QB Wins-Loss as a Stat

[Warfish]

We've bandied this about quite a bit this year.

Wins/Losses is not an official QB stat, like it is with Pitchers in Baseball.

Stat tracking sites/entities track "Wins/Losses in Games Started" as a thing, which is flawed because (for extreme example) the Phins Teddy Bridgewater started vs. us this year, played one play, and for "wins in games started" he was assigned a loss.  Not very useful when you think about that. 

The idea that wins/losses belong just to the QB is also a mistake in a game like NFL Football.  Football is truly a team sport.  While keeping track of W/L for QB's is something worthy for informational purposes, I would offer it's not the most meaningful stat for a QB.

Case in point:  Taylor Heinieke is currently 6-1 as a NFL starting QB in 2022.  

Some here got all worked up over "Zach is 5-2, Zach is 5-2", making that their core defense of the QB, when it was clear Zach wasn't the real driver of those victories, but was in fact a meaningful driver of those defeats with his personal play/production level.

The same can be said for Heinieke, he's a very meh QB, supported (similarly to Zach) by a very effective run game and a somewhat dominant Defense.  He does enough to not lose, but he's hardly the driver of what the 'Ders are 6-1 since Carson Wentz went down.

Point being, citing W/L is fine, absolutely, but any analysis of a QB should be a bit deeper than "he's 6-1".  In a game as complex as NFL football, relying on three units to succeed to win, W/L is a team stat more than anything, and good QB's can be assigned "losses" because of those other units, and bad QB's can be assigned "wins" because of those units too.

It really comes down to the age old metrics for QB performance.  Comp. %.  YPA.  Yards.  Sacks.  TD to INT ratio.  Etc.  

JMO.

[Irish Jet]

Yeah how people are still doing this when Matt Stafford went from one playoff appearance in Detroit to winning a Superbowl on his first good team is just beyond me. 

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

Wins and Losses is only a stat that counts for the HC. 

You can't pin that on any individual player. 

Herbert is a top 5 QB. It's not hard to see. His career record though is 21-22.

[Hex]

QBs are normally the driver of a team and that’s why people like to assign it to them. But you’re right, and it’s a team sport. In fact, many teams have drivers that are different positions on offense. Saquon Barkley, Justin Jefferson, and a bunch of others. This is just offense too. Defense could dominate so much that the offense gets covered up too.

[FootballLove]

Great point. I also think limiting QB TD stats to just passing TDs and never mentioning QB run TDs or Team run TDs is another stat failure. QB stats should include all TDs or none of them. A QB can have 6 of 7 passing to the 1 yard line, then a FB rumbles in and gets all the credit. That TD will never show up on the QB's stat line.

When you look back like 5 years ago at a QB's stat line, it should include ALL the TDs scored by the offense. It would be a better picture of how good the QB did.

[Warfish]

4 minutes ago, FootballLove said:

Great point. I also think limiting QB TD stats to just passing TDs and never mentioning QB run TDs or Team run TDs is another stat failure.

Rushing yards and TD's for QB's are absolutely tracked by every stat site/entity, and official stats and are valid stats, more now than ever with all the run-first/good-running QB's we have in the league.

I think this is more a case of fans who leave it out of their analysis, usually when their QB's are not themselves rushing QB's.

 

[FootballLove]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Rushing yards and TD's for QB's are absolutely tracked by every stat site/entity, and official stats and are valid stats, more now than ever with all the run-first/good-running QB's we have in the league.

I think this is more a case of fans who leave it out of their analysis, usually when their QB's are not themselves rushing QB's.

 

hmmm.....maybe. But look at Zack's stat line. Like 5 TDs, 6 INTs. No mention of any running TDs, even his own. Every QB stat line I've ever seen only shows passing TDs.

[xJayce]

33 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We've bandied this about quite a bit this year.

Wins/Losses is not an official QB stat, like it is with Pitchers in Baseball.

Even if it is an official stat for Pitchers in baseball and Goalies in hockey, placing any 'team' stat on a single player is silly.

Pitchers don't drive in runs (normally).

Goalies don't score goals (normally).

QBs do not kick field goals / intercept passes / stop the other team's offense (normally).

