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

[e16bball]

2 hours ago, mse326 said:

If the 53rd player on the roster can claim the same thing then you didn't do it. It has no meaning as a player stat. Players don't win, teams do. That is a fact. A QB has never won. He has only been part of a winning team.

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

This is 100% semantics.

It is. But even if it’s not...who cares?

A QB has never singlehandedly scored a passing TD. He has only been one part of a scoring passing play. A RB has never singlehandedly gained a rushing yard. He has only been part of a positive rushing play. 

There’s some fallacy being advanced here that if a piece of data isn’t wholly or independently attributable to the player in question, then it doesn’t have any value. That seems to be the position being espoused with regard to discrediting QB wins as an observation, at least. But it’s football — there aren’t any stats that are entirely independent or solely attributable to the player they get credited to. Every single stat we use has to be viewed as one data point in a larger, heavily context-dependent inquiry. 

I will freely concede that QB wins are more context-dependent than most or even all of the stats we primarily look at. But the argument isn’t that it’s the most (or even one of the most) meaningful ways to evaluate a QB — the argument is just that it does have meaning.

And I think it clearly does. If not, why is Tom Brady the unquestioned GOAT, when he consistently ranks behind Montana, Young, Manning, and Rodgers in most era-adjusted efficiency stats? If not, why isn’t Kirk Cousins a consensus top 10 QB, when many of the passing metrics we rely on would actually place him closer to the top 5 statistically? In both cases, it’s because we understand that there’s more to the quality of a QB’s play than just the raw statistical production — we understand that their impact on winning is significant, and we understand that over time, you can draw conclusions about their impact on winning based on their teams’ actual outcomes. 

[Danger]

I'm just glad that about 2/3 of you are not .... well I don't want to break the rules. Moving right along.

[Mr Bad Example]

Dalton at his peak was (or at least did) better than people want to give him credit for. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

11 hours ago, e16bball said:

It is. But even if it’s not...who cares?

A QB has never singlehandedly scored a passing TD. He has only been one part of a scoring passing play. A RB has never singlehandedly gained a rushing yard. He has only been part of a positive rushing play. 

There’s some fallacy being advanced here that if a piece of data isn’t wholly or independently attributable to the player in question, then it doesn’t have any value. That seems to be the position being espoused with regard to discrediting QB wins as an observation, at least. But it’s football — there aren’t any stats that are entirely independent or solely attributable to the player they get credited to. Every single stat we use has to be viewed as one data point in a larger, heavily context-dependent inquiry. 

I will freely concede that QB wins are more context-dependent than most or even all of the stats we primarily look at. But the argument isn’t that it’s the most (or even one of the most) meaningful ways to evaluate a QB — the argument is just that it does have meaning.

And I think it clearly does. If not, why is Tom Brady the unquestioned GOAT, when he consistently ranks behind Montana, Young, Manning, and Rodgers in most era-adjusted efficiency stats? If not, why isn’t Kirk Cousins a consensus top 10 QB, when many of the passing metrics we rely on would actually place him closer to the top 5 statistically? In both cases, it’s because we understand that there’s more to the quality of a QB’s play than just the raw statistical production — we understand that their impact on winning is significant, and we understand that over time, you can draw conclusions about their impact on winning based on their teams’ actual outcomes. 

You first paragraph is really why most are arguing that W/Ls should not be a QB stat lol. I think everyone seems to agree.

I don't think anyone is saying there's no value just that one single person shouldn't be attributed the success and failures of a team when he doesn't even play on one side of the ball, doesn't play special teams, and doesn't coach.

Why is Tom Brady the GOAT? B/c he's QBd how many teams that reached the Super Bowl? How many has he QBd that won? How many MVPs does he have? How many people have done this in the history of the sport? That's why. No one has denied the QB as the most important part of the offense... at least I don't think and if they do, they're probably new so cut them some slack lol. I'm just saying it's silly to give one person sole accolades and failures to a 53 man sport that also has a lot of people making decisions that aren't him and he doesn't even play D and ST.

[BobbyPhil1781]

3 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Dalton at his peak was (or at least did) better than people want to give him credit for. 

