Rethinking Quarterback Stats in the Wall Street Journal

Posted on by

Mike Sielski has written the following article for the Wall Street Journal: Rethinking Quarterback Stats: Vick’s Heroics Show How Traditional QB Ratings Short-Change Runners; Dr. Berri’s Theorem

Yes, Mike’s artice reference the research on NFL quarterbacks presented in The Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins.  Along the way, he also details the history of the NFL’s quarterback rating.  All in all, a very good read (and I am being completely objective J.

Mike’s article also focuses on Michael Vick (a popular topic at the Wall Street Journal).  Let me add to this discussion by reporting the Wins Produced rankings after Week 10.

Michael Vick is currently producing 1.036 wins per 100 plays.  In Stumbling on Wins we presented Relative Wins Produced per 100 plays, or WP100 adjusted for both current and historical averages.  Such an adjustment allows one to compare performance across time.  Vick’s current RWP100 is 0.906.  And if you have your copy of Stumbling on Wins handy, you can see that Vick’s performance would rank 8th among all quarterbacks who have played since 1970 (you can also see exactly how RWP100 is calculated).  Who are the other seven quarterbacks? Well, go look in the book :)

Let me close by noting once again the “outstanding” Detroit Lions. Yes, they are 2-7.  But as I have noted, Pro Football Reference.com’s SRS measure (based on point differential and strength of schedule) ranks the Lions as the 4th best team in the NFC.  Across the entire league the Lions rank 11th in SRS.  Michael David Smith – of the Wall Street Journal – has labeled the Lions the unluckiest team in the NFL.  He also notes that teams with losing records and positive point differentials tend to post much better records in the future.

And today I noticed that Wayne Winston has an NFL ranking that says the Lions are the 14th best team in the NFL.  So the evidence the Lions are “good” keeps rolling in.

Of course, critics of this research note that this is driven by the Lions 44-6 victory over the 4-5 St. Louis Rams.  If one throws out this game, the Lions no longer have a positive differential.

Let me respond by noting…

  • I am a Lions fan, so I am simply picking out whatever evidence I can find the says the Lions are “good”.
  • Furthermore, the sample size we are talking about is nine games.  And that sample is only going to 16 games.  One can throw out stuff from any team’s “sample” and change the conclusions you reach.  That is the nature of NFL analysis (in other words, one can devise a different ranking that emphasizes other stuff and reach a conclusion different from Pro Football Reference and Wayne Winston).
  • And remember, in basketball teams play 82 games.  After nine games (or even after 16 games) we tend to treat all conclusions as very tentative (because we know stuff can change across the remaining 80% of the schedule).

I do think that if the Lions got to play 82 games against a schedule that was more representative of the entire league (they have played the 3rd hardest schedule in the NFC), the Lions record would approach the 0.500 mark. 

But if you don’t like that conclusion, you can reach any other conclusion you like.  Again, the sample we have is quite small.  And small samples don’t allow us to reach definitive conclusions (although I am going to keep saying the Lions are “good” as long as I can find any ranking or shred of evidence that allows this conclusion).

- DJ

P.S. By the way…if you leave a comment disagreeing with what I say about the Lions, you might find your comment in the trash (well, you can’t see the trash but that is where I will send it).  Feel free to disagree with the quarterback stuff if you like J

11 thoughts on “Rethinking Quarterback Stats in the Wall Street Journal”

  1. I thought Rivers was the MVP for the 1st half of the season even before seeing these rankings. Only confirms it (Vick hasn’t played too few games).

    I wonder when people will start to realize Josh Freeman is a good QB.

  2. I know Colt McCoy only has 99 pass attempts, but I’m very curious where he’d rank on the list. Considering he only has 2 turnovers and an above average YPA, I have to believe he’d be in the top 15. Any chance you could run the numbers?

  3. McCoyhas a 0.582 WP100. So he would rank 12th (and is currently the best rookie quarterback — but not the most expensive).

  4. In Bradford’s defense, at least his 2 top wideouts (or is it 3) are gone for the year. He’s playing with practice squad guys out there and doesn’t even have a pass catching TE to help him. He’s playing with the worst receiving core in the league by a wide margin from a talent perspective.

  7. Thanks for the Colt McCoy stat. I know Max Hall has very few pass attempts, and his turnovers are probably excessive, but what is his WP100? The Cardinals looked great with him in against the Saints; the ball seemed to move way better than the Derek Anderson offense.

  8. Where would Stafford be if he had sufficient passing attempts to join this list?

    I notice Football Outsiders has Brady and Vick ranked 1, 2 for QB performance this season. Their system does account for rushing. Other than adjustments for quality of defense, are there any other differences between your system and theirs (if you’ve seen it)?

  9. TBall,

    aren’t they ranked 1 and 2 in terms of passing only (per play)? I don’t think FO has a single per play measure for QB performance that combines rushing and passing. Although if you combine passing and rushing EYds and pro-rate them for 9 games Vick does come out on top there as well, although I don’t know if Brady has played every game this season.

  10. McCoy has been looking surprisingly good. Kind of like a more mobile Chad Pennington.

    Hope he’s a more healthy Chad Pennington.

  11. Pingback: Rethinking Quarterback Stats in the Wall Street Journal | Wendyou99's Blog

Leave a Reply