clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

David Garrard and ESPN's New 'QBR' Rating

The folks over at ESPN have developed a new quarterback rating called "QBR". It's an attempt to modified the severly outdated quarterback rating statistic, which everyone here knows I despise. In my opinion, it rewards safe play rather than good play. Typically a good quarterback will end up with a good rating and vice-versa, but it's a stat than can be manipulated.

For example: If I chose to take a sack instead of throwing the ball away... my passer rating stays the same because no pass was actually attempted. If I chose to throw the ball away in lieu of losing yardage, my rating decreases. What kind of sense does that make?

So, what does this new "QBR" stat do?

Here's the short explination:

The Total Quarterback Rating is a statistical measure that incorporates the contexts and details of those throws and what they mean for wins. It's built from the team level down to the quarterback, where we understand first what each play means to the team, then give credit to the quarterback for what happened on that play based on what he contributed.

 If you want the long on what QBR rating is, you can find it here.

ESPN went back and tracked quarterbacks from 2008 to 2010 and figured out their QBR rating. QBR is done on a rating out of a total of 100. ESPN ranked a total of 101 total quarterbacks, and years 2008-2010 rank in that 101, therefore a player can appear more than once. Here is how David Garrard ranks:

Rank Season QB Team Action Plays QBR REG
41 (14th) 2010 David Garrard JAX 510 57.3 90.8 (13th)
56 (21st) 2008 David Garrard JAX 711 50.8 81.7 (20th)
57 (20th) 2009 David Garrard JAX 683 50.4 83.5 (17th)

So, he ranks right around the middle. Not really a surprise. Also not really a surprise, his highest QBR rating was in the 2010 season, which would have been the 14th highest QBR rating in 2010. By comparison, with the standard quarterback rating, Garrard ranked 13th with a 90.8 rating. The total ratings can be found here.