Using ANY/A as a means to compare across eras

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

So, in another thread, the other day, it had been brought to my attention what a fantastic statistic ANY/A actually is. I looked into it, and the assertion is most definitely well-founded. Of the conventional statistics, it is the best predictor of offensive production and  winning. Passer rating is a great stat, but ANY/A has the advantage of actually taking into account sacks, and weighing interceptions more heavily. I sort of just added using ANY/A to the analysis I was already doing of the modern era QBs and their stats during that era, but even within the context of the post 04' era, there's still a huge amount of variation in passing stats league-wide, and how pass friendly the league has felt since 2004. So then, of all of these modern quarterbacks, I tried to adjust for any possibly "inflated stats." I found the average ANY/A for the respective seasons they played in, and subtracted that from the value they had themselves, to find the differential between them and the average in their era. But then, I realized this was a fairly easy way to attempt to standize player's careers according to era, so I started doing it to conventionally considered great quarterbacks across history and came up with the a list, but before I give it, I want to clarify some conditions I put on the years that were included. 

• I didn't include anybody's rookie years. Nobody cares how badly you sucked as a rookie. 
• I didn't include the initial years in a player's career before they were a starter. Nobody cares how bad you sucked coming off the bench, nor would it help as a way to standardize your era. For example, Rodger's 06 and 07 seasons were not included, and Young's years before he was the starter were not included. 
• I didn't include seasons where players did not play for basically the entirety of the season in the calculations of the average of their era. For example, I did not include Brady's 07' season and Peyton's 11' season in the calculation. 

For example, in Brady's career, the average from the time was 5.72, and he had an ANY/A of 7.13, so the differential was +1.41. The average during Russel Wilson's career was 6.12, and he had an ANY/A of 6.95 so he had a differential of +0.83. So here's the list:

Steve Young: +2.13
Peyton Manning: +1.76
Roger Staubach: +1.71
Joe Montana: +1.56
Dan Fouts: +1.47
Aaron Rodgers: 1.44
Tom Brady: +1.41
Dan Marino: +1.38
Drew Brees: +1.23
Tony Romo: +1.22
Philip Rivers: +1.13
Ken Anderson: +1.08
Russel Wilson: +.83
Matt Ryan: +0.83
Ben Roethlisberger: +.81
Terry Bradshaw: +0.71
Jim Kelly: +0.71
Ken Stabler: +0.69
Donovan Mcnabb: +0.64
Troy Aikman: +0.62
Andrew Luck: +0.58
John Elway: 0.56
Warren Moon: 0.55
Andy Dalton: +0.16
Eli Manning: +0.08
Joe Flacco: -0.05
Cam Newton: -0.1
Archie Manning: -0.15

A couple things of note

• I was surprised that Dan Fouts was so high up the list, because I don't normally think all that highly of him, but his stats relative to his era are absolutely insane. 
• Archie Manning, Cam Newton, and Joe Flacco REALLY suck. They managed to all be worse than the average across their era, hence the negative value. 
• I find it interesting that this method gives placements with McNabb, Stabler, Aikman, and Andrew Luck in the same sort of tier despite all of them playing in entirely different eras, none of thier careers overlap with each other, with the exception of 2 years with McNabb and Aikman overlapping. Even while trying to adjust for era, I still ended up with a disproportionate number of modern quarterbacks towards the top. Either: 1) There's genuinely better top quarterbacks these days than ever before. 2) I need to use a standard deviation instead of a straight linear value to make the differentials. 3) This was completely useless and doesn't serve to adjust for era at all. 
• My intuition that players like John Elway and Troy Aikman are overrated are reflected here in this statistic. 
• ANY/A adjusts for Sack %, and despite Young's huge Sack %, he managed to still top the list by far because his numbers were so insane for his era. 
• Peyton's season in 2015 when he played without a functional body, was so amazingly awful it dropped his career mark from 2.11 to 1.76 with it's inclusion. 
• Rivers completely blows away his colleagues from the 04' draft, and that definitely surprises me. 
• standardized efficiency wise, Dalton and Newton both suck, but Dalton appears to be the superior from 2012 at least strictly from a passing perspective. (Obviously Newton is worlds ahead as a runner)

I hope you guys find this interesting. 

Edited April 14, 2019 by C0LTSFAN4L1F3

[sryan66611]

Interesting I mean I could definitely see that an argument could be made for this list tbh...  a couple outliers at the top but thats about it.

[Jlowe22]

4 hours ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Archie Manning, Cam Newton, and Joe Flacco REALLY suck. They managed to all be worse than the average across their era, hence the negative value.

In Archie's case, he did play on some of the worst teams in the history of the league.  There's a reason Brady has an 8.88 ANY/A in 2007, and a 6.13 ANY/A in 2013.

 

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

5 hours ago, sryan66611 said:

Interesting I mean I could definitely see that an argument could be made for this list tbh...  a couple outliers at the top but thats about it.

