NFL Should Rethink INTs (1 Viewer)

[satch]

Hurts’ pick-6 yesterday was the result of Goedert slipping. Had he not stumbled, it would not have been intercepted. Yet it will show up on stats and be discussed as “another turnover by Jalen Hurts,” even though he wasn’t to blame. I mean, it’s possible it could’ve still been intercepted if Goedert hadn’t slipped, but highly unlikely imo. Regardless, this isn’t about that one play in particular, but INTs in general.

It happens every week, almost every game. QB throws a fine pass, the receiver slips, runs the wrong route, or the ball deflects off the receiver’s hands into those of a defender, and it’s always recorded as an INT on the QB. Why?

I don’t understand why the NFL can’t judge and record INTs based on who is to blame. Running the wrong route would be difficult to determine, but If a perfectly thrown pass deflects off a WR’s hands for an INT, they fall down and it gets picked, etc, that should be on the WR/RB, not the QB. Call it an INT, turnover, or whatever, but it makes no sense to pin those on the QB.

In most cases, these instances are blatantly obvious, so there shouldn’t be any more “grey area” issues than fumbled handoff exchanges which are judged similarly.

BTW, I won despite Hurts’ pick-6, so this isn’t just a case of sour grapes. That said, had I lost because of it, this would bug me even more, of course. It just seems nonsensical to pin turnovers on QBs when the receiver is to blame. Why not pin it on the receiver?

 

[-OZ-]

QBs get a lot of credit and blame. And the highest contracts and MVP consideration. It’s often been said that winning isn’t a QB stat, but that’s among the first things discussed with the position.
No need to officially reconsider INTs, but I assume the coaches look at what went wrong to cause the INT.

 

[Insein]

I too lost by 1.2 with Hurts as my QB.

 

[satch]

QBs get a lot of credit and blame. And the highest contracts and MVP consideration. It’s often been said that winning isn’t a QB stat, but that’s among the first things discussed with the position.
No need to officially reconsider INTs, but I assume the coaches look at what went wrong to cause the INT.

This is strictly about how stats are recorded. Nothing to do with MVP, wins/losses, etc.

 

[satch]

I too lost by 1.2 with Hurts as my QB.

I won by 24 with Hurts as my QB, but that’s irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[-OZ-]

QBs get a lot of credit and blame. And the highest contracts and MVP consideration. It’s often been said that winning isn’t a QB stat, but that’s among the first things discussed with the position.
No need to officially reconsider INTs, but I assume the coaches look at what went wrong to cause the INT.

This is strictly about how stats are recorded. Nothing to do with MVP, wins/losses, etc.

So basically FF venting?
Understood, but unless you also want to somehow give RBs a bump for getting hit behind the Line, or adjust multiple other stats, I wouldn’t adjust anything.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Sometimes the sack is on the QB, sometimes it's the OL, and sometimes it's on the receivers. Should we adjudicate that on every sack?

If the LT lets his guy unblocked, and the QB gets stripped by a guy he never saw coming, should that turnover be "credited" to the QB, or the LT? Do you want stats to reflect those subjective judgements?

 

[Insein]

Besides PFF scores (while not perfect) do take into account all these factors when making their grade for each player.

 

[sheerterror]

Can't you also use the same logic to argue that not all passing yards are created equal? If a qb dumps it off for 4 air yards behind the LOS and the RB takes It 83 yards for a TD, is that the same quality of a pass as if the QB hits the WR 55 yards down the field in double coverage for a score?

 

[satch]

QBs get a lot of credit and blame. And the highest contracts and MVP consideration. It’s often been said that winning isn’t a QB stat, but that’s among the first things discussed with the position.
No need to officially reconsider INTs, but I assume the coaches look at what went wrong to cause the INT.

This is strictly about how stats are recorded. Nothing to do with MVP, wins/losses, etc.

So basically FF venting?
Understood, but unless you also want to somehow give RBs a bump for getting hit behind the Line, or adjust multiple other stats, I wouldn’t adjust anything.

I wouldn’t call it venting since I won yesterday as stated twice already. Sure, this topic is born from a fantasy perspective, although it’s a real-world thing. I’m sure NFL real life QBs hate getting hit with INTs on perfectly thrown passes and it makes zero sense for that to be the case.

No idea what this has to do with RBs getting bumped behind the line.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

QB throws a fine pass, the receiver slips, runs the wrong route, or the ball deflects off the receiver’s hands into those of a defender, and it’s always recorded as an INT on the QB. Why?

