Reinterpreting the Interception Tax: Should the NFL consider crediting quarterbacks with a half interception on picks where the ball is tipped by a receiver first?

What do Hall-of-Famer Deacon Jones, Yahoo Sports Writer Michael Salfino, and Quarterback Eli Manning have in common? They've all made contributions to the changing landscape of how we score football, both in the NFL and Fantasy. Actually, just the first two have.  Deacon Jones, an NFL defensive end from '61-'74, dominated runners and passers in the opposing backfield and is credited with coining the term “sack.” Sacks existed before Jones played (known as dumping the quarterback) but the were not recorded as a specific occurrence that differentiated them from other plays like they are today. They also weren't credited to individual players at the time. In fact, it would be another 15+ years before players would be credited for sacks individually by NFL scorekeepers. That's a nice trip down Memory Lane, but where do Salfino and Eli fit in?

Well, Yahoo Fantasy Sports Guru Michael Salfino has been turning out meaningful/garbage (depending on your opinion) strategy, analysis, and opinion on the NFL and Fantasy Football for some time. He's known as "the other, other yahoo guy" who isn't Brad, Brandon, or Andy, as one half of the ever popular weekly 'Breakfast Table' articles, which he writes with just "the other yahoo guy," and for his hatred of PPR leagues (#killtheppr).  He definitely does his research, and he shares it with us freely, which is enough for me.  I like they guy, I don't agree with everything he says, but I respect his research.  Recently Salfino made this comment on fantasy football and interceptions being scored against QB's as -1 point in his last 'Splitsville' Column:

"I’m not a fan of those taxes, as they are just another product of our obsession with devaluing the QB position. Give bonuses for wins and taxes for losses for quarterbacks, folding turnovers into that but rewarding them for playing clean (since wins are often the product of playing cleanly)."

It's a valid point, but I'm not decided one way or another on it.  I can also see how valid arguments can be made against the W/L scoring, as it seems his solution to the industry's "obsession with devaluing the QB position" is to balance the playing field of QB scoring in a way that makes traditional "game managers" more fantasy relevant with their QB Stud and Garbage Time Hero peers.  In that sense, it could be argued that W/L scoring serves a similar purpose as PPR scoring, negating the scoring differences between traditional "3rd down" backs and the featured runners we hoped they'd be.  In any event, he wants to adapt an aspect of fantasy scoring to keep pace with how we assess QB's in the NFL, which is in W's.

Enter Eli Manning, who's having one of those years that inevitably puts his career into context. Is he the quarterback who has won two Superbowl Rings? Yes, and if you're a Giants Fan, its HELL YES! or maybe Hell Yes, or just hell yes; it's an awfully big stage and the media has a short memory when it comes to accolades. Is he the same QB who threw 31 TD's to a whopping 25 picks in 2010 and started off the 2013 season 0-6? Yeah, he's that guy too... As far as I'm concerned, that's what Eli Manning is, a perennial "in between the top two QB classes" calibre player. And you can argue that all you want, I'm happy enough accepting him as he exists, in that grey area of elite QB's, and seeing how his whole career plays out (I'll say this: If he ever wins another one; that's it, discussions over. If he doesn't, the conversation can go a lot of different places, but even that says something).

I brought up Manning's interception total from 2010 to make an example of how scoring INT's may be out-dated in today's NFL. Here is an article which breaks down his 2010 season pretty succinctly, aptly titled Eli Manning's 2010 Interception Statistics were Significantly Inflated Due to Tipped Passes.

As the article says, had his receivers caught all of those balls, he would have had a total of 17 picks instead of 25 at season's end, which is right in line with his career mark 16.1 per season (2004-2012; adjusted for 16 starts his rookie year). Yes, it is presumptions to assume that Manning's passes all should have been caught, but that misses the point. Right now, the general rule on a passing plays is that the fate (or responsibility) of the play is on the quarterback until it the ball is safely in the receiver’s hands. However, if the receiver can put hands on the ball but tips it instead of catching it, that ball is going anywhere, Mister Toad's Wild Ride-style. It's illogical and inaccurate to pin the quarterback with the fate of the final destination of an oblong shaped ball that bounces off of it's intended receiver's million dollar earning catching utensils, while 11 other freakishly athletic sharks are paid to swarm the ball like blood in the water.  I'm not being a QB apologist, I'm just saying some parts of that play are so far out of his control, that if it gets picked it's only half on him.  So why doesn't the NFL score it like that.  Crediting half an interception on certain plays makes perfect sense and the scoring wouldn't need to be overly complex either.  For the team box scores, Offense would show 1 interception under their team passing statistics, and Defense would show 1 interception under their turnover column (the individual player who picked the ball would also be credited with 1 whole interception).  For the offensive individual credit, one half interception goes on the QB's stat line, and the other half goes off into the ether, unaccounted for until the end of time. And again, this would only apply to passes that were first tipped by a receiver, as in the offensive player the pass was intended for.  You wouldn't have to get to cute with it and it wouldn't be a judgment call, this would be easy decision for any statistician to make.

The scoring wouldn't be that wacky either. We already do this with sacks and half sacks in the NFL. When a defensive player player sacks the QB, his stat line shows 1 sack. If two defensive players sack the QB on the same play, their stat lines shows a .5 sack each. Here's where the correlation really comes together. When three or more defensive players sack the QB on the same play, each player is awarded .5 sacks, even though that number isn't logically possible since only one sack occurred on that specific down. It's one of the more beautiful subtleties in the NFL and definitely a reason why I love the game. So what if the sum of half sacks credited is mathematically impossible given that only one sack occurred on the play?  This specific numbering system of half sacks allows for the most efficient and unbiased way to record a sack in the NFL. It's awesome, like the Duck-billed Platypus.

Lastly, I suspect there is already one group who is adamantly tracking interceptions off of tipped passes, and those are the agents who represent quarterbacks.  In a league where negotiations fall back on comparisons, it's in a QB's best interest to be able to lower his actual interception rate for a more favorable comp. And just as the NFL rule changes have shown us in recent years, if its better for the quarterback, it's better for the league.  Or maybe if it's better for the Quarterback, the league will do it? In this case, it just makes more sense.

Duck-billed Platypus: Man or Mammal?

If you think the idea of a scoring half interceptions is bunk, let me know in the comments.  If you're interested in more in-depth interception statistical analysis, check out this article by Aaron Schatz at Football Outsiders.