, the reason why QBR penalizes some QBs more than others is because of how it tries to "Divide Credit" and determine how "Clutch" his performance was. The irony is that if they only factored in Win Probability Added (WPA) which is derived from Expected Points Added (EPA), then their metric would have greater merit. But then they also couldn't claim it as their own proprietary statistic, since WPA & EPA were developed by someone else.

It's more fully explained here:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/83...-points-metric

And if your curious to learn more about QBR:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/68...terback-rating

Personally, I'd forget QBR for now and go instead with the unbiased WPA & EPA, which you can find here:
http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?pos=QB

Counting playoffs, Flacco ranked 6th in WPA and 11th in EPA in 2012.
Not counting playoffs, he ranked 12th in WPA (tied with Eli) and 15th in EPA in 2012.