Took a look at 34 NFL QBs (cut-off was at least 1,000 passing yards season-to-date) across 7 different stats:
(1) QB Rating
(2) Completion Percentage
(3) Passing Yards per Attempt
(4) Passing Yards per Completion
(5) Passing Yardage per Game
(6) Interceptions per 100 Passes
(7) TD Passes to Interception Ratio
For each of the above statistic, I simply ranked all 34 QBs from 1 to 34. I then took the MEDIAN across all 7 statistical rankings, and then sorted all QBs on their 7-stat MEDIAN ranking from best to worst.
Importantly, this analysis does not include any rushing statistics, which Daniel Jones excels at. That being said, here is our QB's ranking for each statistic and then his final Median Rank:
Daniel Jones Ranking (out of 34 QBs)
QB Rating (17th)
Completion Percentage (14th)
Passing Yards per Attempt (20th)
Passing Yards per Completion (27th)
Passing Yardage per Game (28th)
Interceptions per 100 Passes (3rd)
TD Passes to Interception Ratio (10th)
Daniel Jones Final 7-stat Median Ranking: (17th)
And below is the Final 7-stat Median Ranking for all 34 QBs:
Jalen Hurts 3
Tua Tagovailoa 3
Patrick Mahomes 4
Geno Smith 6
Jimmy Garoppolo 6
Joe Burrow 7
Ryan Tannehill 8
Josh Allen 9
Justin Herbert 10
Jared Goff 12
Tom Brady 13
Andy Dalton 14
Trevor Lawrence 14
Derek Carr 15
Russell Wilson 16
Daniel Jones 17
Jacoby Brissett 17
Kyler Murray 18
Dak Prescott 19
Lamar Jackson 19
Kirk Cousins 20
Aaron Rodgers 21
Mac Jones 22
Matthew Stafford 22
Taylor Heinicke 22
Marcus Mariota 25
Carson Wentz 26
Davis Mills 27
Justin Fields 27
Matt Ryan 28
Cooper Rush 29
Baker Mayfield 30
Zach Wilson 31
Kenny Pickett 32
My bottom-line Daniel Jones take-away from these stats: Given the absolute decimation of his wide receiver unit, a final Median Ranking of 17 ain't too shabby. Add to that his rushing ability and I say the Giants have an above average QB in Daniel Jones.
That said, I agree with the right core he may emerge as better than average QB going forward.
That said, I agree with the right core he may emerge as better than average QB going forward.
DATA
Completions over 20 yards. - ( New Window )
With the garbage at WR he's had this year (not to mention his interior OL) and the necessary playcalling compromises the staff has necessarily had to make, that stat says next to nothing about Jones' performance.
Hopefully not nearly as much as 16.
QB mobility is a big factor today.
Bravo! Justify it all you want he does not stand out.
Overworking the stats gets you really far MS -- your last stat analysis when placed into the real world completely bombed, now didn't it.
Dak Prescott 19
Lamar Jackson 19
Kirk Cousins 20
Aaron Rodgers 21
Mac Jones 22
Matthew Stafford 22
Taylor Heinicke 22
Marcus Mariota 25
Carson Wentz 26
Davis Mills 27
Justin Fields 27
And who exactly on the Giants can get open 20 yards downfield and hold onto the ball?
Also, that INT stat doesn’t impress me. No INTS + lack of production isn’t good. Simms & Manning three picks but made big plays.
Quote:
Check out completions over 20 yards. You have to go to the second page to find Jones. Guys ahead of him have missed games and/or have names like Mac Jones. Completions over 20 yards. - ( New Window )
And who exactly on the Giants can get open 20 yards downfield and hold onto the ball?
Slayton is averaging 17+ YPC. He's had two 50+ yard catches. A 30+ and 40+ yard catch. And at least three catches of 20+ yards.
Bravo! Justify it all you want he does not stand out.
Overworking the stats gets you really far MS -- your last stat analysis when placed into the real world completely bombed, now didn't it.
A few things:
(1) I am neither pro-Daniel Jones or anti-Daniel Jones. I think he's a decent QB. But, so far, I have never felt he's in the top tier;
(2) I thought this was a fairly compact and unbiased way of getting at a general ranking of NFL QBs. It is far from perfect, and it does not include any of the advanced QB statistics that are now circulating;
(3) I certainly didn't know in advance where any QB would fall in this ranking that I generated. The fact that Daniel Jones fell just about right in the middle made some sense to me, just like it made sense to me that Jalen Hurts, Tua Tagovailoa and Patrick Mahomes were at the top of this ranking. But I had no pre-conceived notion as to where these QBs would actually fall, nor did I undertake this analysis to prove a point about Daniel Jones.
