How is QBR calculated?

Darealtwo1

Veteran
WOAT
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
26,709
Reputation
-8,940
Daps
87,406
it's definitely better than QBR, but passer rating also have some limitations too. it puts too much emphasis on yards per attempt and it's only for the passing.

but it's much more reliable than QBR for sure

yards per attempt is the most best stat to me....you completing screens and check downs don't mean shyt.

Anything over 7 yards per attempt is legit QB you can build around.

Anything over 8 yards per attempt is Max Contract 100m Guaranteed QB type guy

Anything over 9 yards per attempt is a lock MVP year


Anything under 7 yards per attempt....You need to move on, that isn't the guy.
 

FabTrey

Superstar
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
13,150
Reputation
-1,648
Daps
28,660
yards per attempt is the most best stat to me....you completing screens and check downs don't mean ####.

Anything over 7 yards per attempt is legit QB you can build around.

Anything over 8 yards per attempt is Max Contract 100m Guaranteed QB type guy

Anything over 9 yards per attempt is a lock MVP year


Anything under 7 yards per attempt....You need to move on, that isn't the guy.

for a season yeah definitely. my problem with passer rating always have been game by game.

who had a better game?

A. 40/55 430 yards 6tds 0 ints - 151 QB rating

B 15/20 270 yards 3tds 0 ints - 158.3 perfect QB rating


passer rating says B is better. but A had much better game. not even comparable.


and if you multiply by 10 you get somebody with 400/550 4300 yards 60tds 0 ints and he will still have 151qb rating.

and that guy who has 150/200 2700 yards 30tds 0ints will have perfect QB rating for a season putting too much emphasis on ypa.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,731
Daps
203,945
Reppin
the ether
I love how people hate on stat geeks because stats don't give you the whole context, but when you actually invent a stat like QBR that gives you context, ya'all become stat geeks.


If you just want to compare stats, then sure, use quarterback rating. All that will tell you is the same thing the stats tell you. You don't know how good the defense was, you don't know whether they were stat padding in garbage time, you don't know whether the QB made critical throws on 3rd down or threw critical picks in the red zone. All you have are the numbers. And it doesn't factor in rushing at all.

Traditional NFL stats often act like funhouse mirrors –- making a quarterback’s performance look like something it isn’t.

For example, take a look at these stat lines from the 2015 NFC wild-card game between the Green Bay Packers and Washington Redskins:

Aaron Rodgers: 21 of 36 passing, 210 yards, 2 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, 93.5 passer rating.

Kirk Cousins: 29 of 46, 329 yards, 1 touchdown, 0 interceptions, 91.7 passer rating.

If you asked 100 random people in a “Pepsi-Coke”-type challenge which quarterback had the better game based on these stats, chances are Cousins would win in a landslide. But any objective observer who watched this game would acknowledge that Rodgers was the better quarterback in Green Bay’s 35-18 win.

Traditional box score stats distort the performances of Rodgers and Cousins in this game because they (1) fail to account for all of the ways a quarterback can affect a game, (2) don’t put plays into the proper context (a 5-yard gain on second-and-5 is very different from a 5-yard gain on third-and-10), and 3) don’t acknowledge that a quarterback has teammates who affect each play and should also get credit for everything that happens on the field.

ESPN’s Total Quarterback Rating (Total QBR), which was released in 2011, has never claimed to be perfect, but unlike other measures of quarterback performance, it incorporates all of a quarterback’s contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. Also, since QBR is built from the play level, it accounts for a team’s level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency.

Leaving out key areas of impact can make a quarterback’s performance look very different. Omitted from Cousins’ stat line, for example, are his 6 sacks taken, 3 fumbles (1 lost) and 2 pre-snap penalties on Washington’s offense. Rodgers, on the other hand, took only one sack, did not fumble and drew a number of defensive penalties that kept drives alive. Each quarterback impacted the game through these plays, but none of them are reflected in the traditional stats.

The lack of context for each play also increases the distortion of the performance. Most would acknowledge that a 7-yard completion on third-and-10 is not a successful play, but base-level statistics treat all yards equally. Coaches, players and fans know what wins games; it only makes sense that the statistics that judge the most important position in the game do, too.

