Agree or Disagree: Wins and Losses Should Be A QB Stat

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Well it’s kind of an irrelevant question. It is a stat. That’s beyond debate. Any number you can assign to player is a statistic by definition. 
 

The real question is how much value should you put on it as important for evaluations. That’s a discussion you should have with every stat. For wins, it’s meaningless in small sample sizes. Historically.... it’s as a good a tool as any other stat to separate the all time greats from the very goods when you use large sample sizes and it’s more correlated with QB’s than any other position. 
 

It’s sure as hell much better than an efficiency stat in the long term like passer rating which is always going to benefit more modern QB’s. But passer rating is a better metric for a single game. 
 

Likewise bulk yards are probably one of the worst stats ever for QB’s and one of the least meaningful or predicative.

But it’s wrong to deny that there isn’t some correlation between wins and QB quality. The numbers just bare that out. 
 

Here’s a good example of how it can play out in a career sense. Eli Manning is a top 10 yardage and TD QB. If you analyze his career that way it’s hard to not see him as a top 10 QB. If you analyze him by wins.... then the picture you get is that he’s a .500 QB who in all but two playoff appearances went one and done.... but he happened to win the SB in those two. Which of those analysis of stats give the more accurate depiction of who he was as a player?

The premise of the thread is whether you agree it's a stat or not that should be assigned to the QB.

Eli's *team won the Super Bowl. He QBd those teams, yes, but it was a team effort and it's impossible to dispute that. Some could argue they won in spite of him. That's my whole stance on this. People say "QB A won the Super Bowl" like we're bowling. That's simply not the case. Teams win in spite of QBs all the time and at times, often. The point is that this is a team sport and the success should be attributed that way. Yes, the QB is the most influential player on offense and the most important piece. No one will seriously deny that but their influence on the defense, special teams, and at times, coaching, is rather minimal.

[childofpudding]

7 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

To gather opinions and potentially have my mind changed. There's no debating going on as far as which QB is better. Have you paid attention?

Edit: and way to take the sentence out of context and make it into something it's not. That's a pretty weak move, dude. Go away, this isn't for you.

What is something that might change your mind?

Edited August 4, 2021 by childofpudding

[BobbyPhil1781]

3 hours ago, childofpudding said:

What is something that might change your mind?

A compelling argument. Haven't really seen one. Basically everything from those who support it are saying he's the most important player which is true, on offense. There are two other facets of the game and that also doesn't take into account coaching as well. Also doesn't account for the line bc if they don't play well, the QB likely won't either. 

[childofpudding]

1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

A compelling argument. Haven't really seen one. Basically everything from those who support it are saying he's the most important player which is true, on offense. There are two other facets of the game and that also doesn't take into account coaching as well. Also doesn't account for the line bc if they don't play well, the QB likely won't either. 

That's not much of an answer. What, specifically, would compel you?

You agree that the QB is the most important player, but that didn't compel you.

A list of QBs with the most all-time wins is correlated highly with all-time great QBs. That is not the case for other positions. That didn't compel you.

Advanced passing statistics correlate with winning percentage. That didn't compel you.

You literally said that when someone brings up QB wins in an argument, you "personally don't acknowledge it in debates except to correct people." Every indication you've given in this thread indicates that nothing would change your mind.

So if you came here thinking you might possibly have your mind changed, what specifically would do that?

Edited August 5, 2021 by childofpudding

[Mr Bad Example]

56 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

A compelling argument. Haven't really seen one. Basically everything from those who support it are saying he's the most important player which is true, on offense. There are two other facets of the game and that also doesn't take into account coaching as well. Also doesn't account for the line bc if they don't play well, the QB likely won't either. 

We had a tangential debate over in the GB forum, where it was pointed out that (I'm not looking up exact numbers) player M was 19-18-1 over a time period with a team, vs every other QB they trotted out being 4-19. 

 

In that case, I think you look at the player and go "yeah, that guy is WAY better" because it's apples-to-apples. Comparing W/L of QBs on different teams, much less different eras, is much more difficult. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

15 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

That's not much of an answer. What, specifically, would compel you?

You agree that the QB is the most important player, but that didn't compel you.

A list of QBs with the most all-time wins is correlated highly with all-time great QBs. That is not the case for other positions. That didn't compel you.

Advanced passing statistics correlate with winning percentage. That didn't compel you.

You literally said that when someone brings up QB wins in an argument, you "personally don't acknowledge it in debates except to correct people." Every indication you've given in this thread indicates that nothing would change your mind.

So if you came here thinking you might possibly have your mind changed, what specifically would do that?

The QB is the most important person on OFFENSE but that omits the other two facets of the game. Do you want me to copy and paste my statement you quoted?

Finish that bold sentence for me as well. 

If you're going to purposely omit important words in a sentence in an attempt to twist mine, that's all I need to know that you're not worth my keystrokes. 

And I can't answer the question either bc if I knew the answer, I wouldn't have to ask for it. This is elementary **** here. 

[childofpudding]

1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

The QB is the most important person on OFFENSE but that omits the other two facets of the game. Do you want me to copy and paste my statement you quoted?

Finish that bold sentence for me as well. 

If you're going to purposely omit important words in a sentence in an attempt to twist mine, that's all I need to know that you're not worth my keystrokes. 

And I can't answer the question either bc if I knew the answer, I wouldn't have to ask for it. This is elementary **** here. 

