Jump to content

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


BobbyPhil1781

Wins and Losses Should Be A QB Stat  

126 members have voted

  1. 1. Wins and Losses Should Be A QB Stat

    • Agree
      33
    • Disagree
      93


Recommended Posts

On 7/16/2021 at 3:59 PM, Jakuvious said:

If you want a good example, use the Alex Smith Chiefs or Joe Flacco Ravens or Colin Kaepernick 49ers, where you had an okay QB with a great W/L record because the teams were so good. Not a team with a bad QB and bad W/L record.

You're arguing that saying "8 plus two equals ten" is a better way to define the number "two" than saying "three plus two is five".

His example of the Bills is just as representative of the point as your's are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Starless said:

Top-10 in terms of wins correlates more strongly with longevity and durability than anything else. If you're being realistic about it, QB wins are a metric for who can remain at least pretty good for the longest time, rather than who's actually the best or greatest. It's part of the picture, but far from the whole. 

I think, as with most stats, larger sample sizes make for more significant indicators. But with wins, the sample size necessary to really get an accurate picture is a lot bigger than for something like passer rating or TD/INT ratio. And with some players, even over a 7 or 8-year career, wins may not really be indicative of anything but the quality of the teams around them. 

I would somewhat disagree with the bolded, those 10 names correlate far more with "ability"  than either durability or longevity. And Montana, Rodgers and Ben are hardly durable.  Besides, longevity is a product of quality - You don't get to be a long term starter in the league just by being durable, you have to be good enough not to be replaced. Yes, they started a long time, but they got to start a long time because they were great players. Joe Flacco is still decently high on all time win%, but he'll never put up a huge career win total because he was a replacement level player who got bumped down the depth chart.

Generally speaking wins correlate with talent.

Two good examples just from this list - Stafford and Ryan are durable 13-year starters, in fact they've started the same number of seasons as Aaron Rodgers. But he makes the top 10 wins list, and they don't. Eli had huge Iron Man steak for the Giants, and started as a rookie unlike Rivers...but he's the one of the 04 class not to make the list.

Obviously I'm not saying wins > everything else, but there's enough of an observable correlation there to certainly merit the stat existing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Do people who think QB win/loss should be tracked also agree that defensive coordinator win/loss records are equally revealing information to gauge DCs?

Is there strong evidence of a direct correlation between DC quality and the team winning? To the extent that various analyses, like this one for example, have shown exists for QB play?

If so, sure. It only makes sense to track wins for individuals who, by the nature of their role, have a particularly outsized impact on the result of games — that’s why it’s typically only done for pitchers, goalies, and QBs (and head coaches, I suppose). It doesn’t imply that they’re singlehandedly responsible for the outcome, but they have a particularly pivotal role in determining said outcome, so it’s worthwhile to track it and reference it as one data point in what should be a much broader analysis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2021 at 11:13 AM, PatriotsWin! said:

It should be a big consideration, dumb to suggest it shouldn't be. Are QBs as important as Pitchers (which carry W/L stats), maybe not, but they are by FAR the most impactful individual on the field. Wins and losses are HEAVILY influenced by their performance. 

 

The problem with that logic is that it's simply not the case for every QB at every point in time.

For example - Eric Dickerson had more impact on the Rams winning in the 80s than the QB - so the only way to do this consistently is if we attach win/loss records to whoever actually was the most impactful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, e16bball said:

Is there strong evidence of a direct correlation between DC quality and the team winning? To the extent that various analyses, like this one for example, have shown exists for QB play?

If so, sure. It only makes sense to track wins for individuals who, by the nature of their role, have a particularly outsized impact on the result of games — that’s why it’s typically only done for pitchers, goalies, and QBs (and head coaches, I suppose). It doesn’t imply that they’re singlehandedly responsible for the outcome, but they have a particularly pivotal role in determining said outcome, so it’s worthwhile to track it and reference it as one data point in what should be a much broader analysis. 

But if your QB can't stay upright, you won't win games so the QB's success is directly impacted by the OL's success, right?

I'm just using this example to display how it's a team sport. Yes, the QB is the most important individual part of the offense IMO but if he's not getting protection, his performance will suffer. Knowing this, is it outlandish to suggest the OL is actually the most important part even though it's a unit?

Edited by BobbyPhil1781
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2021 at 4:51 PM, ChazStandard said:

Generally speaking wins correlate with talent.

Two good examples just from this list - Stafford and Ryan are durable 13-year starters, in fact they've started the same number of seasons as Aaron Rodgers. But he makes the top 10 wins list, and they don't. 

I'd say Stafford at least has about as much physical talent and toughness as anyone. I guess we'll see if he *magically* becomes a better QB with better coaching and a better organisation around him. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Bad Example said:

I'd say Stafford at least has about as much physical talent and toughness as anyone. I guess we'll see if he *magically* becomes a better QB with better coaching and a better organisation around him. 

Just like Matt Cassel just *magically* became crap when he left NE. 

Stafford is a legit QB 1 this year IMO. He will absolutely be looked at as my backup bc I'm sure he will be overlooked. I do worry about how long it'll take for him to get acclimated though

Edited by BobbyPhil1781
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Just like Matt Cassel just *magically* became crap when he left NE. 

