It's the PRD stat - Passer Rating Differential again, says wins are a QB stat

[chad72]

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/russell-wilson-and-proof-that-wins-are-great-qb-stat/33726/

[Superman]

We've posted the top 47 performances of 2014 below, for a reason that will soon be obvious. The game-to-game data merely reconfirms what the historic data has long told us: teams win when they win the battle of passing efficiency; and teams dominate when they dominate the battle of passing efficiency.

 

...

 

Bottom line: the NFL is all about the quarterback. It's always been all about the quarterback. Efficient quarterbacks win games; inefficient quarterbacks lose games, to the point that almost nothing else matters.

 

 

 

They go too far. It would be one thing to say that if your QB outplays the other QB, you're more likely to win (and that's a major "no duh"). But efficient QBs don't win games just because they're efficient, particularly if the other QB is more efficient, or the other team makes more plays.

 

Their biggest example of PRD from 2014 is Week 8, Bills vs. Jets. Kyle Orton had a passer rating of 142.8. The Jets QBs -- including Geno, who threw 3 INTs in 8 attempts and had a zero rating -- had a combined passer rating of 17.1. Highest differential of any game in the season. However, Orton threw 17 passes, two of which were throwaways. He had 238 yards; 118 of them were after the catch. Four TDs. The Bills had two TD drives of less than 15 yards as the result of Jets turnovers. He played a strong game, not trying to take anything away from him.

 

The Jets QBs combined for 4 INTs, no TDs, and 3.6 yards/attempt. Probably the worst QBing performance of the season. The Bills scored 20 points off of turnovers, and won by 20 points.

 

So did Kyle Orton win this game? I don't think I'd say that, despite the fact that he played a strong game. More than anything else, the Jets played so poorly that they didn't have a chance to win.

 

And game changing events, like fumbles lost, aren't included in passer rating. Just one of the many things that makes passer rating an incomplete, if not flawed stat, along with rushing yards, TDs, sacks, etc. It compares QB efficiency as a passer only, not as a player. So we're using a flawed stat as our basis with PRD.

 

Another example: the NFCCG, where RW had a lower passer rating than Rodgers, yet the Seahawks win. The Packers also had a higher PRD than the Seahawks throughout the season, yet the Seahawks were the #1 seed and still went to the Super Bowl. Another example: The Texans were 10th in PRD; does that mean they got better QBing than Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Miami, Detroit, Baltimore, etc.? Or does it mean they had a better pass defense? 

 

Also, just to be clear, I like PRD. It's very strong. But it doesn't mean that QBs win games. It means that QB play is incredibly important, and that's obvious to anyone who watches football. That means that if your defense does a great job of reducing the efficiency of the opposing QB on a consistent basis, it's just as beneficial as your QB playing efficiently on a consistent basis. Get a strong mix of the two -- like Seattle -- and you're one of the best teams in the league.

 

Simply put, PRD measures how much more or less efficient a team's QBing is than their opponents, and that's not strictly a function of how good your QB is. Nor does it mean that QB wins is a valid stat.

 

/rant

[amfootball]

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/russell-wilson-and-proof-that-wins-are-great-qb-stat/33726/

Thanks for posting. I have always believed that win/loss is a valid stat for QBs even though like every other stat it is not perfect or complete. I had read about PRD before. There is no other position in all of sports that has as much control as the QB and his ability to play well and efficient in order for his team to get a W.

[dgambill]

I always thought we used numbers to show value and measure things....seems I'm wrong. I never realized you could spell WIN or TEAM with numbers....but apparantly you can't win or be a good team without them. I've heard numbers tell the story before...but all this time I've been reading books with words...silly me. I do think numbers have value...and in the right context have a great deal of meaning...but if you leave out everything else going on....the guys blocking...the pressure of the defense being applied...the mistakes made...even the luck of a bounce of the ball I just think your missing the bigger picture of a football game.

[-JJ-]

W/L is valid as a partial. As I remember Archie Manning was a pretty good QB who lost a lot- why? Because the Saints were horrible.

I agree with you dgambill- you have to look at it all...so the elusive number to define the game just isn't there. You actually have to watch the game ;-)

[southwest1]

W/L is valid as a partial. As I remember Archie Manning was a pretty good QB who lost a lot- why? Because the Saints were horrible.

I agree with you dgambill- you have to look at it all...so the elusive number to define the game just isn't there. You actually have to watch the game ;-)

What an innovative concept JJ. Like you say, stats mean absolutely out of context.

 

That's why Game Day highlight reels seldom show the reason for the win or the loss as you so astutely indicated.

 

The complete picture means everything.  

[-JJ-]

What an innovative concept JJ. Like you say, stats mean absolutely out of context.

 

That's why Game Day highlight reels seldom show the reason for the win or the loss as you so astutely indicated.

 

The complete picture means everything.  

It's a novel concept ;)

[southwest1]

Is bringing up Passer Rating Differential & RW the best way to illustrate the value of completed passes when their RB Marshawn Lynch would have won the Seahawks back to back SB titles? 

 

More a joke in jest at the author of the article Kerry Byrne as opposed to the Go Hawks field general himself. Yeah I know, picks can still happen no matter what. 

 

I just like contradictions that defy established rules. Can any team compete with the Broncos potent offense? Denver loses to Seattle in 2013 43-8 & RW is money in throwing the ball & they lose a year later 28-24 with a costly release of the pigskin that wasn't RW's finest hour. 

[Blue Horseshoe]

Are they playing tennis?

[aaron11]

not a big fan of Qb or passer rating.  they make the QB look better if a receiver breaks a tackle and goes for a big gain off of a slant or something.  they hurt the Qb if they hit a receiver in the numbers but they drop it, or tip it and it gets intercepted. 

