"Top Fivieness" (elite QB's - hint, Wilson is too short)

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/11/12/50 ... arterbacks

Good stuff there.

Sorry if this is a repost but im eating jimmy johns and "working" so I don't have time to try to look through every possible thread to see if someone posted this same exact link.

Nice random article on the net...unfortunately I don't see it as being very valuable. The reason is that a lot of his "analysis" is up to his selection of what is valuable. Also, the ones he selected are equal in value, but who is to say that yards per attemp is as important as passing TDs? And thirdly, he ranks anyone who is not in the top 10 at any of the chosen statistics as an 11, but what if a QB is REALLY bad at that statistic? What if the QB is last in the league, he still gets an 11. Which means consistant QBs accross all statistics that were subjectively chosen are penalized and volatile QBs at the statistics which the author has subjectively chosen are rewarded.

Basically, there are so many variables that are subjective to the author. I'm willing to be that I could create a similar study, where I pick the stats that are important and which are not, and how to rate them, where I put Wilson as the 20th best in the league and Brady as #1 or #2.

The more variables you have the less valuable any analysis is, especially if you subjectively decide on the value of those variables. It's kind of like saying (i admit in the extreme to prove a point), who is the best QB on the 2nd Sunday that is not on a full or quarter moon, while there are more above 500 teams playing other above 500 teams than 70% of other weeks, while I have not shaven for 3 days. There are so many variables which I have decided, that I can change those variables to other things and change the result. In some statistic circles I believe they are called "degrees of freedom." The less degrees of freedom (variables) you have, everything else staying constant, the more valuable the analysis is. The more variables you have, especially subjective variables, the less value the analysis has.

That's not to say Wilson isn't top 5, it's just to say this analysis isn't very valuable in my eyes.

You could say pretty much the same thing about every other analysis in the NFL including the PFF / football outsiders etc. "stats" folks are always dredging up - I just thought it was an interesting article/POV

Thanks for the link, I really liked the article. I think he did a fair job of choosing stats that are reasonable to ranking a QB on his pure passing statistics. Plus, he didn't take himself completely seriously and I thought he did well at pointing out flaws/outliers and basically telling people to take this info with a grain of salt.

@plyka, you're right about the statistics and wanting less variables and yada yada. You're missing the point on giving the rest of the QB's 11's if they're not in the top ten, though. He's trying to find the top five, not rank every QB in the league. He states that all he cares about are the QB's that rank in the top ten in these given categories and ultimately narrow it down to the top five. You took his article too literally. Not to mention, there has never been a perfect way (far too many variables and subjectiveness) of comparing who is "the best" or "top five," ever.

It's ok if you don't think it's very valuable, but I wouldn't write it off as non-sense.

JGfromtheNW":2l455dtn said:

It's ok if you don't think it's very valuable, but I wouldn't write it off as non-sense.

Click to expand...

I agree with plyka. There's no discipline on the statistical model here. I know the author probably doesn't have the time (let's be nice and assume he has the skills), to test his metric of "top 5-iness" against data (I.e. How does the metric perform in terms of prediction), but if he did that say by measuring past qb's and then evaluating them based upon wins or relative contract size or something tangible, and showed that some weighted average of these stats did a good job of identifying the best QB's according to that performance standard, then he'd have something more interesting.

Am I the only one that realizes this wasn't a very in-depth analysis and that the article was not meant to be statistically or scientifically sound?

You guys picked up the bit of tongue-in-cheek, self-awareness this author displayed, right?

I mean, the name of the damn article is "Measuring the "Top Five-iness" of NFL Quarterbacks."

JGfromtheNW":1uicfsf6 said:

Am I the only one that realizes this wasn't a very in-depth analysis and that the article was not meant to be statistically or scientifically sound?

You guys picked up the bit of tongue-in-cheek, self-awareness this author displayed, right?

I mean, the name of the damn article is "Measuring the "Top Five-iness" of NFL Quarterbacks.

Click to expand...

apparently we have lots of accountants that post here or something. I just thought it was an interesting article.

I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY IF THIS HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC STUDY OFFENDS YOUR DELICATE NUMEROLOGICAL SENSIBILITIES.

Hawknballs":tu0bsb5l said:

JGfromtheNW":tu0bsb5l said:

Am I the only one that realizes this wasn't a very in-depth analysis and that the article was not meant to be statistically or scientifically sound?

You guys picked up the bit of tongue-in-cheek, self-awareness this author displayed, right?

I mean, the name of the damn article is "Measuring the "Top Five-iness" of NFL Quarterbacks.

Click to expand...

apparently we have lots of accountants that post here or something. I just thought it was an interesting article.

I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY IF THIS HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC STUDY OFFENDS YOUR DELICATE NUMEROLOGICAL SENSIBILITIES.

Click to expand...

Can you believe that a fan, of all people, would post such an offensive and inaccurate article?

It's like, C'MON MAN! You're not even paid to do this stuff!

ESPN had a guy on the radio that was later hired by MLB - can't remember his name

BUT he threw out a different way of looking at QBs for historical greatness. He looked at how often are they in the top five within an area. This allow you to historically compare QBs despite the fact that they throw for much more yardage now.

So in QB X career how many times was he top five for most yardage and then a bonus for being number one

How many times was he top five for most TDs and then bonus for being number one

Then you would compare that to other QBs from a different era. Thought that was kind of neat way of looking at it

Mike and Mike ranked the top 5 QBs under 25 and they put Russell Wilson at 3 behind Luck and Stafford. No analysis to go with that pick, just a totally lame statement that Russell "can avoid big hits", as if it were a complement to putting him that far up. They said Luck is just a "no-brainer" at number 1. What lazy, nonsensical, totally false analysis on their part. I don't know why I listen to that crap (other than that I have a long drive to work).

^ and NC State football has managed to loose to Dooke and Tarholes in the same season and we lost last night in BBall making the inevitable "next season" thought already appear in ones mind (I know young team and hopefully a team this year unlike the CJ Leslie show) but still that would drive anyone towards national radio vs local sports radio