ESPN has a new tiered QB rating system

[BigHouseUSA]

At least they haven't beat this to death on its first day.

[Bear Pand]

It's on now.

according to Dilfer this was his idea entirely

[Bear Pand]

I'd like to see that list.

Top 10 last year:



Ben Roethlisberger - 7.58
Tom Brady - 7.52
Philip Rivers - 7.5
Michael Vick - 7.31
Aaron Rodgers - 7.1
Josh Freeman - 6.65
Matt Schaub - 6.57
Kyle Orton - 6.43
Joe Flacco - 6.38
Matt Cassel - 6.15

i believe

[Bear Pand]

top 10 list by espn's rating for 2010

brady 76
p manning 69.5
ryan 68.6
rodgers 67.9 (86 in playoffs)
vick 66.6
brees 65.9
e manning 64.3
freeman 63.5
rivers 63.2
ben 59.8

top 5 since 2008

manning 77.2
brady 69.5
brees 68.3
rivers 68.2
rodgers 67.3

[Rayman]

Where's the link to those numbers Pandy? Can't locate it.

[DomePatrol]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6834507/nfl-peyton-manning-top-two-qbr-seasons

This is over the last three years I think

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6834591/nfl-tom-brady-led-nfl-qbr-2010-season

and this is the top 10 of last year

[dell71]

I keep reading articles on this and my headache keeps getting worse. It reeks of subjectivity and "top secret" computations. In theory it sounds great. I'm just suspicious of a stat it takes a whole department of people armed with an arsenal of technology 12 hours after a game to tell me how good some guy played. Their numbers might be totally legit. However, its presented to us like "We watched all the games and you didn't so take our word for it. And no we're not really going to tell you how we did it."
TXT8026/T05_0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0

[FirstTimer]

Sabremetrics for QB's yeah!

[FirstTimer]

I'd like to see that list.

I'll put it together tonight since I'll be bored.

:lulz:

[FirstTimer]

Here it is based on the formula Senser gave us:

Roethlisberger: 7.6
Rivers: 7.5
Brady: 7.5
Vick: 7.3
Rodgers: 7.0
Freeman: 6.6
Schaub: 6.5
Sanchez: 6.5
Orton: 6.4
Flacco: 6.3
Cassel: 6.1
Tebow: 6.1
Cutler: 5.7
Ryan: 5.7
P. Manning: 5.6
McNabb: 5.5
Brees: 5.3
E. Manning: 5.1
Palmer: 5.0
Henne: 4.8
Bradford: 4.6

[Aso]

Here it is based on the formula Senser gave us:

Roethlisberger: 7.6
Rivers: 7.5
Brady: 7.5
Vick: 7.3
Rodgers: 7.0
Freeman: 6.6
Schaub: 6.5
Sanchez: 6.5
Orton: 6.4
Flacco: 6.3
Cassel: 6.1
Tebow: 6.1
Cutler: 5.7
Ryan: 5.7
P. Manning: 5.6
McNabb: 5.5
Brees: 5.3
E. Manning: 5.1
Palmer: 5.0
Henne: 4.8
Bradford: 4.6

That formula is no good

[Bear Pand]

I keep reading articles on this and my headache keeps getting worse. It reeks of subjectivity and "top secret" computations. In theory it sounds great. I'm just suspicious of a stat it takes a whole department of people armed with an arsenal of technology 12 hours after a game to tell me how good some guy played. Their numbers might be totally legit. However, its presented to us like "We watched all the games and you didn't so take our word for it. And no we're not really going to tell you how we did it."
TXT8026/T05_0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0

Eh, I disagree. I don't get the we watched the games and you didn't feel, more of a we ran a bunch of numbers through a computer and here's what it said feel. I don't think it's really that subjective, based on what I've read and what they said on the show. It's def complicated though and not necessarily correct.

My main issue is ESPN is completely retarded about it. They treat it like a gimmick. When I go on ESPN I can easily get a list of QBs sorted by the old QB rating, TDs, anything but their rating is nowhere to be found. Not even on a players individual stat page. You have to go out of your way to find the numbers. This after they claimed how revolutionary and important the stat is.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Eh, I disagree. I don't get the we watched the games and you didn't feel, more of a we ran a bunch of numbers through a computer and here's what it said feel. I don't think it's really that subjective, based on what I've read and what they said on the show. It's def complicated though and not necessarily correct.

My main issue is ESPN is completely retarded about it. They treat it like a gimmick. When I go on ESPN I can easily get a list of QBs sorted by the old QB rating, TDs, anything but their rating is nowhere to be found. Not even on a players individual stat page. You have to go out of your way to find the numbers. This after they claimed how revolutionary and important the stat is.

I'm with you, i'm going to give it a chance.

I like how they are taking everything that happens on the field, and I like how they are weighting all of it as well. It's very comprehensive. However, I still would like to see the formulas. If the formulas are shit, or too gimmicky, or weighted in such a way that it's silly, then we can toss this in the trash. But it clearly has potential.

At worst it will be another guide to look at and argue about, just like some of the goofier MLB sabermetric stuff and the new NBA metrics. But some of those new stats have changed the game, so why not give this a shot? People are being closed minded because it didn't spit out results that matched the same old accepted hierarchy. Lame.

[Bear Pand]

I went through and did a weighted average for every QB 2008-2010. Took off any QB who I had less than 500 plays or less than 2 seasons for:

Of course it'd be easier if ESPN wasn't so shit

More info on the methodology they used: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/68...terback-rating

hopefully then actually start using it

[Warner2BruceTD]

Why is the formula under such lock and key? I understand it's highly complex and some high level math is obviously involved, but what's the big deal?