QUAR: What really is a good QB?

[Macavity]

I would LOVE Glen's thoughts, but will take anyone's.

https://www.bluebombers.com/2017/06/...ng-innovation/

Seems an improvement to me.

[Hugoagogo]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

I would LOVE Glen's thoughts, but will take anyone's.

https://www.bluebombers.com/2017/06/...ng-innovation/

Seems an improvement to me.

Certainly an interesting proposal. I find a much heavier lean on team results vs individual performance, so I don't think it's the perfect solution. Ricky Ray played on some crappy teams in his later years in Edmonton. Did it make him less of a quarterback because his defense couldn't stop the opposition or his RB was ****? Accounting for team wins in a QB rating just doesn't seem to improve individual performance assessment in all situations.

[Macavity]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

Except, Hugo, sometimes on those lousy teams, down by 17 points, Ray would take all the underneath stuff, wasting time and not improving the chance of winning, while increasing his % and therefore his rating (and yardage totals). QUAR doesn't look anywhere near perfect, but it seems an improvement. Certainly a QB who runs when it matters (2nd down conversion mattering) seems to me the better QB, and it would never show in the QER. Again, I'll hear Glen out, because math!

[glenvb]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

Honestly, I don't like it much, partly because it seems more of a team offensive rating. Of course, to some extent so is the efficiency rating, but some team effect is unavoidable no matter how you measure.

The efficiency rating, as complicated as it looks, is actually a really crude measure. There are hard caps to how much each category can help your rating, and in fact some categories can actually hurt you (e.g., if you complete a pass for less then 3 yards it counts against you). The advantage is that the stats it's drawn from relate more directly to what the passer is accomplishing for his team.

The new system attributes team accomplishments directly to the passer. This makes it a melding of team power with QB power, and I'm not sure why I would care about that. (Notice that the 2016 new QB ratings are darned close to the final standings.) Yes, the legend says that great QB's can "win games for the team", but you just know that Trevor Harris would do much better on most of these new categories if he were a Stampeder rather than a Redblack. I want the QB measure, as much as possible, to tell me about the player's effectiveness, and this just dilutes the story. Hence BLM appearing at the top of the chart, mostly due to the strength of the team around him. The passing efficiency number suffers from the same drawbacks, but IMO this one suffers a lot more.

[Macavity]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

Thanks, Glen, appreciate the insight!

[Hugoagogo]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

[adb]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

I really believe that objectively evaluating the QB position is one of the toughest things to do in sports since it is so dependent on the rest of the team play in front of him. If a receiver runs the wrong route or the Oline doesn't give him enough time then how can a QB effectively do his job? And yet there are some QBs who can navigate the pocket or scramble so as to buy himself additional time and that somehow should enter into the evaluation process of what makes a QB more effective and should be positively evaluated since it's an asset to playing the position. Alternatively there are other signal callers who have a great oline and that should also enter into the assessment process negatively somehow as a lot of these guys could have a great performance under center if they've got all day to throw the ball.

I know that a few years ago just after Ricky Ray had won his last GC with the Esks and as the Als started to go on their run that I was absolutely losing my mind for a couple of seasons as there were so many pundits out there who thought Calvillo was so much better than RR. I mean I was watching the games and I was absolutely amazed at how well Ray was able to get the ball away at the last second and make something out of nothing while getting absolutely pummeled and pop back up just like Gumby used to on the Sunday morning cartoons that I watched when I was a kid and do it all over again. Meanwhile the great Calvillo could read the morning paper back there while completing pass after pass.

I just feel that there is no way to fairly evaluate the QB position because of the team aspect of the sport based on numbers...you just have to watch the games IMO and take everything in as a whole and make a judgement...I mean there are some games where QBs have great completion percentages because they are firing passes into tight windows and are very accurate and then there are others where they are just throwing the ball up and their receivers are making unbelievable catches for them...do the QB numbers give you some general idea on rating those performances? Sure but there's more to it than that and this new system doesn't do anything in terms of more effectively assessing individual QB play as far as I'm concerned and I don't believe that they will ever come up with one that accurately does so.

[glenvb]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

I know that a few years ago just after Ricky Ray had won his last GC with the Esks and as the Als started to go on their run that I was absolutely losing my mind for a couple of seasons as there were so many pundits out there who thought Calvillo was so much better than RR. I mean I was watching the games and I was absolutely amazed at how well Ray was able to get the ball away at the last second and make something out of nothing while getting absolutely pummeled and pop back up just like Gumby used to on the Sunday morning cartoons that I watched when I was a kid and do it all over again. Meanwhile the great Calvillo could read the morning paper back there while completing pass after pass.

Yup, I remember that. And it's happening right now with BLM. The rare occasion when he's under pressure, he's rattled and has happy feet. But he's so well protected that he may as well get a lawn chair.

The best we can do in these ratings systems are approximations. But bringing more team-oriented statistics into the system just makes the measure worse. Stick with the efficiency rating, or maybe I'll figure out an improvement

[adb]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

Yup, I remember that. And it's happening right now with BLM. The rare occasion when he's under pressure, he's rattled and has happy feet. But he's so well protected that he may as well get a lawn chair.