Dak Prescott 19
Lamar Jackson 19
Kirk Cousins 20
Aaron Rodgers 21
Mac Jones 22
Matthew Stafford 22
Taylor Heinicke 22
Marcus Mariota 25
Carson Wentz 26
Davis Mills 27
Justin Fields 27
They don't.
Using median instead of mean, in this particular exercise, just amounts to ranking QBs by whatever their 4th best statistic is, and that one stat can vary from one QB to the next.
This sort of exercise should have been calculated with mean. The ranking likely ends up generally similar, but it would be more comprehensive in its path to that conclusion.
Either way, that's hardly a murderer's row of QBs this season - there's a lot of injuries, underperformance, and general mediocrity on that list.
Quote:
In comment 15934869 thefan said:
Quote:
Check out completions over 20 yards. You have to go to the second page to find Jones. Guys ahead of him have missed games and/or have names like Mac Jones. Completions over 20 yards. - ( New Window )
And who exactly on the Giants can get open 20 yards downfield and hold onto the ball?
Slayton is averaging 17+ YPC. He's had two 50+ yard catches. A 30+ and 40+ yard catch. And at least three catches of 20+ yards.
Great. And who are the other guys propelling Jones into the leaders spots? That accounts for way less than 1 20 yard catch per game. I don't think that quite does it.
Who the fuck is he supposed to throw to?
Maybe he can throw the fucking ball to himself.
I can't take it anymore. This is fucking rediculous.
Other than Slayton, our receivers would require a walker to GET 20 yards down the field.
Quote:
Check out completions over 20 yards. You have to go to the second page to find Jones. Guys ahead of him have missed games and/or have names like Mac Jones. Completions over 20 yards. - ( New Window )
Who the fuck is he supposed to throw to?
Maybe he can throw the fucking ball to himself.
I can't take it anymore. This is fucking rediculous.
Yeah, give DJ $45 million dollars (franchise tag) because I'm upset and think DJ gets a raw deal! I don't care about stats...it's all about my feewings!
I'd be comfortable with $25-30M per year, 3 years, if the coaches like him
It's ~$31.5M for the non-exclusive franchise tag. For some unknown reason, GMen72 insists on using the estimated value for the exclusive franchise tag, which no one has ever suggested would be in play for DJ.
That said, the price you're suggesting for DJ feels reasonable in a vacuum, but DJ's next contract won't be negotiated in a vacuum; it'll be negotiated in the actual current NFL QB market, which has recently polarized in such a way that, aside from Tom Brady (who has always been an anomaly in the pay scale), all veteran QBs make either more than $30M AAV or less than $20M AAV. There is no QB market in the $25M range.
Could DJ be the QB who smooths out the QB pay tiers because of the uniqueness of his situation? It's possible. But when you consider that the QB taken before him in his own draft class just got $230M over 5 years, it seems hard to fathom DJ's agent agreeing to take that much less than Murray just got.
Quote:
In comment 15934869 thefan said:
Quote:
Check out completions over 20 yards. You have to go to the second page to find Jones. Guys ahead of him have missed games and/or have names like Mac Jones. Completions over 20 yards. - ( New Window )
Who the fuck is he supposed to throw to?
Maybe he can throw the fucking ball to himself.
I can't take it anymore. This is fucking rediculous.
Yeah, give DJ $45 million dollars (franchise tag) because I'm upset and think DJ gets a raw deal! I don't care about stats...it's all about my feewings!
Yet another gem from you.
Quote:
Franchise tag $45 million ? I would be comfortable with something around $25 million a year for a couple years
It's ~$31.5M for the non-exclusive franchise tag. For some unknown reason, GMen72 insists on using the estimated value for the exclusive franchise tag, which no one has ever suggested would be in play for DJ.
That said, the price you're suggesting for DJ feels reasonable in a vacuum, but DJ's next contract won't be negotiated in a vacuum; it'll be negotiated in the actual current NFL QB market, which has recently polarized in such a way that, aside from Tom Brady (who has always been an anomaly in the pay scale), all veteran QBs make either more than $30M AAV or less than $20M AAV. There is no QB market in the $25M range.
