StatsDetective 1 | QBR vs Passer Rating + a better way

When I sat down to record the video, I had about a page of notes and no idea that I felt this strongly against the statistics that currently dominate the sports talk landscape. Even more than that, the formualic flaws are clear, or in the case of QBR, clearly hidden for a reason.

The issue is not in their relative predictive power, it is in the unnecessary complication and bastardization of the many rate and counting stats that they use as part of their formulas. As I said in the video, rate and counting stats are generally good because they do one thing and nothing else. They alone do not have magical statistical powers (though some aren't half bad even when compared to their "advanced" brothers). In the video, I have gone too far saying that the weights applied to create QBR and passer rating were arbitrary. By definition, they were based on other calculations and thus are not arbitrary. However, they are constant and unchanging given situation, making them less accurate and less useful.

There are several topics of discussion touched upon in this video that I will no doubt be elaborating on in future installments of StatsDetective. For now, you will have to make do with just a taste of my vitreol for poorly thought out statistical methodology.