Because no one cares enough to add more complexity to the process. Maybe the growing influence of sports betting will change that eventually.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

No idea what this has to do with RBs getting bumped behind the line.

The point is that every statistical category has some elements of fuzziness to them. Why is a RB penalized with negative rushing yards when it was actually the OL's fault? Why does a QB get passing yards for a screen that the WR takes 80 yards after the catch? Who's to say that the pass that bounces off of a receiver's hands was "perfectly thrown" or had too much velocity on it, or was eight inches off the intended target, or was the wrong read in that situation? Etc. etc.

 

[Mitchie]

QB throws a fine pass, the receiver slips, runs the wrong route, or the ball deflects off the receiver’s hands into those of a defender, and it’s always recorded as an INT on the QB. Why?

Because no one cares enough to add more complexity to the process. Maybe the growing influence of sports betting will change that eventually.

i doubt it, why add judgement to a process when don't have to, I mean luck plays a big role in gambling that's just the way it is.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think this would be a silly thing for the league to even consider, but there is precedent for it. In baseball, they take the time to charge an error to the person who messed up, not the person who ended up with the ball or the pitcher or whomever. When there's a fumble on a handoff, they determine who gets charged with it. So they could charge an "error" of sorts to the guy who let the ball bounce off his hands.

But there's no good reason to do it, so it's a waste of time. But if they thought it was important, it could be justified.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

QB throws a fine pass, the receiver slips, runs the wrong route, or the ball deflects off the receiver’s hands into those of a defender, and it’s always recorded as an INT on the QB. Why?

Because no one cares enough to add more complexity to the process. Maybe the growing influence of sports betting will change that eventually.

i doubt it, why add judgement to a process when don't have to, I mean luck plays a big role in gambling that's just the way it is.

I agree and don't think it will change any time soon, I'm just pointing out that the reason they record INTs the way they do is that no one really cares enough for it to be done differently. The only thing I could see changing that is the exploding popularity of player prop betting.

 

[satch]

Can't you also use the same logic to argue that not all passing yards are created equal? If a qb dumps it off for 4 air yards behind the LOS and the RB takes It 83 yards for a TD, is that the same quality of a pass as if the QB hits the WR 55 yards down the field in double coverage for a score?

That’s an interesting discussion, though I’m nor sure it’s in the same category as turnovers.

 

[satch]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

The OP was about blatantly obvious situations. Grey area situations could be treated as they always have been.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

None of this was designed taking fantasy football into account. If it bothers you that much, lobby for your league to adjust.

As far as for real football discussion purposes, it’s best to look at these things as windows into how well a team/player played, understanding that luck and fluke plays may skew the numbers.

 

[satch]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

 

[Da Guru]

It is not fair when that happens.

But I think calling a 1 yard shovel pass a TD pass is not correct either.

 

[satch]

I think this would be a silly thing for the league to even consider, but there is precedent for it. In baseball, they take the time to charge an error to the person who messed up, not the person who ended up with the ball or the pitcher or whomever. When there's a fumble on a handoff, they determine who gets charged with it. So they could charge an "error" of sorts to the guy who let the ball bounce off his hands.

But there's no good reason to do it, so it's a waste of time. But if they thought it was important, it could be justified.

Why would it be silly for the NFL to consider recording statistics to more accurately reflect what happens on the field? They take 20 minutes to determine whether or not a players toe grazed a blade of grass.

Your baseball correlation is perfect. If a shortstop makes a perfect throw to the first baseman who lets the ball tip off his glove, the error is on the first baseman, not the shortstop. Why charge the QB for an “error” made by the receiver?

There’s plenty of grey area in a baseball situation too. Was it a bad throw, a tough catch? Sometimes it’s obvious, other times not., but MLB doesn’t just shrug and say every error is on the guy who threw the ball.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

 

[Wrigley]

No, no they shouldn’t

 

[satch]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

Not really. An interception is caught, not thrown. You can’t throw a catch.

 

[satch]

No, no they shouldn’t

This is the kind of insight that moves the needle.

 

[The Duff Man]

It would be great if more discussion happened around how a player is playing versus using stats to create a narrative.

The former is a way to determine what might happen in future, the latter is just how it ended up getting scored.

I mean, Mahomes was gifted a Superbowl MVP for throwing two TDs that were at the line of scrimmage and run in. Super valuable QB play!

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

Not really. An interception is caught, not thrown. You can’t throw a catch.

By that argument QBs also should not be credited for completions. You're going even further off target here.

