Standardized career QB stats(post-04)

[lancerman]

22 hours ago, Kiwibrown said:

How does everyone rank the strength of each organization?

At some the point the tools around a guy effects his play, whether it is oline, skill players or defense. 

The colts and san deigo would be at the bottom of the pile by a wide margin imo.

Depends. For instance Brady's had the best coaching but you could also argue that by and large he's generally succeeded with weaker than the mean skill position talent. Meanwhile Manning's had 4 different head coaches, but he's also had far and away the best skill talent to support him. 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

On 4/8/2019 at 1:24 AM, Bearerofnews said:

Rivers lags way behind? Based on what exactly? His comp% is same as Brady and .4 less than Rodgers. His YPA is better than some and there with others. His td% is .19 under Brees. His int% is .19 higher than Peyton. His passer rating is 4.3 under Brady. Id say those are all relatively close. Especially considering unlike 3 of them, Rivers did it in differing situations (4 diff head coaches). 

He is lagging way behind. He's clearly the odd one out, he's not even close to the others. You act like 4.3 passer rating points over the course of over a decade is not an enormous difference. Brees, Brady, and Peyton have seasons that vary enormously, but the average values regress to a representative value of their careers that is fairly close. 4.3 passer rating is HUGE. Peyton's passer rating 04'-15' is the highest among the three of the aforementioned players, but is still 2 full points below Rodgers. Rodgers has relatively huge efficiency stats compared to the other three, represented as values over a decade or so. The difference between everybody else and Rivers is over double that.  Rivers is:

tied for last in CMP%

last in TD%

last in INT%

last in TDs/season

last in INTs/season

last in yards/season

last in passer rating

The ONLY area he is not last, or tied for last is in Y/A. And if you compare the composite rankings of anybody else, it's dramatically better. Hence, "lagging way behind." The only reason his INT% is that close with Peyton's is because Peyton played without a functional body for a year and spiked his INT%, it is otherwise 2.19%. But I don't think you understand how significant these differences are. Comparing River's to the next worst efficiency stat:

Rivers is 11.4% more likely to throw an interception than Brees on any given play. 

Rivers is 3.44% less likely to throw a touchdown on any given play than Brees. 

Rivers' passer rating above the average over the time period, is 28.6% lower than Brady's. 

And again, he's right there Y/A wise, so that's the exception. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by C0LTSFAN4L1F3

[tom cody]

20 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

It is always fun to go through the stats!

I know, I love it. I got a system now where I'm determining the player of the year for each World Series Champ and NBA champ. It's quite fun to do. 

[childofpudding]

On 4/6/2019 at 6:17 PM, sammymvpknight said:

Passer rating benefits QBs who take sacks versus throw incompletions. Brees, Brady, and Manning are very good in this regard...Wilson, Rodgers, and Rivers are not. 

That's why ANY/A is a superior stat to passer rating, as it accounts for sacks and sack yardage. Passer rating also overemphasizes completion percentage (both within the comp% factor and the YPA factor), which is another of its flaws.

Both passer rating and ANY/A have positive correlations to team wins, offensive points and offensive yards, but ANY/A has the stronger correlation of the two.

Edited April 9, 2019 by childofpudding

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

3 hours ago, childofpudding said:

That's why ANY/A is a superior stat to passer rating, as it accounts for sacks and sack yardage. Passer rating also overemphasizes completion percentage (both within the comp% factor and the YPA factor), which is another of its flaws.

Both passer rating and ANY/A have positive correlations to team wins, offensive points and offensive yards, but ANY/A has the stronger correlation of the two.

Why would it be a problem that it emphasizes CMP%? Even if you arent racking up a ton of yardage, completing passes at a high rate still still usually indicates a high level of effectiveness. You only need to average 3.5 yards/play after all. 

[childofpudding]

4 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Why would it be a problem that it emphasizes CMP%? Even if you arent racking up a ton of yardage, completing passes at a high rate still still usually indicates a high level of effectiveness. You only need to average 3.5 yards/play after all. 

I said it overemphasizes it.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

2 hours ago, childofpudding said:

I said it overemphasizes it.

semantics. Obviously it is a matter of the extent to which it is emphasized. I don't see any reason to believe it isn't emphasized a suitable amount. 

[childofpudding]

1 hour ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

semantics. Obviously it is a matter of the extent to which it is emphasized. I don't see any reason to believe it isn't emphasized a suitable amount. 

The difference between emphasized and overemphasized isn't semantics, but whatever. It's off-point so I'm not going to belabor that part of the discussion. 

