'Keep thinking about the passer rating. ESPN's rating is a black box; only the folks at ESPN know what it means. I don't think we need to get rid of the passer rating. I just think we need another metric, that can also be compared with attempts, that measures accuracy more than the blunt way that it's measured in the passer rating.
For example, interceptions are actually double counted, a little bit, in the passer rating, which is good, because I think throwing picks is the sign of a poor performance by the passer. It's double counted because an interception goes down as an interception, plus an incompletion, so it dings both completion percentage and interceptions.
But what the passer rating needs, is something like baseball's balls-and-strikes. Baseball has an umpire devoted to judging the accuracy of each pitch, and the NFL doesn't have this. It is well within the NFL's ability to assign a booth ref to make this judgment on each pass attempt. Sometimes well thrown balls are tipped by receivers into the hands of a defender, and instead of the passer getting credit for throwing a good ball, he is double penalized with an incompletion, and an interception.
I would recommend that anything close, goes to the passer, so if the ball is thrown and it's judged that the receiver could catch that ball, then it's a "strike," and if the receiver could not catch the ball, then it's a "ball."
Balls-and-strikes aren't everything, and one of the issues we'd have to deal with is that sometimes, coverage is going to make the "strike zone" so small as to be nonexistent, and when the passer throws the ball away, it would be marked down as a "ball," but it was the right choice, so this hypothetical metric wouldn't be the be all end all of a passer's performance, and that's why I'm not suggesting to trash the current passer rating.
But in a game where the passer makes 40 attempts, that's 40 "strikes" or "balls." The measure would be "strikes" per attempt, to normalize it with the other metrics in the passer rating; completions per attempt, TDs per attempt, yards per attempt, and interceptions per attempt. It would provide that missing vector that I've been prattling on about, and would help to fill in some of the blanks that we currently have to live with, with just the passer rating.
Another problem with passer rating alone is that TDs might be overweighted in an offense with a strong running game that can pound home the score on the ground in the red zone, even if the passer got the offense into the red zone reliably. The passer is penalized for not converting enough TDs through the air, even though he may command a dominating offense that scores plenty.
There are plenty of times when the passer, in the red zone, on say first or second and goal, throws away the ball because the coverage is too thick in the end zone, or in the middle of the field on first or second down, to avoid a sack, and that's frequently the right football play, rather than risk a horrible drive-ending interception. The balls-and-strikes metric would still show a "ball" on such occasions, which again is why this metric couldn't be used to fairly judge the passer's performance all by itself, but would complement the passer rating, providing that "texture" I mentioned in an earlier post.
And what I'm ultimately driving at, is to somehow sort the passers who are truly exceptional from those who benefit from excellent receivers. Ten seasons ago, the NE Patriots were on the verge of completing the finest NFL season in history, only to lose to the Giants in the SB, and I think that a "balls-and-strikes" metric would vindicate Brady in that game, and show that what happened, was that his receivers collectively pooped their pants, and dropped "strikes" far more frequently than they did all throughout that season. The passer can only be reasonably expected to throw "strikes." It is not fair to penalize the passer if receivers drop "strikes;" it assigns a magical quality to the passer to require, in order for him to get a good rating, that receivers catch catchable balls.
Great receivers can sometimes drop "strikes," just as well as they can sometimes catch "balls." Outstanding catches made by receivers on poorly thrown balls should go to the receiver's credit, and not to the passer, which is what the passer rating all by its lonesome does, whenever the receiver makes a terrific catch, and this again assigns a magical quality to the passer, in the stats. The passer can have his rating, but the "balls-and-strikes" metric would shine more light on what actually occurred.
Another matter is when defenses break down (which this year's Pats D has been doing regularly), leaving receivers uncovered. In such cases, the "strike zone" becomes larger, since there's no nearby defender who could catch or disrupt the pass. When the receiver is well-covered, the "strike zone" is small, and when the passer can throw "strikes" when the "strike zone" is small, then they are better than those who can only throw "strikes" when it is large (like when the receiver is uncovered, or poorly covered).
All of these issues are mentioned by game commentators, but there's nothing in the statistics to show game-by-game, season-by-season performance by the passer, so we have to take it on faith that it all averages or washes out in the passer rating, but I think the evidence against the passer rating being a good estimate of passer performance is solid, and the NFL does need to address their metrics somehow, and I think that a new "balls-and-strikes" metric would go a long way to doing that.
Anyway, :idunno:.
