The current standard for top quarterbacks:

[ET80]

19 minutes ago, Hukos said:

The whole point of a statistic is to either be descriptive or predictive. 

Preach!

[blizofoz45]

45 minutes ago, Hukos said:

The whole point of a statistic is to either be descriptive or predictive. It needs to show us important information on how that player played (descriptive), or it needs to be a useful indicator for future success (predictive). TD/INT ratio does neither.

 

2 hours ago, blizofoz45 said:

Four of those five QBs have won a super bowl and I don't think that's a coincidence.

The goal is to determine whether a QB deserves franchise money or not.  Guys who have hit that 5 to 1 ratio or hovered close to it have turned around their respective franchises.  When they're starting, every year their team is looked at as a contender.  That's what fills stadiums.  That's what a franchise QB does.  

[Hukos]

14 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

The goal is to determine whether a QB deserves franchise money or not. 

That's a normative value though. "Deserves" is not something you're going to be able to quantify, statistically.

Whether a guy deserves it is based on many different factors, as well as how easy you think it is to find a replacement. There's a reason paying Running Backs is dumb - scarcity isn't an issue with that position - but I also don't personally value the RB position very highly.
 

14 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Guys who have hit that 5 to 1 ratio or hovered close to it have turned around their respective franchises.  When they're starting, every year their team is looked at as a contender.  That's what fills stadiums.  That's what a franchise QB does.  

You're just repeating buzzwords, cliches, and catchphrases. There's nothing scientific here.

It's easy to have a good TD:INT ratio when your entire team is good. Conversely, it's very hard to do when your team is terrible. This is a completely independent function of how the QB is playing. Ergo, TD:INT ratio is not an input, it's an output. If we're looking for statistics to measure QBs by, we want inputs, not outputs. TD:INT ratio is something that arises as the result of good team play, not the individual QB's efforts.

This is like saying the best teams are the ones that run the ball 35+ times - in a vacuum that's true. But you have to be very good to be in a position to run the ball 35+ times (If you're losing, that's not going to happen). Bad teams are never going to be in a position where they can run the ball that many times, thus they won't be winning those games. The problem here is that you would make a judgment based on that feature, when it lacks context.

 

Quote

Preach!

I kind of thought that was a priori understanding of what stats are, but I guess not.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Hukos

[Jakuvious]

47 minutes ago, Hukos said:

That's a normative value though. "Deserves" is not something you're going to be able to quantify, statistically.

Whether a guy deserves it is based on many different factors, as well as how easy you think it is to find a replacement. There's a reason paying Running Backs is dumb - scarcity isn't an issue with that position - but I also don't personally value the RB position very highly.
 

You're just repeating buzzwords, cliches, and catchphrases. There's nothing scientific here.

It's easy to have a good TD:INT ratio when your entire team is good. Conversely, it's very hard to do when your team is terrible. This is a completely independent function of how the QB is playing. Ergo, TD:INT ratio is not an input, it's an output. If we're looking for statistics to measure QBs by, we want inputs, not outputs. TD:INT ratio is something that arises as the result of good team play, not the individual QB's efforts.

This is like saying the best teams are the ones that run the ball 35+ times - in a vacuum that's true. But you have to be very good to be in a position to run the ball 35+ times (If you're losing, that's not going to happen). Bad teams are never going to be in a position where they can run the ball that many times, thus they won't be winning those games. The problem here is that you would make a judgment based on that feature, when it lacks context.

 

I kind of thought that was a priori understanding of what stats are, but I guess not.

This is too far the other way, though. Saying that TD/INT ratio is just a result of team quality completely ignored the fact that some QBs are better than others. You're completely ignoring the QB quality element of the equation.

You're saying, for example, that Mahomes has a good ratio because the Chiefs are good, basically. I would argue his ratio is good AND the Chiefs are a good team because he is a great QB.

[Hukos]

9 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

This is too far the other way, though. Saying that TD/INT ratio is just a result of team quality completely ignored the fact that some QBs are better than others.

Some QBs are definitely better than others.
 

9 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

You're saying, for example, that Mahomes has a good ratio because the Chiefs are good, basically. I would argue his ratio is good AND the Chiefs are a good team because he is a great QB.

I mean, good QB play improves your likelihood of having a good TD/INT ratio, but again, look at a guy like Drew Brees. He's often dragging horrendous defenses on his back, which means riskier throws and more interceptions are a given. TD/INT ratio, if you believe that is the definitive statistic for defining QB play - would lead you to believe that he was mediocre in all his years in New Orleans.

If you take TD/INT ratio seriously, then you might as well as as take QB Wins seriously as a stat.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Hukos

[Soko]

So I am to believe Drew Brees wasn’t anything more than a middling QB until 2018?

[Forge]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

So I am to believe Drew Brees wasn’t anything more than a middling QB until 2018?

That is correct

[Malik]

All football statistics are bad because the sample size is too small and regularly gets inflated and deflated by outlier performances. TD:INT is flawed, but lets not act like there are a bunch of 2013 Nick Foles seasons in the history of the NFL where a mediocre QB has an all-time elite seasons.