Take a look at every team's season over the last 20 years (which is what I did). The correlation between completion percentage and points scored is much weaker than YPA and points scored, or TD% and points scored. Completion percentage is important, but not nearly as much as the other two. Also, the correlation between ANY/A and points scored is much stronger than for passer rating and points scored. Here's a link to get started if you'd like to replicate this: http://pfref.com/tiny/x7UcC

Also, I'm not exactly sure what you did to get the standardized statistics or why you're under the impression that it's that complicated. It's fairly simple. Get a QB's regular season cumulative stats from 2004-present, divide by games played (or games started, whatever you prefer) and multiply by 16. Efficiency numbers are easy to calculate from there if you know the basics of using spreadsheets. I don't really get the value in doing it, but to each his own.

Edited April 10, 2019 by childofpudding

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

2 hours ago, childofpudding said:

The difference between emphasized and overemphasized isn't semantics, but whatever. It's off-point so I'm not going to belabor that part of the discussion. 

Not in that context. It was simply a matter of determining how much emphasis is too much emphasis for that, you saying "oh well I used the word 'overemphasis'" holds absolutely no value because it is all relative and redundant. 

2 hours ago, childofpudding said:

Take a look at every team's season over the last 20 years (which is what I did). The correlation between completion percentage and points scored is much weaker than YPA and points scored, or TD% and points scored. Completion percentage is important, but not nearly as much as the other two. Also, the correlation between ANY/A and points scored is much stronger than for passer rating and points scored.

Well that's fair I guess. 

2 hours ago, childofpudding said:

Also, I'm not exactly sure what you did to get the standardized statistics or why you're under the impression that it's that complicated. It's fairly simple. Get a QB's regular season cumulative stats from 2004-present, divide by games played (or games started, whatever you prefer) and multiply by 16. Efficiency numbers are easy to calculate from there if you know the basics of using spreadsheets. I don't really get the value in doing it, but to each his own.

It isn't complicated. I never said it was complicated nor did I imply that it was complicated. But doing this for 15 Qbs would be extremely time consuming by hand, doing all of those comoputations you mentioned, typing up the results and computing the efficiency stats and wriiting them down as you go for 15 Qbs would take forever. I made a means to simply type in the values and instantly get all of this results printed out in exactly the format and verbatim that you want it. What you described would just be the computation for one stat for one QB, it would be grueling to do that ~75 times for all of these standardized values, and that's without any of the efficiency stats. 

I have no idea why this would have no value, and others seem to appreciate it. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by C0LTSFAN4L1F3

[childofpudding]

3 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Not in that context. It was simply a matter of determining how much emphasis is too much emphasis for that, you saying "oh well I used the word 'overemphasis'" holds absolutely no value because it is all relative and redundant. 

Well that's fair I guess. 

It isn't complicated. I never said it was complicated nor did I imply that it was complicated. But doing this for 15 Qbs would be extremely time consuming by hand, doing all of those comoputations you mentioned, typing up the results and computing the efficiency stats and wriiting them down as you go for 15 Qbs would take forever. I made a means to simply type in the values and instantly get all of this results printed out in exactly the format and verbatim that you want it. What you described would just be the computation for one stat for one QB, it would be grueling to do that ~75 times for all of these standardized values, and that's without any of the efficiency stats. 

I have no idea why this would have no value, and others seem to appreciate it. 

Hey dude, apologies if I came off sounding condescending, wasnt my intent, was just late when I posted. Later this morning I'll post on how you cpuld do this very quickly. Shouldnt be time consuming at all

[childofpudding]

1 hour ago, childofpudding said:

Hey dude, apologies if I came off sounding condescending, wasnt my intent, was just late when I posted. Later this morning I'll post on how you cpuld do this very quickly. Shouldnt be time consuming at all

So, do this search on profootballreference.com: http://pfref.com/tiny/Wxb6g

Export to CSV for Excel and do comma delimited.

Divide completions, attempts, yards, TDs and INTs by games and multiply by 16.

Profit.

Here's the list of all QBs who have thrown for at least 100 TDs since 2004, with standardized numbers to the right, sorted by passer rating:

Player	G	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	YPA	TD	TD%	Int	INT%	Rate	Sk	Yds	Cmp/16	Att/16	Yds/16	TD/16	INT/16
Aaron Rodgers\RodgAa00	158	3525	5433	64.88	42615	7.84	337	6.20%	79	1.45%	103.5	403	2614	357.0	550.2	4315.4	34.1	8.0
Peyton Manning\MannPe00	169	3992	5988	66.67	46986	7.85	372	6.21%	141	2.35%	101.2	176	1113	377.9	566.9	4448.4	35.2	13.3
Russell Wilson\WilsRu00	112	2095	3261	64.24	25624	7.86	196	6.01%	63	1.93%	100.3	299	1952	299.3	465.9	3660.6	28.0	9.0
Drew Brees\BreeDr00	236	6046	8874	68.13	68824	7.76	491	5.53%	202	2.28%	100.1	348	2443	409.9	601.6	4666.0	33.3	13.7
Tom Brady\BradTo00	221	5049	7831	64.47	60281	7.70	448	5.72%	133	1.70%	99.9	369	2319	365.5	567.0	4364.2	32.4	9.6
Tony Romo\RomoTo00	127	2810	4304	65.29	33892	7.87	244	5.67%	114	2.65%	97.2	246	1664	354.0	542.2	4269.9	30.7	14.4
Philip Rivers\RivePh00	208	4501	6970	64.58	54508	7.82	373	5.35%	177	2.54%	95.7	408	2476	346.2	536.2	4192.9	28.7	13.6
Kirk Cousins\CousKi00	73	1756	2633	66.69	20010	7.60	125	4.75%	61	2.32%	95.5	142	1067	384.9	577.1	4385.8	27.4	13.4
Matt Ryan\RyanMa00	174	4052	6201	65.34	46720	7.53	295	4.76%	133	2.14%	94.9	321	2130	372.6	570.2	4296.1	27.1	12.2
Ben Roethlisberger\RoetBe00	214	4582	7115	64.4	55639	7.82	358	5.03%	187	2.63%	94.2	498	3294	342.6	532.0	4159.9	26.8	14.0
Kurt Warner*\WarnKu00	66	1487	2291	64.91	17085	7.46	102	4.45%	62	2.71%	90.8	144	937	360.5	555.4	4141.8	24.7	15.0
Matt Schaub\SchaMa00	92	2009	3121	64.37	23894	7.66	129	4.13%	83	2.66%	90.3	167	1153	349.4	542.8	4155.5	22.4	14.4
Donovan McNabb\McNaDo00	97	1963	3257	60.27	24225	7.44	147	4.51%	68	2.09%	89.6	227	1468	323.8	537.2	3995.9	24.2	11.2
Andrew Luck\LuckAn00	86	2000	3290	60.79	23671	7.19	171	5.20%	83	2.52%	89.5	174	1124	372.1	612.1	4403.9	31.8	15.4
Derek Carr\CarrDe02	78	1759	2800	62.82	18739	6.69	122	4.36%	54	1.93%	88.8	142	858	360.8	574.4	3843.9	25.0	11.1
Andy Dalton\DaltAn00	120	2443	3921	62.31	28100	7.17	188	4.79%	104	2.65%	88.8	241	1489	325.7	522.8	3746.7	25.1	13.9
Matthew Stafford\StafMa00	141	3372	5405	62.39	38526	7.13	237	4.38%	129	2.39%	88.4	329	2105	382.6	613.3	4371.7	26.9	14.6
Carson Palmer\PalmCa00	181	3933	6286	62.57	46131	7.34	294	4.68%	184	2.93%	88.2	340	2364	347.7	555.7	4077.9	26.0	16.3
Alex Smith\SmitAl03	161	3050	4892	62.35	33702	6.89	190	3.88%	100	2.04%	87.2	406	2305	303.1	486.2	3349.3	18.9	9.9
Ryan Tannehill\TannRy00	88	1829	2911	62.83	20434	7.02	123	4.23%	75	2.58%	87	248	1885	332.5	529.3	3715.3	22.4	13.6
Cam Newton\NewtCa00	122	2307	3859	59.78	28287	7.33	181	4.69%	107	2.77%	86.5	285	2156	302.6	506.1	3709.8	23.7	14.0
Jay Cutler\CutlJa00	153	3048	4920	61.95	35133	7.14	227	4.61%	160	3.25%	85.3	322	2035	318.7	514.5	3674.0	23.7	16.7
Sam Bradford\BradSa00	83	1855	2967	62.52	19449	6.56	103	3.47%	61	2.06%	84.5	196	1371	357.6	572.0	3749.2	19.9	11.8
Brett Favre*\FavrBr00	109	2340	3706	63.14	26192	7.07	162	4.37%	127	3.43%	84.4	158	1089	343.5	544.0	3844.7	23.8	18.6
Eli Manning\MannEl00	230	4801	7963	60.29	55915	7.02	360	4.52%	239	3.00%	84.1	405	2823	334.0	553.9	3889.7	25.0	16.6
Joe Flacco\FlacJo00	163	3499	5670	61.71	38245	6.75	212	3.74%	136	2.40%	84.1	333	2360	343.5	556.6	3754.1	20.8	13.3
Jake Delhomme\DelhJa00	79	1394	2346	59.42	16814	7.17	103	4.39%	78	3.32%	82.2	136	1029	282.3	475.1	3405.4	20.9	15.8
Michael Vick\VickMi00	93	1439	2508	57.38	17834	7.11	110	4.39%	73	2.91%	82	244	1447	247.6	431.5	3068.2	18.9	12.6
Matt Hasselbeck\HassMa00	122	2393	3955	60.51	26887	6.80	158	3.99%	117	2.96%	81.8	247	1584	313.8	518.7	3526.2	20.7	15.3
Kyle Orton\OrtoKy00	82	1586	2667	59.47	17737	6.65	100	3.75%	68	2.55%	81.2	164	1009	309.5	520.4	3460.9	19.5	13.3
Ryan Fitzpatrick\FitzRy00	126	2456	4074	60.28	27714	6.80	176	4.32%	140	3.44%	80.7	231	1237	311.9	517.3	3519.2	22.3	17.8
Blake Bortles\BortBl00	73	1542	2602	59.26	17384	6.68	101	3.88%	73	2.81%	80.6	193	1146	338.0	570.3	3810.2	22.1	16.0

