clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Your QB Metric. Yours.

New, comments

An attempt to channel the depository of intelligence that populates Field Gulls into something other than hilarious .gif threads. Like, for example, a comprehensive quarterback evaluation tool.

Steven Bisig-USA TODAY Sports

There is no Seahawks football until the evening of October 6. That is still a long time.

Once you complete your lamentations, you might consider using the week to team up with your fellow Field Gullers, and doing something productive, like co-creating a brand new quarterback metric. One that doesn't suck.

If that sounds like a good idea, you're in the right place.

But Aren't We Already Doing Something Like This?

There are indeed a couple of locally grown QB evaluation tools making the rounds on our site. Chris' Total Accuracy venture is one designed to tease out a QB's accuracy, independent of the rest of his performance. BestGuyAround's Top Fiveyness (season two now available for download!) is a great way to view where a quarterback ranks among his peers.

But both of those metrics rely on aggregates of league-wide rankings instead of raw statistics. Which is a fine short cut, if you're into short cuts. I'm going to suggest that we not use rankings within this experiment. Instead, the goal is to collect your input. Which existing statistics -- advanced or not -- should form the recipe of our new uber-stat? What do we include, and how should it be weighted?

A transparent process and objective decision-making ought to give us something narrative-free and unbiased and intelligent -- something significantly better than passer rating, Approximate Value, QBR, or even Pro Bowl voting. Yes, that's a haha joke.

So What Do I Do?

If you choose to accept it, here's your mission, Field Gulls. Comment below with your suggestion of what ingredients should go into this new metric. Add what weight they should be given.

A good comment might take a while to craft. Feel free to reply to yourself to add components or edit your choices.

A sample comment might look like this:

Clever Subject Line

Five stats are so important they cannot be excluded: Y/A, ANY/A, TD%, Int% and rushing yards. Use Y/A x 5, AY/A x 5, (TD%-Int%) x 5 and average rushing yards per game divided by 2. Your raw number will be close to 100 for a pretty good quarterback. Russell Wilson's 2014 stats come out to 122.5 with this formula.

By Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx on Sept. 28, 2014 / reply    rec (5)    flag

Or your could make a simpler suggestion, like this commentor:

Also Clever Subject Line

You have to use indexed stats only.

By Yyyyyy Yyyyyyyy on Sept 28, 2014 / reply    rec (7)    flag

I'll aggregate all the serious comments that arrive before Week 5's game, and publish a tentative compilation before Week 6. Your feedback at that point will lead to the finished result.

As you've now just begun to deduce, comments with the most recs will get the most weight in crafting the final product. So use the rec button if you see something you like.

Now if you don't like someone's choices, feel free to explain why, but not until you've submitted your own original comment. Glass houses.

Can You Point Me In The General Direction?

A short list of the kind of stats you might want to nominate:

  • Y/A
  • ANY/A
  • ANY/A+
  • Rate+
  • PFF QB rating
  • WPA/G
  • TD%
  • Success rate (%)

For "fun," here's an even briefer list of stats at which the community is likely to scoff:

  • Passing Yards
  • QBR
  • TD passes
  • PFF grades

If you want to propose something way off the beaten path, like:

  • Total Air Yards minus attempts minus interceptions x 10
  • Yards minus sack yards/dropback

Then feel free. This is your stat, after all. Just devise a metric and say it should be included. If people agree via recs, you'll see the stat in the final computation.

Conclusion

Crowdsourcing is not a completely new science. Other places have probably done this kind of thing before. But not exactly like this, driven by the wisdom of a crowd that actually has wisdom on its side.

Go.

(P.S. Oh hey, if you have a catchy name for the final product [like GARY], throw that out there too.)