Differential passer rating is the mother of all stats

[chad72]

Interesting article, read:

 

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/stats/2013/Final/PRD/

[Superman]

That's interesting. I don't think I've ever seen this before. I'm still reading the breakdowns, but I guess the concept is that, to have a good PRD, you either have really good QB play, or your defense does a really good job of containing the other team's QB. Or a good combination of the two.

 

The problem I have is that passer rating is just an aggregate stat, and it doesn't take into consideration big plays like sacks or QB fumbles, which have a tremendous impact on the game.

 

Still, the correlation is very clear: 69 of 73 NFL champs since 1940 have been top ten in PRD. I want to see if that gets weaker in the last 10-15 years or so, but even if it's 11 out of the last 15, that's still pretty strong.

[MTC]

That's a really good link.

 

Has even more stats on the sidebar. 

[Track Guy]

IMO passer rating is not a great stat at all, but its an interesting chart for sure.

[Superman]

IMO passer rating is not a great stat at all, but its an interesting chart for sure.

 

There's nothing wrong with passer rating, just like there's nothing wrong with the individual stats that make up passer rating. It's just an aggregate.

 

The problem is when people try to use it as a tool to determine how good a player is, or in any conclusive manner, really.

[bestQBever]

personally I think QBR is a better stat.

[21isSuperman]

personally I think QBR is a better stat.

I haven't heard much about it. ESPN brought it out and praised it as the best and most conclusive stat for quarterbacks, but I haven't seen anyone use it other than ESPN.

[Synthetic]

Stats don't mean crap for big name QB's at the end of the day.

 

This past year you saw what all those passing stats came down to in the Super Bowl.

 

Stats have become nothing more than something to stroke your ego to. Self appointed narcissistic "geniuses" on the internet want to remind you annually every week of the season why their QB is the greatest thing ever cause "he's got this many passing yards and TD's!!!"

 

I think on one hand, Stats can tell a big story, but on the other hand I get really annoyed hearing about it all the time like last year when Manning's stats were on steroids.

 

No QB that has ever lead the passing stats has won the SB, and last year was the icing on the cake when it comes to that fact.

[Jules]

Stats don't mean crap for big name QB's at the end of the day.

 

This past year you saw what all those passing stats came down to in the Super Bowl.

 

Stats have become nothing more than something to stroke your ego to. Self appointed narcissistic "geniuses" on the internet want to remind you annually every week of the season why their QB is the greatest thing ever cause "he's got this many passing yards and TD's!!!"

 

I think on one hand, Stats can tell a big story, but on the other hand I get really annoyed hearing about it all the time like last year when Manning's stats were on steroids.

 

No QB that has ever lead the passing stats has won the SB, and last year was the icing on the cake when it comes to that fact.

 

 

I think stats can get annoying as well. Like you said they can tell a lot, but on the flip side it becomes overrated and tiresome to hear about them all the time. In 2012 I was enjoying the Colts season every single week and all I got to hear at times was "but, Luck's interceptions.......OH NO."  And to be honest a rookie QB throwing interceptions is not unheard of. And alllll we heard about was how amazing RGIII's stats were, how did that work out for him last year?

 

And there was also some stats some told me last summer that were supposed to prove based on 2012 that the Colts would fall apart in 2013. Some point differential thing. And how did that work out for us?

 

And in 2011 Tebow had horrible stats but nobody in the media cared.....cause all he did was win!

 

When I was a kid it wasn't like this with stats as much, I think it's the internet and age of fantasy football (which I admit I never have played in my life) which started the stat obsession.

 

 

 

But, I don't want to rain on the parade if you love stats cause to each their own. I also find it remarkable that both Manning/Brady had the seasons they did in 2007 and 2013 numbers wise and BOTH lose the big game. It just goes to show you that it is a true team sport in the end. Not to mention......the NFC is getting better!

[SteelCityColt]

There's nothing wrong with passer rating, just like there's nothing wrong with the individual stats that make up passer rating. It's just an aggregate.

 

The problem is when people try to use it as a tool to determine how good a player is, or in any conclusive manner, really.

Stats are meaningless numbers without any form of context, remember the golden rule correlation doesn't equal causation!

http://www.tylervigen.com/

 

Interestingly have a look at the "Offensive Hog Index|" ranking on the linked website....  

[chad72]

Differential passer rating is different than an individual's QB ratings or offensive passer ratings.

 

It still factors the defense in a TEAM game. That is the reason I like this stat better than just defensive stats or offensive stats.

 

Given its history over time, one has to give it a serious look to understand it in depth.