[Hukos]

32 minutes ago, Malik said:

All football statistics are bad because the sample size is too small and regularly gets inflated and deflated by outlier performances.

That's not necessarily true. While there are only 16 games in a year, each game typically has around 120 plays (assuming both teams get 60 offensive snaps, give or take). Each of those plays is a statistic that can be used to inform future success or failure. Thus you could assume that each team gets about 960 offensive snaps in a regular season. Some teams will have more, some will have less, but everyone should be within 1-2 standard deviations.

1000 plays is a pretty decent sample size for a team in one season.

The reason I harp on TD:INT is... what kind of information is the stat giving you? It doesn't predict future success. So all it describes is that you're in good offensive positions most of the time, or bad offensive positions most of the time. That's information you could figure out based on... QB wins.

Also your other point simply isn't true. Net Adjusted Yards Per Attempt correlates very highly with winning football games, and does so across NFL history. There are a lot of bad stats, but they're bad because they're not useful. If we're using stats in an argument, then we want them to be predictive of future success. NAY/A does that pretty well.

[blizofoz45]

4 hours ago, Hukos said:

TD:INT ratio is something that arises as the result of good team play, not the individual QB's efforts.
 

That's a hilarious statement. Like when Mahomes passed for 50 TDs with the same group Alex Smith had in 2017?

If I had to guess which 5 QBs are most likely to make deep playoff runs in the next three years, it would be Mahomes, Jackson, Wilson, Brees and Rodgers.  Same list as I started with.

4 hours ago, Hukos said:

This is a completely independent function of how the QB is playing. Ergo, TD:INT ratio is not an input, it's an output. If we're looking for statistics to measure QBs by, we want inputs, not outputs. TD:INT ratio is something that arises as the result of good team play, not the individual QB's efforts.

You lost me with all that mumbo jumbo.  Are you saying a great defense means you'll have a top QB??  If only.  That's been thoroughly disproven enough times already.  Do you mean line play?  Because Wilson was sacked 48 times last year.  Rodgers wasn't far behind with 36 sacks.

It's the throwing accuracy and decision-making these guys have that sets them apart.

[Hukos]

12 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

That's a hilarious statement.

Except it's not.
 

12 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Like when Mahomes passed for 50 TDs with the same group Alex Smith had in 2017?

Mahomes is a better QB than Alex Smith. I don't think this is a controversial statement. Also this is ironic because Alex Smith is the posterchild of why TD/INT ratio is a bad statistic.
 

12 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

If I had to guess which 5 QBs are most likely to make deep playoff runs in the next three years, it would be Mahomes, Jackson, Wilson, Brees and Rodgers.  Same list as I started with.

Those guys also have pretty good teams around them. So what exactly are you trying to say?
 

12 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

You lost me with all that mumbo jumbo. 

Take a statistics class then. You don't understand how stats work and then trying to use stats to prove your point.
 

12 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Are you saying a great defense means you'll have a top QB??

A great defense gives a great QB more wiggle room. If you have a defense that's holding the fort, once you get up 21-0, you start running the ball to run out the clock. Once you're in that mode, you're not throwing that much more and thus, your interceptions will be lower. The times you do throw are going to be safe, easy completions so you can keep the clock running. This is football strategy 101.

Conversely, a QB with a bad defense is going to be behind in a lot of games. This teams he has to take more aggressive, riskier throws. Sometimes he'll take a chance on hitting a WR in triple coverage because you're down 20 points late in the 4th quarter. Taking the easy, safe throws isn't an option, unless you want to lose. In a vacuum, making that throw isn't the smartest decision but you literally have no option when your defense is giving up points on every possession. You've got to score, and score quickly, and often. Quarterbacks in this situation will naturally find themselves throwing more interceptions than QBs with a good defense will. This is entirely independent on the quality of the QB. What that means is if you have a bad defense, how good your QB is doesn't matter, they will naturally have a worse TD/INT ratio. This is how game scripts work.

You're not doing anything really novel here, you're spouting the same tired cliches that Skip Bayless does. Your whole argument can be boiled down to "QB wins are a stat." And if that's what you believe, okay sure, but it's just bad science.
 

12 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Because Wilson was sacked 48 times last year.  Rodgers wasn't far behind with 36 sacks.

Packers had one of the best offensive lines in football this past year (see: Pass Block win rate) but sure, whatever you say.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Hukos

[Soko]

23 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

That's a hilarious statement. Like when Mahomes passed for 50 TDs with the same group Alex Smith had in 2017?

Alex Smith actually had a higher TD-INT ratio in his final year in KC than Mahomes did in his MVP season...

[LowMotorGuy]

TD INT ratio means nothing when you don't show up in big games like Rodgers tbh.

Edited February 9, 2020 by LowMotorGuy

[Danger]

Carson was nearly 4:1 with basically lawn chairs as receivers this year. (No I'm not suggesting he should be lumped in with those guys)

[Danger]

7 hours ago, ET80 said:

8 hours ago, Hukos said:

The whole point of a statistic is to either be descriptive or predictive. 

Preach!

Want to hear something hilarious?

I read it as "deceptive or predictive."

Which also seems accurate.