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

[lancerman]

8 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

The dudes on your all time wins list were all time efficiency at the time of their retirement. 

You think Cousins and Dak currently are all time greats? Efficiency is worthless in the 2010’s in any sort of all time context. Brady and Manning did not retire (or in the latter’s case “will not”) with the all time best passer rating or completion percentage. 
 

Wins as a stat works perfectly fine in a historical context as much as yards or TD’s. 
 

Again the fallacy of this thread is that accepting this as a stat (it is regardless) means people are using it as the only relevant stat or removing context. The fact that the all time wins list for QB’s and the all times win is full of legends and the all time wins list for other positions is full of solid guys who happened to be on great teams kinda shows that it’s a stat that disproportionately is effected by that position. Which gives it a merit of being used in consideration of evaluating them. You simply won’t last long as a QB if you stop winning or show an inability to win at a high level. You’ll get benched and your team will look to find someone who can get it done. That’s not a consideration for other positions. Nobody ever said “oh the team isn’t winning with Revis or Tomlinson, they must by the problem, time to move on”

[WheatieMan]

Impossible to score this….

A QB makes a two minute drive to take the game. Does his counterpart on the sideline get a loss if his defense blows it?

In baseball you have innings pitched and match the score line as the innings are played. In hockey, I’d imagine it’s goals allowed If both guys play the same periods? 
 

In the NFL, there are too many variables. Winning drives are one thing, but how do you score a loss? What if both guys didn’t have the same number of possessions? How does a loss fall on one guy of his defense never gets him the ball back?

It just doesn’t work.

[Kip Smithers]

Had this debate a thousand times. No. Just no. 

The only reason we do it is because fans are lazy. There is a culture in sports, particularly American team sports, where we have to assign either blame or glory to one person. 

It’s funny because QB is on the field for how Much of time? 20-40 mins? But we completely ignore the other side of the ball. Makes no sense. We don’t assign a stat to one player or even group on defense, so why do we assign it to one player on offense? 
 

that’s why watching Premier league and Champions League will always be my favourite sport because this kind of crap isn’t as prominent. Greater appreciation for individual brilliance (though that’s diminished some over the past 10 years).

[Matts4313]

On 7/31/2021 at 10:49 AM, lancerman said:

You think Cousins and Dak currently are all time greats?

Their careers arent over, so no clue how they will stack up. I dont think Eli is an all time great but he is littered all over the record books.

On 7/31/2021 at 10:49 AM, lancerman said:

Efficiency is worthless in the 2010’s in any sort of all time context. Brady and Manning did not retire (or in the latter’s case “will not”) with the all time best passer rating or completion percentage. 

So use the era adjusted efficiency stats..

On 7/31/2021 at 10:49 AM, lancerman said:

Wins as a stat works perfectly fine in a historical context as much as yards or TD’s. 
 

Agree to disagree. Wins gives you a picture of who had the longest sustainable careers, not who was the best. All bulk numbers are that way. 

On 7/31/2021 at 10:49 AM, lancerman said:

Again the fallacy of this thread is that accepting this as a stat (it is regardless) means people are using it as the only relevant stat or removing context. The fact that the all time wins list for QB’s and the all times win is full of legends and the all time wins list for other positions is full of solid guys who happened to be on great teams kinda shows that it’s a stat that disproportionately is effected by that position. Which gives it a merit of being used in consideration of evaluating them. You simply won’t last long as a QB if you stop winning or show an inability to win at a high level. You’ll get benched and your team will look to find someone who can get it done. That’s not a consideration for other positions. Nobody ever said “oh the team isn’t winning with Revis or Tomlinson, they must by the problem, time to move on”

agreed

[BobbyPhil1781]

On 7/31/2021 at 2:39 AM, lancerman said:

There's one player who touches the ball on every offensive down and can audible plays. QB's have a largely disproportionate effect on the game. 