[throwing BBZ]

 Another confirmation that our Team was top 10-15 last season and Andrew was in the same area as a passer.

 Safe to say the Off Hog stat doesn`t work. Us 6th when we were individually BAD. i would be interested how we would have come out if they added sacks, hits & hurries.
 As Bad as our Interior line was, our Tackles combined SHH was the 4th worst last season per PFF.

[Superman]

Stats don't mean crap for big name QB's at the end of the day.

 

This past year you saw what all those passing stats came down to in the Super Bowl.

 

Stats have become nothing more than something to stroke your ego to. Self appointed narcissistic "geniuses" on the internet want to remind you annually every week of the season why their QB is the greatest thing ever cause "he's got this many passing yards and TD's!!!"

 

I think on one hand, Stats can tell a big story, but on the other hand I get really annoyed hearing about it all the time like last year when Manning's stats were on steroids.

 

No QB that has ever lead the passing stats has won the SB, and last year was the icing on the cake when it comes to that fact.

 

What are you talking about?

[bestQBever]

I haven't heard much about it. ESPN brought it out and praised it as the best and most conclusive stat for quarterbacks, but I haven't seen anyone use it other than ESPN.

because everyone is still stuck fawning over passer rating. QBR is the rating of the future.

[Jason_]

because everyone is still stuck fawning over passer rating. QBR is the rating of the future.

 

both passer rating and QBR have their place because they don't rate the same thing.  Passer rating is just that, a rating of a QB's performance passing the ball.  It does not take into account things like sacks, scrambling or QB rushing yards, rushing TD's etc because those are not relevant to a "passer rating".  They are more relevant for an overall rating of total QB play which is what the QBR is supposed to be.

 

Teams with a pure pocket passer at QB like Atlanta, Denver, San Diego, New Orleans etc etc could very well be more interested in passer rating than QBR whereas teams with more mobile QB's like Indy, Seattle, San Fran etc could be more interested in total QBR than they are a pure passer rating.  So like I said, I think they both have their place.

[Superman]

both passer rating and QBR have their place because they don't rate the same thing.  Passer rating is just that, a rating of a QB's performance passing the ball.  It does not take into account things like sacks, scrambling or QB rushing yards, rushing TD's etc because those are not relevant to a "passer rating".  They are more relevant for an overall rating of total QB play which is what the QBR is supposed to be.

 

Teams with a pure pocket passer at QB like Atlanta, Denver, San Diego, New Orleans etc etc could very well be more interested in passer rating than QBR whereas teams with more mobile QB's like Indy, Seattle, San Fran etc could be more interested in total QBR than they are a pure passer rating.  So like I said, I think they both have their place.

 

The problem with QBR is that it's incredibly subjective, which stats are not supposed to be. So QBR is more than a stat, it's supposed to tell you whether a QB had a good game, even if the stats don't. And that's problematic for many reasons, IMO.

[dgambill]

What are you talking about?

IDK...why does this guy even come on here...he gets on a sports forum and cries about people on the internet blabbing about qbs or how good a qb is. If you don't want to hear it...do us a favor and don't come on here. I dislike negativity...I see a lot of it on here....I ignore a lot of it...but this guy takes the cake. I honesty think with all the qb hate he spews that perhaps the HS QB at his school stole his girl or he got stuffed in lockers one too many times. Discussion is one thing...but the thing that gets on my nerves is the negativity....tearing down players and just negativity overall. smh

[Track Guy]

There's nothing wrong with passer rating, just like there's nothing wrong with the individual stats that make up passer rating. It's just an aggregate.

 

The problem is when people try to use it as a tool to determine how good a player is, or in any conclusive manner, really.

 

Yeah there's nothing inherently wrong with the stat I suppose. I just think it's name is misleading. It's just a formula that's based on ypa, comp%, td%, and int% but I think because of it's name some people think it's some rock solid way of comparing QBs when in reality it's not even close to that.

[Track Guy]

No QB that has ever lead the passing stats has won the SB, and last year was the icing on the cake when it comes to that fact.

 

Well sometimes the most statistically dominant QB wins. Kurt Warner lead the league in passing tds, Qb rating, and was second in passing yards in 1999 when the Rams won the Superbowl. But yeah you're right, when you think about it, it's surprisingly rare.

[Jules]

Well sometimes the most statistically dominant QB wins. Kurt Warner lead the league in passing tds, Qb rating, and was second in passing yards in 1999 when the Rams won the Superbowl. But yeah you're right, when you think about it, it's surprisingly rare.