You said it's not about being fair, it's about being accurate - but you're arguing for the opposite. The way INTs are credited today is accurate, but arguably unfair. You want to make it more fair to the QBs.

 

[satch]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

Not really. An interception is caught, not thrown. You can’t throw a catch.

By that argument QBs also should not be credited for completions. You're going even further off target here.

You said it's not about being fair, it's about being accurate - but you're arguing for the opposite. The way INTs are credited today is accurate, but arguably unfair. You want to make it more fair to the QBs.

I’m not sure what you mean. QBs are credited with either a completed or incomplete pass, never a reception. Receivers are credited with receptions.

I’m arguing for statistics that accurately reflect what happened on the field. If that equals “fair,” so be it. As far as my motive for this topic, I’m not an NFL QB so it’s not like any of this would benefit me personally somehow. I’m in favor of statistical accuracy at every position.

 

[Wrigley]

No, no they shouldn’t

This is the kind of insight that moves the needle.

Sorry, I feel it’s ridiculous argument

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

Not really. An interception is caught, not thrown. You can’t throw a catch.

By that argument QBs also should not be credited for completions. You're going even further off target here.

You said it's not about being fair, it's about being accurate - but you're arguing for the opposite. The way INTs are credited today is accurate, but arguably unfair. You want to make it more fair to the QBs.

I’m not sure what you mean. QBs are credited with either a completed or incomplete pass, never a reception. Receivers are credited with receptions.

I’m arguing for statistics that accurately reflect what happened on the field. If that equals “fair,” so be it. As far as my motive for this topic, I’m not an NFL QB so it’s not like any of this would benefit me personally somehow. I’m in favor of statistical accuracy at every position.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Then what about the scenario where a QB throws an awful pass that goes right through the hands of a defender and into the WR hands? Should that be counted as an int? Slippery slope.

 

[satch]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

Not really. An interception is caught, not thrown. You can’t throw a catch.

By that argument QBs also should not be credited for completions. You're going even further off target here.

You said it's not about being fair, it's about being accurate - but you're arguing for the opposite. The way INTs are credited today is accurate, but arguably unfair. You want to make it more fair to the QBs.

I’m not sure what you mean. QBs are credited with either a completed or incomplete pass, never a reception. Receivers are credited with receptions.

I’m arguing for statistics that accurately reflect what happened on the field. If that equals “fair,” so be it. As far as my motive for this topic, I’m not an NFL QB so it’s not like any of this would benefit me personally somehow. I’m in favor of statistical accuracy at every position.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

interception: an act of a defensive player catching a forward pass.

How is it accurate to say a QB threw the act of another? It’s somewhat semantical, but not entirely accurate.

It would be more accurate to say the QB threw a pass that was intercepted, which would lead to a more accurate statistical analysis. Why was it intercepted? Who was at fault?

 

[satch]

Then what about the scenario where a QB throws an awful pass that goes right through the hands of a defender and into the WR hands? Should that be counted as an int? Slippery slope.

That would simply be a completed pass. Why might that be recorded as an INT?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

Not really. An interception is caught, not thrown. You can’t throw a catch.

By that argument QBs also should not be credited for completions. You're going even further off target here.

You said it's not about being fair, it's about being accurate - but you're arguing for the opposite. The way INTs are credited today is accurate, but arguably unfair. You want to make it more fair to the QBs.

I’m not sure what you mean. QBs are credited with either a completed or incomplete pass, never a reception. Receivers are credited with receptions.

I’m arguing for statistics that accurately reflect what happened on the field. If that equals “fair,” so be it. As far as my motive for this topic, I’m not an NFL QB so it’s not like any of this would benefit me personally somehow. I’m in favor of statistical accuracy at every position.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

interception: an act of a defensive player catching a forward pass.

How is it accurate to say a QB threw the act of another? It’s somewhat semantical, but not entirely accurate.

It would be more accurate to say the QB threw a pass that was intercepted, which would lead to a more accurate statistical analysis. Why was it intercepted? Who was at fault?

You've now ventured into absurdist semantic territory. Everyone - including you - knows what it means to say a QB "threw an interception," so please don't waste the board's time pretending you don't.

If you're interested in statistical analysis, someone upthread already pointed out that sites like PFF already do this. That's not the job of the NFL's statisticians.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Then what about the scenario where a QB throws an awful pass that goes right through the hands of a defender and into the WR hands? Should that be counted as an int? Slippery slope.

That would simply be a completed pass. Why might that be recorded as an INT?

I don’t even know what it means anymore to say a QB completed a pass…..

