Several months ago – when I was still working at Cal-State Bakersfield – I was contacted by Bryan Curtis. Bryan works for the New York Times (as the media consultant for Play Magazine). But when Bryan called me he was working on a story about Chris Paul for Men’s Vogue.
Looking at Looking Good
As I recall (and I was being interviewed so I wasn’t taking notes), in the course of the conversation I brought up the difference between performance in basketball and football. Performance in basketball is very predictable, which means we can expect Chris Paul to be an above average NBA player until he gets old (and/or hurt). In contrast, quarterbacks in the NFL are unpredictable. Which means a top quarterback in one year may not even be above average the next.
This observation led me to speculate that because performance was not a reliable predictor of the future, quarterbacks may be evaluated on factors beyond production on the field. For example – and again I was speculating – perhaps better looking quarterbacks (as in, physically more attractive quarterbacks) get paid more in the NFL.
This comment led Bryan to ask if this speculation could be investigated empirically. I replied that I thought it could, but at this point, I haven’t done the study.
A few months went by and Bryan got back in touch with me. He asked if I could look at this issue for the New York Times Play Magazine fall football preview.
At that point Rob Simmons and I had already completed research on the factors that determined a quarterback’s pay. All we would have to do for Play Magazine is include a measure of attractiveness in our quarterback salary model.
For this I contacted another co-author, Jennifer VanGilder. Jennifer was able to find software that can measure a person’s facial symmetry. And with this measure in hand, we could determine if a quarterback’s salary was related to his physical attractiveness.
We ran a number of regressions, with a number of different measures of player performance, and the results were always the same. And what were those results? For that you need to read my short article in the latest edition of Play Magazine (available on Sunday):
Football for Smarties: Dancing by the Stars and Pretty-Boy Quarterbacks
One can also read more in the following press release (from Play Magazine):
Performance in Week One
Of course, physical attractiveness isn’t everything. For those who still wish to consider performance on the field, here are the quarterback and running back rankings for Week One of the 2008 NFL season.
Table One: Quarterback Rankings for Week One
Table Two: Running Back Rankings for Week One
Quick storylines…
- for Week One, Aaron Rodgers did more than Brett Favre. Favre did more than Chad Pennington.
- Peyton Manning played badly for Peyton Manning. He still played better than his brother.
- Matt Ryan would have ranked 5th in the league in Net Points per play but he only attempted 13 passes against the woeful Lions. Of course that was by design. Detroit plans on letting opposing quarterbacks do so well on their first 13 passes that a 14th pass won’t be necessary. This way no quarterback will be eligible for the NFL’s QB Rating when playing Detroit (you need 14 pass attempts to qualify).
- Michael Turner produced three times the points offered by former teammate LaDainian Tomlinson. Of course, like Ryan, those points came against the Lions. There should be a Detroit Discount factor to compare players who face Detroit and those who face other NFL teams. I will work on computing what that discount factor should be as the season progresses.
Okay, those are my thoughts for Week One. Next week I will have thoughts on Week Two. Hopefully those will be better thoughts about the Lions.
– DJ
For more on the Wages of Wins football metrics see
Consistent Inconsistency in Football
Football Outsiders and QB Score
The Value of Player Statistics in the NFL
Wages of Wins Journal 
Anon
September 14, 2008
For your sake, I hope you decided to stop watching the Lions game midway through the fourth quarter in week 2.
dberri
September 14, 2008
No, I saw all of Kitna’s interceptions. Once again, Lions fans are looking forward to the draft. 2009 might be the year where we once again try and draft a franchise quarterback. That strategy never seems to work for the Lions, but it seems like it is time to try again (and mess up another young man’s professional football future).
John W. Davis
September 15, 2008
We need to let Drew Stanton play. We wasted (I mean used) a 2nd round pick on him. So let him try. He cant be worse than Kitna. The game has passed him by.
If that doesnt sound good we could just put Calvin Johnson at QB and go for it. That would really be a sight. I hear he can throw it 70+ yards.
-John
http://www.pistonscast.com
AWC
September 15, 2008
I’ve always wondered about the effects of physical appearance on the perception of a quarterback effectiveness. But I think your metric of beauty has one serious flaw. I have read before that symmetry also correlates with susceptibility to injury because a small difference in lateral weight distribution can wreak havoc on the body. It’s worth noting that the most symmetrical qb–Favre– is also one of the most injury-proof players in NFL history.
Brian Gampel
September 15, 2008
Mr. Berri, I thought it was really interesting that the good looking quarterbacks make more money than their statistics would indicate. Would it be possible to take your same research, and see if the better looking quarterbacks have more success on the field than their less attractive coutnerparts? Might there be enough to aid teams in drafting? I’d guess looks do actually help on the field, since better looks contributes greatly to higher ocnfidence, such an essential for qb’s.
dberri
September 15, 2008
AWC,
Can you send along a link to that research? That sounds interesting.
dberri
September 15, 2008
Brian,
We have not found a link between symmetry and performance. But we are not done looking either.
JIMBO
September 15, 2008
I think there are tons of empirical studies out there that ‘prove’ that, in all walks of life, attractive people make more money than unattractive people – that’s just how it is.