 

Wasn't Warner also the last MVP to also win it all? It has become almost spooky how the dominant players in the regular season can almost become postseason doormats.

 

Just goes to show how much a team sport this all is in the end!

[Superman]

Well sometimes the most statistically dominant QB wins. Kurt Warner lead the league in passing tds, Qb rating, and was second in passing yards in 1999 when the Rams won the Superbowl. But yeah you're right, when you think about it, it's surprisingly rare.

 

It's strange to me how people latch on to that factoid, as if it means that a QB with good stats is somehow a detriment to his team. 

[chad72]

IDK...why does this guy even come on here...he gets on a sports forum and cries about people on the internet blabbing about qbs or how good a qb is. If you don't want to hear it...do us a favor and don't come on here. I dislike negativity...I see a lot of it on here....I ignore a lot of it...but this guy takes the cake. I honesty think with all the qb hate he spews that perhaps the HS QB at his school stole his girl or he got stuffed in lockers one too many times. Discussion is one thing...but the thing that gets on my nerves is the negativity....tearing down players and just negativity overall. smh

 

True dat.

 

Like Gramz posted in one of her statuses:

Negative people need drama like oxygen and if you stay positive, you take their breath away.

 

I digg that.

[wig]

I haven't heard much about it. ESPN brought it out and praised it as the best and most conclusive stat for quarterbacks, but I haven't seen anyone use it other than ESPN.

Pretty sure it's proprietary to ESPN. I don't think anyone else knows the formula.

[crazycolt1]

Stats don't mean crap for big name QB's at the end of the day.

 

This past year you saw what all those passing stats came down to in the Super Bowl.

 

Stats have become nothing more than something to stroke your ego to. Self appointed narcissistic "geniuses" on the internet want to remind you annually every week of the season why their QB is the greatest thing ever cause "he's got this many passing yards and TD's!!!"

 

I think on one hand, Stats can tell a big story, but on the other hand I get really annoyed hearing about it all the time like last year when Manning's stats were on steroids.

 

No QB that has ever lead the passing stats has won the SB, and last year was the icing on the cake when it comes to that fact.

Self appointed narcissistic "geniuses"? I think you take yourself a little too serious.

[21isSuperman]

Pretty sure it's proprietary to ESPN. I don't think anyone else knows the formula.

Oh, that might be why.  Good call

[BpG]

Damn, Seattle defense was fantastic. Not on other team even in the 60's and they had a 63!

 

 

Philip Rivers played at an MVP pace last season, wow did he carry that team on his back. 

[Dustin]

Damn, Seattle defense was fantastic. Not on other team even in the 60's and they had a 63!

 

 

Philip Rivers played at an MVP pace last season, wow did he carry that team on his back. 

 

He actually did what people think Tom Brady did last season, yet he got no MVP buzz. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

I like stats, but in football, don't predict from them.  I was introduced to sabermetrics in fantasy baseball in the early-mid 1990's and Bill James (the Father of Sabermetrics analysis) Total Baseball and player rating books.  I think Billy Beane has taken that and adapted a technique that allows his teams compete with big market teams on less payroll, plus making moves for this current year only, forget about next or following seasons (Lester - Cespedis trade anyone?)  And James himself was hired in 2002 by the Red Sox and won in 2004, 2007, and last year. With large help based upon statistical analysis success in baseball,  I do appreciate Football Outsiders (DVOA, etc.), Cold Hard Football Facts, Aikman Efiiciency Ratings ( for O and D ), QBR etc. for trying to put reasonable analysis to football stats. More interesting than folks just throwing out numbers.  But I feel that because there are only 16 games (vs. 162 in baseball) per year, and football players get nicked up often and play hurt (affecting on field performance) much more often than baseball players, that football analysis can still be voodoo science. Helpful, but not really that reliable, as it has proven to be in baseball.  But not worthless either.  Just IMHO.

[crazycolt1]

The problem with QBR is that it's incredibly subjective, which stats are not supposed to be. So QBR is more than a stat, it's supposed to tell you whether a QB had a good game, even if the stats don't. And that's problematic for many reasons, IMO.

I hear you. The eye test is the only reliable test ! lol I have come to realize that stats are for those who want others to think they are football smart or something of that nature. The only real stat that means anything is in the win - loss  category. If stats were the tell all then Manning would have 15 rings!

[jvan1973]

I hear you. The eye test is the only reliable test ! lol I have come to realize that stats are for those who want others to think they are football smart or something of that nature. The only real stat that means anything is in the win - loss category. If stats were the tell all then Manning would have 15 rings!

