Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blizofoz45

The current standard for top quarterbacks:

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Danger said:

Want to hear something hilarious?

I read it as "deceptive or predictive."

Which also seems accurate.

That works too! Descriptive stats are only good at showing what has already happened, but are generally poor at indicating what will happen. This is why volume stats aren't taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hukos said:

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.

So, wait. TD/INT ratio is bad because it more or less lines up with QB wins. But NAY/A is good because it correlates highly with winning football games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:
3 hours ago, Hukos said:

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.

So, wait. TD/INT ratio is bad because it more or less lines up with QB wins. But NAY/A is good because it correlates highly with winning football games?

The stat is ANY/A, firstly. Secondly, ANY/A is pretty all inclusive where as TD:INT is much more narrow in scope and easily manipulated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

The stat is ANY/A, firstly. Secondly, ANY/A is pretty all inclusive where as TD:INT is much more narrow in scope and easily manipulated. 

I'm not arguing TD/INT ratio is better. I think all stats can be useful to an extent. But his entire point against TD/INT ratio is that he says it's purely a measurement of how good the QB's team is and QB wins, and nothing else. So I'm trying to understand why he then thinks ANY/A being predictive of and correlating with winning games makes it good. If both correlate with just QB wins well, why is that a good feature of one stat but a bad feature of the other? I do think ANY/A is a better stat. But I don't think TD/INT ratio is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

I'm not arguing TD/INT ratio is better. I think all stats can be useful to an extent. But his entire point against TD/INT ratio is that he says it's purely a measurement of how good the QB's team is and QB wins, and nothing else. So I'm trying to understand why he then thinks ANY/A being predictive of and correlating with winning games makes it good. If both correlate with just QB wins well, why is that a good feature of one stat but a bad feature of the other? I do think ANY/A is a better stat. But I don't think TD/INT ratio is meaningless.

Is there any research that shows TD:INT is a stat worth monitoring? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Is there any research that shows TD:INT is a stat worth monitoring? 

I mean, what does that question even mean, in any quantifiable sense? What makes any stat worth anything? TDs are good and INTs are bad. A good QB is going to throw more of the former and less of the latter. I don't know what you're really wanting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Is there any research that shows TD:INT is a stat worth monitoring? 

Here's some research:

Drew Brees: ring

Mahomes: ring

Wilson: ring

Rodgers: ring

Brady: rings x6

Manning: rings x2

That pretty much covers the current NFL era ruleset for super bowls outside of Flacco and Roflburger.  It's a telling stat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Here's some research:

Drew Brees: ring

34-11

20 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Mahomes: ring

26-5

20 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Wilson: ring

26-9

20 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Rodgers: ring

28-11

20 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Brady: rings x6

18-12

23-12

28-14

33-9

28-2

29-11

20 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Manning: rings x2

28-10

9-17

20 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

That pretty much covers the current NFL era ruleset for super bowls outside of Flacco and Roflburger.  It's a telling stat.  

????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calm down Ying Yang.  I never said they had to do it in the same season.

Props for putting in the work to look up those stats though lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

I mean, what does that question even mean, in any quantifiable sense? What makes any stat worth anything? TDs are good and INTs are bad. A good QB is going to throw more of the former and less of the latter. I don't know what you're really wanting here.

Where is the confusion? 

ANY/A over opponent correlates to a 85% win rate. Its worth monitoring. 

What evidence is there that a 5 TD:INT is a key number? Whats the statistical variance over a 4 TD:INT? Does the stat as a stand alone has any value outside of the obvi (TD good, INT bad)?

 

Im wanting to know if any advanced analytical site has done any studies on it. 

38 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Here's some research:

Drew Brees: ring

Mahomes: ring

Wilson: ring

Rodgers: ring

Brady: rings x6

Manning: rings x2

That pretty much covers the current NFL era ruleset for super bowls outside of Flacco and Roflburger.  It's a telling stat.  

I was hoping for intelligent responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The words "franchise QB" gets thrown around far too loosely and has been for about 15 years now. So until the majority of the NFL community can mutually agree to what constitutes as a franchise QB then conversations like this are useless.

And let's be honest, that's never going to happen because homerism is not ever going to go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, blizofoz45 said:

Calm down Ying Yang.  I never said they had to do it in the same season.

Props for putting in the work to look up those stats though lol.

So Daks 5 TD:INT means what to you then? That he is an elite QB even though his team hasnt won a ring? Because even I dont think he is elite. 

Edited by Matts4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JustAnotherFan said:

The words "franchise QB" gets thrown around far too loosely and has been for about 15 years now. So until the majority of the NFL community can mutually agree to what constitutes as a franchise QB then conversations like this are useless.

And let's be honest, that's never going to happen because homerism is not ever going to go away.

The Dalton line is pretty universally accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hukos said:

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.

That's all fine and dandy but the variance in play still renders the vast majority of statistics in NFL useless because 1000 plays is comparatively a small sample size to every other sport. The NFL has both few scoring opportunities and a broader/stranger scoring system than any other sport. Depending on the situation you can score 1, 2 ,3, or 6 points depending on the play.  As much as NAY/A correlates to winning there will always be teams like the 2010 Chargers which can have a QB lead the league in it while having a good defense and still miss the playoffs because the actual sample size in football games swings wildly due to the small sample sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Where is the confusion? 

ANY/A over opponent correlates to a 85% win rate. Its worth monitoring. 

What evidence is there that a 5 TD:INT is a key number? Whats the statistical variance over a 4 TD:INT? Does the stat as a stand alone has any value outside of the obvi (TD good, INT bad)?

 

Im wanting to know if any advanced analytical site has done any studies on it. 

I was hoping for intelligent responses.

OP claimed that a 5:1 TD:INT ratio is key, not me. I'm merely responding to the notion that TD:INT ratio is an entirely meaningless number that only shows QB wins. Don't confuse me with OP. I'm arguing against some posts another poster made. I'm not arguing in favor of OP's conclusion. I don't agree with OP, but I don't agree with Hukos's counter arguments either. I'm arguing against the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×