Tannehill rated the 10th best quarterback in the league

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

How so?

Unless your one and only stat you look at is y/a he looks good.  He has a better passer rating than Manning he has a better int rate than Brady or Marino.  Three guys that are either in the hall or will be.

[Dolfanalyst]

Unless your one and only stat you look at is y/a he looks good.  He has a better passer rating than Manning he has a better int rate than Brady or Marino.  Three guys that are either in the hall or will be.

You could say the same things about Jeff Garcia, and a whole host of other QBs who went on to have mediocre or worse careers, but who aren't included in that table because they didn't pass for enough yardage during their first four years in the league.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You could say the same things about Jeff Garcia, and a whole host of other QBs who went on to have mediocre or worse careers, but who aren't included in that table because they didn't pass for enough yardage during their first four years in the league.

Four time probowl is mediocre or worse carrear, keeping in mind the majority of starters never go even once.  Your problem is you are setting the bar way too high.  He is not in the Peyton, Rodgers, Brady class of QBs.  But he is very good.  Probably the second best QB the Dolphins have ever had.

[Dolfanalyst]

Four time probowl is mediocre or worse carrear, keeping in mind the majority of starters never go even once.  Your problem is you are setting the bar way too high.  He is not in the Peyton, Rodgers, Brady class of QBs.  But he is very good.  Probably the second best QB the Dolphins have ever had.

I'm setting the bar that high because quarterback play is more important now than it was in the days of Dan Marino, Drew Bledsoe, and Peyton Manning's first four years.

In fact there are folks who believe the parity in the league has been significantly undermined by the rule changes that favor the passing game, which make the teams with the best QBs much more likely to win than the other teams in the league.

And parity is what made this league grow in popularity by leaps and bounds.  When the team you root for can go 6-10 one year and make the playoffs and have a chance at the Super Bowl the next, your interest and investment as a fan is much greater than if you're relatively hopeless about your team's chances for success.

If the game tends to revolve around just one player (the QB), and that player on your team is inadequate, it's far easier to become hopeless and lose interest.

This is probably why we discuss Tannehill so much!  On some level we're aware that our fortunes rest largely on this one guy, and we're all doing our best to stay hopeful and remain interested.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I guess that reliance on just one guy is why NEP went 0-4 during Brady's suspension and had a losing season in 2008 when he was injured....ummm scratch that.

I guess no point in really discussing football with you if you feel Tannihill is mediocre or worse and inadequate and/or believe that the QB is the only position that matters.

Tannehill is a very good but not great QB, Seahawks and Giants have both recently proved you can win a Super Bowl with a good qb when facing a team with a great one.

[Dolfanalyst]

I guess that reliance on just one guy is why NEP went 0-4 during Brady's suspension and had a losing season in 2008 when he was injured....ummm scratch that.

I guess no point in really discussing football with you if you feel Tannihill is mediocre or worse and inadequate and/or believe that the QB is the only position that matters.

Tannehill is a very good but not great QB, Seahawks and Giants have both recently proved you can win a Super Bowl with a good qb when facing a team with a great one.

It sounds like the differences in the ways we think about these things would make any further discussion unproductive.  Thanks anyway, however.

[Dolfanalyst]

Really what you're saying here highlights yet another problem with these rankings, in that we don't know how they correlate with winning, which would determine the expected increase in win probability for every SD increase in the measure used to make the ranking.

What I've been doing here is generously superimposing the correlations with winning we know exist for other measures (which are in the .50 range, give or take), and which give meaning to 1 SD changes either way in QB statistics.

Hell, these rankings could be correlated with winning at 0.00, in which case a change of a standard deviation (or more) would mean nothing!  Or, they could be correlated with winning at 1.0, in which case much smaller differences in SD would be associated with far bigger increases (or decreases) in win probability.

Either way, we would need to know how any measure correlates with winning to determine the meaning of a 1 SD change in the measure in either direction.

