After a game ends, the natural reaction of fans, regardless of victory or defeat, is to talk about how the star players played: Which opposing player hurt us the most? Which performance was better, Player X this week or Player Y last week? People back up their arguments by looking at stat lines, highlight reels, or just going with their gut. 

Anybody can look at a box score and tell you that 120 receiving yards is a good day. A quarterback's contribution looks different from a running back's, which looks different than a receiver’s. I wanted a way to combine everything that goes into a performance, both good and bad, into a single score that reflects a player's overall impact on the game and is simple enough for anyone to understand. 

That's how the Historical Indexed Rating Output (“HIRO”) Score was born.

HIRO is designed to compare one performance against every other game in the dataset while accounting for changes in style of play, plays per game, and statistical recording across different eras. Because complete and reliable game-level data became much more readily available beginning in 2004, the current version of HIRO evaluates performances from the 2004 season through the present.

Across more than 4,400 quarterback, running back, and wide receiver (+ tight end) performances, from both Huskers and opponents, the average HIRO score is approximately 65. Scores above 80 are uncommon, and anything above 100 is historic. The following tiers provide a general guide for interpreting the rating. Only 15 players (in the dataset) have recorded a HIRO score of 100 or higher.

Let’s take a look at how the new HIRO metric evaluates some recent Husker performances.

Let's start with Dylan Raiola’s performance against Maryland. Raiola overcame three interceptions with a late touchdown pass to Dane Key that would prove to be the game-winner. 

At the center of the graphic is a ring chart that separates Dylan's HIRO Score into different components. Arm Talent measures his raw passing production. Big Play Ability rewards chunk gains and touchdowns. Efficiency rewards quarterbacks who maximize the value of each pass attempt. Mobility gives QBs credit for what they do in the run game. 

The red slice, Ball Insecurity, is a little different. Instead of adding to the score, it estimates how much value was lost because of turnovers.

The chart tells the story of the game: Raiola’s Arm Talent, Big Play Ability, and Efficiency all contributed in similar amounts. Raiola’s Mobility sliver is barely visible, which makes sense considering he finished with -4 rushing yards. The big red section reinforces what a lot of fans remember from the game. Raiola did a lot of things well, but the three interceptions prevented the performance from being elite.

Raiola’s HIRO score of 76 is above average, right in the middle of the Good tier. Without those three picks, this score would have been much higher.  

The Historical Ranks tell you where this performance slots into the leaderboard. Season, Coach Era, and 2004-Present compare Raiola’s performance only against other Husker quarterbacks. All Players is exactly what it sounds like: every quarterback, running back, & receiver in the database, regardless of team. 

Emmett Johnson had a couple of great games to pick from, but his performance against Akron had a little bit of everything. EJ’s 147 scrimmage yards and 3 total touchdowns earned him a HIRO score of 84, slotting this performance in the Great tier.

Just like the QB graphic, RBs have a ring that breaks down the components of the score. Consistency measures steady production; Explosiveness tracks big gains and TDs. Some runners may miss an extra yard or two every play, so Vision rewards the back who can navigate and find that extra production. In today’s game, running backs are asked to be a part of the passing game; Versatility rewards the backs who produce both there and in the return game. Just like QBs, Ball Insecurity estimates how much value was lost when a player turns the ball over.

Unlike Raiola’s chart, where your eye immediately tracks the three turnovers, each category plays a part here. That is why this game is such a great example. Johnson wasn’t relying on short touchdown runs to inflate his score. He had some explosive plays, produced consistently, made the most of his touches, and helped out in the passing game. He filled up the entire box score, and if not for the fumble, this performance likely would have challenged for the top spot among Nebraska backs during Rhule’s tenure.

Being the 172nd highest score may not seem that great, but when you remember that there are over 4,000 scores, being well in the top 5% is nothing to sneeze at.

Finally, let's take a look at Jacory Barney Jr.'s performance against Michigan. Barney received a HIRO score of 91, which means this score slides into the Elite level.

Similar to running backs, two parts of the HIRO score for receivers are their Consistency and Explosiveness. Instead of Vision and Versatility, receivers have Separation and Utility categories. Separation rewards receivers who can get away from defensive backs and catch the ball further down the field, or pile on some YAC.

Unlike running backs, who are expected to play a role in the pass game, Receivers aren’t necessarily asked to do much in the run game, so the Utility category rewards receivers who can contribute in ways other than catching the ball.

In this performance, Explosiveness is the largest contributor, with Separation and Consistency also making a sizable impact. Explosiveness shouldn’t be much of a surprise, especially when you remember the Hail Mary TD catch as time expired in the first half. Separation and Consistency also make up large portions of the chart, so we can conclude that Barney’s score wasn’t solely built on one highlight.

Utility only takes up a small slice of the chart. Barney did have a decent punt return, but when you’re putting up 120 receiving yards and catching two touchdowns, it’s pretty understandable why his 21 punt return yards and seven rushing yards get dwarfed. More importantly, there is no Ball Insecurity section at all. Barney never put the ball on the ground, allowing him to keep every point he earned in the other categories.

Different positions, different contexts, different scores, different tiers. Yet all three performances can be compared using the same language and scale. The three examples above all reached their scores differently. Raiola overcame turnovers and still managed to turn in a Good performance. Johnson filled the stat sheet against an inferior opponent (sorry, Akron), but a fumble caused his score to fall lower than it could have been. Barney paired explosive plays with steady production and no mistakes.

That's the purpose of HIRO: to combine everything that happened during a game into a single score and place that performance into historical context.

With the groundwork out of the way, HIRO can start tackling the fun questions. What was the best individual performance of the modern era? Which opponent delivered the most dominant game against Nebraska? Which players were overrated/underrated? That's where we're headed next.

Maybe it helps explain what happened on Saturday. Maybe it changes the way you look at a performance. Maybe it just gives you another angle for the next postgame discussion.

And if nothing else, you’ll have something more than a box score, memory, or just vibes when you find yourself in an argument. Or, knowing sports fans, when you’re starting one.