Could DJ be the QB who smooths out the QB pay tiers because of the uniqueness of his situation? It's possible. But when you consider that the QB taken before him in his own draft class just got $230M over 5 years, it seems hard to fathom DJ's agent agreeing to take that much less than Murray just got.
The Murray deal was ridiculous, and looking back on this year people are going to see that. I don't see that setting the market.
Quote:
In comment 15935032 g56blue10 said:
Quote:
Franchise tag $45 million ? I would be comfortable with something around $25 million a year for a couple years
It's ~$31.5M for the non-exclusive franchise tag. For some unknown reason, GMen72 insists on using the estimated value for the exclusive franchise tag, which no one has ever suggested would be in play for DJ.
That said, the price you're suggesting for DJ feels reasonable in a vacuum, but DJ's next contract won't be negotiated in a vacuum; it'll be negotiated in the actual current NFL QB market, which has recently polarized in such a way that, aside from Tom Brady (who has always been an anomaly in the pay scale), all veteran QBs make either more than $30M AAV or less than $20M AAV. There is no QB market in the $25M range.
Could DJ be the QB who smooths out the QB pay tiers because of the uniqueness of his situation? It's possible. But when you consider that the QB taken before him in his own draft class just got $230M over 5 years, it seems hard to fathom DJ's agent agreeing to take that much less than Murray just got.
The Murray deal was ridiculous, and looking back on this year people are going to see that. I don't see that setting the market.
Regardless if it does set the market or not, if top qbs make 45+ and shit qbs make 10m, that means a middle of the road guy like DJ is probably going to get 25-30m from someone. And i would rather have dj at 25m than a carson wentz at 10m. And if the Giants draft a qb in round 1 this year, which they likely have no shot of even getting a good one, the qb still wont have anyone to throw it to.
It's not feasble for the giants to replace barkley, dj, 3 wide receivers, a cb, a linebacker, 2 lineman that everyone wants in one offseason. Plus have a bunch of decent backups because people get hurt. Simply not enough draft picks and not enough talent available as free agents. There are 22 starters on an nfl team and somehow the mindset is that you can replace 50% of them in one year and get decent replacements at all positions
So Shoen is going to effectively say "We don't think you're that great and we're going to actively try to replace you, here's a low term low money deal to stay" and Jones and his camp is just going to say yes?
They might not want him. And he might prefer a different situation.
Im watching Andy dalton dueling the corpse of Tom Brady. Jones will have a chance to start next year somewhere
I could see that as well.
Quote:
In comment 15935043 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15935032 g56blue10 said:
Quote:
Franchise tag $45 million ? I would be comfortable with something around $25 million a year for a couple years
It's ~$31.5M for the non-exclusive franchise tag. For some unknown reason, GMen72 insists on using the estimated value for the exclusive franchise tag, which no one has ever suggested would be in play for DJ.
That said, the price you're suggesting for DJ feels reasonable in a vacuum, but DJ's next contract won't be negotiated in a vacuum; it'll be negotiated in the actual current NFL QB market, which has recently polarized in such a way that, aside from Tom Brady (who has always been an anomaly in the pay scale), all veteran QBs make either more than $30M AAV or less than $20M AAV. There is no QB market in the $25M range.
Could DJ be the QB who smooths out the QB pay tiers because of the uniqueness of his situation? It's possible. But when you consider that the QB taken before him in his own draft class just got $230M over 5 years, it seems hard to fathom DJ's agent agreeing to take that much less than Murray just got.
The Murray deal was ridiculous, and looking back on this year people are going to see that. I don't see that setting the market.
Regardless if it does set the market or not, if top qbs make 45+ and shit qbs make 10m, that means a middle of the road guy like DJ is probably going to get 25-30m from someone. And i would rather have dj at 25m than a carson wentz at 10m. And if the Giants draft a qb in round 1 this year, which they likely have no shot of even getting a good one, the qb still wont have anyone to throw it to.
It's not feasble for the giants to replace barkley, dj, 3 wide receivers, a cb, a linebacker, 2 lineman that everyone wants in one offseason. Plus have a bunch of decent backups because people get hurt. Simply not enough draft picks and not enough talent available as free agents. There are 22 starters on an nfl team and somehow the mindset is that you can replace 50% of them in one year and get decent replacements at all positions
I agree with all of that
Couple of things:
(1) I'm assuming you mean TD passes. That's fair. Daniel Jones ranks 23rd in TD passes alone. But if I used that stat, I probably would have also used INTs, in which case Daniel Jones ranks 5th... so it's sort of a wash.