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

2 hours ago, childofpudding said:

So, do this search on profootballreference.com: http://pfref.com/tiny/Wxb6g

Export to CSV for Excel and do comma delimited.

Divide completions, attempts, yards, TDs and INTs by games and multiply by 16.

Profit.

Here's the list of all QBs who have thrown for at least 100 TDs since 2004, with standardized numbers to the right, sorted by passer rating:

Player	G	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	YPA	TD	TD%	Int	INT%	Rate	Sk	Yds	Cmp/16	Att/16	Yds/16	TD/16	INT/16
Aaron Rodgers\RodgAa00	158	3525	5433	64.88	42615	7.84	337	6.20%	79	1.45%	103.5	403	2614	357.0	550.2	4315.4	34.1	8.0
Peyton Manning\MannPe00	169	3992	5988	66.67	46986	7.85	372	6.21%	141	2.35%	101.2	176	1113	377.9	566.9	4448.4	35.2	13.3
Russell Wilson\WilsRu00	112	2095	3261	64.24	25624	7.86	196	6.01%	63	1.93%	100.3	299	1952	299.3	465.9	3660.6	28.0	9.0
Drew Brees\BreeDr00	236	6046	8874	68.13	68824	7.76	491	5.53%	202	2.28%	100.1	348	2443	409.9	601.6	4666.0	33.3	13.7
Tom Brady\BradTo00	221	5049	7831	64.47	60281	7.70	448	5.72%	133	1.70%	99.9	369	2319	365.5	567.0	4364.2	32.4	9.6
Tony Romo\RomoTo00	127	2810	4304	65.29	33892	7.87	244	5.67%	114	2.65%	97.2	246	1664	354.0	542.2	4269.9	30.7	14.4
Philip Rivers\RivePh00	208	4501	6970	64.58	54508	7.82	373	5.35%	177	2.54%	95.7	408	2476	346.2	536.2	4192.9	28.7	13.6
Kirk Cousins\CousKi00	73	1756	2633	66.69	20010	7.60	125	4.75%	61	2.32%	95.5	142	1067	384.9	577.1	4385.8	27.4	13.4
Matt Ryan\RyanMa00	174	4052	6201	65.34	46720	7.53	295	4.76%	133	2.14%	94.9	321	2130	372.6	570.2	4296.1	27.1	12.2
Ben Roethlisberger\RoetBe00	214	4582	7115	64.4	55639	7.82	358	5.03%	187	2.63%	94.2	498	3294	342.6	532.0	4159.9	26.8	14.0
Kurt Warner*\WarnKu00	66	1487	2291	64.91	17085	7.46	102	4.45%	62	2.71%	90.8	144	937	360.5	555.4	4141.8	24.7	15.0
Matt Schaub\SchaMa00	92	2009	3121	64.37	23894	7.66	129	4.13%	83	2.66%	90.3	167	1153	349.4	542.8	4155.5	22.4	14.4
Donovan McNabb\McNaDo00	97	1963	3257	60.27	24225	7.44	147	4.51%	68	2.09%	89.6	227	1468	323.8	537.2	3995.9	24.2	11.2
Andrew Luck\LuckAn00	86	2000	3290	60.79	23671	7.19	171	5.20%	83	2.52%	89.5	174	1124	372.1	612.1	4403.9	31.8	15.4
Derek Carr\CarrDe02	78	1759	2800	62.82	18739	6.69	122	4.36%	54	1.93%	88.8	142	858	360.8	574.4	3843.9	25.0	11.1
Andy Dalton\DaltAn00	120	2443	3921	62.31	28100	7.17	188	4.79%	104	2.65%	88.8	241	1489	325.7	522.8	3746.7	25.1	13.9
Matthew Stafford\StafMa00	141	3372	5405	62.39	38526	7.13	237	4.38%	129	2.39%	88.4	329	2105	382.6	613.3	4371.7	26.9	14.6
Carson Palmer\PalmCa00	181	3933	6286	62.57	46131	7.34	294	4.68%	184	2.93%	88.2	340	2364	347.7	555.7	4077.9	26.0	16.3
Alex Smith\SmitAl03	161	3050	4892	62.35	33702	6.89	190	3.88%	100	2.04%	87.2	406	2305	303.1	486.2	3349.3	18.9	9.9
Ryan Tannehill\TannRy00	88	1829	2911	62.83	20434	7.02	123	4.23%	75	2.58%	87	248	1885	332.5	529.3	3715.3	22.4	13.6
Cam Newton\NewtCa00	122	2307	3859	59.78	28287	7.33	181	4.69%	107	2.77%	86.5	285	2156	302.6	506.1	3709.8	23.7	14.0
Jay Cutler\CutlJa00	153	3048	4920	61.95	35133	7.14	227	4.61%	160	3.25%	85.3	322	2035	318.7	514.5	3674.0	23.7	16.7
Sam Bradford\BradSa00	83	1855	2967	62.52	19449	6.56	103	3.47%	61	2.06%	84.5	196	1371	357.6	572.0	3749.2	19.9	11.8
Brett Favre*\FavrBr00	109	2340	3706	63.14	26192	7.07	162	4.37%	127	3.43%	84.4	158	1089	343.5	544.0	3844.7	23.8	18.6
Eli Manning\MannEl00	230	4801	7963	60.29	55915	7.02	360	4.52%	239	3.00%	84.1	405	2823	334.0	553.9	3889.7	25.0	16.6
Joe Flacco\FlacJo00	163	3499	5670	61.71	38245	6.75	212	3.74%	136	2.40%	84.1	333	2360	343.5	556.6	3754.1	20.8	13.3
Jake Delhomme\DelhJa00	79	1394	2346	59.42	16814	7.17	103	4.39%	78	3.32%	82.2	136	1029	282.3	475.1	3405.4	20.9	15.8
Michael Vick\VickMi00	93	1439	2508	57.38	17834	7.11	110	4.39%	73	2.91%	82	244	1447	247.6	431.5	3068.2	18.9	12.6
Matt Hasselbeck\HassMa00	122	2393	3955	60.51	26887	6.80	158	3.99%	117	2.96%	81.8	247	1584	313.8	518.7	3526.2	20.7	15.3
Kyle Orton\OrtoKy00	82	1586	2667	59.47	17737	6.65	100	3.75%	68	2.55%	81.2	164	1009	309.5	520.4	3460.9	19.5	13.3
Ryan Fitzpatrick\FitzRy00	126	2456	4074	60.28	27714	6.80	176	4.32%	140	3.44%	80.7	231	1237	311.9	517.3	3519.2	22.3	17.8
Blake Bortles\BortBl00	73	1542	2602	59.26	17384	6.68	101	3.88%	73	2.81%	80.6	193	1146	338.0	570.3	3810.2	22.1	16.0