Honestly if you look at the all time wins for QB's and look at all time passer rating for QB's, I like the wins list better. You have Brady, Farve, Manning, Brees, Ben, Elway, Marino, Rivers, Rodgers, Tarkenton, Unitas, Montana as the top 12. Watson, Wilson, Cousins, Prescott, and Romo are all in the all time top 10 for passer rating. The wins list is very similar to the yards and TD all time lists give or take. Pretty much every efficiency stat is so inflated it's pretty worthless to be impressed by in this era. Then the volume stats, well... you get those numbers through longevity. How do you get a team to keep you for a long time? Win. 

It's a stat. The problem with this topic is that you have a strawman that people are acting like people don't use statistics contextually. Every stat is garbage in isolation of context and without weighing other factors. But yeah, generally over a large period of time the better QB's tend to win the most and seperate themselves. Like eye test and comparisons are usually better for evaluations, but stats can help provide context. 

Centers touch the ball every play and also call out coverages and whatnot. QB have a largely disproportionate effect on the offense, not so much the defense or ST.

Yes, all those great QBs were on teams that won a lot. How many of them succeeded w/ ****ty offensive lines and ****ty defenses? It's tough to do this but "what if"s come to mind. I thought David Carr had all the natural talent in the world but his team never gave him an offensive line and then I believe his psyche went to **** as a result. He's just one that always came to mind but there are plenty of other examples of QBs who could've done more if they had the necessary help. Dave Kreig also comes to mind. Phil Simms had some bad lines and could've been better also.

This is why I've continuously brought up that if the QB is the most important player on offense (he is) then is it valid to have the argument that the OL might be more important b/c w/o them, the QB doesn't do nearly as well or even well at all? Last year's Super Bowl is the prime example. Only argument against it, that I can think of, is that the QB is one person while the line is not.

[Mr Bad Example]

2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

 I dont think Eli is an all time great but he is littered all over the record books.

Yeah, in "led league in ints" 

[Mr Bad Example]

On 7/29/2021 at 11:53 AM, childofpudding said:

Here's a list of running backs with the most wins, per https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/rb-wins-leaders-since-1800: Tony Richardson, Marcus Allen, Lorenzo Neal, Emmitt Smith, Franco Harris, Robert Newhouse, Thurman Thomas, Pete Banaszack, William Henderson, Brian Mitchell

 

This list is pretty great....remember kids, if you don't have the speed and quicks to be an elite RB, hit the weight room and become a sledgehammer and you can still be an all-time winner. 

 

....or, at least you could've when teams used FBs. 

[AkronsWitness]

Im going to keep this incredibly simple. No.

There are far too many moving parts in the game of football that dictate the outcome of the game that 1 player, coach or position doesnt have control over.

This isnt basketball, quit trying to make football basketball.

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by AkronsWitness

[Bearerofnews]

Wins and losses are a coaching stat... 

[Mr Bad Example]

4 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

Wins and losses are a coaching stat... 

Go to the "best coaches" comparison thread and see people argue how they aren't. 🤔

[Hunter2_1]

Tough one. I see the arguments for it; QB is the most important/consequential player in any sport, he has to be. Also against; you're ignoring an entire facet of the game/team. 

If it could be more nuanced somehow, then YES. 

For now it will remain a tool to help you in arguments...

[BobbyPhil1781]

5 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Tough one. I see the arguments for it; QB is the most important/consequential player in any sport, he has to be. Also against; you're ignoring an entire facet of the game/team. 

If it could be more nuanced somehow, then YES. 

For now it will remain a tool to help you in arguments...

Arguments with some people. I personally don't acknowledge it in debates except to correct people that this isn't bowling or tennis. It's just the most important player on offense that can't succeed unless the five guys in front of him play well

[Hunter2_1]

11 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

I personally don't acknowledge it in debates except to correct people

So is that why you created this thread, not to get a range of opinions but to correct people?

[BobbyPhil1781]

5 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

So is that why you created this thread, not to get a range of opinions but to correct people?

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.

Edited August 4, 2021 by BobbyPhil1781

[lancerman]

1 hour 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.

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?