Posts
This past weekend, the New England Patriots traded Matt Cassel to the Kansas City Chiefs. In fact, they traded linebacker Mike Vrabel and Cassel for a 2nd round pick (pick #34) in the upcoming April draft (see here for the details). Depending on what your news source is, this was labeled as either a good deal for Kansas City, or a bad deal for New England. The experts discussing this issue don't seem to support their arguments by any objective measures - they just opine. I am not going to jump into the debate here. I will offer this however - we will probably not know who will end up on the better end of this deal until many years from now, and even then, we may not know. What about the objective evidence?
Matt Cassel is not the only quarterback in 2008 that had a good year as a first-year quarterback. There was Aaron Rodgers of the Packers, Shaun Hill of the 49'ers, and Matt Ryan of the Falcons. There were four other quarterbacks who threw enough passes this year to make the list of first-year quarterbacks - Ryan Fitzpatrick of the Bengals, Joe Flacco of the Ravens, JaMarcus Russell of the Raiders and Tyler Thigpen of the Chiefs.
Notice here that I didn't use the term rookie quarterback, but instead used the term first year. The way I look at a quarterback, is that I only consider a quarterback who has thrown "enough" passes to qualify in a given year. The # of passes has varied by year (as opposed to the fixed standard used by NFL.com). For the 69-year period from 1940-2008, my database contains 1,451 passing seasons, 336 of which were by a quarterback qualifying for the first time.
How did the aforementioned 8 quarterbacks do?
I use a statistical measure I have previously developed and discussed, called CMI (Completions Minus Interceptions, calculated as Completions/Attempts - 3*Interceptions/Attempts) instead of the NFL Passer Rating system (using the NFL passer rating system gets you essentially the same answers), and then use the standard deviation from the mean as the measuring stick (for the pool of qualifying passers, I calculate the the mean and standard deviations for each year, and relate a particular performance in that year to the mean using that year's standard deviation). Using the mean and standard deviation this way not only allows me to compare these 8 quarterbacks relative to each other, but also relative to all quarterbacks this year, or any other year.
In a post not too long ago, I showed how, over the past 69 years from 1940-2008, when the standard deviation is used as the measuring stick, the accumulated data form a near-perfect theoretical standard normal distribution. And I also showed how, this is true regardless of whether one used the NFL passer rating system or CMI as the statistical base.
I can now show you how these first year quarterbacks did compare to the rest of the QBs in 2008, using this measure. But this picture may not tell us much, if anything. Here's the graphical illustration:
Perhaps the only thing that may be apparent from this is that first year quarterbacks don't do nearly as well as quarterbacks with more experience. Even drawing that conclusion from this is a little iffy. However, it is clear (at least by this measure) that Cassel had the best year of the 8 first year QBs. Rodgers was a close second. JaMarcus Russell and Tyler Thigpen had disastrous first years. In an earlier post regarding Jeff Garcia, I had suggested that Kansas City might be a good place for Garcia. Scott Pioli, the new Chiefs' GM apparently was thinking the same thing - upgrade at quarterback, and he did - with Cassel.
Going back to the standard normal curve, let's look at just the first year performances. Recall that, when all 1,451 seasons are aggregated in a histogram, it looks very much like a standard normal curve.
This doesn't quite look "normal", does it? The first year performances appear skewed to the left, or, compared to all quarterback performances, appear to under-perform. Since the total database is normally distributed, then performances in years 2 and beyond must obviously be skewed to the right. This prompts the question: does experience improve performance, and, in particular, how and when?
One way to look at this is to take the entire database, and look at the average standard deviation from the mean for each additional year a player qualified. Here's what that graph looks like.
Wow! I didn't realize that it takes about 5 qualifying years to turn into an average quarterback. And that's just for those playing that long! Even though this graph goes out to 18 years, there is hardly any data beyond the 15th year (there are only 8 quarterbacks who have had qualifying seasons 16 different years). According to this illustration, basically, first year quarterbacks, as a group, struggle mightily. They then gradually improve each year until about year nine. Quarterbacks, on average, must still endure sub-par years in years 2-4, and for those that survive, their reward is about four more years of improving performance, assuming they stay healthy for that long.
Note: This analysis - the method of breaking down a quarterback's expected career in terms of passing performance as it relates to experience and how it is expected to change over time, is the first I've seen published publicly. But I digress.
Ok, so we've taken a look at these 8 QBs relative to all quarterbacks in 2008, and we've taken a look at first year quarterbacks in general. So the next step is to take a look at the best first year seasons. In my database, there are 336 first year seasons in all (in other words, in the 69-year period from 1940-2008, 336 different quarterbacks threw enough passes in a season to qualify at least once). The table below shows the 75 best.
Cassel (#48) and Rodgers (#60) are the only 2 of the 8 in 2008 that crack the top 75 all-time. On the other end of the scale, we get JaMarcus Russell (#264) and Tyler Thigpen (#290).
