| Football - Open Forum View the Forum Registry |
| |
| 0 |
Subject: QB consistency analysis Posted by: Jeddi - [18430316] Mon, Aug 14, 13:41 How consistent are NFL QBs from week to week? How likley is it the guy I draft is going to have a great week one week and then bimb the next? Just to see if I could find out anything I took last years Small World stats for the top QBs and did some work. What I did was I found their average game, then I found out how many above and below average games they had. Then I added up all of the below and divided it by the below games number and did the same for the above average number. I then subtracted the above average total and the below average total to get a final consistency number. I'm pretty sure it's not fool proof and if anyone has any other ideas on how to do it I'm more than open to them. This is what I found out. Listing of largest numbers( Higher inconsistency)to smallest numbers 295- Steve McNair (Average Game last year-278) 279- Brad Johnson (253) 274- Brett Favre (225) 260- Drew Bledsoe (199) 235- Steve Beuerlein (306) 235- Mark Brunell (213) 232- Jon Kitna (204) 223- Rich Gannon (262) 197- Kurt Warner (349) 146- Elvis Grbac (201) 133- Peyton Manning (285) So what does it all mean? It means that Steve McNair had some really good games, but he also had some really bad games. It means that Peyton Manning was an amazingly safe pick to have a good but not great week many times last year. If you pick Elvis Grbac, you are not going to get much upside. Kurt Warner was the best QB last year because he was consistently having big games. If you had to choose between Brunell and Grbac, a risker pick is Brunell, but he also has a higher reward if he has a good game for him. But Brunell also has a greater chance of totally bombing a game than Grbac. I only did these QBs because I was short on time. I plan on doing this for reciever and running back and more QBs if anyone is interested. Let me know and feel free to argue these numbers. Thanks | ||||||
| 1 | Motley Crue ID: 41741212 Mon, Aug 14, 13:57 |
Those are some good data, Jeddi. I vote you make the select list now. Seriously, though, this is a good idea--to examine consistency. With the limited number of trades we get, I believe it makes alot of sense to factor consistency into the decision-making process. There are a couple of things you forgot to mention, though. In a small sample, for example 16 games, there are bound to be some crazy anomalies. I am interested in those, and I think it is important to discuss how they relate to the above data: how the findings can be influenced by those anomalies. For example, I remember Gannon had at least one huge game last year, maybe a few, but if it is only 2, then the mean score for him isn't exactly a good measure of his "average game." Outliers can really mess with your "averages," so sometimes it is best to exclude them. There are, however, many more statistically-inclined minds on these boards than me, and I would suggest soliciting one of their responses for suggestions about this. Nice analysis, though, way to go. //MC | |||||
| 2 | Jeddi ID: 18430316 Mon, Aug 14, 14:08 |
Hey, thanks. About Gannon...His biggest game was against San Diego were he had 544 points, which came right after the game where he had -7 against Miami. I agree about the anamalies, but I think 16 weeks is a decent amount of time to even them out. McNair only did play in 11 games last year, but he had some crazy numbers(a few above 400 and some in double digits). I think the best way to look at the numbers is to look at their average score and then look at the other number. The higher the number the greater chance that it'll change from that score up or down week to week. For example, Bledsoe or Elvis Grbac. They average 199 and 201 each. But Bledsoe is less stable than Grbac so he'll have some big games(501, 450, 346) but he'll also make you want to rip your heart out on some also (-46, 4, 60, 77) Grbac on the other hand is stable, so he won't get the huge games and he won't get the horrible games. The most interesting is Manning. Here are his games from last year, 278, 293, 509, 345, 187, 323, 358, 280, 270, 409, 178, 192, 233, 286, 281, 141. Nothing horrible sticks out and while there no 600 point games, he's the most reliable QB. | |||||
| 3 | Species ID: 58412510 Mon, Aug 14, 18:44 | Excellent work, Jeddi. Definitely a worthwhile exercise that gives both the aggressive (i.e. wanting the "big game" and steady (i.e. - want consistency) managers plenty of food for thought. Thanks for the work. | |||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 0-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | ||||||
| |||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | |||||||