The best we can do in these ratings systems are approximations. But bringing more team-oriented statistics into the system just makes the measure worse. Stick with the efficiency rating, or maybe I'll figure out an improvement

Found this to be a really interesting article on rating QBs deep ball efficiency and much more useful than the QUAR statistic. Would be interested if the writer produced similar statistics on not just the deep ball but on all passes. Unfortunately his analysis of the QB does not include an assessment of the wide receiver play on a deep ball pass just the play of his offensive line (for example should a QB get less credit for a 50/50 ball that his receiver makes a play on or likewise on a terrible pass that his receiver makes an unbelievable catch on). If he could also work that into his analysis then I think we'd have something here that could help us truly rate QBs in terms of their deep ball passing ability if nothing else.

https://www.cfl.ca/2017/07/21/fergus...ld-efficiency/

[pizmo]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

It would be interesting regarding when these passes are completed. Reilly seems to do quite well at the end of the half or game on longer passes. What's the efficiency on these passes in the last 3 minutes?

[Sticker]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

So, here is another twist. Why does a QB get hit with an incomplete pass when his receiver just out and out drops a ball that he should have had? Baseball does not charge a pitcher with a hit if the play could have been made in normal circumstances but was not... hence and error is charged to the player. I used to keep the books for a Legion Team. Not that hard to make that determination.

So the official statistician would make that determination and record it. Not only that, we would have a pretty good idea which receivers drop (or commit an error) balls.

Just a thought.

[adb]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

So, here is another twist. Why does a QB get hit with an incomplete pass when his receiver just out and out drops a ball that he should have had? Baseball does not charge a pitcher with a hit if the play could have been made in normal circumstances but was not... hence and error is charged to the player. I used to keep the books for a Legion Team. Not that hard to make that determination.

So the official statistician would make that determination and record it. Not only that, we would have a pretty good idea which receivers drop (or commit an error) balls.

Just a thought.

I totally agree. What the league needs to develop is a stat related to a QBs passing game that takes into account his protection (as suggested by the article) and the receiver play on each and every pass. He should not get as much credit if he's allowed to sit back there and have a coffee so setting up a 1 - 5 scoring system on each pass to give the QB more credit for throwing an accurate pass under duress is a great idea. You would think that a similar scoring system could be developed where the QB gets more credit for completing a tough pass in a small window or some credit (or at least not get penalized as you suggest) for an in-completion that a receiver drops as well as less credit for a bad throw that a receiver makes a great play on or even on a 50/50 ball that if not for the receiver would have been in completed or picked off. Although for a 50/50 ball he should still get some credit for having the kahunas for putting the ball in there and not as much fault placed on him for attempting to make a tough play if the ball gets intercepted.

I believe this is the way the league should be looking at evaluating QB play and not the QUAR which I think is just about useless in evaluating the QB. I had a a second look at the last esks game and came away even more impressed with Reilly's performance considering the amount of pressure he was under and likewise Ricky Ray has had some outstanding performances under pressure this year but has benefited from some of his receivers great plays on 50/50 balls. These circumstances need to be taken into account when making comparisons between the leagues signal callers in my opinion.

However I'm not so sure about whether or not they could include degree of difficulty as the writer suggests. I mean should the QB get penalized if the defense covers the long ball and all he has open to him is the safe short check down play? Some additional thought would have to be put into that. Either you would not include that in the evaluation at all or incorporate the idea of penalizing the QB for not seeing the open man on plays where he had time to sit in the pocket and spot him but I'm thinking that's getting too complex and is really not doable because then you are evaluating circumstances away from the play. But who knows maybe not.

I guess this is getting a bit complex but if they can do analytics in hockey then they can do a better job of statistics in football.

[Hugoagogo]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

There are so many ways to evaluate and measure a QB. What about the QB who throws the ball away to prevent a loss when all his players are covered to prevent a loss? How about the QB that eats the ball rather than forcing a throw into a potential pick? How do you measure the leadership of a QB? Do you deny acknowledging the skill of a QB because the team around him sucks?

You can break down stats a million ways and skew them to your needs. My favorite evaluation of quarterbacks (and other players) are when the players vote and rank them. Find a rating system that lines up with what the players see on the field, and I think you've got a rating system that works.

[pizmo]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

Tom Wilkinson or BLM? Intangibles.

[adb]

Re: QUAR: What really is a good QB?

There are so many ways to evaluate and measure a QB. What about the QB who throws the ball away to prevent a loss when all his players are covered to prevent a loss? How about the QB that eats the ball rather than forcing a throw into a potential pick? How do you measure the leadership of a QB? Do you deny acknowledging the skill of a QB because the team around him sucks?

You can break down stats a million ways and skew them to your needs. My favorite evaluation of quarterbacks (and other players) are when the players vote and rank them. Find a rating system that lines up with what the players see on the field, and I think you've got a rating system that works.

Why couldn't someone include the factors you mention (throwing the ball away or eating it to avoid a pick) into that statistic? I know that it could get real complex and ever evolving as well as not perfect (for example what about the QB that benefits from a great game plan devised by a brilliant OC) but that's not a reason not to try to come up with a better measure IMO and as far as players opinions are concerned well that can be skewed as well. I mean in a lot of cases success seems to earn respect from players and experts alike (games won for example) but in the case of BLM for example how much of his success is attributable to him and how much to the team around him? Many experts out there consider him the best in the game just based on win/loss record (IMO he won an MOP last year based on it even though when you look at a lot of the other numbers Reilly had a better year). Anyways just my thoughts on what I think is an interesting subject.