 

[satch]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

Not really. An interception is caught, not thrown. You can’t throw a catch.

By that argument QBs also should not be credited for completions. You're going even further off target here.

You said it's not about being fair, it's about being accurate - but you're arguing for the opposite. The way INTs are credited today is accurate, but arguably unfair. You want to make it more fair to the QBs.

I’m not sure what you mean. QBs are credited with either a completed or incomplete pass, never a reception. Receivers are credited with receptions.

I’m arguing for statistics that accurately reflect what happened on the field. If that equals “fair,” so be it. As far as my motive for this topic, I’m not an NFL QB so it’s not like any of this would benefit me personally somehow. I’m in favor of statistical accuracy at every position.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

interception: an act of a defensive player catching a forward pass.

How is it accurate to say a QB threw the act of another? It’s somewhat semantical, but not entirely accurate.

It would be more accurate to say the QB threw a pass that was intercepted, which would lead to a more accurate statistical analysis. Why was it intercepted? Who was at fault?

You've now ventured into absurdist semantic territory. Everyone - including you - knows what it means to say a QB "threw an interception," so please don't waste the board's time pretending you don't.

If you're interested in statistical analysis, someone upthread already pointed out that sites like PFF already do this. That's not the job of the NFL's statisticians.

Of course I understand what it means to say “threw an INT” and that’s how I word it all the time. Would sound ridiculous any other way in casual conversation.

But this topic is about statistical accuracy not casual conversation. Technically, saying a QB “threw an interception” is incoherent and plays into the issue at hand, which is that every INT is attached to the QB simply because he threw the pass, despite relevant and consequential events out of the QB’s control that led to the pass being intercepted.

 

[ghostguy123]

No, this sounds like a horrible idea

 

[Uruk-Hai]

This is such a weird hill to plant a flag on

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If the QB throws a screen pass, a 2 yard pass to a guy standing still, who then breaks 5 tackles and scampers 80 yards for a TD, should the QB not get credit for the TD or the yards? He didn't really do anything to earn it, right?

 

[satch]

No, this sounds like a horrible idea

If you’re going to bother replying to a thread like this, why not include some insight that adds to the discussion? Why is it a horrible idea?

 

[satch]

This is such a weird hill to plant a flag on

Plant a flag? Is that what we’re calling casual posts and replies on this discussion board now? Smh. Never mind. I miss the old days. Or maybe I’m just older.

 

[Biabreakable]

No, this sounds like a horrible idea

If you’re going to bother replying to a thread like this, why not include some insight that adds to the discussion? Why is it a horrible idea?

Because a stat is a data point that must be recorded consistently regardless of the circumstances around it.

If it's an interception it's an interception. Period. That is how the stat is recorded. It does not make judgment about why the pass was intercepted. There are too many variables and different circumstances for such a occurrence. Same as a reception or a passing attempt or a rushing attempt or a tackle. These are simply events that occurred and how they are ruled on the field that are being recorded. There is no value judgment attached to them.

There are other non official stats such as turnover worthy plays, catchable passes and dropped passes that would record what you are talking about but they are subjective judgment calls which is why they are not official stats.

The compilation of such data while unofficial can be used for comparison. For example QB A has x turnover worthy plays per snap and QB B has x turnover worthy plays per snap. Maybe that is what you are looking for here as far as wanting to compare Hurts efficiency to other QBs.

But you can't change the interception stat because of the circumstances itself. That was the result. That is how it was ruled on the field. End of story.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Meh. QBs throw a ton more passes that should be picked off than ones that are good and unluckily get picked. We gonna start saying it counts as an INT if the DB should have caught it?

 

[jm192]

Hurts got credited with the INT and the sun still came up. The NFL is still printing money. There's no benefit to changing it. Ultimately, what would the outcome of changing it be? Goedert has an INT in the box score? Sure, we're all annoyed when something like this happens. But how would you feel if you started Goedert and he gets -2 for an INT on a play he never even touched the football.

Moreover, I certainly don't watch every game. I was with my family last night and didn't know the context of the Hurts INT. I just knew he threw it. There's a lot of games where QB's throw INT's and I don't know the context. It's cool. Part of the game.

For real world purposes--sports betting would be the area where this sort of thing becomes problematic. Lots of people bet the over 0.5 INT's for player X. He throws a pick. But the NFL decided it's on the receiver. The unholy appearance of collusion and impropriety would be awful for the NFL, Draft Kings, Fan Duel, Etc.

