By: Jamey Bankert

Jamey Bankert — Mon, 12 Feb 2018 04:01:00 +0000

Just realized all the other comments are from 3 years ago so most likely this had been dropped but if not I’ll had another 2¢ in. The goal needs to be to figure out what the most important goal of a teams offense leading to the most successv is and and reward a qb who who contributes to that no matter how he accomplishes it. In other words it seems to me that every offenses c primary goal is to score tho most points per each play as possible while committing the least turnovers power play possible. This limits the importance of total offensive yards a team gains versus the importance of points scored giving no reward to teams with multiple long drives down the field resulting in 3pts or 0pts at a higher % than the league average. This also would not punish an offense for scoring after receiving the ball on a short field due to a turnover planning the emphasis on how many points they score / #of plays they take to get them. I think that points scored by the offense/play -turnovers committed by the offense/play should result in the offense with the highest number most likely being the best offense. This may not indicate overall team success as that’s dependant on the defenses ability to perform and surrender the least #points/ defensive possession – the most turnovers recovered/ defensive possession. The team with overall largest difference between highest offensive scoring efficiency versus the it’s defenses points given up per possession will most likely be a team with one of the best win/loss record in the league. Have to include how special teams may affect the team as well to judge a teams overall odds of winning the most games each year. But I digress, while team success is defined by win/ loss it’s unfair to judge any players worth using that record as its a team effort determined by how the contributions of all 3 parts of a team. So if we can’t define the most successful offenses by wins/ losses then we have to go to the most important thing they can accomplish to help result in a win which is score points. And it’s a QBs job to make that happen any way possible regardless of the process but I’m pretty sure that if we go back and check we will find that the team whose qb guided the offence to the best point/play possible were all on the list of possibly QBs at this time.

By: Jamey Bankert

Jamey Bankert — Mon, 12 Feb 2018 02:40:00 +0000

I applaud the thought you’ve put into this but I disagree with some of your figures. Such as you give +1/passing yard gained and -1/yard lost per sack indicating that total net yards from the line of scrimmage is the important figure you ultimately use, but then your formula only gives .5/ rushing yards gained indicating that how the yards are gained somehow matters on the overall impact to the teams success. I disagree with equaling rating a td versus an int as if not throwing an int is just as good as scoring a td. Scored points are a guaranteed positive outcome of 7 points but throwing an int or fumbling may not always result in a loss 7 possible points to a team. Although I often feel a lost fumble is worse than an int considering most lost fumbles result in the other team gaining possesion at or behind the previous line of scrimmage while an int may give the other team the ball 40 yards further up field operating like a punt as far as moving field position. You also didn’t take into account things like an int thrown at the end of the half attempting a hail Mary. Assuming it isn’t returned for 100yds and a td, this int has the same effect as an incomplete pass, taking a knee or rushing the ball for 0 yds but could have the positive effect of resulting in a td. Treating this turnover the same way as any other interception inflates it’s importance to three actual result of the game. That’s where espn was on the right track with their QBR system which takes this into account. It wild be interesting to compare your results with this formula against each QB’s actual overall win/loss % and see if your system gives a close result to judge that your system ends up quantifying the most important things that actually result in team success. The nfl passer rating admits to not actually being able to show a QB’s total value as a player as it ignores rushing stats completely. Espn made some effort to correct that by considering rushing yards and tds into the formula. They don’t say how their formula works and I suspect they only give partial credit for any rushing states much like yours does. I think this is due to how people view what a QBs most important function is which is to run the team offense to score as many points as possible versus adding to the opponents points by turnovers any way he can. Ultimately the most important this as win as many games as possible by the largest average as possible so somehow you need to figure out which stats to include in your formula to give the same list order results you’d get when your multiply a qbs percentage of teams points scored times the win/loss record. Using win/loss gives credit for achieving the actual point in the NFL which is to win and then applies credit for the qb’ s actual donation to getting each win.

Comments on: Guest Post: Brad Oremland’s Stat-Based Quarterback Ranking System

By: Jamey Bankert

By: Jamey Bankert