If you fail to convert on 3rd down, if you fail to score in the red zone, if you turn the ball over in a critical moment, it might not show up in your stats but it DOES show up in your QBR.

On the other hand, if you pile up yards on 3rd-and-long but don't get the 1st-down, if you complete a bunch of passes in garbage time against a prevent defense but don't get the win, if you move up and down the field but can't punch the ball into the end zone, your stats might look great. But your QBR won't go up nearly as much.


Isn't that a good thing? To actually look at context instead of just counting meaningless stats even when they don't help the team?

Ya'all just hate whatever you can't understand. :rudy:
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,731
Daps
203,945
Reppin
the ether
uGQoeXq.png


This makes no sense....They saying he had a bad game :dwillhuh:

These are Rodgers's 1st-half drives:

3-and-out
3-and-out
3-and-out
3-and-out

The stats say that he was 3-7 for 13 yards, was sacked twice, and ran once for a 15-yard scramble on 3rd-and-23.

By QBR standards, that is a HORRIBLE half. Pretty much the most horrible half you can have. He did NOTHING. Didn't get a single first down. Even the 15-yard-scramble is meaningless because it was on 3rd-and-23 and led directly to a punt, all it did for the team was slightly help field position.


These are Rodgers' 2nd-half drives:

46 yards in 12 plays, field goal. This is a positive drive, but on 2nd-and-9 from the Chicago 23 Rodgers threw two straight incomplete passes and the team was forced to kick
81 yards in 8 plays, td. This was a fantastic drive.
75 yards in 6 plays, td. This was a fantastic drive.
75 yards in 3 plays, td. This was interesting because Rodgers threw 2 incomplete passes, and then a short pass over the middle that Cobb turned into a 75-yard td


So by QBR standards, Rodgers had 2 great drives, 1 mediocre drive, and 4 terrible drives, then ended the game with 2 bad plays followed by 1 decent play that his WR turned into a great play.

His stats don't truly reflect how bad his 1st half was, because he only threw 7 times. But that fails to take into account 2 sacks, a useless scramble, and the fact that four straight 3-and-outs are the reason he only threw 7 times.

The same way, that last TD inflates his stats. Cobb caught the ball in traffic, if he runs into a tackle there and Green Bay ends up losing, then Rodgers would only be 20-30 for 226 and 2 tds in a loss, which suddenly looks like a pretty sub-par game, especially if you know what happened in the 1st half. Cobb singlehandedly added an extra 60 YAC and a TD to Rodgers' stat line on one play, but under QBR its Cobb, not Rodgers, who gets most of the credit for that. QBR is a way of correcting the normal tendency for random acts to grossly inflate stat lines.
 

Omar Little

It’s all in the Game Yo
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
14,845
Reputation
3,456
Daps
63,120
Reppin
B-More
shyt is trash. I’ll just stick to the eye test coupled with Stats such as Completion Percentage, Yards, TDs etc.
 

Darealtwo1

Veteran
WOAT
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
26,709
Reputation
-8,940
Daps
87,406
These are Rodgers's 1st-half drives:

3-and-out
3-and-out
3-and-out
3-and-out

The stats say that he was 3-7 for 13 yards, was sacked twice, and ran once for a 15-yard scramble on 3rd-and-23.

By QBR standards, that is a HORRIBLE half. Pretty much the most horrible half you can have. He did NOTHING. Didn't get a single first down. Even the 15-yard-scramble is meaningless because it was on 3rd-and-23 and led directly to a punt, all it did for the team was slightly help field position.


These are Rodgers' 2nd-half drives:

46 yards in 12 plays, field goal. This is a positive drive, but on 2nd-and-9 from the Chicago 23 Rodgers threw two straight incomplete passes and the team was forced to kick
81 yards in 8 plays, td. This was a fantastic drive.
75 yards in 6 plays, td. This was a fantastic drive.
75 yards in 3 plays, td. This was interesting because Rodgers threw 2 incomplete passes, and then a short pass over the middle that Cobb turned into a 75-yard td


So by QBR standards, Rodgers had 2 great drives, 1 mediocre drive, and 4 terrible drives, then ended the game with 2 bad plays followed by 1 decent play that his WR turned into a great play.

