Jump to content

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


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

33 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

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.

Tell me which statement seemingly ignores every other aspect of the team:

A) Aaron Rodgers is X/Y as a starter

B) The Green Bay Packers are X/Y when Aaron Rodgers is their starter

It really is that simple to me lol.

But yes, it might be best to agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Tell me which statement seemingly ignores every other aspect of the team:

A) Aaron Rodgers is X/Y as a starter

B) The Green Bay Packers are X/Y when Aaron Rodgers is their starter

It really is that simple to me lol.

But yes, it might be best to agree to disagree.

A) Aaron Rodgers had XX passing yards in 2020

B) The Green Bay offense had XX passing yards in 2020 when Aaron Rodgers was QB

We could play this game all day

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, childofpudding said:

A) Aaron Rodgers had XX passing yards in 2020

B) The Green Bay offense had XX passing yards in 2020 when Aaron Rodgers was QB

We could play this game all day

 

I literally explained the difference in a post but you're not reading so there's nothing I can do. There's a massive difference by the way but think what you want

Link to post
Share on other sites

A soft no. There's too much variability for it to be useful, but generally speaking if a QB is having a spectacular game his team is going to win. Similar to if he's having a terrible game the team is going to lose. I remember Mark Sanchez winning games with him throwing under 100 yards or completing less than 50% of his passes, but by the same token he also lost the majority of game where he played that terribly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2021 at 5:46 PM, BobbyPhil1781 said:

I literally explained the difference in a post but you're not reading so there's nothing I can do. There's a massive difference by the way but think what you want

Oh I am reading. I understand the difference and respect your opinion. But considering how highly correlated ANY/A and EPA/play is with win percentage, I don't think the difference you're explaining is massive in regards to whether wins should be a QB stat or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, childofpudding said:

Oh I am reading. I understand the difference and respect your opinion. But considering how highly correlated ANY/A and EPA/play is with win percentage, I don't think the difference you're explaining is massive in regards to whether wins should be a QB stat or not.

Tell me, how do those stats prevent points from being scored when comparing the defensive unit's ability to do the same? 

That's the massive difference. 

You keep throwing those two stats out without acknowledging the defensive side of the ball. 

Anyway, feel free to show me the data that supports the correlation of those stats and winning. I'll be interested to read it even though it doesn't take into account the other two aspects of the play on the field (D and ST).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Tell me, how do those stats prevent points from being scored when comparing the defensive unit's ability to do the same? 

That's the massive difference. 

You keep throwing those two stats out without acknowledging the defensive side of the ball. 

Anyway, feel free to show me the data that supports the correlation of those stats and winning. I'll be interested to read it even though it doesn't take into account the other two aspects of the play on the field (D and ST).

You keep throwing strawmen out like how I don't acknowledge the defensive side of the ball. But that's not true. All players on the field - offense, defense, special teams - contribute to winning. However, the QB contributes to winning in such an outsized way - evidenced by the high correlation between advanced QB stats and win percentage - that has me believe that wins should be a QB stat.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, childofpudding said:

You keep throwing strawmen out like how I don't acknowledge the defensive side of the ball. But that's not true. All players on the field - offense, defense, special teams - contribute to winning. However, the QB contributes to winning in such an outsized way - evidenced by the high correlation between advanced QB stats and win percentage - that has me believe that wins should be a QB stat.

 

All you mention are those two stats. You haven't mentioned any other part of the game until now. It's no strawman. 

The QB is the most important person, yes, but his success is dependant on the line's success which also directly impacts the running game which the QB doesn't have as much of an impact on. Can we agree there? I feel like we can.  Why isn't the OL considered the most important part then and the W/L given to them? When can we acknowledge the coach's impact on a play calling stance as well as formations etc? QB's success and failures are impacted by them, right? Matt Cassel for example.

You seem to be leaning on those two stats and that's it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

All you mention are those two stats. You haven't mentioned any other part of the game until now. It's no strawman. 

The QB is the most important person, yes, but his success is dependant on the line's success which also directly impacts the running game which the QB doesn't have as much of an impact on. Can we agree there? I feel like we can.  Why isn't the OL considered the most important part then and the W/L given to them? When can we acknowledge the coach's impact on a play calling stance as well as formations etc? QB's success and failures are impacted by them, right? Matt Cassel for example.

You seem to be leaning on those two stats and that's it. 

We're just going in circles here. It's all good, agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd vote no.  It is an ok stat to look at yet not fully looking at the whole team and Football is the ultimate team sport?   In Baseball I will overlook a pitcher's Wins and Losses for their ERA/WHIP.  In Hockey a Goalies (Goals Against Average/ Save percentage)  QB is the top position in football but even the best QB's can have great stats and their team goes 9-7 or 8-8 or worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2021 at 6:59 AM, childofpudding said:

Oh I am reading. I understand the difference and respect your opinion. But considering how highly correlated ANY/A and EPA/play is with win percentage, I don't think the difference you're explaining is massive in regards to whether wins should be a QB stat or not.

ANY/A and EPA/Play are surely important for win%. However, some QBs have great ANY/A but have a suffering win% because their corresponding defense is complete and utter trash. See Drew Brees and Matt Ryan as guys who should have won more games had there been any defense played in the NFC South.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scar988 said:

ANY/A and EPA/Play are surely important for win%. However, some QBs have great ANY/A but have a suffering win% because their corresponding defense is complete and utter trash. See Drew Brees and Matt Ryan as guys who should have won more games had there been any defense played in the NFC South.

I understand that. Outliers don't mean it shouldn't be one stat among many. Passer rating is still widely considered a QB stat even though Kirk Cousins has the 6th highest passer rating of all-time. Many people wouldn't put him as a top 6 QB in the league in any season, nevermind all-time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wins as a stat for pitchers is patently stupid and removes the totally out of their control impact of other players on the field and variables in a sport where there's only 8 other dudes out there with you against 1 other dude.

In a sport where 22 guys are smashing into each other every 40 seconds the idea that you can measure it as a stat is pretty dumb.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

Wins as a stat for pitchers is patently stupid and removes the totally out of their control impact of other players on the field and variables in a sport where there's only 8 other dudes out there with you against 1 other dude.

In a sport where 22 guys are smashing into each other every 40 seconds the idea that you can measure it as a stat is pretty dumb.

I generally agree, but in application, people DO use it

Yet when everyone talks about Best QB of all time, HoF resumes, etc. Super Bowl wins is one of the top stats people talk about. Super Bowl wins are a team stat that involves all 22 guys, yet its majorly used in the QB discussion.

If wins aren't a stat for QBs, then I need someone to explain Terry Bradshaw's inclusion in the HoF

  • Like 2
Link to post
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...