(2) In terms of average vs median, there is no "right" way, but I prefer the median to prevent any one particular stat ranking to pull a QB's final score either too low or too high. In any event, I went back to the data and used the average -- Daniel Jones final average was 17, which placed him #15 out of 34 QBs. That's practically the same vs the median score for him -- 17 (which places him #16 out of 34 QBs.)
Quote:
Franchise tag $45 million ? I would be comfortable with something around $25 million a year for a couple years
It's ~$31.5M for the non-exclusive franchise tag. For some unknown reason, GMen72 insists on using the estimated value for the exclusive franchise tag, which no one has ever suggested would be in play for DJ.
That said, the price you're suggesting for DJ feels reasonable in a vacuum, but DJ's next contract won't be negotiated in a vacuum; it'll be negotiated in the actual current NFL QB market, which has recently polarized in such a way that, aside from Tom Brady (who has always been an anomaly in the pay scale), all veteran QBs make either more than $30M AAV or less than $20M AAV. There is no QB market in the $25M range.
Could DJ be the QB who smooths out the QB pay tiers because of the uniqueness of his situation? It's possible. But when you consider that the QB taken before him in his own draft class just got $230M over 5 years, it seems hard to fathom DJ's agent agreeing to take that much less than Murray just got.
Boy I thought I was the most optimistic on DJ's market value (from his point of view) on this board, but this blows me away. As someone else said the Murray contract looks like a big mistake at this point. I think DJ is a legit NFL starter but definitely not top 5, and probably not top 10. I can't see him touching $46/yr. I still think we can get him in the 4/$120 range if we want him, although it is not clear if we should or do want him.
I think most of us would concede that if you could objectively rank his surrounding talent, it would be much worse than 17th. With Barkley back to being merely a decent running back, he could have the worst talent in the league. He has one legit really good starter playing with him, two rookies who may end up being good, one OL who was good, but has suffered massive injuries so who knows, and a bunch of guys who should mostly start during a strike as replacement players.
So he is what is his. A guy who has consistently carried a really bad offense to mediocrity. Can he carry a mediocre or good offense to greatness? Who the heck knows.
Ultimately, their fate will be decided by those two players should they elect to retain them.
If they punt on one or both...they will buy themselves more time in the rolls they have and then be ultimately judged by the players they choose over them down the road.
Never underestimate the decision makers role in protecting their own jobs when there's gray area in the world of personnel.
I don't have a problem with Jones for another year or two as a super bridge in the Alex Smith mold if they can figure out a deal structure that works for both parties. However, the Giants should always be looking to upgrade there, he's not at a level where you are set longterm.
Ultimately, their fate will be decided by those two players should they elect to retain them.
If they punt on one or both...they will buy themselves more time in the rolls they have and then be ultimately judged by the players they choose over them down the road.
Never underestimate the decision makers role in protecting their own jobs when there's gray area in the world of personnel.
I can't believe they see Jones as their guy going forward. It's a question of how do they manoeuvre.
Next April, Houston gets first pick. Eagles have the Saints's first rounder, which is looking likely to be highish. Seattle has Denver's, again probably highish. Carolina and Indianapolis will have high picks and are QB needy. It's going to be difficult for us to score a good QB through the draft.
Quote:
he's ahead of Kyler Murray 18
Dak Prescott 19
Lamar Jackson 19
Kirk Cousins 20
Aaron Rodgers 21
Mac Jones 22
Matthew Stafford 22
Taylor Heinicke 22
Marcus Mariota 25
Carson Wentz 26
Davis Mills 27
Justin Fields 27
They don't.
Using median instead of mean, in this particular exercise, just amounts to ranking QBs by whatever their 4th best statistic is, and that one stat can vary from one QB to the next.
This sort of exercise should have been calculated with mean. The ranking likely ends up generally similar, but it would be more comprehensive in its path to that conclusion.
Either way, that's hardly a murderer's row of QBs this season - there's a lot of injuries, underperformance, and general mediocrity on that list.
Good post. Had the same thought about using median instead of mean.
Quote:
In comment 15934923 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
he's ahead of Kyler Murray 18
Dak Prescott 19
Lamar Jackson 19
Kirk Cousins 20
Aaron Rodgers 21
Mac Jones 22
Matthew Stafford 22
Taylor Heinicke 22
Marcus Mariota 25
Carson Wentz 26
Davis Mills 27
Justin Fields 27
They don't.