 

they make you look bad for throwing garbage time ints at the end of a half even if it makes perfect sense to just throw it up and see what happens.

 

its also stupid to have an interception hurt your rating more than a TD would have raised it.  they also reward you too much just for getting completions

[oldunclemark]

I just disagree...

To suggest that a QB's performance can accurately be defined by wins and losses simply isn't borne out by results.

Did Aaron Rodgers lose' the NFC title game last year at Seattle

Did Russell Wilson 'win' that game.

Its like counting a hockey goaltender's win loss record.

Just because his performance may define winning or losing more than a defensemen, does NOT mean its valid to assign the number to him.

In team sport, no one players performance can consistently and accurately be tracked by the entire team winning or losing.

WE hunger for simplistic statistics and we fool ourselves.

[Superman]

WE hunger for simplistic statistics and we fool ourselves.

 

QFT

 

The QB is probably the most important position in team sports. I've seen arguments for starting pitchers and for goalies, but to me, it's QB hands down. Even then, the QB is on the field only for offense, and doesn't play special teams. So he's on the field for 45% of the plays, each game. And you don't throw every down, probably only 60% at most, for a pass heavy team. Yes, the QB influences the defense even on run plays, and he orchestrates what the offense does (especially QBs with a measure of control at the line of scrimmage), but he's still only throwing the ball 35-40 times a game, at most, in game that easily has 160-180 plays a game, or more, between both teams combined, when you include special teams. 

 

That means one QB's passer rating measures less than 25% of the plays in a typical game. But this article is saying that QB wins is legitimized on the basis of passer rating differential. I can't agree with that. The results bear out very plainly how definitive PRD is over a large sample size. But that doesn't mean QBs win/lose games.

[GoColts8818]

So a few years ago when the steelers beat the Dolphins 3-0 in a game with the fewest offensive yards in NFL history it was all because of Big Ben hunh...

[dgambill]

QFT

 

The QB is probably the most important position in team sports. I've seen arguments for starting pitchers and for goalies, but to me, it's QB hands down. Even then, the QB is on the field only for offense, and doesn't play special teams. So he's on the field for 45% of the plays, each game. And you don't throw every down, probably only 60% at most, for a pass heavy team. Yes, the QB influences the defense even on run plays, and he orchestrates what the offense does (especially QBs with a measure of control at the line of scrimmage), but he's still only throwing the ball 35-40 times a game, at most, in game that easily has 160-180 plays a game, or more, between both teams combined, when you include special teams. 

 

That means one QB's passer rating measures less than 25% of the plays in a typical game. But this article is saying that QB wins is legitimized on the basis of passer rating differential. I can't agree with that. The results bear out very plainly how definitive PRD is over a large sample size. But that doesn't mean QBs win/lose games.

Outside of Lebron James I agree....that guy is so good that he turns avg caliber teams to elite. But yes...I'm being disagreable...qb has the biggest contribution to the outcome of the game...I agree. Just looking at numbers though don't always tell you the whole story in how you get those numbers nor the game that doesn't show up as a number in those stats.

[Superman]

Outside of Lebron James I agree....that guy is so good that he turns avg caliber teams to elite. But yes...I'm being disagreable...qb has the biggest contribution to the outcome of the game...I agree. Just looking at numbers though don't always tell you the whole story in how you get those numbers nor the game that doesn't show up as a number in those stats.

 

Basketball is more of an individualized sport, so it's not really comparable. One great player can make you a playoff team, or better, and it doesn't really matter what position he plays if he really is great. Plus, he's on the floor 75-80% of the game, and can touch the ball every play, plays offense and defense... just a different matter entirely.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Stats to me are valuable, but limited.  I find them to be snapshots.  of a series, game, year, or career.  We all know snap photos can tell a story, but don't necessarily tell the complete story. 

[GoColts8818]

Basketball is more of an individualized sport, so it's not really comparable. One great player can make you a playoff team, or better, and it doesn't really matter what position he plays if he really is great. Plus, he's on the floor 75-80% of the game, and can touch the ball every play, plays offense and defense... just a different matter entirely.

Exactly James proved in his first go around with the Cavs if you have a superstar that alone is enough to take you a long way in the NBA.  The NFL just simply put doesn't work that way because every player needs someone else doing their job in order to be good at theirs.  For example even Andrew Luck needs his linemen, runningbacks, and in some cases his tightends to block for him and needs his receivers to catch the ball.  If those guys don't do that then there is only so much Luck can do. 

[GoColts8818]

Stats to me are valuable, but limited.  I find them to be snapshots.  of a series, game, year, or career.  We all know snap photos can tell a story, but don't necessarily tell the complete story. 

Stats are a wonderful tool if used correctly, however most of the time they are not.  They can easily be twisted to show anything you want and most of the time that's exactly what people do with them. 

[amfootball]

Stats are a wonderful tool if used correctly, however most of the time they are not.  They can easily be twisted to show anything you want and most of the time that's exactly what people do with them. 

True but this PRD stat shows plainly how the play of the QB effects the outcomes of games over a large sample size. And really, I think we all understand this. We know NE, the Colts, GB, Denver are 10+ wins teams every year because of their QBs. That is not to say that it is an all encompassing or perfect stat as none are or that W-L record tells the whole story as it does not. But it for sure is an indicator of a QBs play and influence over a game that we always talk about up here as being so instrumental as to whether a team wins or loses.

[ReMeDy]

 

Jared "J.Load" Lorenzen won a Superbowl with the Giants against the unbeaten Patriots. Andrew, you need to step up your A-Game!