Week after week, I have been checking back on the NCAA FBS passing leaders, keeping an eye on the quarterback rating leader boards, and have been surprised to see its results over that period of time.
Obviously, all football fans know that stats can't always tell the story of how good a player is, but that isn't where my quarterback rating complaint lies. It is a stat, and still doesn't give a proper rating based on the other stats.
The formula is legitimate, and that is not where I have the problem. What i take exception to, is the fact that touchdowns thrown per pass attempted is weighed too heavily. For this season's examples, we will use Tulsa quarterback David Johnson, and Texas Tech passer Graham Harrell.
David Johnson
172-258, 66.7 %, 331 YPG, 33 TD, 10 INT, 11.6 YPA: xxx.xx Rating
Graham Harrell
332-463, 71.7%, 407 YPG, 36 TD, 5 INT, 8.9 YPA: xxx.xx Rating
Johnson has a 2.7-yard advantage in each attempt, which gives him a nice boost. But Harrell leads him in completion percentage by five (5) percent, the much better TD/INT ratio, and the more yards per game. So who do you think would have the better quarterback rating?
Due to Johnson's YPA advantage, you would think he would have a bit of an advantage, perhaps able to even out his deficit in completion percentage and TD/INT ratio, and most would guess they would be neck-and-neck in rating, right...?
WRONG.
Maybe Johnson would even be able to boost the lead to a few points due to the number of touchdowns he threw in a lower amount of attempts. Well, what are the real rating you ask?
Johnson: 198.25
Harrell: 169.18
A nearly 30-point advantage for Tulsa's David Johnson due to the emphasis placed on touchdowns per attempt, even more so than placed on interceptions. Examining the formula has led me to create a scenario to see which quarterback would have the better quarterback rating...The formula for the rating is below...
Quarterback A: 10-24, 176 Yards, 4 TD, 2 INT.
Quarterback B: 30-49, 300 Yards, 2 TD, 0 INT.
I was hoping all of the scenarios I concocted would fail, thus making my article irrelevant and letting me save some time, but alas, that was not the case.
The first quarterback completed just over 40% of his passes, for 7.5 yards per attempt, and 4 touchdowns, which isn't bad. But two interceptions which essentially kill drives and push momentum the other way.
The second quarterback completed 20 percent more of his passes, but at a bit lower yardage per attempt, just over six. Common sense would tell you that completing two more passes out of every 10 would make up for the difference in average per attempt, though. He threw only two touchdowns, but was without an interception.
Due to the second quarterback's low number of touchdown passes in twice as many attempts, he ends up with the lower rating (141 to 140, basically).
While the difference is rating is not that drastic, and the quarterback may not have had the best game, I still feel the formula needs some tweaks. The emphasis placed on touchdown passes per attempt, in comparison to the negative impact of interceptions needs to be altered, or at least tweaked.
Just a fun fact: Sam Bradford's rating in the game against Texas? 187. Graham Harrell's rating in the game against Texas? 155.
comments (12) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Actually, even I was wondering how Harrell slipped in the ratings list after a Heisman-like performance against Texas (last drive).
His overall performance was also pretty decent in that game.
from about 1 month ago
The 2 touchdowns in 50+ attempts is what killed him. Which means, the more we let Shannon Woods run for those touchdowns, Harrell's rating gets hurt.
He is averaging a touchdown every 12 or so attempts.
about 1 month ago
It should be called "quarterback passing rating". If it were a complete Quarterback Rating it should take into account sacks, yards lost to sacks, rushing yards and fumbles per snap.
from about 1 month ago
I think it is called passing efficiency rating.
The rating rewards a QB mostly by yards per attempt. Most football gurus will tell you that yards per attempt is one of the most important statistics. Obviously low interceptions and high completion percentage help.
from about 1 month ago
Actually, my main complaint with the formula is that interceptions are looked at as negatively as touchdowns are positively.
about 1 month ago
I don't pay much attention to it. Give me Graham Harrell any day and I won't care what his stats are.
about 1 month ago
You take Harrell...I'll stick with Tebow. Laughing every time his WRs dropped passes on Saturday. Even when he hit Percy Harvin in the hands for a 60-ard bomb to the 3-yard-line Tebow laughed it off. All that matters is that your team gets in the end zone. The only drive the Gators didn't reach the endzone while Tebow was in control against Vandy?...Percy Havin fumbled while Tebow played WR for a few downs at the endzone. By the way, Tebow's QB rating the past 3 games are each over 200 despite throwing for 45 passes total. That is without accounting for his 7 rushing touchdowns over that span.
from about 1 month ago
You take Tebow, I'll stick with Harrell.
By the way, Tebow's QB rating last game was 185.45, not over 200. He has been much more impressive lately than earlier in the year though.
about 1 month ago
I think the rating says more about the team than the QB.
If you were just judging the QB you would find a way to distinguish between long passes completed and short tosses to running backs that are basically just running plays.
You would also take some care to judge if an interception had anything to do with the quarterback. Batted balls at the line, broken routes by the receiver..... a lot of interceptions aren't the result of bad QB play.
As for the overall team performance. If you have a bad defense and you fall behind, the QB has to go the air to catch up. He's throwing into a defense that is laying back for the pass and he's trying to force the ball into tight coverages.
The point is, when a QB has a high rating, that mostly means the overall team is playing outstanding football. It may or may not mean the QB is playing outstanding football.
from about 1 month ago
In that case, do you not also agree that formula needs to be adjusted to accurately judge a quarterback, and the quarterback alone's performance?
from about 1 month ago
Exactly my point, but I don't think there is any way to do that really. There's would be too much judgement at all.
Maybe subtract yards gained after catch, at least on passes that are thrown 5 yards or less?
Also, I'm not so sure TD passes are that big a deal. Sometimes it just says the team has no ability to gain short yards on the ground. Why penalize a QB's rating? He can be firing darts, taking his team up and down the field, but the coaches have a very effective short yard running game they prefer to use in the red zone.
Bottom line. When I see a QB with a very high rating, I think, man that's team is really playing well. They usually have the lead, which means they have a great defense. They also have a great running game, because the QB's not put in a lot of 3rd and longs. And they've got the opposition so off balance they can either run or throw inside the red zone.
about 1 month ago
Good point Lou...I guess it is more of a statistic for ESPN to shower the QB with compliments on his teams success. They do have subjective awards in sports though for what you are talking about.
write a new comment