Tannehill rated the 10th best quarterback in the league

[Tenshot13]

Rodgers didn't make the list for lack of production. Only players with more than 13k yards in their first 4 years (5 for Brady) are on it.

If you WERE to take Rodgers and remove his pre-starter years, he'd be so far ahead of everyone else it's ridiculous. 17k yards, interception rate of 1.8%, touchdown rate of 6.4%, 105 passer rating.

Your emphasis on low interception rate made me think of Brett Favre. He had a first year like Brady where he didn't really play and so didn't make the list. Had I though of him, I'd have added him manually, even though he doesn't come with a pun like Brady did.

For reference, Favre would have slotted in at #6 with nearly identical stats to #5 across the board.

Considering my original goal was to look at rookie quarterbacks asked to throw insane amounts in the first part of their career, perhaps I shouldn't have added Brady (or any others who sat their first year). Certainly, spending 3 years developing behind Favre isn't equivalent to starting from day 1.

Oh, and #13 on the list is a bit of an odd player, since his first NFL season came when he was 29...

#13 has to be Weinke or Weeden right?

[Dolfanalyst]

Is number 11 Rodgers?  I would rank 11 the best than 13.  Even though 1 and 2 has a high TD and rate I would rate them lower than most because my subjective opinion is int% is the most important stat. I would prefer a player like 5 or 9 over 1 or 2

One statistic that should be very valuable in theory is the ratio of YPA to INT rate, given that YPA in theory is partly a measure of risk-taking in the passing game, and INTs are more likely as a function of increased risk-taking.

The resulting measure would indicate how well a QB is able to exhibit the best of both worlds of the game manager (the guy who doesn't lose games by throwing INTs), and the game winner (the guy who takes sufficient risk to lead the team to victory with his arm).

What we've seen from Tannehill thus far this year was increased aggressiveness through the first five games, which led to an inordinately high INT rate for him (seven in five games), followed by the reduction of his role to that of a game manager over the last three, which has produced a three-game win streak.

Theoretically Tannehill's ratio of YPA to INT rate would be smaller than that of someone like Russell Wilson or Aaron Rodgers, who play more aggressively in the passing game but nonetheless throw interceptions at a relatively low rate.

With Tannehill on the other hand, you have to rein him in to being a game manager so you don't lose games via his turnovers.

[Spider-Dan]

Dolfanalyst, what is your verdict on Tannehill's position on that chart?

[fyo]

#13 has to be Weinke or Weeden right?

Weinke had 1 year as a starter, and didn't manage even the average yardage needed that year.

Weeden hasn't started a full season yet, getting close his first season (15 games), bouncing around the league the following 3 years, before flushing out.

[Dolfanalyst]

Dolfanalyst, what is your verdict on Tannehill's position on that chart?

I'm unable to see the chart where I am right now, but assuming Tannehill is at or near the top, and assuming the chart is ordered according to passing yardage, his position on the chart is a function of having thrown a comparatively higher number of passes.

This is what happens when you have a comparatively low YPA -- you can still amass a high degree of yardage, but it takes you more passes to do so, obviously.

And the problem there, again, is that YPA is far more strongly correlated with winning than is passing yardage.  Efficiency is much more important than volume in this area.

[fyo]

The other issue we have with the material in the original post is that, despite Tannehill's being ranked 10th overall among quarterbacks, he isn't a standard deviation better than the average of the top 32 QBs listed along any of the dimensions by which they were rated.

That's more than a bit disingenuous considering that more than 29 players in a 43 player population are, by definition, within +-1 standard deviation if you assume the population follows a normal distribution.

Ergo, one would expect everyone from about 8 to 36 to be between +-1 standard deviation.

If your claim is all players from 8 to 36 on the list are essentially interchangeable (in terms of performance), then you are, quite frankly, nuts.

In fact, the only QBs among the top 32 listed who were at least a standard deviation better than the average of the group with regard to the "Overall" rating were the following:

Aaron Rodgers
Cam Newton
Sam Bradford
Tom Brady
Philip Rivers
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Andrew Luck

Everyone else among the top 32 was either non-significantly different from the league average, or significantly below it.

Sometimes I think you have a good grasp of statistics, but then you write stuff like this. BY YOUR VERY OWN DEFINITION, with a list of 43 players, all but about 7 or 8 will be with below one standard deviation above the average.

Circular logic much?

[Dolfanalyst]

That's more than a bit disingenuous considering that more than 29 players in a 43 player population are, by definition, within +-1 standard deviation if you assume the population follows a normal distribution.

Ergo, one would expect everyone from about 8 to 36 to be between +-1 standard deviation.

First, I'm stopping at the top 32 players, because there are 32 teams in the league.

If your claim is all players from 8 to 36 on the list are essentially interchangeable (in terms of performance), then you are, quite frankly, nuts.

You don't think there are distributions of human variables in the world in which most people cluster around the average, and there are relatively small tails of the distribution in either direction?  Someone has to be "nuts" to believe that?

This is essentially "the bell curve," which is the most common frequency distribution found in the world!

Sometimes I think you have a good grasp of statistics, but then you write stuff like this. BY YOUR VERY OWN DEFINITION, with a list of 43 players, all but about 7 or 8 will be with below one standard deviation above the average.

Circular logic much?

