Football Stats vs. Baseball Stats

[Outshined_One]

I believe I read this on FJM awhile ago and it's been bothering me ever since.

 

In football, there is one statistic in particular that has become widely accepted as one of the best ways to determine a QB's performance, the Passer Rating. Here's how they compile it:

 

4 primary ratings...

 

Completion Percentage Rating: ((Comp/Att) * (100 - 30) / 20)

Average Yards Rating: ((Yds/Att) - 3) * 4

TD/Att Rating: TD/Att * 20

INT/Att Rating: 2.375 - ((INT/Att) * 25)

 

These four results are then added, divided by 6, and then multiplied by 100.

 

Despite how complicated this might seem, this is one of the most commonly used stats in comparing QBs across the league. It's commonly used on all of the media outlets which cover football and rarely do you see people really criticize it ("Even though Kyle Orton's QB Rating sucked, he really contributed out there beyond what the numbers say!").

 

My question is rather simple. If people are so willing to use this statistic in judging talent in football, why the heck has baseball been so slow to catch up? Are things like OBP, OPS, OPS+, BABIP, and EqA any more complicated than how we compile passer ratings?

 

Don't even get me started on plus/minus in hockey...

[CubinNY]

I believe I read this on FJM awhile ago and it's been bothering me ever since.

 

In football, there is one statistic in particular that has become widely accepted as one of the best ways to determine a QB's performance, the Passer Rating. Here's how they compile it:

 

4 primary ratings...

 

Completion Percentage Rating: ((Comp/Att) * (100 - 30) / 20)

Average Yards Rating: ((Yds/Att) - 3) * 4

TD/Att Rating: TD/Att * 20

INT/Att Rating: 2.375 - ((INT/Att) * 25)

 

These four results are then added, divided by 6, and then multiplied by 100.

 

Despite how complicated this might seem, this is one of the most commonly used stats in comparing QBs across the league. It's commonly used on all of the media outlets which cover football and rarely do you see people really criticize it ("Even though Kyle Orton's QB Rating sucked, he really contributed out there beyond what the numbers say!").

 

My question is rather simple. If people are so willing to use this statistic in judging talent in football, why the heck has baseball been so slow to catch up? Are things like OBP, OPS, OPS+, BABIP, and EqA any more complicated than how we compile passer ratings?

 

Don't even get me started on plus/minus in hockey...

 

I don't know the answer; however football has a lot less history to overcome compared to baseball.

 

Another thing. In big time football almost every player is graded each game. Coaches have stats for everyone related to their position.

 

In the "business" of football they've embraced quantitave analysis much more so that baseball.

[TB_11]

I believe I read this on FJM awhile ago and it's been bothering me ever since.

 

In football, there is one statistic in particular that has become widely accepted as one of the best ways to determine a QB's performance, the Passer Rating. Here's how they compile it:

 

4 primary ratings...

 

Completion Percentage Rating: ((Comp/Att) * (100 - 30) / 20)

Average Yards Rating: ((Yds/Att) - 3) * 4

TD/Att Rating: TD/Att * 20

INT/Att Rating: 2.375 - ((INT/Att) * 25)

 

These four results are then added, divided by 6, and then multiplied by 100.

 

Despite how complicated this might seem, this is one of the most commonly used stats in comparing QBs across the league. It's commonly used on all of the media outlets which cover football and rarely do you see people really criticize it ("Even though Kyle Orton's QB Rating sucked, he really contributed out there beyond what the numbers say!").

 

My question is rather simple. If people are so willing to use this statistic in judging talent in football, why the heck has baseball been so slow to catch up? Are things like OBP, OPS, OPS+, BABIP, and EqA any more complicated than how we compile passer ratings?

 

Don't even get me started on plus/minus in hockey...

 

I don't know the answer; however football has a lot less history to overcome compared to baseball.

 

Another thing. In big time football almost every player is graded each game. Coaches have stats for everyone related to their position.

 

In the "business" of football they've embraced quantitave analysis much more so that baseball.

 

IMO the other way that baseball and football statheads is how they quantify wins. Through WARP, VORP, or the classic Win Shares, baseball statheads will often quantify or estimate how many wins a player is worth, and to the 'traditionalists' this might cross the lines, or take away the 'intangibles' factor, or overlook something else. Football doesn't have this characteristic with any of its stats that I know of, which makes its statistics more acceptable.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Sample size makes football stats pretty much worthless. There are too many variables as well to effectively isolate a player's performance based on one stat (game after game).