Oh, well that's pretty cool, thanks. 

Still, this kind of reinforces my point that this would take forever if done by hand so other means like Python or Excel is necessary. I wasn't ever saying this was especially complicated, just computationally intensive. 

Also, why does the ANY/A formula add 20 for a touchdown but subtract 45 for an interception exactly? Do you know how those values were decided upon?

Edited April 10, 2019 by C0LTSFAN4L1F3

[childofpudding]

57 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Oh, well that's pretty cool, thanks. 

Still, this kind of reinforces my point that this would take forever if done by hand so other means like Python or Excel is necessary. I wasn't ever saying this was especially complicated, just computationally intensive. 

Also, why does the ANY/A formula add 20 for a touchdown but subtract 45 for an interception exactly? Do you know how those values were decided upon?

It was based on an old book that I think was called Hidden Game of Football, or something like that. It basically means that a touchdown is worth 20 yards of added field position, while an interception is worth 45 yards of lost field position. They came to those numbers through analysis around expected points for each of those events, I believe. Similar to the numbers involved in the factors for passer rating (ie. "2.375 - (INT/ATT) * 25"). I think ANY/A correlates more to points scored now simply because it's based on analysis of more recent league data. The passer rating variables are based off league data from the 1960s.

Ideally there would be a constantly changing passer rating formula, with variables that are annually adjusted based on league data from the previous 10 years. That would also create a statistic that could arguably be used to compare QBs' seasons across multiple eras, which is more challenging now with stats like passer rating and ANY/A due to it becoming more of a passing league. Where it would get complicated is calculating a QB's career number for that statistic if the variables are changing each year. I suppose it could be the average or median number for all of the QB's individual seasons, but that wouldn't account for games played and things like that.

