Hyper Inflation

In looking at the table of the leading passer ratings in the NFL this year, I was disgusted to find how easy it has become to post a huge rating. Take a look at the top 10 passers in the NFL:

1	Peyton Manning	IND	114.5
2	Aaron Rodgers	GB	110.8
3	Drew Brees	NO	106.9
4	Matt Schaub	HOU	104.4
5	Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	102.6
6	Brett Favre	MIN	102.2
7	Kyle Orton	DEN	100.1
8	Tom Brady	NE	99.9
9	Philip Rivers	SD	96.1
10	Tony Romo	DAL	94.7

Last year, there were 5 QBs who finished the year at 95 or better. Peyton Manning won the MVP with a passer rating of 95. Now, I realize that his rating was a bit lower than a normal MVP, because he was rewarded for his work over the final 8 games of the season, but still, it's mind blowing to see that there are 10 QBs essentially playing at an MVP level right now. Dig a bit deeper and you find 4 more QBs over 90. It's early in season still, and as the weather worsens some of these ratings will begin to drop on their own, but this is ridiculous.

We've all grown accustomed to the growth of the passing game in the NFL, but this is a quantum leap even from last year, and there is no discernible rule change to cause it. I don't like the 'Brady rule', but I seriously doubt it's the sole reason QBs are posting massive numbers all over the league.

In fact, the culprit is obvious. There are a crapload of bad teams. Just check out Sunday's Hangover (ho ho! I snuck that plug in on you. You are permitted to feel violated.). It's one blowout after another.

My theory is that the 6 worst teams (those with zero or one win) in the NFL are so bad that they are skewing the passing stats. Check out the top 10 QBs by passer rating against the other 26 NFL teams and verses the Sh***y Six (Cleveland, Detroit, Tampa, Tennessee, the Rams and the Chiefs...a combined 3-37):

			Rating	Other 26	Sh***y Six	Games against the SS
1	Peyton Manning	IND	114.5	114.5	114.5	2
2	Aaron Rodgers	GB	110.8	95.4	130.9	3
3	Drew Brees	NO	106.9	96.7	137	1
4	Matt Schaub	HOU	104.4	100	127.8	1
5	Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	102.6	98.9	106.9	3
6	Brett Favre	MIN	102.2	99.9	107.2	3
7	Kyle Orton	DEN	100.1	104	83.5	1
8	Tom Brady	NE	99.9	85.9	137.1	2
9	Philip Rivers	SD	96.1	91.8	122.6	1
10	Tony Romo	DAL	94.7	80	126.7	2

The six worst teams in football are ruining the game. Take out the Six, and you have 7 players over 95 (compared with 5 last year) and just three over 100. The only guys who haven't benefited from the 6 are Manning (who is incredibly at 114.5 against the other 26 and 114.5 against the 6) and Kyle Orton (and nobody knows what the hell is up with him). Tom Brady, Tony Romo, and Aaron Rodgers have feasted on the 6, and their numbers are greatly inflated.

So the next time someone tries to sell you on the idea that so and so is a great QB or is having a great season just because of his numbers, make sure you find out how many of the Sh***y Six he's played. It makes all the difference.

UPDATE: I was asked to produce last year's passer rating chart through week seven. I had to recreate it using yahoo sports' week by week results and manually inputting the totals into a passing calculator. Here's what I have. If it's not 100%, it should be close.

Philip Rivers	SDG	108.5
Tony Romo	DAL	103.5
Kurt Warner	ARI	102.8
Aaron Rodgers	GNB	98.8
Trent Edwards	BUF	98.8
Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	98.1
Chad Pennington	MIA	97.4
Jason Campbell	WAS	96.2
Jeff Garcia	TAM	93.3
Donovan McNabb	PHI	93.2

We see three players over 100 (verses 7 this year) and 8 over 94.7 (verses 10 this year).

I think it shows that:

1. There is clearly inflation this year (although i suppose it could be argued that it's largely just the result of Brady and Manning being healthy).

2. There will be some regression (see Campbell, Jason and Edwards, Trent)

For the record, here are last year's final standings:

1	Philip Rivers, QB	SDG	105.5
2	Chad Pennington, QB	MIA	97.4
3	Kurt Warner, QB	ARI	96.9
4	Drew Brees, QB	NOR	96.2
5	Peyton Manning, QB	IND	95
6	Aaron Rodgers, QB	GNB	93.8
7	Matt Schaub, QB	HOU	92.7
8	Tony Romo, QB	DAL	91.4
9	Jeff Garcia, QB	TAM	90.2
10	Matt Cassel, QB	NWE	89.4

Comments (17) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

I've been noticing the same thing, and I think you are absolutely right
written by dmstorm22, October 27, 2009

It is amazing how bad these teams have become this year. Just last year, defense dominated the league, with Pittsburgh having an all-time defense, and there were tons of other great ones. I'm sure this will cool down over time, but this year looks like it will challenge 2004 for QB insanity.

Not Sold Yet
written by Merr, October 27, 2009

Sample size is 6 or 7 games, depending on the team, with virtually no bad weather games. Most, if not all, of those QBs will regress.

...
written by DZ, October 27, 2009

I'm sure they will regress. Most of their success is built on trashing the worst teams in the game. Some of that will even out, but the point is that when you see the big #s this early it's because the #s are skewed by a few games against awful teams.

...
written by LukeM, October 27, 2009

I don't think you've proven that this year is any different. What did the top ten list look like after week seven last year? The top ten after the whole year is almost always going to be worse than the top ten after a few games.