His stats don't truly reflect how bad his 1st half was, because he only threw 7 times. But that fails to take into account 2 sacks, a useless scramble, and the fact that four straight 3-and-outs are the reason he only threw 7 times.

The same way, that last TD inflates his stats. Cobb caught the ball in traffic, if he runs into a tackle there and Green Bay ends up losing, then Rodgers would only be 20-30 for 226 and 2 tds in a loss, which suddenly looks like a pretty sub-par game, especially if you know what happened in the 1st half. Cobb singlehandedly added an extra 60 YAC and a TD to Rodgers' stat line on one play, but under QBR its Cobb, not Rodgers, who gets most of the credit for that. QBR is a way of correctly the normal tendency for random acts to grossly inflate stat lines.

So you are saying if you guys blow a team out....42-0 first half. 6 Passing TD's 0 picks.

Second half you running the ball a lot, a couple incompletes, 3 and outs because you are playing conservative not to lose, and you win 42-21. You tryna tell me your QBR going to be in the 40's saying you had a bad game????

FOH! THAT STAT IS BS THEN!
 

FabTrey

Superstar
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
13,150
Reputation
-1,648
Daps
28,660
I love how people hate on stat geeks because stats don't give you the whole context, but when you actually invent a stat like QBR that gives you context, ya'all become stat geeks.


If you just want to compare stats, then sure, use quarterback rating. All that will tell you is the same thing the stats tell you. You don't know how good the defense was, you don't know whether they were stat padding in garbage time, you don't know whether the QB made critical throws on 3rd down or threw critical picks in the red zone. All you have are the numbers. And it doesn't factor in rushing at all.



If you fail to convert on 3rd down, if you fail to score in the red zone, if you turn the ball over in a critical moment, it might not show up in your stats but it DOES show up in your QBR.

On the other hand, if you pile up yards on 3rd-and-long but don't get the 1st-down, if you complete a bunch of passes in garbage time against a prevent defense but don't get the win, if you move up and down the field but can't punch the ball into the end zone, your stats might look great. But your QBR won't go up nearly as much.


Isn't that a good thing? To actually look at context instead of just counting meaningless stats even when they don't help the team?

Ya'all just hate whatever you can't understand. :rudy:


but QBR can't explain how rodgers had a below rating on his come back win against the bears. :manny:


and this was QBR from 2 years ago. week 10.


screen-shot-2015-11-12-at-2-14-39-pm.png



screen-shot-2015-11-12-at-2-15-06-pm.png



enlighten me how a guy who threw nearly 1000 more yards 9 more tds 5 less ints, higher passer rating, higher completion % had lower QBR.


it's just a load of crap if you ask me.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,731
Daps
203,945
Reppin
the ether
So you are saying if you guys blow a team out....42-0 first half. 6 Passing TD's 0 picks.

Second half you running the ball a lot, a couple incompletes, 3 and outs because you are playing conservative not to lose, and you win 42-21. You tryna tell me your QBR going to be in the 40's saying you had a bad game????

FOH! THAT STAT IS BS THEN!
Hell no, you're completely misreading the stat. If you have 6 great drives all ending in passing TDs, then finish with a few run-out-the-clock drives, then you're going to have a great QBR. Besides the fact that the 6 TDs will outweigh the slow 2nd half, you also have the fact that QBR considers garbage time to be less important than the rest of the game.

Not all drives are equal. Drives made when the outcome of the game is still in question are worth significantly more than drives made when one team is far ahead and the outcome is basically decided.
Plays that occur in “trash time” are discounted by as much as 30%. Trash time is measured based on the leverage of each play which is primarily a function of score, time, and field position. Important, critical plays that are likely to change the outcome have high leverage, while plays that occur after the game has largely been already decided have low leverage. QBR discounts low leverage plays, but does not boost credit for “clutch” plays.

So when the game was still in question, those TD drives count for a lot. Once the score is 40-0, those drives don't count as much to the final rating, no matter whether they're good or bad.