[USSoccer]

Fantasy Football helps with that, I'd imagine.

[chuckywang]

I think it's because baseball is already "overloaded" with stats. We are just bombarded with stats when we watch a hitter up on the plate. Batting average, on base percentage, RBI's, runs, home runs, batting average vs. lefties, vs. righties, hitting streaks, ad nauseum. And this doesn't even mention the stats for pitchers.

 

Football stats aren't too bad. We are more willing to accept a convenient stat such as QB rating, cause what else is there for a QB besides completion percentage, yard, TD's, and INT's. The QB rating is a handy stat to quantify how good a quarterback is.

 

 

BTW, I think your QB rating formula is incomplete. I know that there is a "maximum" rating, and you don't need to be perfect in order to achieve it. The formula you give makes it seem like the maximum only occurs when a QB is perfect.

[MPrior]

Sample size makes football stats pretty much worthless. There are too many variables as well to effectively isolate a player's performance based on one stat (game after game).

 

This is so true - baseball statistics are FAR more indicative of a player's actual performance, and yet there is so much more resistance to them. Oh the irony.

[Mark Priors Calves]

Sample size makes football stats pretty much worthless. There are too many variables as well to effectively isolate a player's performance based on one stat (game after game).

 

This is so true - baseball statistics are FAR more indicative of a player's actual performance, and yet there is so much more resistance to them. Oh the irony.

 

I think the really irony is the resistance to stats are that are far more indicative of a player's actual performance than the few stats that are accepted as "traditional stats". Many people bash "stat geeks" for using stats in an discussion of a player, but then use HR, RBI's, BA to back up their claims.

[CoolHandLuke]

I think that QB rating is too complicated for any average fan to question.

[Warpticon]

Sample size makes football stats pretty much worthless. There are too many variables as well to effectively isolate a player's performance based on one stat (game after game).

 

This is so true - baseball statistics are FAR more indicative of a player's actual performance, and yet there is so much more resistance to them. Oh the irony.

 

I think the really irony is the resistance to stats are that are far more indicative of a player's actual performance than the few stats that are accepted as "traditional stats". Many people bash "stat geeks" for using stats in an discussion of a player, but then use HR, RBI's, BA to back up their claims.

 

It's even more illogical given that in no other major sport does statistical data tell more of the story. Most of what happens in baseball at the major league level occurs in a span of 60 feet, 6 inches. That can be measured. The other sports have far more variable influence, yet the scenes are far more receptive to quantitative analysis. It boggles the mind.

[goonys evil twin]

Football is a what have you done for me lately, bottom line business. Baseball is much more of an established, status quo, seniority and tenure, sport. The NFL is loaded with 20-something through 40-something coaches, while in baseball, any coach under 50 is practically a kid. The only way to get respect in baseball is to be around for a long time. Football is all about results. If you win at 35 it doesn't matter how old you are.

 

That's not to say there aren't exceptions, clearly I'm just talking in generalizations. But you don't have to look much further than how coaches treat veteran players who lost a step and rookies. Vets lose their jobs every year to undrafted free agents simply because football coaches want bang for their buck, not nostalgia. The Neifi Perez's of the world wouldn't stand a chance with guys like Ryan Theriot (similar or better production for far less money) around in the NFL.

[RockTheIvy]

Baseball, unlike any other team sport, has no time limit. I believe that makes baseball stats unique and difficult to compare to other sports.

[soccer10k]

The Neifi Perez's of the world wouldn't stand a chance with guys like Ryan Theriot (similar or better production for far less money) around in the NFL.

 

That is partly due to the NFL having a salary cap and the ability for a football team to cut a player and not owe them the rest of the salary.

[UK1679666180]

Baseball is an individual game played in a team concept and that's what separates itself from the other team sports.

[goonys evil twin]

The Neifi Perez's of the world wouldn't stand a chance with guys like Ryan Theriot (similar or better production for far less money) around in the NFL.

 

That is partly due to the NFL having a salary cap and the ability for a football team to cut a player and not owe them the rest of the salary.

 

I know. But it's not like Neifi has a 7 year contract. He, and others like him, keep getting jobs they don't deserve because baseball GM's are far too dependent on tenure.