The current system is correct and fine. We'll still enjoy playing fantasy football.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

This is such a weird hill to plant a flag on

Plant a flag? Is that what we’re calling casual posts and replies on this discussion board now? Smh. Never mind. I miss the old days. Or maybe I’m just older.

Apparently, it ain't casual to you.

There are way too many variables that go into a turnover to boil it down to whatever it is you want to see. As others have posted, there are advanced stats that already try to do just that and no one cares.

And you may well be older than me among posters here, but you'd be in the very small minority if you are.

 

[culdeus]

Remind me about baseball. Is it a zero sum game when an error occurs? What if a player scores a run is there no rbi given? Seems they have a system for this situation. I tend to agree you could award an int to a DB but not give one to a QB and the world wouldn't end.

 

[Army Eye]

I just don't see any reason for the NFL to open up that huge can of worms by introducing a subjective element to those stats. Everyone would agree that pick-six wasn't Jalen's fault, but that's football, all these plays have team elements, in that case his teammate failed him. If you're gonna litigate INTs, then that opens up almost everything to similar litigation. A huge headache and for what? Stats should reflect what happened on the field, I like it how it is.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Life isn’t fair. Sports aren’t always fair. Stats aren’t always fair. You just have to take the good along with the bad and accept it. Trying to rethink int’s would make the process insanely difficult. How about if the ball hits a WR’s hands—but the ball was thrown far too hard? How about the horrid throws that qb’s make where the defender drops an easy int? Should those be counted up to show how well or poorly a qb is playing? QB’s tend to get too much credit for when things go right—and because of this—they are sometimes subject to getting a little too much blame for mistakes that might not be completely their fault. The system isn’t perfect—but I think that it’s far better than making each interception into an individual investigation to establish who was really at fault.

This isn’t about being “fair,” it’s about being accurate.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

Not really. An interception is caught, not thrown. You can’t throw a catch.

By that argument QBs also should not be credited for completions. You're going even further off target here.

You said it's not about being fair, it's about being accurate - but you're arguing for the opposite. The way INTs are credited today is accurate, but arguably unfair. You want to make it more fair to the QBs.

I’m not sure what you mean. QBs are credited with either a completed or incomplete pass, never a reception. Receivers are credited with receptions.

I’m arguing for statistics that accurately reflect what happened on the field. If that equals “fair,” so be it. As far as my motive for this topic, I’m not an NFL QB so it’s not like any of this would benefit me personally somehow. I’m in favor of statistical accuracy at every position.

It is accurate to say that the QB threw the interception.

interception: an act of a defensive player catching a forward pass.

How is it accurate to say a QB threw the act of another? It’s somewhat semantical, but not entirely accurate.

It would be more accurate to say the QB threw a pass that was intercepted, which would lead to a more accurate statistical analysis. Why was it intercepted? Who was at fault?

You've now ventured into absurdist semantic territory. Everyone - including you - knows what it means to say a QB "threw an interception," so please don't waste the board's time pretending you don't.

If you're interested in statistical analysis, someone upthread already pointed out that sites like PFF already do this. That's not the job of the NFL's statisticians.

Of course I understand what it means to say “threw an INT” and that’s how I word it all the time. Would sound ridiculous any other way in casual conversation.

But this topic is about statistical accuracy not casual conversation. Technically, saying a QB “threw an interception” is incoherent and plays into the issue at hand, which is that every INT is attached to the QB simply because he threw the pass, despite relevant and consequential events out of the QB’s control that led to the pass being intercepted.

There is nothing incoherent about it. There is a statistical category (which we commonly call interceptions) that records how many times a QB throws a pass that is intercepted by the defense. Sometimes those interceptions are clearly the QBs fault, sometimes they're clearly not his fault, sometimes it's somewhere in the middle. It's not the NFL statistician's job to make that determination, their job is simply to record the fact that the QB threw a pass that was intercepted by the defense. What others do with that information (settle betting markets, deduct fantasy points, derive quarterback efficiency metrics, etc.) is something else entirely. If you want to account for the reality that some interceptions aren't the QB's fault, there are sites that do that kind of analysis and metrics that track that information already (like turnover-worthy throws, expected interception rate, etc.) The thing you want already exists.

 

[eighsse2]

Agree with the sentiment -- it would be nice to give and take credit where it seems most due -- but as many here are saying, it's just too much to worry about. Granted, they try to take care of the pitcher's stats in baseball when a fielder makes an error, but even that comes out goofy. "The third out should have already been made, so we're not going to count the 8 runs he gave up on 1 walk, 4 singles, 1 double, and 2 home runs, after the error."