On a different note, how the hell are incomplete passes leading to 3-and-outs "conservative not to lose" football? That's pretty much the worst thing in that situation. Wouldn't you be running the ball to run clock time and extend drives? If you throw an incomplete pass which stops the clock and immediately gives the ball to the other team, of course you should be penalized for that, unless the game is out of reach and it doesn't matter anyway. And if the game is out of reach and it doesn't matter, then not only does QBR discount the play so it doesn't matter as much, but you're probably running the ball anyway or even have a backup QB in.



but QBR also can't explain how rodgers had a below rating on his come back win against the bears. :manny:
I literally explained exactly that. :gucci:
 

Based Lord Zedd

Colts or Die
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
11,179
Reputation
1,467
Daps
30,974
Reppin
Houston TX
that ain't no damn better.. they basically pulling this shyt out their ass and stuck with it... might as well delete any ratings and just look at the stats.. they just adding up random calculations and making it a number "rating"




The NFL passer rating formula includes four variables: completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns per attempt, and interceptions per attempt. Each of those variables is scaled to a value between 0 and 2.375, with 1.0 being statistically average (based on league data between 1960–1970). When the formula was first created, a 66.7 rating indicated an average performance, and a 100+ rating indicated an excellent performance.[3] However, passing performance has improved steadily since then and in 2017 the league average rating was 88.6.[4]

The four separate calculations can be expressed in the following equations:

d0cf9b3484a1bd6e8b21d985ca392fe003a65cfa


3864e4934d831230be43ceb64ad940776f314024


8783a051cb0c490058e607291976288210839be2

53b626cff6ce1beba0c6bf3c02aca666a9f3a697




where

ATT = Number of passing attempts
COMP = Number of completions
YDS = Passing yards
TD = Touchdown passes
INT = Interceptions
If the result of any calculation is greater than 2.375, it is set to 2.375. If the result is a negative number, it is set to zero.

Then, the above calculations are used to complete the passer rating:

{\displaystyle {\text{Passer Rating}}=\left({(a+b+c+d) \over 6}\right)\times 100}
3b3a6857c3faa89cf62df17a858882ec0360f5ec


+rep

QBR is far from perfect but I understand what they were trying to do. I also understand people not liking it, but shytting on QBR and propping up QB rating is sad. :russ: QB rating isn't "better" than QBR it's just been around longer and people are used to it. College football doesn't even use the same formula as NFL, just a bunch of arbitrary equations.


We gonna pretend like traditional qb rating wouldn't tell you that Ryan Tannehill has had a better career than Dan Marino?
 

Based Lord Zedd

Colts or Die
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
11,179
Reputation
1,467
Daps
30,974
Reppin
Houston TX
bD9OVcu.png


Basically the old quaterback rating seems like the right thing to go with. That shows really how you played cuz all these nikkas BALLED week 1

Dak Prescott last year was ranked 4th in QBR but 17th in Quarterback rating.....Clearly Dak ain't the 4th best QB in the league but 17th last year seems more accurate.

How accurate does Alex Smtih (2017 QB rating champion) being the leagues best QB sound?
 

Darealtwo1

Veteran
WOAT
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
26,709
Reputation
-8,940
Daps
87,406
SQJJfLR.png


HOW CAN YOU TELL ME JARED GOFF HAD A BAD GAME :russ::russ::russ::russ::russ::russ:

I DON'T GIVE A fukk ABOUT NOT DAMN YAC :mjlol:

GIVE ME RATING!!! fukk A QBR :hubie:

@Rhakim
 

Darealtwo1

Veteran
WOAT
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
26,709
Reputation
-8,940
Daps
87,406
How accurate does Alex Smtih (2017 QB rating champion) being the leagues best QB sound?

Leagues best QB or he had the best year?

4k yards. 26tds 5ints 8 yards per attempt. 68%. 1 fumble all year.

Looks pretty accurate to me. Nobody in the league threw for over 4k yards with less than 5 picks.

The only person who comes close is Drew Brees and he was at 103.9 compared to Alex's 104.7

Rating works very well....Washington gave him 94m for a reason :manny:

Urb92Ff.png
 

Bboystyle

Bang Bang Packers gang!
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
44,969
Reputation
-1,551
Daps
73,927
Reppin
So. Cal
Both have flaws but espn qbr is absolute trash. Even in a perfect game ive seen qbs get wack ass ratings.
 
Top