This is completely besides your initial point though.

[JohnnyLV]

58 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We've bandied this about quite a bit this year.

Wins/Losses is not an official QB stat, like it is with Pitchers in Baseball.

Stat tracking sites/entities track "Wins/Losses in Games Started" as a thing, which is flawed because (for extreme example) the Phins Teddy Bridgewater started vs. us this year, played one play, and for "wins in games started" he was assigned a loss.  Not very useful when you think about that. 

The idea that wins/losses belong just to the QB is also a mistake in a game like NFL Football.  Football is truly a team sport.  While keeping track of W/L for QB's is something worthy for informational purposes, I would offer it's not the most meaningful stat for a QB.

Case in point:  Taylor Heinieke is currently 6-1 as a NFL starting QB in 2022.  

Some here got all worked up over "Zach is 5-2, Zach is 5-2", making that their core defense of the QB, when it was clear Zach wasn't the real driver of those victories, but was in fact a meaningful driver of those defeats with his personal play/production level.

The same can be said for Heinieke, he's a very meh QB, supported (similarly to Zach) by a very effective run game and a somewhat dominant Defense.  He does enough to not lose, but he's hardly the driver of what the 'Ders are 6-1 since Carson Wentz went down.

Point being, citing W/L is fine, absolutely, but any analysis of a QB should be a bit deeper than "he's 6-1".  In a game as complex as NFL football, relying on three units to succeed to win, W/L is a team stat more than anything, and good QB's can be assigned "losses" because of those other units, and bad QB's can be assigned "wins" because of those units too.

It really comes down to the age old metrics for QB performance.  Comp. %.  YPA.  Yards.  Sacks.  TD to INT ratio.  Etc.  

JMO.

No stat is perfect but I do disagree slightly here. It is just an indicator. If you winning with a QB than it means that in general he is making enough plays and few enough mistakes to allow a team win. It says little about how dominant the individual performance is.

People focus in my view way too much on completion percentage. QBs know this and you see a lot of QBs just dumping off the ball on 3rd down especially long to pad their stats.

YPA and Sack % and TD to Int percentage as well as total TDs are the most valuable I think, and there is some value in Qb rating, Total QBR and even the PFF ratings (I assume that unlike DT PFF actually watches the QBs play)

I think you discredit Zach a little in that just his evasiveness was enough to allow us to win games against GB and Denver and he played pretty decently against Miami and Buffalo -a game we were 14 point underdogs in. He was abysmal in the 2nd NE game but in first he was pretty good outside of the INTs which absolutely caused us to lose. Zach outside of the 3 NE games is probably overall a slightly below QB but the NE games skew things so much.

Was benching him the right thing to do? In hindsight it certainly seems so. White exceeded any reasonable expectation in that game. But the Chicago defense is abysmal. Had we started Zach the narrative this week might have been that the lightbulb went on for him.

I do not care who the Jets QB is. I believe you commit to a QB 100% and then if needed move on. I am 100% behind White starting until he shows he cannot get it done. It still remains that Zach has higher upside, and makes a lot more money and foolish to think it wont affect QB decisions down the road. White might only get 1 bad game before he is yanked unless it is next season essentially. I actually think that is a mistake because White now has 2 exceptional performances in 5 starts.  

We play a crapola pass defense this week and then a really good one against Buffalo so we will know a lot more about White in 2 weeks time.

I will say that if he can get his mind right Zach could still be a Top 5 QB in this league. We need to find the answer to the Adderall question too.

[Beerfish]

It's a stat like many analytics stats.

If it supports your preconceived notion about a QB then you bring it up and say it is valid.  If it goes against your preconcieved notion of a QB it is meaningless and a garbage stat.

[slimjasi]

Correct. 

There are 10 other players on the field for a team at any one time and the QB only plays offense. Wins are a TEAM stat, not an individual one. Hence, W/L record should generally be used to compare teams, not individuals. 

