The current standard for top quarterbacks:

[Hukos]

37 minutes ago, Malik said:

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.

That entirely depends on how you look at the numbers. A batter in a baseball game gets to touch the bat generally 3-6 times per game. An offensive player will get to play in about 60-80 plays in a single game. If you want to compare the number of times a batter touches the bat in an MLB season vs. the amount of times an offensive player takes snaps in an NFL season, it actually comes out ahead for the expected NFL player (barring weird circumstances). So why would variance matter into this equation?

You also don't necessarily need large sample sizes if your sample contains good data that is representative of the sample you're trying to extract information from. More data is useful, but it's not mandatory. How do you think presidential approval ratings works? The entire USA isn't polled on how much they like the president (that's literally impossible), you create samples that are proportional to the population and poll those samples - and thus extract useful data from that set. Good data is more useful than empty data.
 

17 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

I don't agree with OP, but I don't agree with Hukos's counter arguments either. I'm arguing against the latter.

I mean, that's perfectly fine, but I feel that gets into normative (preference/value based) arguments. I haven't seen any evidence of TD/INT ratio being useful. You feel it is. I remain unconvinced/skeptical. I've listed my reasons for being so. People are 100% free to believe whatever they want, but if someone (the OP) is going to argue that it is the definitive statistic, I want something backing that up that isn't riddled in cliches and buzzwords and catchphrases.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Hukos

[RandyMossIsBoss]

I would agree that 2:1 ratio is no longer good, but that's about it. 5:1 seems a little too high, not to mention thinking any single statistic can be what separates the elite QBs from the rest is a fool's game. Which I'm not sure if you're trying to do, but it seems like you're suggesting that around this 5:1 ratio be the cut-off. 

 

3:1 for high volume passers, 4:1 for low volume passers, is what I would consider good in modern NFL. Average QBs can certainly hit that mark though, and elite QBs can miss it, but that seems to be a good rule of thumb.

 

The only QB who consistently hits or exceeds that 5:1 ratio is Aaron Rodgers, and he is absolutely an outlier when it comes to INT%. 

[blizofoz45]

7 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

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. 

He did hit that stat and it wasn't that long ago.  I think pairing him with Rodgers' old HC could be a scary combination.  Might as well sign him now since the franchise tag is going to be pretty steep anyway.  

 

8 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

I was hoping for intelligent responses.

In order to get the high ground here you have to present an opposing argument.  If rings don't mean anything I don't know what does. It clearly shows there's a high probability that a QB that hits that ratio will eventually win a championship.

[Malik]

7 hours ago, Hukos said:

That entirely depends on how you look at the numbers. A batter in a baseball game gets to touch the bat generally 3-6 times per game. An offensive player will get to play in about 60-80 plays in a single game. If you want to compare the number of times a batter touches the bat in an MLB season vs. the amount of times an offensive player takes snaps in an NFL season, it actually comes out ahead for the expected NFL player (barring weird circumstances). So why would variance matter into this equation?

You also don't necessarily need large sample sizes if your sample contains good data that is representative of the sample you're trying to extract information from. More data is useful, but it's not mandatory. How do you think presidential approval ratings works? The entire USA isn't polled on how much they like the president (that's literally impossible), you create samples that are proportional to the population and poll those samples - and thus extract useful data from that set. Good data is more useful than empty data.

At bats are perfectly controlled environments with no outside variables. That's what makes baseball the most ideal game statistically. Pretty much everything that can happen is controlled environment and isn't dependent on others. A LT can do their job perfectly but if they're next to a bad guard sacks can still be left up. Or a WR can execute a perfect route and be wide open while still not getting the ball or he can get a terrible throw that is uncatchable or he has to make an amazing catch to make some sort of positive play or a defender can just be in a better position because of the pass. Or a short yardage situation an outside WR isn't going to have effect on the play because of how far away they are from the ball. 

[Pugger]

15 hours ago, Malik said:

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.

TD:INT doesn't tell the whole story.  What if your QB is missing open guys with that end up as incomplete passes instead of INTs?    

[Pugger]

13 hours ago, Hukos said:

Except it's not.
 

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.
 

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

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

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.
 

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

Rodgers is loathe to throw picks so he hangs onto the ball too damn long at times.  Outside of Adams he really didn't have a great WR corps to throw to either.  This past season Rodgers had to learn a new offense and scheme for the first time in his career.  We Packers fans are hoping he'll be more comfortable in this new offense next season with the addition of better receivers for him to throw to.

[Malik]

33 minutes ago, Pugger said:

TD:INT doesn't tell the whole story.  What if your QB is missing open guys with that end up as incomplete passes instead of INTs?    

The NFL doesn't really have a WAR statistic that can tell the whole story. Every NFL stat really needs a significant amount of context for the era to be useful in ways other sports don't.

[Matts4313]

1 hour ago, blizofoz45 said:

He did hit that stat and it wasn't that long ago.  I think pairing him with Rodgers' old HC could be a scary combination.  Might as well sign him now since the franchise tag is going to be pretty steep anyway.  