Using median instead of mean, in this particular exercise, just amounts to ranking QBs by whatever their 4th best statistic is, and that one stat can vary from one QB to the next.
This sort of exercise should have been calculated with mean. The ranking likely ends up generally similar, but it would be more comprehensive in its path to that conclusion.
Either way, that's hardly a murderer's row of QBs this season - there's a lot of injuries, underperformance, and general mediocrity on that list.
Good post. Had the same thought about using median instead of mean.
Fox -- I addressed this issue above:
In terms of average vs median, there is no "right" way, but I prefer the median to prevent any one particular stat ranking to pull a QB's final score either too low or too high. In any event, I went back to the data and used the average -- Daniel Jones final average was 17, which placed him #15 out of 34 QBs. That's practically the same vs the median score for him -- 17 (which places him #16 out of 34 QBs.)
Quote:
Check out completions over 20 yards. You have to go to the second page to find Jones. Guys ahead of him have missed games and/or have names like Mac Jones. Completions over 20 yards. - ( New Window )
And who exactly on the Giants can get open 20 yards downfield and hold onto the ball?
It's disturbing Slayton was in Daboll's dog house earlier this year. Who the hell were they reserving a spot for ahead of him, Kenny G and The Young Joker?
In this case, you want a particular stat to spike (or drag) the composite score because it's very much part of that QB's performance identity. If a QB ranks highly across the board but has one particular stat that drags his whole average down, that also represents some sort of massive flaw in his game reflected in the statistical output.
You would want that flaw and corresponding drag on the QB's score to be factored in if you're trying to quantify a composite ranking of QBs. You've already eliminated noise by setting a fair threshold for qualification in the first place. Going the next step by using median rather than mean is now eliminating useful insight because the noise is already removed.
Hope that helps.
Imagine banging the table like Carl does, only for a middle third QB.
Quote:
In terms of average vs median, there is no "right" way, but I prefer the median to prevent any one particular stat ranking to pull a QB's final score either too low or too high. In any event, I went back to the data and used the average -- Daniel Jones final average was 17, which placed him #15 out of 34 QBs. That's practically the same vs the median score for him -- 17 (which places him #16 out of 34 QBs.)
In this case, you want a particular stat to spike (or drag) the composite score because it's very much part of that QB's performance identity. If a QB ranks highly across the board but has one particular stat that drags his whole average down, that also represents some sort of massive flaw in his game reflected in the statistical output.
You would want that flaw and corresponding drag on the QB's score to be factored in if you're trying to quantify a composite ranking of QBs. You've already eliminated noise by setting a fair threshold for qualification in the first place. Going the next step by using median rather than mean is now eliminating useful insight because the noise is already removed.
Hope that helps.
I’m not sure I quite follow you from a statistical/interpretive point of view, but in any event I think the median-average issue is sorta moot since both stats generate more or less the same ranking, especially in the case of Daniel Jones.
You can win with Daniel Jones under these 2 circumstances:
1. He's on a rookie deal
2. He has a great defense and excellent supporting cast around him.
If either of thosse 2 aren't true, you aren't winning anything.
Quote:
In comment 15935435 M.S. said:
Quote:
In terms of average vs median, there is no "right" way, but I prefer the median to prevent any one particular stat ranking to pull a QB's final score either too low or too high. In any event, I went back to the data and used the average -- Daniel Jones final average was 17, which placed him #15 out of 34 QBs. That's practically the same vs the median score for him -- 17 (which places him #16 out of 34 QBs.)
In this case, you want a particular stat to spike (or drag) the composite score because it's very much part of that QB's performance identity. If a QB ranks highly across the board but has one particular stat that drags his whole average down, that also represents some sort of massive flaw in his game reflected in the statistical output.
You would want that flaw and corresponding drag on the QB's score to be factored in if you're trying to quantify a composite ranking of QBs. You've already eliminated noise by setting a fair threshold for qualification in the first place. Going the next step by using median rather than mean is now eliminating useful insight because the noise is already removed.
Hope that helps.
I’m not sure I quite follow you from a statistical/interpretive point of view, but in any event I think the median-average issue is sorta moot since both stats generate more or less the same ranking, especially in the case of Daniel Jones.
Great thread M.S.! Thanks for posting.
