If there is any fan out there who understands the NFL’s quarterback efficiency rating they should probably make them Commissioner. The complex, arcane, over-computerized method used to rate quarterbacks is so flawed and confusing that it makes the BCS look like kindergarten arithmetic. I’m just a fan, I shouldn’t need a PhD in mathematics to determine if my favorite quarterback is statistically efficient.
There needs to be an easily calculable, fair, yet comprehensive system for fans, and announcers, to be able to gauge the effectiveness of quarterbacks. The QB rating system could be as fun and understandable as calculating your favorite baseball player’s batting average, or on base percentage. But until now, it hasn’t been.
As it stands, the QB passer efficiency rating is unequally weighted on some things, and ridiculously dependent on others. For instance, why do they calculate yards per attempt? You don’t get yards for incomplete passes, and a QB is already punished for incomplete passes in the completion percentage department. Isn’t that like double jeopardy? Where’s the Supreme Court? The current QB rating system is unconstitutional!
Oh well, I’ll just make my argument in the only sports court that really matters – the court of the FAN!
We’re not even going to make mention of the old QB passer efficiency rating anymore. Just erase that confusion and frustration from your mind. Give quarterback ratings a clean slate, as if you’ve never heard of a system that rates a passer anywhere from 0.0 to 153. 679 or whatever that nonsense is.
The QUARTERBACK PRODUCTIVITY RATING SYSTEM, or QPR, for short. That even has a nicer ring to it than what we’re no longer even mentioning. In the QPR there are four components that provide the basis for a rating. Completion percentage, touchdown percentage, yards per completion, and rushing yards each count an equal 25 points. A perfect game by a quarterback would equal 100 points. That makes good sense already doesn’t it?
COMPLETION PERCENTAGE – this is really simple. If a quarterback completes all of his passes then he is awarded the entire 25 points. Since that is quite a rarity, then whatever a qb’s completion percentage is will equal the percentage of 25 points that he is awarded. So, if he completes 23 of 35 that is a completion percentage of 65.7, and he will receive 65.7 % of 25 points. Simply multiply the completion percentage by .25, and you’ll have the number of points awarded for completion percentage – 16.43 (rounded to the hundredths, of course).
TOUCHDOWN PERCENTAGE – to get a perfect score of 25 points a quarterback must have no turnovers and at least 1 touchdown. The key word here is turnovers. That includes interceptions and fumbles lost. If a quarterback does not throw interceptions but he puts the ball on the ground when running or in the pocket, then his productivity should reflect that. Hey, a turnover is a turnover, it doesn’t matter if he threw it to the other team or if he got it knocked out of his hand stepping up in the pocket, the other team gets the ball. Further, not only are the passing touchdowns a part of the equation, but so are the rushing touchdowns. A touchdown is a touchdown, right? If you are getting the ball in the end zone, then that is productivity.
To calculate points when there are turnovers, you combine the total number of touchdowns and turnovers, and then calculate the percentage of touchdowns. So, if a quarterback has 2 passing touchdowns, 1 rushing touchdown, 1 interception and 1 fumble lost, then the combined total is 5. Since the number of touchdowns in that total is 3, the touchdown percentage will be 60%. Again, simply multiply the touchdown percentage by .25 and you have the points (15) for this component of the QPR. If, by chance, a quarterback has zero touchdowns and zero turnovers then he is awarded 12.5 points. It’s just like if he had 1 touchdown and 1 turnover.
YARDS PER COMPLETION – okay, this is a little tricky. Don’t worry it’s still more simple than the system we’re not mentioning. In the QPR, a perfect 25 points is earned if a quarterback has a 20 yards per completion average. Why does 20 ypc equal perfection, you ask? Mainly, it rewards quarterbacks who throw the ball downfield in big chunks, not just dinks and dunks. It balances the scale between the short passers and the bomb throwers.
The calculation for ypc points will require a hair more work that the others. If a quarterback has a game where he passes for 310 yards on 23 completions, his ypc would be 13.48 (rounded to the hundredths again). Now, this number, the yards per completion, must be multiplied by 1.25. Why? Well, 25, the number for perfect points, is .25 higher than 20, the ypc perfection number.
If you don’t understand it, then just do the calculation and it’ll make sense. Plus, you don’t understand the other system! At least you can work this one out and still have time to get a college education, or do your job. Anyway, the 13.48 multiplied by 1.25 gives you 16.85 points. I could have really simplified this by making the ypc perfection 25 yards. But, 20 yards seems to be a more fair assessment of productivity.
RUSHING YARDS – in the QPR, rushing yards most definitely count. In 2004, the magnificent Michael Vick rushed for 902 yards. In the QPR, that’s 902 productive yards. Today’s NFL has declared that those throwback statues, totally immobile and stationary quarterbacks, are growing increasingly inefficient. They take a lot of sacks and can’t move the ball downfield, or get first downs, if no one is open or if their protection breaks down. Therefore, in the QPR, complete quarterbacks have there running productivity rewarded.
Once again, 25 points is perfection, and perfection is earned if a quarterback has no sack yards lost and at least 1 rushing yard. That’s rare, so to calculate the points when there are sacks and rushing yards, one must take the combined total of rushing yards and sack yards, and calculate the percentage of rushing yards in that total. So, if Michael Vick rushes for 37 yards, but he is sacked 3 times for a total of 26 yards, then the combined rushing and sack yardage is 63. His rushing yards account for 37 of the total 63 for a percentage of 58.7. Now, multiply this percentage by .25 and you have the points awarded – 14.68 points. As explained earlier, if a QB has zero rushing yards and zero sack yards then he is awarded 12.5 points. It’s just like if he had 10 rushing yards and 10 sack yards.)
Here’s the QPR in a nutshell.
Completion Percentage x .25
Touchdown Percentage x .25
Yards Per Completion x 1.25
Game Rushing Yardage Percentage x .25
Now, add up all of the points in the examples above, a game where a quarterback was 23 of 35 for 310 yards, 2 passing touchdowns, 1 rushing touchdown, an interception, a fumble lost, 37 rushing yards and 26 sack yards. That’s a decent game. If he did that over the course 16 games, he’d go to the Pro Bowl. If he did it over the course of a few seasons, he’d go to the Hall of Fame.
Out of 100 total points, the Quarterback Productivity Rating for this player would be 62.96. Feel free to get some stats from some of your favorite quarterbacks and plug them into this system. Here is a breakdown of productivity.
POOR = 44.99 and below
AVERAGE = 45 to 54.99
GOOD = 55 to 64.99
EXCELLENT = 65+
2 replies on “The New Quarterback Rating System”
Definitely I agree with all of your points. The current quarterback rating system is flawed (though how many people really pay attention to it?…) Rush yards and rushing touchdowns should especially count; they are, after all, part of a quarterback’s performance, are they not?
Thank you Nickels, I think a lot of people pay attention to the current qb rating system. All I’ve heard since Sunday is how Rothy in Pittsburgh had a ‘perfect’ passer rating in the first game. However, doesn’t two incompletions equal imperfection?
I think the passer rating is just like many other things in this society, it’s not understood by all, taken as gospel by most, and questioned by few.
You’re right though, no one really cares. It’s all about fantasy stats. Folks are really not interested in gauging a qb’s true productivity.