Dalton was absolutely good and frustrating. From a physical standpoint though, he just wasn't close to what Palmer could offer.

[otg]

3 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Dalton at his peak was (or at least did) better than people want to give him credit for. 

Absolutely. The only thing wrong with Andy Dalton is that he hasn't been one of the best quarterbacks of his era.

Sure generally speaking the teams that win Superb Owls have such a quarterback. And many feel there are the haves, the have nots who by virtue of sucking are in position to draft a stud, and teams that are stuck in purgatory by having competent quarterback play.

Andy Dalton was "purgatory". He isn't a quarterback who can will his team to victory. But he was far from one who was merely not losing the game for the team. For a minute it looked like he might sneak into being a top 10.

At the very least he was a good enough quarterback. His value far exceeded his draft spot and his salary. I have nothing but good things to say about him. Except that I think he might do well to grow beard. Become Final Form Dalton. Try and pull off a Jonathan Frames/William Riker.

[SkippyX]

9 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Dalton at his peak was (or at least did) better than people want to give him credit for. 

He was not. He broke a 92 rating once in his career.

What's his best full season (including the playoff game)?

• 11-5 with an 88.8 rating and a 3 turnover playoff bungle 27-10 loss?
• 6-9-1 with 18 TD passes and a 91.8 rating?

His regular season winning teams were absolutely loaded with talent. 

AJ McCarron is not an NFL starting QB. He was a 97.1 rated QB when filling in for Dalton because that 2013 team was loaded.

McCarron lost a playoff game because of Burfict. Dalton lost 4 playoff games because of Dalton.

If the question was "Is Andy Dalton a better regular season QB than AJ McCarron?" then the answer is yes.

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by SkippyX

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

McCarron lost a playoff game because of Burfict.

 

And Jeremy Hill and bad luck. Those were also key factors lol

[childofpudding]

The highest correlation of any individual stat to a team's winning percentage is the QB's ANY/A or EPA/play. So yes, wins and losses should be a QB stat as long as it's used in context with other, more individual QB stats.

[BobbyPhil1781]

10 hours ago, childofpudding said:

The highest correlation of any individual stat to a team's winning percentage is the QB's ANY/A or EPA/play. So yes, wins and losses should be a QB stat as long as it's used in context with other, more individual QB stats.

OK if that's the highest correlation, then the QB's play is directly effected by the OL's play. If the OL doesn't play well then the QB's ANY/A or EPA/play will be negatively effected. We can agree here, right? Do you think their play could be argued as more important when thinking of that and the fact that their performance directly effects the running attack which the QB doesn't have much influence on?

[e16bball]

On 7/21/2021 at 9:51 AM, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Why is Tom Brady the GOAT? B/c he's QBd how many teams that reached the Super Bowl?

But who cares if he was the quarterback on a team that went to the Super Bowl...right?

That just means his team kept winning, and you guys keep insisting that the QB has no particular or meaningful impact on the team winning. So what does it matter that his team won a lot of games? He’s the GOAT because he just so happened to be on a team that won a lot of games? Just 1 of 53!

On 7/21/2021 at 9:51 AM, BobbyPhil1781 said:

How many has he QBd that won?

Now you’re asking me to judge him as a QB based on the year-by-year results of one game (the Super Bowl)? 

His teams have won 7 Super Bowl games. What does that have to do with Tom Brady’s ability, though? He himself has won zero championships. Zero games, in fact, as I’ve been told. There’s nothing meaningful to be gleaned from the fact that he consistently just so happens to be on teams that just so happen to win the most games and most of the championships...right?

I suppose his legacy, if he has one, is that he’s the guy who happened to be on the best teams.

On 7/21/2021 at 9:51 AM, BobbyPhil1781 said:

How many MVPs does he have?

Three. Same as Favre. Same as Rodgers. Same as Jim Brown. Same as Johnny U. Same as Otto Graham. Two fewer than the most recognized Most Valuable Player, Peyton Manning. 

What makes him the greatest over those guys? Especially over Manning and Rodgers, who both also boast better league-adjusted passing stats?

You know the answer to that question. You said it earlier in the same paragraph.