Edited April 10, 2019 by childofpudding

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

14 hours ago, childofpudding said:

It was based on an old book that I think was called Hidden Game of Football, or something like that. It basically means that a touchdown is worth 20 yards of added field position, while an interception is worth 45 yards of lost field position. They came to those numbers through analysis around expected points for each of those events, I believe. Similar to the numbers involved in the factors for passer rating (ie. "2.375 - (INT/ATT) * 25"). I think ANY/A correlates more to points scored now simply because it's based on analysis of more recent league data. The passer rating variables are based off league data from the 1960s.

Ideally there would be a constantly changing passer rating formula, with variables that are annually adjusted based on league data from the previous 10 years. That would also create a statistic that could arguably be used to compare QBs' seasons across multiple eras, which is more challenging now with stats like passer rating and ANY/A due to it becoming more of a passing league. Where it would get complicated is calculating a QB's career number for that statistic if the variables are changing each year. I suppose it could be the average or median number for all of the QB's individual seasons, but that wouldn't account for games played and things like that.

Interesting. I checked into it, and it certainly looks to check out; ANY/A is a higher correlate to winning/scoring than passer rating, which I previously thought was the best measure among the "standard" statistics to evaluate quarterbacks. Thanks, I appreciate it, I didn't know this was such a great stat! Taking into account sacks is important, and it levels the playing field for the likes of Newton, Rodgers and Wilson. 

So, in the interest of having a more comprehensive display of the statistics of this time period, I changed it to show standardized sacks/season, sack %, and ANY/A. (It was redundant for me to list passer rating twice anyway, ANY/A replaces the first listing of passer rating. 

Peyton Manning:(04'-15')
376-564, 4428 yards, 35.0 Touchdowns, 13.3 Interceptions, 16.7 sacked, 7.62 ANY/A
66.6 CMP%, 7.85 Y/A, 6.20TD%, 2.35 INT%, 2.87 Sack% 101.2 passer rating
Tom Brady:
365-566, 4364 yards, 32.4 Touchdowns, 9.6 Interceptions, 26.7 sacked, 7.43 ANY/A
64.5 CMP%, 7.70 Y/A, 5.72TD%, 1.70 INT%, 4.50 Sack% 99.9 passer rating
Aaron Rodgers:
356-550, 4315 yards, 34.1 Touchdowns, 8.0 Interceptions, 40.8 sacked, 7.40 ANY/A
64.9 CMP%, 7.84 Y/A, 6.20TD%, 1.45 INT%, 6.91 Sack% 103.5 passer rating
Drew Brees:
409-601, 4666 yards, 33.3 Touchdowns, 13.7 Interceptions, 23.6 sacked, 7.28 ANY/A
68.1 CMP%, 7.76 Y/A, 5.53TD%, 2.28 INT%, 3.77 Sack% 100.1 passer rating
Tony Romo:
337-517, 4081 yards, 29.6 Touchdowns, 14.0 Interceptions, 29.6 sacked, 7.03 ANY/A
65.3 CMP%, 7.89 Y/A, 5.72TD%, 2.70 INT%, 5.41 Sack% 97.1 passer rating
Philip Rivers:
343-532, 4161 yards, 28.4 Touchdowns, 13.6 Interceptions, 31.3 sacked, 6.97 ANY/A
64.5 CMP%, 7.81 Y/A, 5.33TD%, 2.55 INT%, 5.55 Sack% 95.6 passer rating
Russel Wilson:
307-478, 3751 yards, 28.3 Touchdowns, 8.8 Interceptions, 44.3 sacked, 6.95 ANY/A
64.3 CMP%, 7.85 Y/A, 5.93TD%, 1.85 INT%, 8.49 Sack% 100.4 passer rating
Ben Roethlisberger:
350-544, 4243 yards, 27.4 Touchdowns, 14.2 Interceptions, 37.3 sacked, 6.72 ANY/A
64.3 CMP%, 7.79 Y/A, 5.03TD%, 2.60 INT%, 6.41 Sack% 94.1 passer rating
Andrew Luck:
379-599, 4410 yards, 33.8 Touchdowns, 14.9 Interceptions, 30.4 sacked, 6.70 ANY/A
63.3 CMP%, 7.36 Y/A, 5.64TD%, 2.48 INT%, 4.83 Sack% 94.0 passer rating
Matt Ryan:
383-584, 4382 yards, 28.3 Touchdowns, 12.4 Interceptions, 30.8 sacked, 6.81 ANY/A
65.7 CMP%, 7.50 Y/A, 4.84TD%, 2.12 INT%, 5.01 Sack% 95.4 passer rating
Cam Newton:
300-504, 3651 yards, 24.1 Touchdowns, 13.5 Interceptions, 37.4 sacked, 5.99 ANY/A
59.6 CMP%, 7.24 Y/A, 4.77TD%, 2.67 INT%, 6.90 Sack% 86.7 passer rating
Joe Flacco:
352-570, 3839 yards, 21.6 Touchdowns, 10.3 Interceptions, 32.8 sacked, 5.93 ANY/A
61.8 CMP%, 6.73 Y/A, 3.78TD%, 1.81 INT%, 5.43 Sack% 86.7 passer rating
Eli Manning:
337-557, 3941 yards, 25.4 Touchdowns, 16.5 Interceptions, 28.2 sacked, 5.99 ANY/A
60.6 CMP%, 7.07 Y/A, 4.55TD%, 2.96 INT%, 4.81 Sack% 84.8 passer rating
 

