NCAA QB Ratings - 09/12
http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/ncaa-m-footbl-fbs-ind-passing…
Interesting list.
1. Mallett
2. Tebow
3. Clausen
6. Cousins (MSU)
21. Forcier
22. Clark (PSU)
28. Tolzien (WISC)
55. Barkley (USC)
79. Pryor (Conviction)
88. Paulus
Discuss
September 14th, 2009 at 6:43 AM ^
Maybe those MSU fans who said Cousins is better than Forcier have a point...
September 14th, 2009 at 7:12 AM ^
I think it's funny that whenever I say something even semi-negative about a Michigan player (Cousins might be better than Forcier, Boubacar Cissoko acted like a punk), it gets negged. I guess some people can't handle the truth...
The QB rating stats say Cousins is better than Forcier. Deal with it, people.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:41 AM ^
Because Forcier had a pick because Matthews ran the wrong route and got an INT. Or because the stats (since they are only passing) don't include total offense (I.E. rushing where Tate has another 150 yards on the year and Cousins has -5). Or that hey Cousins is a sophomore.
I would gladly take Forcier over Cousins. His punt was ridiculous and frankly he has 1 stat that is a ton better than Cousins:
1-1 Vs 2-0
September 14th, 2009 at 8:19 AM ^
I think you need to keep in mind that this is passing efficiency we are talking about. This says that statistically, Cousins is the better passer.
At the same time, Cousins has had a much easier schedule so far. If you consider that we both played good MAC teams, the outlying game would be ND vs. Montana St. I would venture a guess that ND has the better defense between the two.
We will see where the two of them are at in 2 or 3 weeks and compare.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:02 AM ^
they venture to ND. If Cousins has a good day I might say that comparing a freshman to a sophomore sure he looks better (provided they win). But let's be realistic Cousins has 1 sack on him and neither Montana State nor CMU provide good defensive tests and I'm sure that he had all day in the pocket. I very much doubt that he'll have that luxury versus ND.
***EDIT*** how is anything I've said above here incorrect? Please someone point out the flaw because I'm confused
September 14th, 2009 at 11:43 AM ^
That is all.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:32 AM ^
I'm not saying I'd take Cousins over Forcier. What I AM saying is that those comments regarding the RCMB saying "lol MSU fans are stupid, they think Cousins is better than Forcier" are somewhat silly. We might like Forcier (I like the kid a lot and I've been pulling for him to be the full-time starter), but Cousins has played better, statistically, than Forcier.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:41 AM ^
(non-existent), couple that with not including rushing statistics, coupled with Forcier throwing a pick that wasn't his fault and the stats jump into the Force's favor.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:53 AM ^
Are you even reading what I'm saying?
STATISTICALLY, Cousins is better.
STATISTICS don't take into account the level of competition or whose fault it was that Forcier threw a pick.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:57 AM ^
Nothing you've said is untrue.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
Nothing he's said is untrue. It's just a meaningless and empty point. What else isn't untrue: STATISTICALLY, Tate Forcier has been a better quarterback than Cousins. Think about it. (EDIT: "isn't")
September 14th, 2009 at 9:09 AM ^
Those statistics don't take into account his RUSHING statistics. Which is another 150/-5 yards...
But STATISTICS mean nothing without a context. And to just blindly forget about context is ridiculous.
Again though the most important STATISTIC is 2-0 versus 1-1.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:15 AM ^
Okay, well, at least you latched onto the idea that I was talking about statistics... You might be using them sarcastically, but apparently those capital letters worked.
Also, Tate doesn't quite have 150 yards rushing.
But I did completely forget about the context. I had no clue that being 2-0 was better than being 1-1.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:04 AM ^
Why would rushing yards affect his passer rating?
And anyone negging Magnus is either ignorant or an idiot. He stated a fact that Cousins is, statistically speaking, a better passer. There is no arguing that. I don't always agree with his opinion, but this isn't an opinion it is a FACT.
If you want to take into consideration other things like rushing yards and schedule, then you are talking about the better player in their system not the better passer.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:40 AM ^
"Maybe those MSU fans who said
Maybe those MSU fans who said Cousins is better than Forcier have a point..."
and: "Cousins might be better than Forcier"
Again this argument will be moot when ND's dline puts pressure on Cousins
September 14th, 2009 at 9:20 AM ^
that two games worth of data leads to statistical significance.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:34 AM ^
Zach Maynard is better than Colt McCoy? Because if I was going to start my team I know that I'd pick Zach Maynard over Colt.
These stats are pretty worthless at this point in the season as most teams have played creme puffs. And also as someone else said I don't think that after 2 games you can draw any statistical significance to any of the data.
***EDIT*** We all have intimate knowledge of freshman Ryan Mallett and maybe he's improved tremendously as a passer, but I think I'll reserve judgment on him too until after he plays someone besides the powerhouse that is: Missouri State
September 14th, 2009 at 9:41 AM ^
No, statistically, I don't think Maynard is better than McCoy . . . statistically, I KNOW Maynard is better than McCoy. Why is this difficult to understand?