On 7/21/2021 at 9:51 AM, BobbyPhil1781 said:

I'm just saying it's silly to give one person sole accolades and failures to a 53 man sport that also has a lot of people making decisions that aren't him and he doesn't even play D and ST.

I think you’re making this a little more dramatic than it has to be. It’s not a question of going up to the QB after the game and celebrating him for winning the game (to the exclusion of the rest of the roster) or confronting him with the fact that he lost the game for his team. 

All anyone is saying is that there’s some value in tracking which QBs, over time, tend to see their team win (or lose) more often. Especially when you compare that to what you’d expect — based on the quality of their team or of their stats, etc.

There’s really two parts to that. One, and this is pretty obvious, the league’s best QBs tend to see their teams win. A lot. Which is virtually indisputable to me, and it helps raise some interesting questions when perceived elite QBs are not winning as much you’d expect. Like how did a team with a QB as good as Deshaun Watson only win 4 games? Did he not play as well as his stats seem to indicate — or is Houston just that much of a mess that even with an elite QB, they’re still an absolute bottom-feeder?

The second thing, and it’s kind of what I was getting at above with Deshaun, you also can get some insight into who is playing a winning (or losing) style of football. For most QBs, in the middle of the bell curve, that impact is probably going to be largely negligible. Their impact on winning closely mirrors their statistical production, and so there’s not a ton of insight to be gleaned. But there are QBs, like Brady and Alex Smith, who consistently win more games than their production would lead you to expect. And there are also QBs, like Cousins and Ryan Fitzpatrick, who consistently lose more games than you’d expect. In a big enough sample, with appropriate context factored in, that’s not just chance or happenstance. They’re doing something right (or wrong). 

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 hour ago, e16bball said:

But who cares if he was the quarterback on a team that went to the Super Bowl...right?

That just means his team kept winning, and you guys keep insisting that the QB has no particular or meaningful impact on the team winning. So what does it matter that his team won a lot of games? He’s the GOAT because he just so happened to be on a team that won a lot of games? Just 1 of 53!

Who cares? And you want to talk about me being dramatic in your last statement after starting w/ this? LOL. How do you expect me to take you seriously w/ tripe like that? I'll humor you though.

The QB is the most important position on the offense. Can you please show me where I said anything different than this? The bold is a ton of bull**** from someone being overly dramatic unless you can show me I said the QB has no meaningful impact b/c that's just blatantly false. Read the words that are written and not what you want. It's real easy. I literally said it's the most important position on the team in the post you quoted.

1 hour ago, e16bball said:

Now you’re asking me to judge him as a QB based on the year-by-year results of one game (the Super Bowl)? 

His teams have won 7 Super Bowl games. What does that have to do with Tom Brady’s ability, though? He himself has won zero championships. Zero games, in fact, as I’ve been told. There’s nothing meaningful to be gleaned from the fact that he consistently just so happens to be on teams that just so happen to win the most games and most of the championships...right?

I suppose his legacy, if he has one, is that he’s the guy who happened to be on the best teams

More overly dramatic nonsense based on words that were never written and are not true.

1 hour ago, e16bball said:

Three. Same as Favre. Same as Rodgers. Same as Jim Brown. Same as Johnny U. Same as Otto Graham. Two fewer than the most recognized Most Valuable Player, Peyton Manning. 

What makes him the greatest over those guys? Especially over Manning and Rodgers, who both also boast better league-adjusted passing stats?

You know the answer to that question. You said it earlier in the same paragraph.

The subject was the Super Bowl so we're talking Super Bowl MVPs. If you weren't too busy making up things, maybe you would've seen that lol. 

1 hour ago, e16bball said:

I think you’re making this a little more dramatic than it has to be. It’s not a question of going up to the QB after the game and celebrating him for winning the game (to the exclusion of the rest of the roster) or confronting him with the fact that he lost the game for his team. 

All anyone is saying is that there’s some value in tracking which QBs, over time, tend to see their team win (or lose) more often. Especially when you compare that to what you’d expect — based on the quality of their team or of their stats, etc.