...
written by DZ, October 27, 2009

I wasn't trying to prove that this year is different.
I suspect it is, but don't know where to find those numbers...if anyone does let me know.

I was trying to prove that the most of the absurdly high QB ratings were due to the top QBs playing an especially crappy group of teams.

...
written by LukeM, October 27, 2009

I guess you would have to compile the data yourself from every quarterback's stat page on nfl.com or espn.com, then calculate their ratings. I wouldn't blame you for not doing that. I'm certainly not going to. But if you don't, we won't really know that there aren't usually ten or so guys that start out that hot before fading.

...
written by mattie, October 27, 2009

Obviously the lousy teams have skewed the numbers quite a bit but what has been frustrating to watch ever since the playoffs when the Pats mugged the Colts receivers (04?) is how much protection receivers now get. It seems now in the league if you breathe on the receivers it is "passing interference." Am I the only who sees this? Maybe it is just me be I feel it greatly weakens the game if you give an inordinate amount of protection for the offense in order to inflate scores and make games more exciting. Which is odd for me because I find defensive battles very fun to watch.

...
written by DZ, October 27, 2009

League wide scoring isn't up:

First, NFL scoring. Since the late 1940s, when Harry Truman was president and the tech rumor was that Blaupunkt was designing an FM radio for the dashboard of cars, NFL scoring has hovered between 21 and 22 points per team per game. Last season, the average was 22 points; in 2007, it was 21.7 points; in 1987, it was 21.6 points; in 1967, it was 21.8 points; in 1947, it was 22 points. So far this season, the average is 21.1. (Check any past year here.) The averages are so consistent it's almost spooky, as though there were a "power law" dictating an outcome of 21 to 22 points per team per NFL game. Offensive fads have come and gone: single wing, run and shoot, I backfield, full house, no huddle, double tight, the spread. Tactics change, scoring remains about the same.

The question is this year, if some really bad teams are screwing with the numbers. These teams don't score on offense, and give up a ton of points on defense, so it averages out league wide, but it tilts the numbers of the QBs that are lucky enough to play them.

You love stats...
written by Doug England, October 27, 2009

...but that's what we love about you.

You make a great case, and an equally great topic to think about... but my suspicion is that it's only about a third of the way through the season, and as teams get more film on the QBs, their ratings will become more pedestrian. (Except of course for PM's, whose rating will probably go up.)

...
written by DZ, October 27, 2009

I'm remaking last year's rating board after 7 weeks. Give me an hour.

If anyone finds it soon, LET ME KNOW!

...
written by DZ, October 27, 2009

Done. Refresh the article and take a look.

Bad teams
written by Bob M, October 27, 2009

That's a pretty logical conclusion but I don't htink they're ruining football because their suckitude is not permanent (Lions, Raiders excepted). I look at it like expansion years--when a bunch of QBs get two extra games against an unformed team, league-wide passer ratings probably jump, as will most other stats. Thnk of baseball expansion--there are only so many good arms out there, so hitting usually jumps in those years. But it doesn;t ruin the game, does it?

We just happened, for whatever reason, to hit a really bad D stretch. Maybe teams ranked around 20 with one key man last year lost their key man, showing that it was really a house of cards. Coaching changes to blame? Injuries/retirements/trades? Not sure. Weather will take its toll, as you said, (in fact, is it possible that we have had better weather this year? No hurricanes ravaging NO/MIA/TAM/HOU means that what might have been a rain-soaked quagmire game turned out to be a decent passing day for mid-level QBs.... (Weren't there some insane wind & rain-bowls in Miami in recent years? Sheets of water and 40 MPH winds and passing games that looked like 8 of 20 for 65 yards?) We may end up just a shade above the ratings of the recent past. But all is not lost. Manning will likely NOT add 20 pts to his rating like he did last year. Brady will end up higher than Cassell. Last year saw three prominent rookie QBs who did well and are likely to improve.

...
written by Attila, October 27, 2009

Passer rating is BS anyway. Brady should have been under 100 against the Bucs with two INTs and Palmer should have been perfect, but was only at 146.7. Jamarcus Russel at 31 is also too high.

...
written by LukeM, October 27, 2009

Hey Man, I didn't ask you to do any more work, although I am impressed that you just went ahead and crunched it. I was just trying to make a comment about the work you'd already done. Nice job on the new stuff. This is now the only place on the whole internet where someone can find that data. And I agree, the top ten ratings this year are all higher than they were last year, although it's interesting that if you make the cutoff at 95 (MVP level?) instead of 100, then there were 8 guys above the line after seven weeks last year and there is just one more guy above it this year. Thanks for the sharing the results. It's really interesting.

...
written by DZ, October 28, 2009

As it turned out it wasn't an unreasonable project. I think it only took about 30 minutes or so. It was a good suggestion and added to the piece.

There will definitely be some regression as the season goes along. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of abject frauds in this top 10. Paging Kyle Orton?

The ship on this topic has probably already sailed...
written by Doug England, October 28, 2009

But, did you consider the bottom portion of the QB ratings? As you pointed out there is a high number of QBs with inflated raings, but are there also an unusually high number of QBs with a terrible rating? (Russell, Anderson etc.)

...
written by DZ, October 28, 2009

Sorry, there's no way to tell. When I rebuilt the list from last year, I eyeballed out some QBs at the bottom to save me time (if they had more picks than TDs, I didn't figure their rating, because they weren't going to be in the top 10, obviously).

It's not apples to apples, but last year's worst ranked QB was at 65. We currently have 6 QBs below that level.