Rings are a team accomplishment. Do you really think Joe Flacco is better than Dan Marino was?

[crazycolt1]

Rings are a team accomplishment. Do you really think Joe Flacco is better than Dan Marino was?

So you are now going to put your own meaning into my comment? The bottom line is Marino had all the stats at one time but no super bowl win. One QB being better than another is not the point. What good did all the stats mean with no wins? Marino is still known as the best QB never to have won a super bowl. So all those stats are great for bragging rights for fans and media but you can bet that Dan would trade all those great stats away for just one super bowl ring. He has made comments along those line for a long time now.

[southwest1]

Stats are meaningless numbers without any form of context, remember the golden rule correlation doesn't equal causation!

http://www.tylervigen.com/

 

Interestingly have a look at the "Offensive Hog Index|" ranking on the linked website....  

Bingo SCC! Explain why something correlates to something else. Numbers alone are not valuable to anyone without understanding what they actually mean regarding team success. Numbers mean nothing without the broader picture. It's the difference between theory & it's practical application in real life. Not a great article at all IMO. 

[southwest1]

Stats don't mean crap for big name QB's at the end of the day.

 

This past year you saw what all those passing stats came down to in the Super Bowl.

 

Stats have become nothing more than something to stroke your ego to. Self appointed narcissistic "geniuses" on the internet want to remind you annually every week of the season why their QB is the greatest thing ever cause "he's got this many passing yards and TD's!!!"

 

I think on one hand, Stats can tell a big story, but on the other hand I get really annoyed hearing about it all the time like last year when Manning's stats were on steroids.

 

No QB that has ever lead the passing stats has won the SB, and last year was the icing on the cake when it comes to that fact.

I will never slam Peyton Manning, but I do agree Bogie that incredible stats don't always forecast SB Championships as a hard & fast rule of absolute certainty. 

[Superman]

So you are now going to put your own meaning into my comment? The bottom line is Marino had all the stats at one time but no super bowl win. One QB being better than another is not the point. What good did all the stats mean with no wins? Marino is still known as the best QB never to have won a super bowl. So all those stats are great for bragging rights for fans and media but you can bet that Dan would trade all those great stats away for just one super bowl ring. He has made comments along those line for a long time now.

 

So what?

 

Dan Marino isn't good because he had great stats. He had great stats because he was so good. His not winning a SB is a completely different topic.

 

Slightly related, John Elway was recently asked for his top five QBs of all time. He named Staubach, Marino, Kelly, Montana, Manning (and threw Brady in with Manning, although he said that he'd prefer Manning, obviously). He went the first 14 years of his career with the label of the QB who couldn't win a SB, right along with Kelly and Marino, who were his contemporaries. I'm sure that influences his perspective on the matter.

[Flash7]

So you are now going to put your own meaning into my comment? The bottom line is Marino had all the stats at one time but no super bowl win. One QB being better than another is not the point. What good did all the stats mean with no wins? Marino is still known as the best QB never to have won a super bowl. So all those stats are great for bragging rights for fans and media but you can bet that Dan would trade all those great stats away for just one super bowl ring. He has made comments along those line for a long time now.

Not to butt in and be combative, rather, I would just like to voice my opinion.

 

Statistics are hardly ever black and white. There is an average and then everything deviates from that average. If we look at different eras, like during the era of Montana, Marino, Elway, etc... what yo will find is that the quarterbacks with the better stats also have won Super Bowls. You have brought up Marino as an example of why stats do no matter; however, the reason why he stands out so much is that he is an anomaly. Someone with his consistent stats, over time usually wins, and that's why he's the poster boy for "the best that never won." He's an exception.

 

In today's era, guys with the better stats, Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, have won Super Bowls, while guys like Rivers, Stafford haven't. They have good stats, but have not won the Super Bowl. That doesn't mean that stats aren't important or that differential passer rating isn't important. It's just one way to look at the overall picture.

[crazycolt1]

So what?

 

Dan Marino isn't good because he had great stats. He had great stats because he was so good. His not winning a SB is a completely different topic.

 

Slightly related, John Elway was recently asked for his top five QBs of all time. He named Staubach, Marino, Kelly, Montana, Manning (and threw Brady in with Manning, although he said that he'd prefer Manning, obviously). He went the first 14 years of his career with the label of the QB who couldn't win a SB, right along with Kelly and Marino, who were his contemporaries. I'm sure that influences his perspective on the matter.

Did I say Marino was no good? Now you are putting your own meaning into my comment as well.

[Superman]

Did I say Marino was no good? Now you are putting your own meaning into my comment as well.