When Matt Ryan (#128) got off to a solid start, and the Falcons surprised many by getting into the playoffs, there were many debates as to whether his season was one of the best ever by a first year player. Not according to this measure. Often, during those discussions, Kurt Warner's first year was brought up. In looking at the table above, well, he did have an outstanding first year in 1999. It ranks #6 all-time in terms of first year seasons. The best ever - Roger Staubach's 1971 season (Staubach was a rookie in 1966, and played in both 1969 and 1970. However, he didn't attempt enough passes in either year to qualify).
Notable quarterbacks high on this list: Joe Montana in 1980 (#4), Tom Brady in 2001 (#14) - (see my post earlier comparing Brady's season to Cassel's here), Brett Favre in 1992 (#15), Dan Marino in 1983 (#21), and Johnny Unitas in 1956 (#22).
Notable absentees: Steve Young in 1986 (#154), Peyton Manning in 1998 (#208), Joe Namath in 1970 (#202)*, and Troy Aikman in 1989 (#311). The all-time worst first year performance - Terry Bradshaw in 1970 (#337)*.
* Keep in mind that 1970 was the first year of the NFL following the merger, and 15 quarterbacks showed up in the database as having that year as their first year, although Bradshaw's 1970 season was his actual rookie season.
Are we done? Hardly. So after I went through this list, and still trying to objectively value Matt Cassel, I was interested in answering the following question(s): what does the first-year tell us about a quarterback's future potential? Do quarterbacks who have good first years, have good careers? What about quarterbacks who have sub-par first years? In other words, is there a correlation between year 1 performance and subsequent years? When in doubt, it's always a good idea to take a look at the data.
Whoa! The correlation between year 1 performance, and career performance, as measured by CMI standard deviations relative to the mean, is 0.75. What that really means is that 57% of the variation in a quarterback's career performance can be explained by his year 1 performance. I find that incredible. So I looked a little deeper. It turns out that 112 of the 336 quarterbacks only have 1 qualifying year. And, for that group, the correlation coefficient is, well, 100%! If I only looked at those quarterbacks whose career included at least 2 different years in which they threw enough passes to qualify, then the correlation coefficient drops to 64%. Still quite remarkable.
The table below breaks down the 336 first year seasons in terms of CMI standard deviations to see if we can glean any additional insight into whether a good first year translates into a good career and vice versa.
Well, the evidence is pretty clear. Taken as two groups, players that have better than average (remember, the mean and standard deviation is relative to all quarterbacks, not just first year quarterbacks) first years tend to have longer careers and more productive careers than those that have sub-par first years. And, breaking it down even further (in other words, just looking at the group whose first year was better than average, or the group whose first year was worse than average), you can clearly see that even within those sub-groups, the better the first year, the longer the career (although this correlation isn't nearly as strong), and the more productive the career.
Well, the evidence is pretty clear. Taken as two groups, players that have better than average (remember, the mean and standard deviation is relative to all quarterbacks, not just first year quarterbacks) first years tend to have longer careers and more productive careers than those that have sub-par first years. And, breaking it down even further (in other words, just looking at the group whose first year was better than average, or the group whose first year was worse than average), you can clearly see that even within those sub-groups, the better the first year, the longer the career (although this correlation isn't nearly as strong), and the more productive the career.
I haven't spent too much time on my blog discussing individual careers, except in the posts discussing Brett Favre and Jeff Garcia. If I do this en masse, it would be such a powerful post - I'll basically be giving you my list of greatest passers to ever play the game, that I need to put a lot more thought into it than I have to-date. In any case, some of the obvious names will show up on that list. However, you'll find some exceptions as well (and I'm sure many of you will take exceptions to the list). The point I really want to make here is that, when combining the table above, and the discussion following the list of the top 75 first years, it is quite remarkable how Troy Aikman "escaped" the trend, and turned into a great quarterback (or, more accurately, a great passer) - he truly turned out to be an exception (as for Young and Manning, even though they didn't rank well on the first year list, their first years weren't "that bad" compared to other first year seasons - as a matter of fact, Young's was "above average" compared to a typical first year). Notice how I don't mention Bradshaw and Namath - it is because, statistically, their careers were sub-par. When I publish my list of all-time greatest (and worst) passers, we'll get into it in more detail.
So, in trying to look at Matt Cassel's first year performance objectively, we've looked at how quarterbacks perform as their careers progress, how quarterbacks perform in their first year, who had great first years, where Cassel's season ranks on that list, and, how a first year translates into (or, is predictive of) a career. Now perhaps, we can view Matt Cassel's 2008 year in an objective manner, and, if so inclined, you can at least evaluate the trade armed with some data.
Naturally, while I was putting this post together a question popped into my mind, and that is: is a quarterback's second year a good indicator of their career? What about looking at their first and second years? Check back in a week or two to find out.