I had more time this morning and went ahead and calculated the correlation between win percentage and the "Overall" QB measure on the page linked in the OP.  That correlation is 0.32.

What that means is that it would take lots of movement (up or down) by a QB with regard to that measure to produce an appreciable effect on winning.

In fact, based on the strength of the relationship between this QB measure and winning (again a correlation of 0.32), the Dolphins' record would be roughly the same as it is now (4-4) if Tannehill were ranked anywhere between #3 and #21 in the league on that list.

He would have to be ranked #1 or #2 in the league, or be ranked #22 or lower, to have produced a different Dolphins record (better or worse) thus far this season.  Every ranking in between -- according to this measure -- would likely be associated with the same record the team has now.

So, if you happen to be sold on this measure, realize that Tannehill is going to have to somehow climb to being measured as either the best or the second-best QB in the league to produce a meaningful, positive effect on the Dolphins' record.

[fyo]

^ That is is many ways unsurprising. Since the other measures of QB skill include other effects, like receiver quality (YPA, drops), offensive line, etc., a change in those measures represents an improvement across all those components. Improving quarterback + offensive line + receivers is, unsurprisingly, going to result in a stronger overall improvement (and thus correlation with winning) than simply changing any one of those components.

The conclusion, if one believes the quarterback performance metric to be valid, is that simply changing quarterbacks isn't likely to result in a significant improvement overall for the Dolphins, unless that quarterback is elite.

That seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion, IMHO.

[Dolfanalyst]

^ That is is many ways unsurprising. Since the other measures of QB skill include other effects, like receiver quality (YPA, drops), offensive line, etc., a change in those measures represents an improvement across all those components. Improving quarterback + offensive line + receivers is, unsurprisingly, going to result in a stronger overall improvement (and thus correlation with winning) than simply changing any one of those components.

The conclusion, if one believes the quarterback performance metric to be valid, is that simply changing quarterbacks isn't likely to result in a significant improvement overall for the Dolphins, unless that quarterback is elite.

That seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion, IMHO.

Only in this case, "elite" is defined as comprising only two of the league's quarterbacks, and as of now those quarterbacks -- according to this measure -- are Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton.

They are not Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, or Philip Rivers.

In fact, according to this measure, in terms of a QB's effect on his team's win percentage, Ryan Tannehill is interchangeable with those folks.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So to summarize.....there are only two QBs active in the NFL that if replaced Tannehill would change the win percent for the Dolphins....this leads to one of two conclusions either Tannehill ain't the problem and fans should stop hating on him or said fan has unreasonable expectation that anything but the top 2 qbs are acceptable.

If by your own analysis you are saying the fins and pats traded Brady and Tannihill the Pats would still be 7-1 and Fins would still be 4-4 you should look elsewhere to improve the team.

[Dolfanalyst]

So to summarize.....there are only two QBs active in the NFL that if replaced Tannehill would change the win percent for the Dolphins....this leads to one of two conclusions either Tannehill ain't the problem and fans should stop hating on him or said fan has unreasonable expectation that anything but the top 2 qbs are acceptable.

If by your own analysis you are saying the fins and pats traded Brady and Tannihill the Pats would still be 7-1 and Fins would still be 4-4 you should look elsewhere to improve the team.

...or the measure of quarterback play used to determine all of that is actually invalid, and consequently none of that is true.

[fyo]

I'm a bit pressed for time this weekend, but I took a quick look at your correlation calculations and wasn't completely able to reproduce them. I seem to recall you noting that you limited your analysis to 32, since that's the number of teams. I ran the numbers using the "top" quarterback for each team with multiple quarterbacks listed, while keeping the total win% (alternative would be to either discard games or separate e.g. NE into two, the latter being the better choice, IMHO, but then I'd have to look up a bunch of games and I don't have the time right now). Anyway, wasn't able to completely reproduce your results for the standings as they were before Thursday's game.