 

Alex Smith - 19-31 his first 6  yrs, 15-5-1 his last 2 in SF. He just got better somehow, I guess. 

Colin Kaepernick - 17-6 first 2 yrs as a starter, 11-24 last 3. It's a mystery!  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 9:36 AM, e16bball said:

Is there strong evidence of a direct correlation between DC quality and the team winning? To the extent that various analyses, like this one for example, have shown exists for QB play?

If so, sure. It only makes sense to track wins for individuals who, by the nature of their role, have a particularly outsized impact on the result of games — that’s why it’s typically only done for pitchers, goalies, and QBs (and head coaches, I suppose). It doesn’t imply that they’re singlehandedly responsible for the outcome, but they have a particularly pivotal role in determining said outcome, so it’s worthwhile to track it and reference it as one data point in what should be a much broader analysis. 

I don't think there is strong evidence that a QB is so much more individually responsible for team wins than other players/staff to warrant its usage.

The provided link, while interesting to some level, is...not rigorous whatsoever (note that the author literally swapped axes and reprinted the same data on different axes to prove different points).

I remain entirely unconvinced that it is any more useful to track QB W/L than it is to track a safety's W/L or a CBs, or a LTs or a defensive coordinator's, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Alex Smith - 19-31 his first 6  yrs, 15-5-1 his last 2 in SF. He just got better somehow, I guess. 

Alex Smith (first 6 years): 57.1%, 0.96 TD/INT, 6.2 Y/A, 72.1 rating, 4.42 ANY/A

Alex Smith (last 2 years in SF): 64.3%, 3.00 TD/INT, 7.4 Y/A, 95.1 rating, 6.34 ANY/A

21 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Colin Kaepernick - 17-6 first 2 yrs as a starter, 11-24 last 3. It's a mystery!  

Colin Kaepernick (first 2 years as starter): 59.8%, 2.82 TD/INT, 7.9 Y/A, 93.9 rating, 6.96 ANY/A

Colin Kaepernick (last 3 years): 59.7%, 2.15 TD/INT, 6.9 Y/A, 85.9 rating, 5.54 ANY/A

 

The point you’re attempting to make applies with similar force to most of the usual statistics and metrics we use to measure QB play. They also “mysteriously” got better (or worse) during the time periods you’ve isolated in your post. Should we throw those out because they’re also not static and consistent over the course of years, or wholly independent of the quality of the roster?

As it is, I think your post tends to prove the correlation between QB play and team wins. QB played bad, team lost a lot. QBs played better, team won more. QB played worse, team lost more again. 

And since you referenced Alex Smith, I have to bring up the Washington example again. In 2018, they were 6-4 with him as the starter, 1-5 with anyone else. In 2019, 3-13 without him. In 2020, 5-1 with him as the starter, 2-9 with anyone else. Overall, 11-5 with him and 6-27 without him. It was the same team. The only change was the QB. Obviously, all the other QBs really stunk — but we’re talking about basically twice the wins in less than half the games. That’s a monstrous impact from one player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, e16bball said:

Alex Smith (first 6 years): 57.1%, 0.96 TD/INT, 6.2 Y/A, 72.1 rating, 4.42 ANY/A

Alex Smith (last 2 years in SF): 64.3%, 3.00 TD/INT, 7.4 Y/A, 95.1 rating, 6.34 ANY/A

Colin Kaepernick (first 2 years as starter): 59.8%, 2.82 TD/INT, 7.9 Y/A, 93.9 rating, 6.96 ANY/A

Colin Kaepernick (last 3 years): 59.7%, 2.15 TD/INT, 6.9 Y/A, 85.9 rating, 5.54 ANY/A

 

The point you’re attempting to make applies with similar force to most of the usual statistics and metrics we use to measure QB play. They also “mysteriously” got better (or worse) during the time periods you’ve isolated in your post. Should we throw those out because they’re also not static and consistent over the course of years, or wholly independent of the quality of the roster?

As it is, I think your post tends to prove the correlation between QB play and team wins. QB played bad, team lost a lot. QBs played better, team won more. QB played worse, team lost more again. 

And since you referenced Alex Smith, I have to bring up the Washington example again. In 2018, they were 6-4 with him as the starter, 1-5 with anyone else. In 2019, 3-13 without him. In 2020, 5-1 with him as the starter, 2-9 with anyone else. Overall, 11-5 with him and 6-27 without him. It was the same team. The only change was the QB. Obviously, all the other QBs really stunk — but we’re talking about basically twice the wins in less than half the games. That’s a monstrous impact from one player.

Oddly with Smith and Kaepernick the better team performance also coincided with better coaching and better defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of you would consider Andy Dalton and Carson Palmer remotely close to the same level of NFL quarterback? Dalton has a better winning percentage. Does that tell us anything meaningful about their skill levels?

Even if we try and normalize that statistics and compare their records playing for the same organization Dalton still edges him out (if I did the math in my head correctly).

Palmer was a superior quarterback in every possible way aside from scrambling and taking the free play on a defensive offsides. Team wins in a comparison of those two players would tell a story that is a fiction. They played for the same organization in consecutive periods. That's a closer baseline than you'll have comparing two quarterbacks unless they played for the same team in the same season. There are so many variables that go into team success.

Or should Andy Dalton be mentioned in the same breath as Carson Palmer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...