Browns squeak by worst team in the league for first winning streak in 14 months

The reason the picks weren’t immense drags on his Total QBR is because neither one was a red zone INT. One was 2nd down from the 33 and the other was 3rd down from the 37. Furthermore, neither pick set up the Raiders with exceedingly good field position. Since their formula’s foundation is Expected Points, while both INTs were negative expected points (obviously), they don’t weight as heavily as something like a pick 6, and the expected points lost on a pick goes down as you get away from the red zone, and later in down and distance situations.

The problem is that other known factors of Total QBR annihilate its value for analyzing how good a quarterback is.

note to self. Always check to see if Blander has already covered it 5x better.

The second “redzone” pick he threw was nothing but a positive for us. It was 3rd and 2 if memory serves, outside of fg range, and it put the ball on the 7. It was an awesome punt. If QBR is sensible, that should have been a plus for the Weedster.

The first one was horrible with a capital H. Cost us 3 at least, and should have been completed at the 10 or so to boot.

Is that what it says? Where did you get this percentile info? I’ve never seen it described that way.

From ESPN:
“The final step is transforming the clutch-valued expected points rate to a number from 0 to 100. This is just a mathematical formula with no significance other than to make it easier to communicate.”

“Scoring: 0-100, from low to high. An average QB would be at 50. … [A] value of 50 is average, and that is what QBR generates for an average performance. That being said, the top values in a season tend to be about 75 and above, whereas the top values in a game are in the upper 90s.”

If the scale is from 1-100 and the average is 50, a score of 80 tells me that about 20% would be expected to have done better. But regardless of whether my math is wrong or my understanding of the stat is flawed, nobody has explained why it doesn’t do exactly what it says it sets out to do.

This is just a pathetic response. QBR Trutherism is the new Mangini witch hunt.

While you are here being an an insane QBR Truther, can you tell us that similar advanced metrics used by Pro Football Focus and Football Outsiders that each result in similar rankings as QBR, with Weeden at the very bottom, are also deeply flawed in ways that you won’t even try to explain?

OK, well I think we can all agree that every advanced metric shows that Brandon Weeden has been the worst starting QB in the league this season by a country mile, unless John Skelton and Mark Sanchez count.

And also that there’s not necessarily anything wrong with any of these metrics.

“It’s not perfect, but it’s almost certainly better than the traditional passer rating and possibly the best single statistic out there.” OK.

I feel bad for the person who would be so dumb as to bet that I wouldn’t focus on the most relevant portion of the article.

Huh?

“the quality of the defense would already be accounted for in the individual per-play determinations of whether the “average” quarterback would have done better”

That is not how expected points and win probability work.

“I would guess that the quality of the defense played on each individual play measured would have at least something to do with the final assessment of what an average QB would have done on the play”

If the stat is well-designed, well-explained, and you have the understanding you claim to, you would not be guessing about such things.

Here’s a quick and dirty on expected points. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8379024/nfl-explaining-expected-points-metric

QBR then attempts to assign a portion of the expected points to the QB based on their impact on the play and then uses “clutch weighting” to give an importance factor to the play.

“The Total Quarterback Rating is a statistical measure that incorporates the contexts and details of those throws and what they mean for wins. It’s built from the team level down to the quarterback, where we understand first what each play means to the team, then give credit to the quarterback for what happened on that play based on what he contributed.”
“for the past three years, ESPN has charted football games in immense detail”
“By putting all these ideas together and incorporating division of credit, we have built a metric of quarterback value, the Total Quarterback Rating, Total QBR or QBR for short.”
“The final step is transforming the clutch-valued expected points rate to a number from 0 to 100. This is just a mathematical formula with no significance other than to make it easier to communicate.”
“With this rating, we have intentionally not adjusted for opponents.”

You yourself have asked multiple times things about the standard deviation involved and that maybe it’s possible that the hulu hoop/domino analogy applied. I commented on the fact that the major issue with QBR is that we don’t know these things. Because they don’t give enough information to determine those things [I said it with much more snark that apparently qualified as "diminishing clutter" however, so it's gone]. If your default is to trust the formula and the number and then use the number however incorrectly [you've done it multiple times and quite frankly, I put most of the blame on the way the stat is presented, not on you] it may be because it supports your current argument, then so be it. I am more skeptical and require it be shown or that at least enough information is provided so that I can delve into it and have discussions with others about its merits.
Also, can you answer this: what is the proper use of QBR? Is it set out to measure a repeatable thing that will have reasonable predictive value? [See a conversation on WPA in baseball for some background here]

” I’m not interested in chicken/egg arguments about whether it’s “predictive” or not”
Then that means that you aren’t interested in any meaningful discussion of the stat itself. And if you don’t know/care about those things about the stat, then your application of the stat should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially since you’ve demonstrated a misunderstanding of the scale and how to use the number.

Good grief. If a quarterback registers a highly measured contribution to his team’s efforts to win football games week in and week out …

Sure. I’m just not all that suspicious about ESPN’s ability to properly weight clutch and assign responsibility and none of the QBR Truthers have ever given me any reason to be. It’s not hard to understand that close games are different from blowouts, and that threading the needle is different from checking down in the flat.

May I ask why my other response to this comment got deleted?

But it doesn’t take into account how the average quarterback would have performed against that defense. Finding an ‘average’ baseline would necessarily be how the ‘average’ QB (actually a combination of many, many QBs’ historical stats) performed on average, which would mean against good, poor, and average defenses, for a resulting ‘average’ defense. So no, it doesn’t account for individual per-play determinations of whether the average quarterback would have done better against that defense.

Or more simply, what Defenenstration says below me, which is that that isn’t how it works.

Maybe.