September 14th, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^
sense". You'd rather take Maynard than McCoy if you were starting a team.
Again you have to look at the CONTEXT of those statistics and determine if the results are statistically significant or not.
You are taking these statistics and using them as the bible when they are not. Here's an analogy for you. What you are doing is like if a Pharmaceutical company decided to do a medical trial for a new drug of only 100 people and finding that the drug helped everyone and caused no ill side effects.
They present this to the FDA and the FDA laughs and says "go do some more trials and come back when your data has more trials with more data points".
2 data points does NOT make a data set.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:50 AM ^
When did I say that I'd take Maynard over McCoy?
I said, STATISTICALLY, he's better. As in he has better STATISTICS. Maynard's passer rating STATISTIC is higher than McCoy's passer rating STATISTIC.
STATISTICALLY, Emmitt Smith has more rushing yards, but I'd take Barry Sanders in an instant.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:53 AM ^
His Dudeness is going to be pissed when he finds out he missed this Magnus e-fight.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:55 AM ^
He'll probably jump in anytime now...
September 14th, 2009 at 10:17 AM ^
"Hey, I'm, uh, here for the e-fight."
September 14th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
It's the same thing. You can't take a small sample size and declare that because of that one statistic that Player A is better than Player B.
But I mean hey what pharma company wouldn't love a 100 person drug trial!
September 14th, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^
No, I didn't read your analogy to pharmaceuticals, because it's pointless.
The STATISTICS (i.e. math) prove that I'm correct.
I never said that Cousins will still be better at the end of the season. I said that he is RIGHT NOW. It's a fact and it can't be argued, but I suppose you can keep trying...
See, this is what I mean. If you say anything even slightly negative about a Michigan player, people go apeshit...
September 14th, 2009 at 10:13 AM ^
Because one statistic does not prove that someone is statistically better especially when that statistic does NOT include RUNNING. How can you honestly say that statistically he has done better when their stat lines are:
plays yards TDS INT
Tate: 77 526 6 1
Cousins: 36 342 4 0
Those stat lines look pretty even if you ask me especially considering the competition that Michigan has played over MSU.
Sure you can look at just one metric of a player that will validate your opinion and prove that you are correct. As others have said QB rating is not a perfect measure especially for rating a player in RR's offense.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
It can prove that someone is a better PASSER as in PASSER Rating. Rushing means nothing in the PASSER Rating.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:11 AM ^
Seriously, you're latching on to one statistic in which Cousins rates better, and arguing that he's therefore STATISTICALLY better. There are plenty of other statistics that indicate the contrary. Let me ask you something, turning to the statistics, I've noticed that Forcier scores higher in the following categories:
# of completions
# of passing TDs
# of rushing TDs
completion percentage
passing yards
rushing yards
From this statistical observation, if I were to state, ad nauseum, that Tate Forcier is STATISTICALLY a better quarterback than Cousins. How would you respond? Would you agree?
September 14th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
I would agree with you.
However, if you look at the majority of the statistics you chose, they're largely cumulative. The nice thing about pass efficiency is that it largely does away with the importance of playing time.
For example, a guy who takes 50 snaps might compare unfavorably (in TDs, yards, completions, etc.) to a guy who takes 250 snaps, but their pass efficiency rating might be a better way to compare them.
Comparatively, saying Running Back A is better than Running Back B because "A" has 1500 yards while "B" has only 800 might be disingenuous if "A" had 500 carries (3 YPC) while "B" had 100 carries (8 YPC).
September 14th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
But you have to admit that the pass efficiency is not entirely objective. Whatever algorithm is used therefor is based at least partially on a subjective provision of weight given to each variable, right (I ask genuinely, b/c I'm not quite sure how efficiency is determined)?
That said, let me ask you something else. I've only watched Cousins play once this year, so I admit that my assessment may not be so accurate. But, trying to dismiss my personal biases as much as possible, having watched both QBs play (statistics aside), I would say that Forcier has appeared to be better. Would you agree? If so, wouldn't the cumulative nature of the passer efficiency seem inaccurate here (due to the non-empirical nature of whatever algorithm is used).
September 14th, 2009 at 11:36 AM ^
Here's the passer efficiency rating formula:
[ { (8.4 * yards) + (330 * touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / attempts ]
I'm not sure if that was a typo, but PER isn't cumulative. Most of the other stats you chose (completions, TDs, yards, etc.) were cumulative, as in the more snaps a QB takes, the higher the chance that he'll improve in those categories.
