Peter King's analysis is intangible

by Skin Patrol on Jun 18, 2007 4:09 PM EDT in Analysis

Used in this instance, much thanks to dictionary.com, in its 2nd meaning: 2. not definite or clear to the mind: intangible arguments

I say that because it wasn't at all clear what he had in mind in his latest quarterback rating, which troubled me ever so slightly. Hat tips abound to Football Outsiders, Stampede Blue, and especially my amigo Fooch at Niners Nation, who also provides one compelling reason why this thing is bogus -- Peter King quantifies "intangibles" (note: by definition incapable of being perceived, measured, etc.) to rate the quarterbacks. Anyways, here are his metrics:

As for how I arrived at my picks, other than with a divining rod, I used a few measuring sticks. I value wins from my quarterback, and that helped Manning and Brady, the leaders in victories over the last two years. I value postseason success, and their seven combined wins over the past two years is significant. Completion percentage and yards-per-attempt are the two passing stats I value the most because they tell you how often a quarterback succeeds in efficiently moving the chains through the air. Finally, intangibles. Brady led all passers with a 10 on a 10-point scale, because he's a coach, an offseason facilitator, a free-agent recruiter -- and he does it while retaining respect from the guys he often has to lean on hard.

I was under the impression that a divining rod, used to find water, was a measuring stick of sorts but what do I know. My main issue here is that he admits to valuing a bunch of things he summarily dismisses completely in the rankings. Being the 4th best winner on the list doesn't help Eli Manning out of 23rd, in spite of a respectable YPA and completion percentage... because he's a "4" at intangibles. Being 3rd to last in YPA, having a negative TD-Int, and being the 2nd least accurate passer included on the list didn't prevent Vince Young from getting a 7th ranking. That seems odd, especially when one considers some of the names below him: Phillip Rivers (more wins, better YPA, better completion %, +12 TD-Int, even identical "intangibles"), McNabb (more wins, better YPA, completion %, better TD-Int, same intangibles), etc. Just looking at guys 13-17, every single one has more wins, better YPA, and a better completion % than Vince Young. Which isn't to say that Vince Young won't finish ahead of all those guys, it just means that Peter King hasn't ranked the quarterbacks consistently with how he said he would.

Let me make clear what my complaint with Peter King isn't. This is not me saying that Jason Campbell, at 26th, is ranked improperly. By PK's metrics Jason does rank poorly -- he has medium to low YPA and completion %, a good TD-Int, but gets just "5" on intangibles, whatever the fuck that means (only two players were lower). Given King's explanation though, the 26th ranking is absolutely appropriate, even if it is ultimately wrong. I am trying not to be sour grapes.

Anyways, thought reader(s) might want one more reason to hate Peter King besides his cock-blocking of Art Monk to the HoF for so many years (though he has come around and we appreciate it). Hogs Haven very much looks forward to watching Jason Campbell forcefully prove Peter King absolute wrong on these rankings.

Big Blue View, More disrespect for Eli
Stampede Blue, Peter King gets smacked around

0 recs | Comment 3 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

I don't understand it either...

I think the article should be titled "My favorite QBs by P. King" and that way it would make sense.

It's hard to argue with the top 5 (Manning, Brady, Brees, Palmer, and Bulger) but after that, the rankings make no sense... especially given the fact that King went out of his way to explain how he came up with the rankings.

If there's an emphasis on wins and intangibles, then why are #9 Kitna, #10 Cutler, and #11 Romo (a combined 11 wins and at best a 7 intangible ranking) ahead of #14 Farve and #13 McNair (Farve has 12 wins and McNair has 17 with a 8 and 5 respective intagible rankings) much less ahead of #15 Penning (15 wins, 6 rating) and #16 Delhomme (19 wins and an 8 rating) on the list?

Valuing Post-season wins would move #17 Big Ben into the top 3... ahead of everyone in that category not named Peyton.

And valuing all the things he said other than intangibles, Schaub (0 wins, 0 postseason wins, 6 intagngible rating) down from #19... where he is ahead of 2 guys with better "King Factor" numbers: Garcia (5 wins, 6 postseason wins, 6 intangible rating) and Rex Grossman (14 wins, 2 postseason wins and a 5 intangible rating).

The whole list in intangible... or better yet, unintelligible... which has "not capable of being understood" and "poorly articulated or enunciated, or drowned by noise" as listed definitions...

Man, I hate PK.

by TexSkins on Jun 18, 2007 4:40 PM EDT 0 recs

This whole thing is bogus

Peter King thinks that everytime he opens his mouth he is reinventing the wheel. Maybe he should try to patent this formula.

Anyone above the age of 9 can pick out the top 5 or so QBs in the NFL but as for the rest.......who knows anyways I think he forgot to add in the value of the mustache, isnt that an intangible?

C'mon Petey let the reality part of sports up to the experts and you can go back to spewing hot air about things nobody cares about.

by Sincethebeginning on Jun 18, 2007 5:19 PM EDT 0 recs