You seemingly acknowledged earlier in the thread that QB was the most important player overall. See here: https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/37007-agree-or-disagree-wins-and-losses-should-be-a-qb-stat/?do=findComment&comment=3835474

I posted that the QB has an outsized effect on winning, and you replied that "the QB is the most important person, yes" without any qualifier that you meant offense only. In any event, do you think that the QB is the most important position on the team overall? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who'd disagree with that.

It's actually pretty easy to determine what might change your mind. For me, if there was a list of top winners in another position that correlated as highly with an all-time great list as it does with QBs, I would reconsider my position. I looked up RBs and saw that wasn't the case, but did not look into other positions. Also, if there were some other individual stat in another position that correlated higher with winning percentage than ANY/A or EPA/play, I'd reconsider my position. I haven't found such a stat but haven't looked at all of them. See, it's not that hard. Pretty elementary ****, as you might say.

To be clear, I don't think that wins are the best QB stat, or even one of the best. I don't think completion percentage is either, but I still think it's a QB stat. Ditto more recent advanced stats like aDOT. All stats require context and QB wins is no different. Using it by itself is absolutely foolish. Using it in concert with other QB stats is perfectly reasonable. People getting all bent out of shape over it is hilarious to me.

You said that you started this thread with the idea that you could potentially change your mind. But you also said that you don't acknowledge arguments about using wins as a QB stat. The latter indicates that you had and have no intention at all of potentially changing your mind.

Edited August 5, 2021 by childofpudding

[BobbyPhil1781]

Make a better argument and stop twisting words and purposely leaving off important context to sentences. Good luck

Edit: and no clue how my response to someone saying "QB A is X-Y"  being "this isn't bowling or tennis" means I won't change my mind lol. 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by BobbyPhil1781

[lancerman]

15 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

The premise of the thread is whether you agree it's a stat or not that should be assigned to the QB.

Eli's *team won the Super Bowl. He QBd those teams, yes, but it was a team effort and it's impossible to dispute that. Some could argue they won in spite of him. That's my whole stance on this. People say "QB A won the Super Bowl" like we're bowling. That's simply not the case. Teams win in spite of QBs all the time and at times, often. The point is that this is a team sport and the success should be attributed that way. Yes, the QB is the most influential player on offense and the most important piece. No one will seriously deny that but their influence on the defense, special teams, and at times, coaching, is rather minimal.

It sounds like you just want your opinion validated. A stat is a stat. RB wins is a stat as much as QB wins are a stat. People just put more emphasis on QB wins because they have the greatest influence on the game. 
 

Also that doesn’t really answer my question about Eli. Is using win statistics or volume stat statistics a better lens to see his career. Most people would say his .500 win percentage is far closer to who he was as a player than volume stats that put him as a top 10 all time player. Yes his team won the SB, but in 2011 he had one of the greatest playoff runs for a QB ever and in 07 he made a bunch of gotta have it plays in the playoffs that were necessary to win. That’s counterbalanced by the fact outside those two runs he never won any other playoff games his whole career. And honestly going by playoff wins and regular season wins give a better picture of the player he was. A very inconsistent guy who had very low lows and very high highs that overall wouldn’t, not an all time top 10

[BigTrav]

11 hours ago, childofpudding said:

What is something that might change your mind?

Having read this thread it seems like the only thing that would change his mind is if the sport changed to QB archery where you literally win games by the QB throwing bullseyes vs the opposition's QB.

No idea why he'd bother starting a thread with a poll question when he's already made his mind up. Mods should lock this.

[BigTrav]

5 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Make a better argument and stop twisting words and purposely leaving off important context to sentences. Good luck

Edit: and no clue how my response to someone saying "QB A is X-Y"  being "this isn't bowling or tennis" means I won't change my mind lol. 

 

I've got a better idea. Delete the thread. Why did you even bother?

[childofpudding]

2 hours ago, BigTrav said:

Having read this thread it seems like the only thing that would change his mind is if the sport changed to QB archery where you literally win games by the QB throwing bullseyes vs the opposition's QB.

No idea why he'd bother starting a thread with a poll question when he's already made his mind up. Mods should lock this.

I agree that he actually had no intention of changing his mind. But that shouldn't be a prerequisite for starting a thread with a poll. He may have just been curious what other people on this forum thought and was looking for a robust debate on the topic, which he has gotten.

 

[childofpudding]

8 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Make a better argument and stop twisting words and purposely leaving off important context to sentences. Good luck

Edit: and no clue how my response to someone saying "QB A is X-Y"  being "this isn't bowling or tennis" means I won't change my mind lol. 

 

Direct question: Do you think QB is the most important position on the entire football team? Yes or no?

[BobbyPhil1781]

2 hours ago, BigTrav said:

Having read this thread it seems like the only thing that would change his mind is if the sport changed to QB archery where you literally win games by the QB throwing bullseyes vs the opposition's QB.

No idea why he'd bother starting a thread with a poll question when he's already made his mind up. Mods should lock this.

How about you actually try and not say **** about the poster? And God forbid I start a thought provoking thread to gather other people's opinions. 

Go back to whatever it is you do.

[BobbyPhil1781]

16 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Direct question: Do you think QB is the most important position on the entire football team? Yes or no?

You don't read. This question has been answered many times. Good luck