 

In order to get the high ground here you have to present an opposing argument.  If rings don't mean anything I don't know what does. It clearly shows there's a high probability that a QB that hits that ratio will eventually win a championship.

Superbowls are a team stat. Otherwise we wouldnt live in the cruel world were Eli has 2 and Marino has 0. 

[Hukos]

2 hours ago, Pugger said:

Rodgers is loathe to throw picks so he hangs onto the ball too damn long at times.  Outside of Adams he really didn't have a great WR corps to throw to either.  This past season Rodgers had to learn a new offense and scheme for the first time in his career.  We Packers fans are hoping he'll be more comfortable in this new offense next season with the addition of better receivers for him to throw to.

Rodgers is still a really good QB, but I was pointing out that more sacks doesn't necessarily mean they're all the offensive line's fault - especially if the OL is holding their blocks within 2.5 seconds (which is what pass block win rate measures). I do agree that next season will be the litmus test for how the new Rodgers era is going to fare. It's been a while since we've seen elite Aaron Rodgers and the NFL is generally more fun with that guy around.

[SkippyX]

On 2/9/2020 at 9:55 AM, Matts4313 said:

Superbowls are a team stat. Otherwise we wouldnt live in the cruel world were Eli has 2 and Marino has 0. 

Marino played in 3 AFCCGs and 1 Super Bowl and he sucked in 3 of the 4 games. (8 TDs and 7 picks overall) (4 to 6 in the 3 bad games)

Eli was solid to great in his 4 games (5 TDs to 1 picks) including 2 of the top 25 most iconic passes in NFL History.

Its sure hard to win that team game when your QB plays poorly.

[MrnastiesNO]

A QB with a defense that allow low points will be way more efficient. Than a Qb who defense who allows a lot of points. I prefer to rank qb my points scored a game than td to int ratio

[whitehops]

"interceptable throws" and then as a percentage is much more telling than pure INTs. example: kirk cousins only threw 6 picks this year and 2-3 hit a receivers hands and got picked after. but he also had many more throws that were actually interceptable but the defense didn't catch it. when you're talking about such small numbers then every one counts.

 

also, touchdowns by themselves are somewhat of a scheme stat. if a team runs play action on the goal line and gets a gimme touchdown is it really credit to the QB when other teams (seattle, for example) would have just pounded the ball three times trying to run it in.

 

 

that's why TD:INT by itself is not a great indicator of anything but when you combine it with other stats like ANY/A and other stats that include rushing you get a clearer picture.

Edited February 16, 2020 by whitehops

[MrnastiesNO]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2020 at 9:05 AM, Pugger said:

TD:INT doesn't tell the whole story.  What if your QB is missing open guys with that end up as incomplete passes instead of INTs?    

I agree a wide open target miss is a negative play that leads to the end of a position. So does taking a lot of sacks. If you only throw 8 ints and have 50 sacks that's usually not a recipe for victory.

[DerbyRam]

QBs are judged on stats, more so than any other position in professional sports, but I really don't think you can trust them. I mean there is a hell of a lot of variables, but if you just look at the main ones and consider their impact: 

1) Offensive Line - We've seen plenty of top QBs fall apart due to bad OL play. If you've got an average QB with 5 seconds to throw the ball and an elite QB with 3 seconds to throw the ball, the average QB will always put up better numbers. 

2) WR play - if you've got WRs who just can't get separation, especially combined with the 1st point, then you're literally a sitting duck always throwing into danger regardless of your talent line. If you also consider dropped balls, you can see that not two WR are the same that it causes huge discrepancies. 

3) Head Coach / Play Calling - We've seen Goff in his rookie season register a 5-7 ratio, labelled as a bust under Fisher, to a 28-7 ratio and the pro-bowl under McVay the very next season. 

If anything it should be largely considered as the hardest position to judge based looking solely on the numbers, not the easiest. 

[HoboRocket]

I suggest that we take the first post and consider a grading scale for stats. For example, if a QB with at least 15 and less than 20 passing TDs has at least a 6:1 TD:INT ratio, then I'd say that's pretty elite. For the easy example, let's say 18 TDs to 3 INTs. That would be considered elite from a stat standpoint. 19 TDs to 4 or 5 INTs is far less impressive. 

Once a QB hits 20 TDs, then I agree with the 5:1 TD:INT ratio. Like 25 TDs to 5 INTs. 

If you're cracking 30 TDs, then I propose that a 4:1 TD:INT ratio could be considered elite in many ways. Getting 36 TDs and 9 INTs is elite, I'd say.

Once you're above 40 TDs, then a roughly 3:1 TD:INT ratio will still allow you to be an elite QB. Such as 40 TDs to 12 INTs. Or 45 to 15.

Now, I'm just talking about stats. Not actual QB play. But when you throw enough to achieve more TDs, you're far more likely to throw more INTs, as well, and stats should allow for the increase in probability.