[bitonti]

Great post @Warfish

in entirely unrelated news Mike "F-ing" White is 1-0 as the QB of the NYJ in 2022

[Larz]

We all know W/L is a stat for jag box safeties 

[doitny]

36 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

just his evasiveness was enough to allow us to win games

and that is also his weakness. every time he ran out of the pocket he did nothing with it. 

as compared to White who people called a statue and rightfully so, made many plays within a collapsing pocket. one that comes to mind was one TD to GW where the safety got hurt. he was surrounded. the LT was on a guy 4 yds behind him and he stepped up to make that play. there are more but you get the idea.

Zach never makes that play. he is too afraid to sit in the pocket. imagine how good he could be if he overcame that fear. or maybe its just his style of play where he runs out of the pocket.? the evasiveness worked against the lesser teams where he could get away with his 55% comp but against the better teams like NE it was a weakness. his best game against Buffalo he stood in the pocket.

[BroadwayJoe12]

Win-loss record should not be a QB stat. However, as the single-most important position in all of the sporting world, it is not terribly unreasonable to bring up one's win-loss record when discussing their contributions, as a whole. 

[Lith]

4 minutes ago, doitny said:

as compared to White who people called a statue and rightfully so, made many plays within a collapsing pocket. one that comes to mind was one TD to GW where the safety got hurt. he was surrounded. the LT was on a guy 4 yds behind him and he stepped up to make that play. there are more but you get the idea.

One of the more impressive plays to me was about an 8 or 10 yard gain to Conklin on the opening drive.  DB was blitzing and came untouched.  White dumped the ball off to Conklin in the area vacated by the blitzing safety and he picked up 9 yards.  What could have been a sack and 2nd and 15 (OMG how can anyone succeed behind this revloving door OL), became a 2nd and 1 on the edge of FG range.  Those are the simple plays that White makes because he sees the defense and knows where to go with the ball pre-snap. 

[doitny]

18 minutes ago, Lith said:

One of the more impressive plays to me was about an 8 or 10 yard gain to Conklin on the opening drive.  DB was blitzing and came untouched.  White dumped the ball off to Conklin in the area vacated by the blitzing safety and he picked up 9 yards.  What could have been a sack and 2nd and 15 (OMG how can anyone succeed behind this revloving door OL), became a 2nd and 1 on the edge of FG range.  Those are the simple plays that White makes because he sees the defense and knows where to go with the ball pre-snap. 

how about the one where the DE got passed the LT right in his face and he stood there and threw it over him to Ty who was about 4 yds away and he turned it into a nice gain.

people kept telling me for weeks that White and Flacco are statues and we need Zach cause of his mobility. BS. we need a statue cause they make plays. i will take the extra sacks a White gets over the mobility that always turns out to be a loss of down that Zach Wilson gives.

[shawn306]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

We've bandied this about quite a bit this year.

Wins/Losses is not an official QB stat, like it is with Pitchers in Baseball.

Stat tracking sites/entities track "Wins/Losses in Games Started" as a thing, which is flawed because (for extreme example) the Phins Teddy Bridgewater started vs. us this year, played one play, and for "wins in games started" he was assigned a loss.  Not very useful when you think about that. 

The idea that wins/losses belong just to the QB is also a mistake in a game like NFL Football.  Football is truly a team sport.  While keeping track of W/L for QB's is something worthy for informational purposes, I would offer it's not the most meaningful stat for a QB.

Case in point:  Taylor Heinieke is currently 6-1 as a NFL starting QB in 2022.  

Some here got all worked up over "Zach is 5-2, Zach is 5-2", making that their core defense of the QB, when it was clear Zach wasn't the real driver of those victories, but was in fact a meaningful driver of those defeats with his personal play/production level.

The same can be said for Heinieke, he's a very meh QB, supported (similarly to Zach) by a very effective run game and a somewhat dominant Defense.  He does enough to not lose, but he's hardly the driver of what the 'Ders are 6-1 since Carson Wentz went down.

Point being, citing W/L is fine, absolutely, but any analysis of a QB should be a bit deeper than "he's 6-1".  In a game as complex as NFL football, relying on three units to succeed to win, W/L is a team stat more than anything, and good QB's can be assigned "losses" because of those other units, and bad QB's can be assigned "wins" because of those units too.

It really comes down to the age old metrics for QB performance.  Comp. %.  YPA.  Yards.  Sacks.  TD to INT ratio.  Etc.  

JMO.