There’s really two parts to that. One, and this is pretty obvious, the league’s best QBs tend to see their teams win. A lot. Which is virtually indisputable to me, and it helps raise some interesting questions when perceived elite QBs are not winning as much you’d expect. Like how did a team with a QB as good as Deshaun Watson only win 4 games? Did he not play as well as his stats seem to indicate — or is Houston just that much of a mess that even with an elite QB, they’re still an absolute bottom-feeder?

The second thing, and it’s kind of what I was getting at above with Deshaun, you also can get some insight into who is playing a winning (or losing) style of football. For most QBs, in the middle of the bell curve, that impact is probably going to be largely negligible. Their impact on winning closely mirrors their statistical production, and so there’s not a ton of insight to be gleaned. But there are QBs, like Brady and Alex Smith, who consistently win more games than their production would lead you to expect. And there are also QBs, like Cousins and Ryan Fitzpatrick, who consistently lose more games than you’d expect. In a big enough sample, with appropriate context factored in, that’s not just chance or happenstance. They’re doing something right (or wrong).

You said "their team win (or lose) more often" so you seem to agree it's a team thing so why give the successes and failures to one person? We seem to agree.

Deshaun's case is simple: there's more to the game than the QB. That's it. Again, we seem to agree.

Yes, this is a light response b/c you typed way too much based on something that wasn't said so I'm not sure I can't expect you to do the same here so I don't want to waste too much of my time.

[childofpudding]

3 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

OK if that's the highest correlation, then the QB's play is directly effected by the OL's play. If the OL doesn't play well then the QB's ANY/A or EPA/play will be negatively effected. We can agree here, right? Do you think their play could be argued as more important when thinking of that and the fact that their performance directly effects the running attack which the QB doesn't have much influence on?

Yes, an OL can affect ANY/A and EPA/play. Do you think they should be considered QB stats? Or are you just against any stats being attributed to individuals in any way?

An OL's performance depends on the skill players as well. It goes both ways. The OL will allow fewer sacks if the QB is able to make correct pre-snap and post-snap reads in order to get rid of the ball quicker. Ditto if the receivers are running the correct routes with high precision. There is a reason why sacks are also a QB stat.

The OL's run block performance depends on an RB's ability to find the right holes and break tackles. And so on.

As others have already said, yes, all individual stats in football rely on other players. If passer rating, passing yards, ANY/A and other stars are considered QB stats, then wins should too, as they are highly correlated with advanced QB stats like ANY/A.

[BobbyPhil1781]

Just now, childofpudding said:

Yes, an OL can affect ANY/A and EPA/play. Do you think they should be considered QB stats? Or are you just against any stats being attributed to individuals in any way?

An OL's performance depends on the skill players as well. It goes both ways. The OL will allow fewer sacks if the QB is able to make correct pre-snap and post-snap reads in order to get rid of the ball quicker. Ditto if the receivers are running the correct routes with high precision. There is a reason why sacks are also a QB stat.

The OL's run block performance depends on an RB's ability to find the right holes and break tackles. And so on.

As others have already said, yes, all individual stats in football rely on other players. If passer rating, passing yards, ANY/A and other stars are considered QB stats, then wins should too, as they are highly correlated with advanced QB stats like ANY/A.

Stats are skewed but I don't have objections b/c the QB's stats show offensive efficiency. The side of the ball he plays on. They, however, show nothing about the defensive efficiency nor special teams which is where my suggestion that W/Ls shouldn't be a QB stat. He plays on offense, period. Giving the QB a team success or failure implies ignoring every other person who doesn't play offense. Why does a QB get credited for a W in a 10-0 victory? 

[childofpudding]

1 minute ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Stats are skewed but I don't have objections b/c the QB's stats show offensive efficiency. The side of the ball he plays on. They, however, show nothing about the defensive efficiency nor special teams which is where my suggestion that W/Ls shouldn't be a QB stat. He plays on offense, period. Giving the QB a team success or failure implies ignoring every other person who doesn't play offense. Why does a QB get credited for a W in a 10-0 victory? 

Making wins a QB stat doesn't ignore every other person who doesn't play offense any more than ANY/A ignores every other person on the offense who isn't QB. All it does is acknowledge the reality that the QB is the most important player on the team when it comes to winning, as evidenced by stats like ANY/A being so highly correlated to winning.

Probably just best to agree to disagree here.