*Corvo Havran: My Analysis

[speculadora]

Do you realize how bad it is to evaluate anything on a per completion basis?

I realize how bad it is for your argument to use completions yes.

Ok so you don't then. Let me break this down. Why do you think every stat with the lone exception of yards/completion is calculated on a per attempt basis? Because attempts give you the fullest picture of frequency. Completions are dependent on attempts, but there is not a 1:1 correlation. However, you can only accumulate yards and TDs on completed passes. So you're taking all of a player's stats, but ignoring some of their passes.

And so, if you're evaluating a player on a per completion basis, what is going to make per completions stats higher? More completions or fewer? The answer is fewer completions = better per-completion statistics. When you lower your denominator, the quotient increases. But completions are generally good, so why would you penalize a QB for having more of them?

Incompletions are, hot take here, bad. You can't just throw them out when evaluating QB play. In fact the way you're evaluating this, it would be even better in your eyes if Havran had completed 100 passes instead.

What does this even mean? Like it seems to be claiming its making a point but gives no info. If Havran had 100 completions but these stats? Are you saying my argument is that that ludicrously impossible scenario would be better? I have no clue what this argument is supposed to look like when fully formed.

To lay this out in a hypothetical, let's say you have two QBs. We'll hold everything else in this equation equal. Only the quarterback differs in comparing these two stat lines.

QB A: 200 completions, 300 attempts, 3000 yards, 30 touchdowns, 10 interceptions
QB B: 150 completions, 300 attempts, 3000 yards, 30 touchdowns, 10 interceptions

Given only this information you are arguing definitively that QB B is statistically better than QB A. If I lowered QB B's completions to 100 - again holding everything else exactly the same - the statistics you are using would actually say QB B just got even better relative to QB A.

Armstrong just had the single most efficient QB season - not just by passer rating but by literally any conceivable metric that doesn't use completions as a denominator - in league history. In terms of totals, he finished with more yards and 4 fewer touchdowns.

Calling him the most efficient relies 100% on a higher completion percentage to make the entire case. But okay...lets use attempts then. And since you wanted to add rushing stats in for SOME parts, we'll actually use them too.

Havran's 7.55 yards per attempt beats Armstrong's 7.52.
Havran's 7.14 TD% handily beats Armstrong's 5.88 TD%

So...those are some pretty important stats.

I'm not sure how you're calculating yards per attempt. Armstrong's passing YPA was 8.2, Havran's was 7.7. It seems like you're just mashing rushing and passing together, but that ignores the fact that the two are entirely different types of attempts.

For more information on why I'm saying what I'm saying, you're welcome to check out this article I posted. I also have TANY/A (which includes rushing) and ANY/A if you want those.

OCO had the best record in the league.

And? The defense giving up 60 fewer points will do that. Neither have much to do with the QBs play. Its a sneak argument, like if I had gone on about how Armstrong's already won two MVPs in a row.

We also had the 2nd most PF in the league. I believe, unless I'm mistaken, that because NOLA had 4 ST touchdowns, our offense also accounted for more points as a unit than any other offense. We're talking about MVP here, I'm telling you that pointing out that the best player, doing what he did, on the team with the best reg. season record, is not exactly a ludicrous argument. It's kinda pointless without context, but I would say I've sufficiently provided that.