Ah man now you fired up the analytic folks. LOL

[Jetsfan80]

45 minutes ago, BroadwayJoe12 said:

Win-loss record should not be a QB stat. However, as the single-most important position in all of the sporting world, it is not terribly unreasonable to bring up one's win-loss record when discussing their contributions, as a whole. 

Sure but as a be-all-end-all?  That was the last defense Wilson defenders were able to make.  When you pointed out his putrid numbers they'd yell "5-2!" like it means something.  

When you're a piss-poor QB but your W-L record is strong, it's time to stop saying that when the credit clearly goes to the other 52 guys and coaches doing their jobs. 

[Kleckineau]

This W-L stat ranks up there with  the "well he isnt great and doesnt belong in the HOF because he never won a Super Bowl" baloney.

[FidelioJet]

Nonsense.

The most important statistic for a QB is wins and losses.

It's the most important position in all of sports - and the goal in sports is to win.

Of course the team around a QB matters - but stop it.

Wins surely matter for a QB.  His sole job is to win games not put up stats.

[Jetsfan80]

42 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Nonsense.

The most important statistic for a QB is wins and losses.

It's the most important position in all of sports - and the goal in sports is to win.

Of course the team around a QB matters - but stop it.

Wins surely matter for a QB.  His sole job is to win games not put up stats.

So in your book, Trent Dilfer and Mark Rypien are both better than Dan Marino, correct?

[GangGreen Machine]

I'm more of a fan of "career 4th QTR game winning drives" for QB's.

 

Wins and Losses have too many factors leading to the outcome.  

[jNYC1]

I’m more a fan of “potential” than stats.

I particularly enjoy off platform throw potential.

I don’t need to see any of this potential lead to production in games.  In fact, I prefer occasional flashes to evaluate the qb’s production over objective stats.

[FidelioJet]

9 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

So in your book, Trent Dilfer and Mark Rypien are both better than Dan Marino, correct?

No, in my book wins and losses matter as a stat for a QB.  Wether or not a QB leads his team to victory is important.

There's no absolutes in anything.

Can a good QB be on a bad team and lose?  Sure

Can a bad QB be on a good team and win?  Sure.

But on the whole -QB's play a MASSIVE role in whether or not their team wins games - Do you deny that?

If not I am curious as to why you think team's try so hard and pay so much to get a good one.

Do you think GM's just want to puff up their chests about comp %?  or do they want good QB's because they play a vital role in their team winning?

 

[slimjasi]

4 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

Nonsense.

The most important statistic for a QB is wins and losses.

It's the most important position in all of sports - and the goal in sports is to win.

Of course the team around a QB matters - but stop it.

Wins surely matter for a QB.  His sole job is to win games not put up stats.

Wins are the most important team stat. They aren’t an individual stat. This isn’t singles tennis.

[Jetsfan80]

4 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

Nonsense.

The most important statistic for a QB is wins and losses.

It's the most important position in all of sports - and the goal in sports is to win.

Of course the team around a QB matters - but stop it.

Wins surely matter for a QB.  His sole job is to win games not put up stats.

 

3 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

No, in my book wins and losses matter as a stat for a QB.  Wether or not a QB leads his team to victory is important.

There's no absolutes in anything.

Can a good QB be on a bad team and lose?  Sure

Can a bad QB be on a good team and win?  Sure.

But on the whole -QB's play a MASSIVE role in whether or not their team wins games - Do you deny that?

If not I am curious as to why you think team's try so hard and pay so much to get a good one.

Do you think GM's just want to puff up their chests about comp %?  or do they want good QB's because they play a vital role in their team winning?

 

 

We both agree it's a useful stat, even if we disagree on HOW important it is.  But prior you were arguing it is the MOST important stat.  On that we absolutely disagree.  

And it seems you backtracked a little and are now saying it simply "matters".  Which is it?  MOST important or just one of many important stats?

[undertow]

Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl he's definitely better than Dan Marino dummy.

[slimjasi]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 And it seems you backtracked a little and are now saying it simply "matters".  Which is it?  MOST important or just one of many important stats?

If wins were truly the most important “QB” stat (definitely wrong but whatever), then we would all actually think that Marino was trash. 
 