Now, I would normally list and evaluate the ANY/A of each player, but in the interest of accounting for differences in passing numbers, I found the average ANY/A of the league over the time period associated with each player, and subtracted it from their average over the period to find the differential between the average and the respective player's ANY/A. For example, the average ANY/A across 04'-07',-09'-18' when Tom Brady played is 5.90, and his average over the period was 7.43, so his differential is 1.53. On the other side of the spectrum, Russel Wilson's playing career featured an average ANY/A of 6.12,  a significantly higher value, and his average was 6.95 so his differential is +0.83. I did that for every quarterback and here are the rankings:

Peyton Manning: +1.89
Tom Brady: +1.53
Aaron Rodgers: +1.44
Drew Brees: +1.39
Tony Romo: +1.13
Philip Rivers: +1.06
Russel Wilson: +.83
Matt Ryan: +0.83
Ben Roethlisberger: +.81
Andrew Luck: +0.58
Eli Manning: +0.08
Joe Flacco: -0.05
Cam Newton: -0.10

Interesting notes from the new data compiled:

• When comparing the top rankings of passer rating, it is completely different from that of ANY/A. For passer rating the top is: Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, Brady, but for ANY/A it is: Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, Brees. All four players switched positions in the ranking, which I thought was interesting. This is presumably because Brees loses favor because he doesn't benefit as much from his huge CMP%, and Rodgers dropped from #1 to #3 because of his abysmal Sack% now being taken into account.
• Joe Flacco and Cam Newton managed to be worse in ANY/A across their time period than the average in the league over the same time. (Obviously this is indicated by their negative differential) Newton at least has the excuse of making up for that with his rushing abilities, Flacco just sucks. 
• Wilson, Rodgers, and Newton's ANY/A look significantly worse than their passer rating because their high sack rates are being taken into account.  
• The gap between Rivers and Roethlisberger in passer rating widened enormously compared to their gap in ANY/A. 
• Surprisingly, Eli managed to have a slightly higher average ANY/A than the league did over the same period. Still, the gap between him and Luck is a huge 0.5, the largest  gap in consecutive positions. (Unless you don't include Peyton's "corpse" year of 15', his differential is +2.11 over the time period, making the difference between him and Brady the largest.)

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by C0LTSFAN4L1F3

[childofpudding]

6 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Interesting. I checked into it, and it certainly looks to check out; ANY/A is a higher correlate to winning/scoring than passer rating, which I previously thought was the best measure among the "standard" statistics to evaluate quarterbacks. Thanks, I appreciate it, I didn't know this was such a great stat! Taking into account sacks is important, and it levels the playing field for the likes of Newton, Rodgers and Wilson. 

So, in the interest of having a more comprehensive display of the statistics of this time period, I changed it to show standardized sacks/season, sack %, and ANY/A. (It was redundant for me to list passer rating twice anyway, ANY/A replaces the first listing of passer rating. 