Let me know if you have any suggestions of guys to add to the list

[tom cody]

Thanks for posting this, reading through all these stats are quite fun. Shows different ways of rating players. 

[footbull3196]

Glad to see I wasn’t the only person who thought Aikman was overrated historically.  This dude threw 20 TDs once in his career.  Even for the 90s, that’s incredibly pedestrian.  And yet he was a 1st ballot HOFer cuz he happened to be quarterback on a loaded team that won 3 Super Bowls

I also think it should be obvious that Elway isn’t a top 10 quarterback of all time like some people want to claim, but I’ll leave that debate for another time

[aceinthehouse]

Do my boy Sammy Baugh if you could, please.

He's my favorite player of all-time.

"Slingin" Sammy Baugh

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

21 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

Glad to see I wasn’t the only person who thought Aikman was overrated historically.  This dude threw 20 TDs once in his career.  Even for the 90s, that’s incredibly pedestrian.  And yet he was a 1st ballot HOFer cuz he happened to be quarterback on a loaded team that won 3 Super Bowls

Oh my God I know. This mostly just serves to validate what I already thought of Aikman. People's first defense is always "Oh, his numbers don't look that good now, but it was a different era!" Even relative to his era, he was still  not that great at all. He just so happened to be on these super stacked teams. Hell, I wouldn't even say he was one of the 3 best players on his own offensive unit

24 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

I also think it should be obvious that Elway isn’t a top 10 quarterback of all time like some people want to claim, but I’ll leave that debate for another time

Who is going to argue with that? He's playing at an efficiency level similar to that of Andrew Luck today, except he did it for his entire career. Luck is going to get better and this number is going to look way better in 10 years, in Elway's case, that's what he peaked out at.  

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

24 minutes ago, aceinthehouse said:

Do my boy Sammy Baugh if you could, please.

He's my favorite player of all-time.

"Slingin" Sammy Baugh

I don't think these stats go that far backwards. I can't even compute it myself because Sack numbers are not given for years that early. 

[sryan66611]

1 hour ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Let me know if you have any suggestions of guys to add to the list

Add phillip rivers i dont see him on there but it could have been overlooked It would be cool to see who comes out on top between that draft class.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

16 minutes ago, sryan66611 said:

Add phillip rivers i dont see him on there but it could have been overlooked It would be cool to see who comes out on top between that draft class.

Oops. 

I added him, and then Andy Dalton and Tony Romo too. 

[sryan66611]

2 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

Oops. 

I added him, and then Andy Dalton and Tony Romo too. 

Thanks...  Its pretty crazy to see Tony Romo in top 10  

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

1 minute ago, sryan66611 said:

Thanks...  Its pretty crazy to see Tony Romo in top 10  

Romo was really good!!

[childofpudding]

Hey, I was thinking about this and I think you should calculate it as a percentage above the average, not just the raw differential number.

For example, let's say that in 1970 the average YPA was 5 and some QB had 10. And then in 2018 the average was 10 and some QB had 15. They both had a raw differential of +5 but the first QB's numbers were more impressive because his YPA was twice as much as the average, while the second one was only 50% better.

I also think you should include rookie numbers because they all matter, but I can see your point also.

Edited April 15, 2019 by childofpudding

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

20 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Hey, I was thinking about this and I think you should calculate it as a percentage above the average, not just the raw differential number.

For example, let's say that in 1970 the average YPA was 5 and some QB had 10. And then in 2018 the average was 10 and some QB had 15. They both had a raw differential of +5 but the first QB's numbers were more impressive because his YPA was twice as much as the average, while the second one was only 50% better.

I also think you should include rookie numbers because they all matter, but I can see your point also.

Wow, yeah that is a really good point, I didn't even think of that. That could serve as a way to not have so many damn modern guys at the top.  But I think using a percentage doesn't necessarily account for a level of diminishing returns as these numbers keep going up, For example, being 50% better than advantage I feel is much easier when the average is 4.04 compared to when it is 6.12. Russel Wilson to achieve the same percentage would have to hit an ANY/A of 9.18 compared to the older player getting to 6.06. An ANY/A of 6.06, even long ago, is still very achievable and ultimately really isn't THAT efficient. An 9.18 is just unrealistically high to achieve. The only two seasons to reach that level over a full season are Peyton's 04' and Rodgers' 11' seasons, which are just unbelievable seasons. 

I don't see why rookie numbers should matter. You shouldn't be expected to be good as a rookie nor should it be held in high super regard if you are good as a rookie. Sure, it would be nice, but it should be viewed more as a learning experience. You're expected to learn and improve and that's all that really matters. If somebody sucks as a rookie, nobody should care, just as nobody should care if Rodgers or Young sucked when they came off the bench before they were the starter, there's no expectation that you should be dominating as a rookie nor when you are coming off the bench. 

Edited April 15, 2019 by C0LTSFAN4L1F3