 

I didn't accuse you of saying Marino was no good. Pot, meet kettle.

 

What I'm saying is that you can't undermine Marino's stats, or the testimony they make to how good he was.

[crazycolt1]

I didn't accuse you of saying Marino was no good. Pot, meet kettle.

 

What I'm saying is that you can't undermine Marino's stats, or the testimony they make to how good he was.

I didn't undermine Marino's stats at all. All I was saying is that stats become lost in the mix of the whole football talk. It has become an epidemic of stats. Everything from what a QBs record is after he wears a pair of green socks. What a defensive player does after eating a bag of skittles. Maybe a DE gets a sack if he ate some liver and onions the night before playing a game. I know I make those comments in sarcasm but there is no end as fans and media is concerned on what those stats mean. Stats get completely out of hand the closer it gets to the super bowl. IMO stats are just something to pass the time away when talking about football in general. Stats can be skewed to make an opinion look a certain way when certain stats are left out or overlooked because it don't match someone's opinion or argument about a lot of things related to football. The bottom line stats go out the window the minute teams line up against each other. Then it is win or lose.

[Superman]

I didn't undermine Marino's stats at all. All I was saying is that stats become lost in the mix of the whole football talk. It has become an epidemic of stats. Everything from what a QBs record is after he wears a pair of green socks. What a defensive player does after eating a bag of skittles. Maybe a DE gets a sack if he ate some liver and onions the night before playing a game. I know I make those comments in sarcasm but there is no end as fans and media is concerned on what those stats mean. Stats get completely out of hand the closer it gets to the super bowl. IMO stats are just something to pass the time away when talking about football in general. Stats can be skewed to make an opinion look a certain way when certain stats are left out or overlooked because it don't match someone's opinion or argument about a lot of things related to football. The bottom line stats go out the window the minute teams line up against each other. Then it is win or lose.

 

It's a different topic, entirely. Wins and losses are team stats. When we're talking about how good a player is, we don't say what his win/loss record is, because that isn't an accurate reflection of how good he is. That's especially true about the postseason/SB, because good/great players don't automatically win postseason games and SBs.

 

Dan Marino is the ultimate example of that. No one would deny that he was a great QB just because he didn't win a SB. Even his contemporaries who did win SBs acknowledge his greatness, rather than knocking him for not having a ring. The argument that he would trade his stats for a ring misses the point entirely, because it's not one or the other.

 

Stats don't win or lose games; no one would ever argue that. But a player's stats are part of the picture. This all-or-nothing viewpoint is weird. We go from talking about how passer rating works to how the only thing that matters is wins and losses, and that's completely off-topic. Your argument claims that Marino's stats mean nothing because he never won a SB, and that's just false. Marino's stats tell us how productive he was as a player; whether he won a SB or not tells us how his team performed in the playoffs (and that includes him, as part of the team). 

 

Back to the original topic, the passer rating differential stat has a considerable correlation to SB winners. It suggests that efficient QB play  (which you're more likely to get out of a good QB than a bad one) is very important, and so is good pass defense. The bigger differential you can create between your team and your opponents, the more likely you are to win games in the regular season and the playoffs. There are other factors, but the point is clear: if you get good QB play and limit the play of opposing QBs, you're going to win more. You measure that with stats.

[Superman]

Atlanta Falcons in 2012, go to the NFCCG. Their PRD was +22. The Falcons in 2013 go 4-12, and have a PRD of -12.9. 

 

Ravens in 2012 win the SB. Their PRD was +5.8. In 2013, they go 9-7 and miss the playoffs, and their PRD was -10.2

 

The Colts in 2009 go 14-0 and ultimately to the SB with a PRD of +14.8. (In the SB, Manning's passer rating was 88.5, to Brees' 114.5. Manning was okay but made a huge mistake at the end of the game; Brees was unstoppable.) In 2010, the Colts won just 10 games (less than 12 wins for the first time in 8 seasons), and the PRD was just +0.2. Then, in 2011, the Colts PRD plummeted to -31.7.

 

The 2012 Colts were a statistical outlier, winning 11 games with a PRD of -13.7. They were back in the positive in 2013 with a PRD of +1.9. 

 

The Broncos had a PRD of +29.9 in 2013. The Seahawks were at +39. Those two teams had the biggest PRD in the league last year. 

 

I think it goes without saying that the bigger the difference between your QB efficiency and your opponent's, the better your chances of winning. Puts a premium on good QBing and good pass defense (which means good pass rush, good tackling, limiting big plays, etc.)