Differential passer rating is the mother of all stats

[crazycolt1]

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.

I only used Marino as an example. No where did I say he was not a great QB. I used him to make the point that while stats seem to be the basis for great debate when really stats are not that important in the big picture. Last year Romo had a game against the Bronco's with big time stats and still didn't get a win because stats don't tell the whole story. As far as the passer differential goes it means zero because it is a team game. To many factors play a part in calculating that. Luck himself don't have great stats but he wins in spite of the lacking of great stats. To use stats to determine if a player is this or that is not getting or seeing the whole story. IMO the eye test overshadows any stat I have read.

[Superman]

I only used Marino as an example. No where did I say he was not a great QB. I used him to make the point that while stats seem to be the basis for great debate when really stats are not that important in the big picture. Last year Romo had a game against the Bronco's with big time stats and still didn't get a win because stats don't tell the whole story. As far as the passer differential goes it means zero because it is a team game. To many factors play a part in calculating that. Luck himself don't have great stats but he wins in spite of the lacking of great stats. To use stats to determine if a player is this or that is not getting or seeing the whole story. IMO the eye test overshadows any stat I have read.

 

Why would you exclude stats in favor of the eye test? In reality, you don't have to choose. A good analyst combines the two.

 

For instance, Romo played incredible in that game against the Broncos, up until the last possession. The problem is that the defense couldn't get a stop to save their lives. To even mention Romo's play in that game is off topic. The Cowboys shouldn't have to score more than 48 points to win a game, especially at home. He shouldn't have to throw more than 508 yards and 5 TDs. 

[crazycolt1]

Why would you exclude stats in favor of the eye test? In reality, you don't have to choose. A good analyst combines the two.

 

For instance, Romo played incredible in that game against the Broncos, up until the last possession. The problem is that the defense couldn't get a stop to save their lives. To even mention Romo's play in that game is off topic. The Cowboys shouldn't have to score more than 48 points to win a game, especially at home. He shouldn't have to throw more than 508 yards and 5 TDs. 

That's my point exactly. The topic is Differential passer rating, the mother of all stats. If you go back and read the comments made mine were by far not the only negative made. I made my comment at stats in general and how too many use and think way to much about them. They have come up with so many stats and keep coming up with more every time you turn around. They even have a show called Numbers Never Lie. That show is as bad as it gets as far as being subjective to the NFL or other sports. The media plays a big part in making stats some super spectacular thing to talk and think about. I even stated than an example I used was sarcasm. IMO was also used. If you feel that stats should be used to measure a player that is fine. There have been fantastic NFL players forever and stats do not tell their story. We have players in the HOF who didn't have great stats because they were not being measured by stats, they were measured by being a great player. My original point was that stats are way overblown not that they should not be recognized at all.

[Superman]

That's my point exactly. The topic is Differential passer rating, the mother of all stats. If you go back and read the comments made mine were by far not the only negative made. I made my comment at stats in general and how too many use and think way to much about them. They have come up with so many stats and keep coming up with more every time you turn around. They even have a show called Numbers Never Lie. That show is as bad as it gets as far as being subjective to the NFL or other sports. The media plays a big part in making stats some super spectacular thing to talk and think about. I even stated than an example I used was sarcasm. IMO was also used. If you feel that stats should be used to measure a player that is fine. There have been fantastic NFL players forever and stats do not tell their story. We have players in the HOF who didn't have great stats because they were not being measured by stats, they were measured by being a great player. My original point was that stats are way overblown not that they should not be recognized at all.

 

Fair enough. I feel like you're being rather dismissive of stats in general, which I think is strange. But that's your opinion and your right. Just wanted to state my objection.

[JamesGallegos]

The article is really interesting to read about the differential of the passer rating is the mother of all stats. Here the information shared is very knowledgeable  and shows the difference between team's offensive and defensive passer rating. Thanks for sharing this type of article it was very helpful those who love football and gathering the knowledge of football.