However, I cannot say for sure if Cousins looked better or not. I watched part of the MSU game on Saturday, but it seemed that every time I flipped to it, it was either CMU's ball or Keith Nichol was in the game.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
i blazed through my response. cumulative, in my context, meaning compensating for number of snaps/attempts. Anyway, as you can see from the algorithm, PER is not a perfect science. There is a subjective element to it. In particular, notice the weight given to interceptions. The only reason Cousins has a higher PER is b/c of that subjectivity. So, respectfully, the argument that Cousins is statistically better is, in fact, invalid here, b/c PER is not a purely statistical determination.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^
I wasn't a math major, so I don't know what the technical definition of "statistic" is. If PER doesn't count as a statistic because it has a subjective element, then I stand corrected. Is PER, by definition, not a statistic?
Regardless, PER is a pretty common measuring stick, and Cousins is better at it than Forcier.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
but is consistently perceived as flawed. Looking at the algorithm, it can be determined that the smaller the sample (i.e., fewer pass attempts), the less accurate PER is. This is why we see a situation where an otherwise clearly statistically dominant QB (Forcier) can have a lower PER than Cousins. This is a function of the small sample, which therefor penalizes Forcier excessively for 1 INT (Cousins has something like only 35 pass attempts, so it's not telling that he doesn't have an INT yet).
Either way, your point that Cousins is statistically better could be considered accurate, though the argument is flawed b/c in this case, Cousins better PER is largely a result of a non-statistical subjective element in the equation (200 * INT). The weight, 200, is subjectively allocated to the INT statistic. In this case, since we have such a small sample and Tate has 1 INT while Cousins has 0, that subjective weight (200) is dispositive in the comparison btwn Tate and Cousins.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
If there are no rate stats included in the formula, like yards per completion, or yards per attempt, etc. then that is an incredibly flawed stat.
There was an article on Football Outsiders that showed a statistically significant correlation between rate stats and future success. If the passing efficiency rating only looks at cumulative stats then it is an even worse stat than I already thought it was.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
The product is divided by the number of overall attempts.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
To add to what Magnus said, it can be rewritten from (ax + by - cz) / w to b a(x/w) + b(y/w) - c(z/w) so all of them are per attempt.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:42 AM ^
YPA 9.91 vs. 7.91
TD/A .114 vs. .094
INT/A .000 vs. .019
rushing yards don't count towards passing. # of completions and completion percentage are essentially the same concept and the only relevant category that you listed that Cousins has been better in.
This illustrates the point that Magnus is trying to make.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:52 AM ^
STATISTICALLY, Cousins is better.No, Cousins is better according to one specific statistic: QB rating. QB rating is not a perfect measure of the total statistical performance of a player. Looking at their profiles, I'd take Forcier's stat line myself. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=238910 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=480264
September 14th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
I'm not even sure that he's statistically better, because of the sample size. Forcier has completed more passes than Cousins has thrown.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:08 AM ^
Meaning that Cousins is statistically better with a large margin of error.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:15 PM ^
Maybe, maybe not. That's why they typically have a minimum attempts limit when listing these types of stats.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:55 AM ^
You are confusing QB rating with being or playing "better". Forcier made some amazing decisions yesterday. Forcier ran for a touchdown and several first downs. He was Houdini-like in making sure he was not sacked in the final minutes after we were out of time outs, ensuring that we would have a shot at a game tying field goal if all else failed. He punted (a punt that would give the Space Emperor a run for his money) for God's sake. And as several others have pointed out, he did it against much tougher competition than Cousins. Just because Cousins' QB rating is higher does not mean that he is a better QB or even that he played better on Saturday.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:54 AM ^
Cousins has played better, statistically, than Forcier.No, Cousins played better according to one specific statistic: QB rating. QB rating is not a perfect measure of the total statistical performance of a player. Looking at their profiles, I'd take Forcier's stat line myself. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=238910 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=480264
September 14th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^
(not the strip club in ypsi)
September 14th, 2009 at 10:04 AM ^
statistically Cousins is not better, statistically Cousins is ARGUABLY a better passer, but he's only thrown 35 times, has a lower completion percentage and has thrown for less TD's and less yardage.
i don't disagree that UM fans jump the gun a bit; but i think if Forcier was 6th in passing efficiency but we lost to Central we would be longing to see what Cousins could do.
Unfortunately for MSU, they could NEVER recruit a player like Forcier, because he is not from MI/Ohio. While MSU OWWWWWWWWWNS instate recruiting, they SUCK out of the region.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:18 AM ^
I agree. It's hilarious when you get negged.
Oh, wait. Was that not what you meant?
September 14th, 2009 at 9:25 AM ^
Did I miss the memo saying that we could talk about our point totals. Cuz you know I'd be all over that!
September 14th, 2009 at 9:35 AM ^
"The QB rating stats say Cousins is better than Forcier. Deal with it, people."
While negging you for pointing this out is ridiculous, that's not exactly the whole story, either. Forcier has played a MAC defense and Notre Dame, both of whom were mediocre against the pass last year.
Cousins has played a much worse MAC defense, in addition to one that was well below average last year - in Division 1-AA.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:05 AM ^
Boubacar did act like a punk. I wanna like him cuz he's our starting CB, but jeez was that embarrassing at times. Let your play do the talking...