 

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, slimjasi said:

If wins were truly the most important “QB” stat (definitely wrong but whatever), then we would all actually think that Marino was trash. 

And Stafford would have been terrible until the moment he signed with the Rams.

[undertow]

19 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

And Stafford would have been terrible until the moment he signed with the Rams.

Stafford actually didn't get mush respect until he went to the Rams....most people watched zero Lions games and just called him overrated.

[FidelioJet]

11 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

 

We both agree it's a useful stat, even if we disagree on HOW important it is.  But prior you were arguing it is the MOST important stat.  On that we absolutely disagree.  

And it seems you backtracked a little and are now saying it simply "matters".  Which is it?  MOST important or just one of many important stats?

Well, this all started because I said we should expect a much better QB in Mike White to go 5-2 in the 7 games he's expected to start.  Considering that's what the lesser QB in Zach Wilson achieved in the 7 games he started.

We're talking about the same team.  Not a Stafford on the Lions vs. Rams here. 

I was then told the QB shouldn't have any accountability in wins and losses.  My point was - that should be the most important accountable data point - and I stand by that.  Not the ONLY one by any means but absolutely an important one.

Now, I'm not saying if Mike White doesn't go 5-2 (well 4-2 now) he's failed.  I don't believe that at all.  

I agree, circumstances do matter - if Mike White plays well and is losing because the defense is failing him or WR's are dropping balls or the running game is going to sh*t or FG's are being missed.  Or any combination of those.  Certainly,  that can happen.

But ultimately it doesn't change my view that the "expectation of the NY Jets" over the last 7 weeks should have been 5-2.  Not the expectation of Mike White - but the New York Jets!

I don't expect the defense to fall apart - they should only be getting better.  I don't expect the WR's to start dropping passes with a far more catchable ball, I don't expect the team to starting missing FG's etc.

I expect Mike White to outperform Zach and I expect the other pieces to maintain or better their performance.  Not sure how it should be seen any other way.  

Anything less than 4-2 over the next 6 weeks, to me, would be a team that fell short of my expectations.  

That's the point I was making.

[Jetsfan80]

27 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Well, this all started because I said we should expect a much better QB in Mike White to go 5-2 in the 7 games he's expected to start.  Considering that's what the lesser QB in Zach Wilson achieved in the 7 games he started.

We're talking about the same team.  Not a Stafford on the Lions vs. Rams here. 

I was then told the QB shouldn't have any accountability in wins and losses.  My point was - that should be the most important accountable data point - and I stand by that.  Not the ONLY one by any means but absolutely an important one.

Now, I'm not saying if Mike White doesn't go 5-2 (well 4-2 now) he's failed.  I don't believe that at all.  

I agree, circumstances do matter - if Mike White plays well and is losing because the defense is failing him or WR's are dropping balls or the running game is going to sh*t or FG's are being missed.  Or any combination of those.  Certainly,  that can happen.

But ultimately it doesn't change my view that the "expectation of the NY Jets" over the last 7 weeks should have been 5-2.  Not the expectation of Mike White - but the New York Jets!

I don't expect the defense to fall apart - they should only be getting better.  I don't expect the WR's to start dropping passes with a far more catchable ball, I don't expect the team to starting missing FG's etc.

I expect Mike White to outperform Zach and I expect the other pieces to maintain or better their performance.  Not sure how it should be seen any other way.  

Anything less than 4-2 over the next 6 weeks, to me, would be a team that fell short of my expectations.  

That's the point I was making.

So do you still think QB W-L record is the most important stat or….

[Kleckineau]

4 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

Well, this all started because I said we should expect a much better QB in Mike White to go 5-2 in the 7 games he's expected to start.  Considering that's what the lesser QB in Zach Wilson achieved in the 7 games he started.

We're talking about the same team.  Not a Stafford on the Lions vs. Rams here. 

I was then told the QB shouldn't have any accountability in wins and losses.  My point was - that should be the most important accountable data point - and I stand by that.  Not the ONLY one by any means but absolutely an important one.

Now, I'm not saying if Mike White doesn't go 5-2 (well 4-2 now) he's failed.  I don't believe that at all.  ...........................................