Peyton Manning:(04'-15')
376-564, 4428 yards, 35.0 Touchdowns, 13.3 Interceptions, 16.7 sacked, 7.62 ANY/A
66.6 CMP%, 7.85 Y/A, 6.20TD%, 2.35 INT%, 2.87 Sack% 101.2 passer rating
Tom Brady:
365-566, 4364 yards, 32.4 Touchdowns, 9.6 Interceptions, 26.7 sacked, 7.43 ANY/A
64.5 CMP%, 7.70 Y/A, 5.72TD%, 1.70 INT%, 4.50 Sack% 99.9 passer rating
Aaron Rodgers:
356-550, 4315 yards, 34.1 Touchdowns, 8.0 Interceptions, 40.8 sacked, 7.40 ANY/A
64.9 CMP%, 7.84 Y/A, 6.20TD%, 1.45 INT%, 6.91 Sack% 103.5 passer rating
Drew Brees:
409-601, 4666 yards, 33.3 Touchdowns, 13.7 Interceptions, 23.6 sacked, 7.28 ANY/A
68.1 CMP%, 7.76 Y/A, 5.53TD%, 2.28 INT%, 3.77 Sack% 100.1 passer rating
Tony Romo:
337-517, 4081 yards, 29.6 Touchdowns, 14.0 Interceptions, 29.6 sacked, 7.03 ANY/A
65.3 CMP%, 7.89 Y/A, 5.72TD%, 2.70 INT%, 5.41 Sack% 97.1 passer rating
Philip Rivers:
343-532, 4161 yards, 28.4 Touchdowns, 13.6 Interceptions, 31.3 sacked, 6.97 ANY/A
64.5 CMP%, 7.81 Y/A, 5.33TD%, 2.55 INT%, 5.55 Sack% 95.6 passer rating
Russel Wilson:
307-478, 3751 yards, 28.3 Touchdowns, 8.8 Interceptions, 44.3 sacked, 6.95 ANY/A
64.3 CMP%, 7.85 Y/A, 5.93TD%, 1.85 INT%, 8.49 Sack% 100.4 passer rating
Ben Roethlisberger:
350-544, 4243 yards, 27.4 Touchdowns, 14.2 Interceptions, 37.3 sacked, 6.72 ANY/A
64.3 CMP%, 7.79 Y/A, 5.03TD%, 2.60 INT%, 6.41 Sack% 94.1 passer rating
Andrew Luck:
379-599, 4410 yards, 33.8 Touchdowns, 14.9 Interceptions, 30.4 sacked, 6.70 ANY/A
63.3 CMP%, 7.36 Y/A, 5.64TD%, 2.48 INT%, 4.83 Sack% 94.0 passer rating
Matt Ryan:
383-584, 4382 yards, 28.3 Touchdowns, 12.4 Interceptions, 30.8 sacked, 6.81 ANY/A
65.7 CMP%, 7.50 Y/A, 4.84TD%, 2.12 INT%, 5.01 Sack% 95.4 passer rating
Cam Newton:
300-504, 3651 yards, 24.1 Touchdowns, 13.5 Interceptions, 37.4 sacked, 5.99 ANY/A
59.6 CMP%, 7.24 Y/A, 4.77TD%, 2.67 INT%, 6.90 Sack% 86.7 passer rating
Joe Flacco:
352-570, 3839 yards, 21.6 Touchdowns, 10.3 Interceptions, 32.8 sacked, 5.93 ANY/A
61.8 CMP%, 6.73 Y/A, 3.78TD%, 1.81 INT%, 5.43 Sack% 86.7 passer rating
Eli Manning:
337-557, 3941 yards, 25.4 Touchdowns, 16.5 Interceptions, 28.2 sacked, 5.99 ANY/A
60.6 CMP%, 7.07 Y/A, 4.55TD%, 2.96 INT%, 4.81 Sack% 84.8 passer rating
 

Now, I would normally list and evaluate the ANY/A of each player, but in the interest of accounting for differences in passing numbers, I found the average ANY/A of the league over the time period associated with each player, and subtracted it from their average over the period to find the differential between the average and the respective player's ANY/A. For example, the average ANY/A across 04'-07',-09'-18' when Tom Brady played is 5.90, and his average over the period was 7.43, so his differential is 1.53. On the other side of the spectrum, Russel Wilson's playing career featured an average ANY/A of 6.12,  a significantly higher value, and his average was 6.95 so his differential is +0.83. I did that for every quarterback and here are the rankings:

Peyton Manning: +1.89
Tom Brady: +1.53
Aaron Rodgers: +1.44
Drew Brees: +1.39
Tony Romo: +1.13
Philip Rivers: +1.06
Russel Wilson: +.83
Matt Ryan: +0.83
Ben Roethlisberger: +.81
Andrew Luck: +0.58
Eli Manning: +0.08
Joe Flacco: -0.05
Cam Newton: -0.10

Interesting notes from the new data compiled:

• When comparing the top rankings of passer rating, it is completely different from that of ANY/A. For passer rating the top is: Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, Brady, but for ANY/A it is: Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, Brees. All four players switched positions in the ranking, which I thought was interesting. This is presumably because Brees loses favor because he doesn't benefit as much from his huge CMP%, and Rodgers dropped from #1 to #3 because of his abysmal Sack% now being taken into account.
• Joe Flacco and Cam Newton managed to be worse in ANY/A across their time period than the average in the league over the same time. (Obviously this is indicated by their negative differential) Newton at least has the excuse of making up for that with his rushing abilities, Flacco just sucks. 
• Wilson, Rodgers, and Newton's ANY/A look significantly worse than their passer rating because their high sack rates are being taken into account.  
• The gap between Rivers and Roethlisberger in passer rating widened enormously compared to their gap in ANY/A. 
• Surprisingly, Eli managed to have a slightly higher average ANY/A than the league did over the same period. Still, the gap between him and Luck is a huge 0.5, the largest  gap in consecutive positions. (Unless you don't include Peyton's "corpse" year of 15', his differential is +2.11 over the time period, making the difference between him and Brady the largest.)

 

Nice! I particularly like that ANY/A differential number, which helps account for era. Solid work.