Chart: Excel

Source: Pro Football Reference

Description: This chart shows the season-by-season accumulation for each of the top ten QBs for career interceptions. They come from different eras, many from the '60s-'70s when interceptions rates averaged in the 5-6% range (today it is 2.3%). For some perspective about interceptions in the '60s, George Blanda once threw 42 interceptions in a 14-game season but made the Pro Bowl and was 2nd team All-Pro.

Brett Favre, the all-time leader in interceptions played in an era where interception rates (high-3% to low-4%) were much lower than most of these guys on this list, but higher than it is today.

For those who don't follow American football. Interceptions are a bad thing. But generally speaking, to be on this list, you need longevity, and to have longevity in the league, you must be good. This is a bad stat, accumulated by mostly good / great quarterbacks. It's only one stat and does not reflect their overall performance. There are Hall of Famers on this list.

Interesting graph. I can’t decide if it’s effectively giving the information in a concise way or not yet, but I still really like the effort. And it’s different. Very cool!

Edit: I looked at this some more, and it does do a great job of telling the story in a clear and concise way.

Beautiful visualizations! Very informative, and the aesthetics are nice.

I’m saying it was a mistake for me to ever try to teach you about football or analytics.

But he’s a tight end. I don’t care how “hard it is to call him one”. He’s a gadget player, his team lists him as a tight end, your link lists him as a tight end, pro football reference lists him as a tight end in 2022. Gadget players aren’t starting quarterbacks. I watch football, I write about football, I analyze football. I don’t understand why you dismiss everything I say, especially considering you’ve never attempted to engage with football content before, which is evident in all of your comments as well as what other people have said to you.

Less doubling down and more listening will get you much further.

Not only are they pointless. The OP just doubles down when you try to explain why they aren’t looking at things the right way. And they clearly don’t understand the game of football. I’ve had some frustrating conversations with them on my post.

And I agree, both of our analyses are impacted by survivorship bias. If you get to this point, you’re the best in the world. But within that context it’s still worth proving that height doesn’t make much (or any) difference. A slight build might make a difference in injury risk, but that’s a story for another day.

The Draft Kings link that says this

> but if you’re struggling to find a tight end to reliably start, he’s a good option for a huge week of points every now and then

Which is what I said. He’s listed as a TE.

Now go down to 2022 and look at the position “TE”. His position has changed.

Now go to the Saints official roster on their website. They employ him, they should know. They list him as a TE https://www.neworleanssaints.com/team/players-roster/taysom-hill/

If this guy would be a good quarterbacks, he would be a starting QB. NFL teams know a lot more than KJ6BWB.

You haven’t followed football. You’re not in your lane which is okay, but what’s bad is you’re not willing to listen to anyone. Dunning-Kruger is real.

Again, you missing so much context because you don’t understand football. T.Hill is listed as a Tight End, he has very few throws because he throws on gadget plays. His Y/A is the result of a small sample size and the element of surprise on said gadget plays. He should not play more at QB. You don’t understand the subject matter, just because you can plot two things or divide two numbers doesn’t mean you should.

Just stop. First you were dismissive of their yards per attempt metric because it didn’t measure enough things. OP addressed that and explained that it’s fairly comprehensive and any other metric would be directionally similar, so now you’ve moved on to criticizing something else because your first attempt was addressed. You just want to hear yourself talk and be critical for the sake of being critical.

And the two charts you link to were an effort to respond to my chart which started this parade of QB height scatter plots. https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/121pvx7/oc_nfl_quarterbacks_of_passes_batted_down/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

In my chart, which was not an attempt to evaluate QB effectiveness against height, but an attempt to evaluate one aspect of quarterbacking...batted balls.

There is widely assumed belief that shorter QBs will have their passes batted down more frequently which is proven to be false in my analysis. People point to players such as Baker Mayfield and Kyler Murray who are short and have passes batted down often, but these two commonly used examples are not the rule which is evident in my chart. That’s was the point of my analysis, to either prove or disprove that narrative wasn’t sure which way it would go when I started, but it was clear when I finished.

The person who created the other two weird and flawed charts was aggressively critical of my analysis and thought they would create something more meaningful. It’s clear that they don’t understand football or analytics. So here we are. Then this OP responded to them, and this OP gets it.

You’re looking at volume here when you need to be looking at efficiency. Players who throw more pass for more yards. This needs to be done as yards per attempt if you’re trying to glean anything meaningful out of this. And you would benefit in using a sample size of more than one season. For Example Russell Wilson’s 2023 is absolutely not indicative of the QB he has been throughout his career. Same with Tua. You’ve got an again Joe Flacco listed at 1,000 yards because he’s done, he has one foot out the door and his 2023 shouldn’t be the data used to judge his effective as it relates to his height. This is extremely flawed for so many reasons. If you aren’t looking at a players efficiency (again, not volume) over a longer period of time, you’re going to be led to a wrong conclusion.

You made a chart that shows the more people try to do a thing, the more that thing happens? Of course it does. The more darts I throw the more that hit the board. The more I step on the gas the more miles my car goes. This is absurd, particularly because it’s an attempt to one up my chart that you ripped yesterday.

If your goal is to find outliers, you simply use a table or bar chart of quarterbacks’ yards per attempt. (Y/A, NY/A, or ANY/A)

The 42% feels like a lot less than the 32% visually. This is the worst visualization I’ve seen all week. I’m normally not critical when it’s a person, but this appears to be some organization/company. This is a lesson...many lessons on what not to do.

What am I looking at?

A full circle is 50%? Why? What are the dollar values? Their account balance? Their HH income?

The reader needs to work way to hard to interpret this.

Yeah, this type of info is so dataviz friendly. I’ve done some ncaa tourney charts about 5 years ago when I joined Reddit. I’m sure they sucked but I’m curious to dig them up anyways.

That’s a good option.

>But sometimes it's not worth spending time on something that doesn't bring anything.

That’s not your call, that’s OPs call. If OP thinks it’s fun and looks cool and they enjoy it, then it brings something.

>The static plot would give as much information, but we wouldn't have to wait for the end and pause to actually read the whole plot.

Agreed. But that’s not my point.

>But people are free to do it. Just like we are free to inform these people that it adds nothing.

Never said you aren’t free. I just find it amusing how everyone gets their feathers ruffled and feels the need to tell EVERY OP about it EVERY time. I’m free to make that comment. Now let’s watch the thread get flooded with comments just like yours.

Nice work! Now buckle up and get ready for all the people you offend by animating. Reddit has a boner for yelling at people who animate. Still great work though, keep it up!

Great visualization and smart to start the axis at 40 since that’s the lowest possible total. A data label might be a good edition. I’m trying to compare this year to that 2010-15 batch that is similar. Cool chart!

We’ve heard of her.

But thanks for the link. I plan on reading that article.

Your definition of hilarious and my definition of hilarious are quite different.

I didn’t notice, nor do I care what your error was. I didn’t care then and I don’t care now.

The term “athletics” with an “s” at the end is synonymous with track and field events. By definition, that term excludes rowing, judo, baseball, basketball, archery, and any other non track and field event. OP used the term properly and accurately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_Summer_Olympics

>It’s what we a here for isn’t it?

Is it? To critique and find things wrong with charts? I don’t see that as a stated purpose of this sub. That’s not why we are here, maybe it’s why you are here.

Jesus. Can we pick more nits than that? This sub can be obnoxious sometimes. All people want to do is shoot holes in other peoples OC.