PFF ranking Mitch

[JP Hochbaum]

I like PFF but the ratio they use seems to be heavily geared towards making throws that can be intercepted, the risk/reward ratio.

What this stat doesn't really measure is whether a pass is really interceptible or not. Just from wathing Mitch play almost every snap this year I can see him making many bad throws but that the passes weren't really catchable, and that Mitch seems to throw passes that are hard to inteercept on purpose but yet they are still somewhat high risk.

If he is throwing interceptable passes but throws them when a defender has his back turned or throws the pass that isn't really generally catchable should that count?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

from PFF:
"Turnover-worthy throws occurred on 3.4 percent of attempts since 2014, resulted in a passer rating of 0.9 and an interception rate of 46.1 percent. All other throw grades resulted in an interception just 2.3 percent of the time."

It doesn't seem to give us an idea on what this means. How do they decide what is turnover worthy?

Edit: https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-pff-qb-grading-most-effective-tool-there-is

Above is the explanation of the stat.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I think the key is here:

Not all turnover-worthy plays become turnovers
As the previous chart shows us, not all turnover-worthy plays will become turnovers. Using 2017 data, throws graded -1.0 were intercepted 34.7 percent of time, throws graded -1.5 were intercepted 58.3 percent of the time, and throws graded -2.0 were intercepted 83.3 percent of the time. They all fit into the turnover-worthy category despite different levels of interception probability, but there is a clear difference between the turnover-worthy throws and the throws graded -0.5 that result in an interception only 2.4 percent of the time. Therefore, it’s fair to put turnover-worthy throws in their own category, despite 48.2 percent of all turnover-worthy throws resulting in interceptions.

If Mitch is more throwing in the -.5 or -1.0 category he could be heavily weighted against him.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I think the key is here:

Not all turnover-worthy plays become turnovers
As the previous chart shows us, not all turnover-worthy plays will become turnovers. Using 2017 data, throws graded -1.0 were intercepted 34.7 percent of time, throws graded -1.5 were intercepted 58.3 percent of the time, and throws graded -2.0 were intercepted 83.3 percent of the time. They all fit into the turnover-worthy category despite different levels of interception probability, but there is a clear difference between the turnover-worthy throws and the throws graded -0.5 that result in an interception only 2.4 percent of the time. Therefore, it’s fair to put turnover-worthy throws in their own category, despite 48.2 percent of all turnover-worthy throws resulting in interceptions.

But that isn't evidence of a PFF "statistical criterion", its evidence of "individual PFF grader bias/margin of error". One grader gives an INT a -1 rating, another grader gives an INT a -2 rating...one grader gives an incompletion a 0 rating, another grader gives an incompletion a -2 rating.

Also, how many INTs do QBs (other than Peterman) actually throw in the NFL these days? Its such a small percentage of dropbacks that result in INTs to begin with. It seems like PFF has vastly more "turnover-worthy plays" than actual turnovers, which logically leads one to question PFF's definition of "turnover-worthy". PFF is proactively creating a statistical margin of error when none exists.

 

[wisconsinbearsfan]

So they cite his turn-over worthy play rate (3.46) is too high for his middle-of-the-pack big-time play percentage. but somehow Josh Allen who has an even higher turn-over worthy play rate (4.69) is ranked higher. Seems legit.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

if a QB has a high rate of -.5 or -1 pass attempts is gets lumped into the same category as -1.5 and -2 rated pass attempts. So if a QB has very high rates of -.5 or -.1 attempts as their turnover-worthy plays, it is going to make them look worse than they really are.

What PFF ought to do is avoid this general catch all stat and separate them into their appropriate numbers of -.5, -1, -1.5, and -2 and put a weight on each instance to form the more general turnover-worthy plays.

 

[WindyCity]

I think Trubisky should be 12-15.

He had moments and runs of extreme inconsistency, which should drop him, but lower than Bortles and Darnold? Those guys at eturnover machines.

 

[WindyCity]

Mahomes
Rivers
Wilson
Goff
Brees
Ryan
Luck
Watson
Big Ben
Rodgers
Cousins
Brady
Wentz

I think he would slot in after these guys with Dak and Mayfield

 

[iueyedoc]

if a QB has a high rate of -.5 or -1 pass attempts is gets lumped into the same category as -1.5 and -2 rated pass attempts. So if a QB has very high rates of -.5 or -.1 attempts as their turnover-worthy plays, it is going to make them look worse than they really are.

What PFF ought to do is avoid this general catch all stat and separate them into their appropriate numbers of -.5, -1, -1.5, and -2 and put a weight on each instance to form the more general turnover-worthy plays.

Passer rating while the best metric for judging QB's currently available is a bit lacking. QBR is too far reaching with EPA and other mumbo jumbo, and PFF Rating is just fuck worthy.
Passer rating plus with the plus being a coefficient for rushing yards and attempts and sacks taken would be a very useful tool. Using actual numbers, eliminating subjective grading, is really the only way to avoid getting some cringeworthy results.

 

[Les Grossman]

We should probably revisit this, because playoff performmance can really elevate and drop a QB's stock imo. The better QBs play well in the postseason. Is Trubisky a Russell Wilson, or an Andy Dalton?