Just wondering, after having gone through this exercise, in your opinion, if there were a factor(s) which you didn't include in your analysis, which would cause the final rankings to be significantly different what might it(they) be?
Quote:
RUSHING? That’s why he is around 12th best in league. You need to make it a separate category.
Imagine banging the table like Carl does, only for a middle third QB.
Dunk agree he is an average qb. That is with this team. If he had a Wr or two which didn’t have stone hands or could run after the catch he could probably fall to around #10. That’s where the numbers for Phil or Eli were. They were not rated higher vs their peers. He has the qualities and toughness that they had and we could win with him without question. A couple of skill receivers and LBs (is dire need) and we should be able to play with anyone. Different ways to build championship teams. Imagine if he had Chase and Tee Higgins? The list goes on and on. Even with the Jets receivers he could be ranked around #10.
2011 Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder
2012 Luck, Griffin, Tannahill, Weeden
2013 Manuel
2014 Bortles, Manziel, Bridgewater
2015 Winston, Marriota
2016 Goff, Wentz, Lynch
2017 Trubisky, Mahomes, Watson
2018 mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Jackson
2019 Murray, Jones, Haskins
2020 Burrow, Tua, Herbert, Love
Excuse the spelling
That’s a great question!
I would like to see a stat such as % completion rate
(1) under pressure
(2) when WRs are covered
(3) for a first down on a third down play
Also, yardage thrown based on only the ball in the air (excludes yards after catch.)
That’s a great question!
I would like to see a stat such as % completion rate
(1) under pressure
(2) when WRs are covered
(3) for a first down on a third down play
Also, yardage thrown based on only the ball in the air (excludes yards after catch.)
Forgot to say… I’m not sure how these would impact rankings.
Quote:
In comment 15935435 M.S. said:
Quote:
In terms of average vs median, there is no "right" way, but I prefer the median to prevent any one particular stat ranking to pull a QB's final score either too low or too high. In any event, I went back to the data and used the average -- Daniel Jones final average was 17, which placed him #15 out of 34 QBs. That's practically the same vs the median score for him -- 17 (which places him #16 out of 34 QBs.)
In this case, you want a particular stat to spike (or drag) the composite score because it's very much part of that QB's performance identity. If a QB ranks highly across the board but has one particular stat that drags his whole average down, that also represents some sort of massive flaw in his game reflected in the statistical output.
You would want that flaw and corresponding drag on the QB's score to be factored in if you're trying to quantify a composite ranking of QBs. You've already eliminated noise by setting a fair threshold for qualification in the first place. Going the next step by using median rather than mean is now eliminating useful insight because the noise is already removed.
Hope that helps.
I’m not sure I quite follow you from a statistical/interpretive point of view, but in any event I think the median-average issue is sorta moot since both stats generate more or less the same ranking, especially in the case of Daniel Jones.
The simplest way of explaining my point is that the very thing you're trying to remove (a singular statistical data point that disrupts a player's overall ranking by use of a composite average) is something that you should actively be including, because that disruptive data point is more likely to be a valid part of that QB's statistical identity than it is to be an outlier. Even if the results of the list are similar, the process would be more valid by use of mean than by median for what you're trying to demonstrate.
Part of the reason for this is that once you have narrowed the list to only the QBs who have reached a certain threshold of activity in order to qualify, you've already eliminated the chances of a misleading outcome in the data (e.g., a low-usage backup QB who happens to be leading the league in a few rate statistics based on a deceivingly low number of attempts).
Going a step further, because you're using rankings as your data itself (and not some sort of aggregate composition of the underlying football stats), you already have guardrails on the values. If there are only 34 qualifying QBs, every QB will have a value of 1-34 in each of the 7 categories. To isolate the median among those values results in using only one ranking (whichever lands 4th of the 7 chosen categories) of one statistic per QB. It's just not enough data, even if the results bear out similarly to using mean.
If I ask you what 2+2 equals, and you instead calculate 2^2, you will arrive at the same result as the correct answer, but you will have gotten there incorrectly and your accidentally correct answer would not be replicable with other values.
Passer rating is a flawed statistic largely because it is disproportionately informed by completion percentage. Using both here, along with another stat that is closely tied to completion percentage (Y/A), basically doubles down on the inherent flaw in that statistic, particularly since both are already included in the passer rating calculation to begin with.
You seem to have a keen interest in statistical storytelling, so I'm hoping you do find this feedback helpful.
Why Passer Rating Is Broken - ( New Window )
Quote:
That’s a great question!