There's actually a bit of an interesting situation this year, which highlights the uncertainty when running statistics on what are fairly small sample sets: The correlation between SCORING and WINNING, which is historically a fairly solid 0.7 (slightly higher than even turnover margin), This season (prior to the TNF game) it's at about 0.4.

For reference, the correlation between scoring and the quarterback totals in the linked article (OP) is 0.57.

[Dolfanalyst]

I'm a bit pressed for time this weekend, but I took a quick look at your correlation calculations and wasn't completely able to reproduce them. I seem to recall you noting that you limited your analysis to 32, since that's the number of teams. I ran the numbers using the "top" quarterback for each team with multiple quarterbacks listed, while keeping the total win% (alternative would be to either discard games or separate e.g. NE into two, the latter being the better choice, IMHO, but then I'd have to look up a bunch of games and I don't have the time right now). Anyway, wasn't able to completely reproduce your results for the standings as they were before Thursday's game.

There's actually a bit of an interesting situation this year, which highlights the uncertainty when running statistics on what are fairly small sample sets: The correlation between SCORING and WINNING, which is historically a fairly solid 0.7 (slightly higher than even turnover margin), This season (prior to the TNF game) it's at about 0.4.

For reference, the correlation between scoring and the quarterback totals in the linked article (OP) is 0.57.

Here are the data I used to make the calculation:

Player   Team   Overall   WIN %
Aaron Rodgers   GB   80.7   0.5
Cam Newton   CAR   79.3   0.375
Sam Bradford   MIN   78.8   0.625
Tom Brady   NE   78.3   0.875
Philip Rivers   SD   78   0.444
Drew Brees   NO   77.9   0.5
Ben Roethlisberger   PIT   77.2   0.5
Andrew Luck   IND   76.8   0.444
Matt Ryan   ATL   74.6   0.667
Ryan Tannehill   MIA   74.6   0.5
Eli Manning   NYG   73.4   0.625
Tyrod Taylor   BUF   73.3   0.444
Matthew Stafford   DET   73   0.556
Carson Palmer   AZ   73   0.438
Dak Prescott   DAL   73   0.875
Derek Carr   OAK   71.9   0.778
Russell Wilson   SEA   71.7   0.688
Jay Cutler   CHI   71.7   0.25
Marcus Mariota   TEN   71.6   0.444
Alex Smith   KC   71.3   0.75
Jameis Winston   TB   69.1   0.375
Carson Wentz   PHI   68.9   0.5
Colin Kaepernick   SF   68   0.125
Trevor Siemian   DEN   67.1   0.667
Brian Hoyer   CHI   66.3   0.25
Joe Flacco   BAL   66.3   0.556
Cody Kessler   CLE   66   0
Andy Dalton   CIN   65.6   0.438
Case Keenum   LA   64.4   0.375
Kirk Cousins   WAS   63.3   0.563
Brock Osweiler   HOU   60.9   0.625
Ryan Fitzpatrick   NYJ   59.6   0.333
Blake Bortles   JAX   61.9   0.25

I did include both Jay Cutler and Brian Hoyer, but if I remove Hoyer and stick with only the "top" QB as you did, then the correlation as I calculate it actually drops from 0.32 to 0.29.

[Dolfanalyst]

There's actually a bit of an interesting situation this year, which highlights the uncertainty when running statistics on what are fairly small sample sets: The correlation between SCORING and WINNING, which is historically a fairly solid 0.7 (slightly higher than even turnover margin), This season (prior to the TNF game) it's at about 0.4.

For reference, the correlation between scoring and the quarterback totals in the linked article (OP) is 0.57.

The partial correlation between the "Overall" QB measure in the OP and win percentage, controlling for team points scored per game, is 0.06.

[Pappy13]

...or the measure of quarterback play used to determine all of that is actually invalid, and consequently none of that is true.

...Or quite simply stats are merely just stats and do not adequately indicate QB play nor do they adequately predict success or failure.