 

[FirstTimer]

Was it PFF that ranked Cutler higher than Manning that one week that Manning threw for 7 TD's?

Yes.

 

[RoseMVP1]

This is absolutely just mind blowing. Anyone on here who is not a fan of Mitch can even agree, this list is absolute shit. They put Mitch near the bottom, even behind Sam Darnold and Eli Manning. You can argue that he isnt even top 10 but not even top 20? But the top 30!?! Just wow.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-final-list-of-pffs-highest-graded-quarterbacks-in-the-nfl-in-2018

I think there are probably 20 QB's better. Trubisky isn't that good....though I will admit he does make some nice plays with his legs. That's just my opinion though, I wouldn't go off anything PFF says. 3 games ago I saw they had Todd Gurley ranked 12th among RBs.

 

[airtime143]

We should probably revisit this, because playoff performmance can really elevate and drop a QB's stock imo. The better QBs play well in the postseason. Is Trubisky a Russell Wilson, or an Andy Dalton?

Then you have the bi-polar Eli manning.... 2 playoff runs he goes 15 tds and 2 ints for 2 rings.
The other 4 playoff runs were 3 tds and 7 picks.

If I were a giants fan I would be dead of a heart attack with that shit.

 

[Kurtosis]

I think there are probably 20 QB's better. Trubisky isn't that good....though I will admit he does make some nice plays with his legs. That's just my opinion though, I wouldn't go off anything PFF says. 3 games ago I saw they had Todd Gurley ranked 12th among RBs.

Who are the 20?

 

[BornAnAngryBearsFan]

It's all part of their ongoing narrative that the Trubisky draft trade was horrible. They refuse to be wrong here. Even if the Bears win it all, and Trubs is efficient and mistake free throughout the entire post season, they will still hate on him and claim that he only benefits from a great defense and play caller.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I kinda have to agree here. It's like they almost angrily clench their fucking ass cheeks when Mitch, and the Bears, win a game. At this point, it's getting outright fucking silly, and someone needs to tell them to "let it go fellas." The Bears could win the next couple games, or the SB, and these fuck sticks would still be railing on him. I've given up on anything they put out, that relates to QB play. Their other position rankings, have given me a few "wtf bro" moments as well.

 

[gilder121]

I kinda have to agree here. It's like they almost angrily clench their fucking ass cheeks when Mitch, and the Bears, win a game. At this point, it's getting outright fucking silly, and someone needs to tell them to "let it go fellas." The Bears could win the next couple games, or the SB, and these fuck sticks would still be railing on him. I've given up on anything they put out, that relates to QB play. Their other position rankings, have given me a few "wtf bro" moments as well.

There are two things going on:
1) They are pretty aggressively going after Trubisky in their narratives.
2) Their data collection/analysis makes Trubisky look bad.

So which one drives the other?

First, let's remember that they had Trubisky as the best rookie QB last year, so it would be odd to start being angry about a narrative NOW and not last year, when most thought it was ridiculous that Watson was graded behind Trubisky.

So it's probably the data collection/analysis.

PFF Eric (Vikings fan FWIW) posts a chart most weeks about how their grading compares to expected points added. This one is a couple of weeks old, but you can see my point.

He posts this to show who is being helped by scheme and support players (possible indication of long term regression), but it may also be a great chart to indicate gaps in their data. They would never tell you that side of it though.

Their grading differs from the results on Mitch more than any other player.

Why?

Well, IMO it likely has to do with the offense. Who is #2 on the list of largest discrepancy? Pat Mahommes. There are some other similar offenses that mean this isn't a slam dunk take, but most things in data aren't. When #1 and #2 are in similar offenses though, I tend to think there is an issue grading that offense.

So that's my thought.

But why the strong narratives then?
1) It drives traffic
2) Chicago is their largest market base
3) Bears fans keep attacking them and the back and forth fuels itself and irritates them, causing them to go harder.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

PFF Eric (Vikings fan FWIW) posts a chart most weeks about how their grading compares to expected points added. This one is a couple of weeks old, but you can see my point.

He posts this to show who is being helped by scheme and support players (possible indication of long term regression), but it may also be a great chart to indicate gaps in their data. They would never tell you that side of it though.

What is "Expected Points Added"?

 

[Bearly]

I think Trubisky should be 12-15.

He had moments and runs of extreme inconsistency, which should drop him, but lower than Bortles and Darnold? Those guys at eturnover machines.

This for the year (probably closer to 15) but about the 12 or a hair better for where he seems to be now.

 

[Bearly]

We should probably revisit this, because playoff performmance can really elevate and drop a QB's stock imo. The better QBs play well in the postseason. Is Trubisky a Russell Wilson, or an Andy Dalton?

May be too early to know.

 

[Bearly]

I think there are probably 20 QB's better. Trubisky isn't that good....though I will admit he does make some nice plays with his legs. That's just my opinion though, I wouldn't go off anything PFF says. 3 games ago I saw they had Todd Gurley ranked 12th among RBs.

Legs count.