I would like to see a stat such as % completion rate
(1) under pressure
(2) when WRs are covered
(3) for a first down on a third down play
Also, yardage thrown based on only the ball in the air (excludes yards after catch.)
Forgot to say… I’m not sure how these would impact rankings.
Thanks M.S. When I look at your list the thing that jumps out is Tua and Hurts. Two guys whose careers were in question last year. Now they're in the conversation for mvp. What changed? Both got a stud receiver to throw to.
Seems to point to the quality of a QBs supporting cast as a major if not the primary factor in a QBs performance.
Quote:
In comment 15935506 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15935435 M.S. said:
Quote:
In terms of average vs median, there is no "right" way, but I prefer the median to prevent any one particular stat ranking to pull a QB's final score either too low or too high. In any event, I went back to the data and used the average -- Daniel Jones final average was 17, which placed him #15 out of 34 QBs. That's practically the same vs the median score for him -- 17 (which places him #16 out of 34 QBs.)
In this case, you want a particular stat to spike (or drag) the composite score because it's very much part of that QB's performance identity. If a QB ranks highly across the board but has one particular stat that drags his whole average down, that also represents some sort of massive flaw in his game reflected in the statistical output.
You would want that flaw and corresponding drag on the QB's score to be factored in if you're trying to quantify a composite ranking of QBs. You've already eliminated noise by setting a fair threshold for qualification in the first place. Going the next step by using median rather than mean is now eliminating useful insight because the noise is already removed.
Hope that helps.
I’m not sure I quite follow you from a statistical/interpretive point of view, but in any event I think the median-average issue is sorta moot since both stats generate more or less the same ranking, especially in the case of Daniel Jones.
The simplest way of explaining my point is that the very thing you're trying to remove (a singular statistical data point that disrupts a player's overall ranking by use of a composite average) is something that you should actively be including, because that disruptive data point is more likely to be a valid part of that QB's statistical identity than it is to be an outlier. Even if the results of the list are similar, the process would be more valid by use of mean than by median for what you're trying to demonstrate.
Part of the reason for this is that once you have narrowed the list to only the QBs who have reached a certain threshold of activity in order to qualify, you've already eliminated the chances of a misleading outcome in the data (e.g., a low-usage backup QB who happens to be leading the league in a few rate statistics based on a deceivingly low number of attempts).
Going a step further, because you're using rankings as your data itself (and not some sort of aggregate composition of the underlying football stats), you already have guardrails on the values. If there are only 34 qualifying QBs, every QB will have a value of 1-34 in each of the 7 categories. To isolate the median among those values results in using only one ranking (whichever lands 4th of the 7 chosen categories) of one statistic per QB. It's just not enough data, even if the results bear out similarly to using mean.
If I ask you what 2+2 equals, and you instead calculate 2^2, you will arrive at the same result as the correct answer, but you will have gotten there incorrectly and your accidentally correct answer would not be replicable with other values.
I appreciate all your thoughts here and I think I have a better understanding of what you are driving at. I've reproduced your comments below and have added a few observations of my own:
"The simplest way of explaining my point is that the very thing you're trying to remove (a singular statistical data point that disrupts a player's overall ranking by use of a composite average) is something that you should actively be including, because that disruptive data point is more likely to be a valid part of that QB's statistical identity than it is to be an outlier."
What you say here is true, but you probably know as well as anyone that -- technically speaking -- a median statistic does not remove a particular observation in the calculation. It just tamps down the influence of an outlier observation and does so more effectively than what an "average" statistic can do. That said, I understand your thinking as to why this was not necessary in the first place and why I should have just used the average.
"Part of the reason for this is that once you have narrowed the list to only the QBs who have reached a certain threshold of activity in order to qualify, you've already eliminated the chances of a misleading outcome in the data (e.g., a low-usage backup QB who happens to be leading the league in a few rate statistics based on a deceivingly low number of attempts)."
Again, your statement here has a lot of merit. My original intent was to confine this analysis to starting QBs. Truth be told, I didn't even think about how the non-starting QB stats would have exhibited even greater variability, but I am certain you are correct about that. I guess where I'm a little confused is why that then necessitates that I stay away from a median stat for the starters. I understand there would be less variability with them, but I'm not sure it is thus cut-and-dried about "median" vs "average."