I think the problem here is your grasp of statistics if you truly believe it's impossible theoretically that the distribution of QB ability/performance in the NFL is such that there are eight starting QBs who are significantly above average, 16 who are within the average range (less than 1 SD in either direction from the mean), and another 8 who are below average.

Do you really believe that?

[Dolphster]

I would just like to go on record as saying that the only ranking I give a crap about is where the team ranks in the standings.   

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

One statistic that should be very valuable in theory is the ratio of YPA to INT rate, given that YPA in theory is partly a measure of risk-taking in the passing game, and INTs are more likely as a function of increased risk-taking.

I don't consider YPA to be nearly as important as int rate.  You throw one int and the drive is over.  Unless you are behind and it is late in the fourth quarter it doesn't matter if you can get down the field in 2 plays or it takes 20.  In fact taking 20 plays to get down the field when you are up is better than doing it in 2.

Granted it is a subjective view, but my view is protecting the ball is most important.  I would take a RB that avgs 3 yards per rush and fumbles once per 40 carries over someone who avgs 4 yard per carry and fumbles once every 35 carries.   

[Dolfanalyst]

I don't consider YPA to be nearly as important as int rate.  You throw one int and the drive is over.  Unless you are behind and it is late in the fourth quarter it doesn't matter if you can get down the field in 2 plays or it takes 20.  In fact taking 20 plays to get down the field when you are up is better than doing it in 2.

Granted it is a subjective view, but my view is protecting the ball is most important.  I would take a RB that avgs 3 yards per rush and fumbles once per 40 carries over someone who avgs 4 yard per carry and fumbles once every 35 carries.   

Turnover margin is one of the most important variables in football.  In fact, teams that win the turnover battle and the YPA battle (between QBs) win 95% of the games in the NFL.

The Dolphins beat the Jets last week largely because of the 2-0 turnover margin they enjoyed, because they surely didn't win the YPA battle.  In fact they lost it by a full 2 yards, which is a very large margin in that area.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Turnover margin is one of the most important variables in football.  In fact, teams that win the turnover battle and the YPA battle (between QBs) win 95% of the games in the NFL.

What percentage of games do you win if you win the turnover battle but lose YPA?  I am willing to bet it is north of 70%

[fyo]

You don't think there are distributions of human variables in the world in which most people cluster around the average, and there are relatively small tails of the distribution in either direction?  Someone has to be "nuts" to believe that?

This is essentially "the bell curve," which is the most common frequency distribution found in the world!

I think the problem here is your grasp of statistics if you truly believe it's impossible theoretically that the distribution of QB ability/performance in the NFL is such that there are eight starting QBs who are significantly above average, 16 who are within the average range (less than 1 SD in either direction from the mean), and another 8 who are below average.

Do you really believe that?

Nice image, though a bit on the large side...

Anyway, I'm far more familiar with gaussian functions that I could possibly wish for. But thanks.

You were being completely disingenuous (that's giving you the benefit of the doubt) in the way you presented your data. As #10 in a normal population of 43, Tannehill is by definition not more than 1 standard deviation above the mean. Yet your presentation made this seem like a shock and proof that Tannehill really wasn't significantly better than average. Not that this prevented you from expressing disbelief at the very notion that he could be #10 to begin with, of course.

Let me be very, very clear here: You do NOT need to be more than 1 standard deviation better than average for it to be significant in sports. As a trivial proof of this, take a group of runners. It doesn't matter HOW MUCH better you are than the guy behind you, a fraction of a second is all it takes. Certainly, there are individual variances that come into play and football is more complex than running, but teams filled with +1 SD players would crush teams filled with AVERAGE players. Not every game, but in the VAST majority of games. Certainly not insignificant .

[fyo]

Turnover margin is one of the most important variables in football.  In fact, teams that win the turnover battle and the YPA battle (between QBs) win 95% of the games in the NFL.

The Dolphins beat the Jets last week largely because of the 2-0 turnover margin they enjoyed, because they surely didn't win the YPA battle.  In fact they lost it by a full 2 yards, which is a very large margin in that area.

So you're saying that it doesn't really matter that much that Tannehill has a relatively pedestrian YPA since he has such a low INT%?

[Dolfanalyst]

Nice image, though a bit on the large side...

Anyway, I'm far more familiar with gaussian functions that I could possibly wish for. But thanks.

Then you should've done the analysis I just did when looking at the data to begin with, and determined for yourself that Tannehill, despite being ranked 10th overall, was nonetheless in the average range.

You were being completely disingenuous (that's giving you the benefit of the doubt) in the way you presented your data. As #10 in a normal population of 43, Tannehill is by definition not more than 1 standard deviation above the mean. Yet your presentation made this seem like a shock and proof that Tannehill really wasn't significantly better than average.

Your point here rests on the idea that the sample should extend beyond 32 quarterbacks.

Surely if we do that, then yes, the sample will include more than just the typical number in the league who are significantly below average, which will in turn make the ones above average appear better by decreasing the overall mean of the group.

But is that what you're saying?  We should include backup QBs in the analysis, as well?

[Dolfanalyst]

So you're saying that it doesn't really matter that much that Tannehill has a relatively pedestrian YPA since he has such a low INT%?

Actually what you've just described are the grounds for relegating a QB to the role of a game manager, which is precisely what the "QB whisperer" coach the front office is paying so much money has done after watching him play a mere five regular season games.