"Going a step further, because you're using rankings as your data itself (and not some sort of aggregate composition of the underlying football stats), you already have guardrails on the values. If there are only 34 qualifying QBs, every QB will have a value of 1-34 in each of the 7 categories. To isolate the median among those values results in using only one ranking (whichever lands 4th of the 7 chosen categories) of one statistic per QB. It's just not enough data, even if the results bear out similarly to using mean."
I definitely see where you are going here and I find myself agreeing with most of what you are saying. But is it true that the median I employed is only using one ranking? The median is choosing one ranking that falls exactly in the middle of the other six rankings... so is it really just one? More to the point, a middle/median ranking for one QB does not have to come from the same statistic as another QB. For example, Andy Dalton has a final median ranking of 14, which came from his yards/completion rank. Derek Carr has a final median ranking of 15 which comes from his yards/attempt rank.
"If I ask you what 2+2 equals, and you instead calculate 2^2, you will arrive at the same result as the correct answer, but you will have gotten there incorrectly and your accidentally correct answer would not be replicable with other values."
Again, you make a good point here. For what it's worth, I went back to the data and re-ranked all 34 QBs based on an average stat. I then correlated that with my original "median" stat. The r-squared value = 95.7%. Practically the same rank order with little variation between the two sets of data.
Passer rating is a flawed statistic largely because it is disproportionately informed by completion percentage. Using both here, along with another stat that is closely tied to completion percentage (Y/A), basically doubles down on the inherent flaw in that statistic, particularly since both are already included in the passer rating calculation to begin with.
You seem to have a keen interest in statistical storytelling, so I'm hoping you do find this feedback helpful. Why Passer Rating Is Broken - ( New Window )
You are absolutely correct that there is redundancy in some of the stats.
Quote:
In comment 15935628 M.S. said:
Quote:
That’s a great question!
I would like to see a stat such as % completion rate
(1) under pressure
(2) when WRs are covered
(3) for a first down on a third down play
Also, yardage thrown based on only the ball in the air (excludes yards after catch.)
Forgot to say… I’m not sure how these would impact rankings.
Thanks M.S. When I look at your list the thing that jumps out is Tua and Hurts. Two guys whose careers were in question last year. Now they're in the conversation for mvp. What changed? Both got a stud receiver to throw to.
Seems to point to the quality of a QBs supporting cast as a major if not the primary factor in a QBs performance.
I think you are dead-on about that. High end WRs can only make a QB better!
Quote:
No TDs and using median over mean. He would look even worse with these 2 modifications.
Couple of things:
(1) I'm assuming you mean TD passes. That's fair. Daniel Jones ranks 23rd in TD passes alone. But if I used that stat, I probably would have also used INTs, in which case Daniel Jones ranks 5th... so it's sort of a wash.
(2) In terms of average vs median, there is no "right" way, but I prefer the median to prevent any one particular stat ranking to pull a QB's final score either too low or too high. In any event, I went back to the data and used the average -- Daniel Jones final average was 17, which placed him #15 out of 34 QBs. That's practically the same vs the median score for him -- 17 (which places him #16 out of 34 QBs.)
Low INTs to low TDs is no a "wash." Teams need to score points to win football games, QBs need to throw the ball down the field to make it easier for the run game. DJ is 35th in air yards per attempt...which means this is a dinknand dunk offense designed to limit his turnovers. They don't trust him to play like a stud QB.
Quote:
In comment 15935260 Matt M. said:
Quote:
No TDs and using median over mean. He would look even worse with these 2 modifications.
Couple of things:
(1) I'm assuming you mean TD passes. That's fair. Daniel Jones ranks 23rd in TD passes alone. But if I used that stat, I probably would have also used INTs, in which case Daniel Jones ranks 5th... so it's sort of a wash.
(2) In terms of average vs median, there is no "right" way, but I prefer the median to prevent any one particular stat ranking to pull a QB's final score either too low or too high. In any event, I went back to the data and used the average -- Daniel Jones final average was 17, which placed him #15 out of 34 QBs. That's practically the same vs the median score for him -- 17 (which places him #16 out of 34 QBs.)
Low INTs to low TDs is no a "wash." Teams need to score points to win football games, QBs need to throw the ball down the field to make it easier for the run game. DJ is 35th in air yards per attempt...which means this is a dinknand dunk offense designed to limit his turnovers. They don't trust him to play like a stud QB.
You could be right they don’t trust Daniel Jones, but isn’t it just as plausible they don’t trust their non-existent WR unit and their o-line’s shaky pass blocking?