FlyingElvis75

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...tem/index.html

I'm not sure I agree with all his points, but I've been a huge detractor of the passer rating system ever since I understood how it was calculated. It's a relic, and not a useful one at that.

Check out this example (which I also mailed to him):

Quarterback A completes 46 of 47 passes for 575 yards. He throws 8 touchdowns. His lone incompletion is an interception.

Quarterback B goes 12/15, throws for only 188 yards, gets 2 TDs and no interceptions.

All else being equal, including team defense and special teams, which QB do you think would win the game? Which would you rather have? Which do you think had the better PASSING performance?

Quarterback A, who would set single-game records for completions, completion percentage, passing yards, and touchdowns, would end up with a passer rating of 148.4 Quarterback B would have a perfect rating of 158.3.

That's right - you don't need to even throw for 200 yards to get a perfect passer rating for the game in the books (NFL requires 14 attemps/game to qualify). And if you break every major single-game record, you can end up with a non-perfect rating if you throw just ONE interception.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nordy

The stuff about Elias refusing to even consider changing the way some stats are handled and the NFL front office continually not even caring to listen was REALLY interesting. I have to admit, Dr. Z wrote a good article here.

FreakGoDeep

passer rating is not that bad.

it's based on 4 things and calculated from your attempted passes.

completions.
yards
TDs
INTs.


there is a max score on each catergory so this way if you throw 2 INTs you can't mask it by throwing for 500 yards or completing 50 passes.

there are down sides to it. If a qb is throwing great in a game. yards, completions and no INTs but he's not getting TDs because he has a great running back that can pound it in...well his rating would suffer a little because of that.

FlyingElvis75

I know how passer rating is calculated, as I mentioned in the original post.

My point is that it's not a helpful indicator of passing performance if it doesn't actually tell you who's the better passer. A big part of that is the "capping" on each factor, in my opinion.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

xmarkd400x

While the statistic may noy in and of itself stand up to subjective tests (IE. which QB had the better day?) I would like to ask this: Does a higher passer rating correlate with more wins? If so, I say it is a decent statistic. It may not be the best.

In general, better passer rating means better QB. I'm kind of rambling but yeah. I don't mind it as a statistic. Its not super duper but its serviceable.

BradyManny

Why write a negative article about passer ratings now I wonder?

Imperator

It's to bad the Aikman Efficiency ratings aren't used to somehow evaluate individual proformences. Cause those are pretty good.

http://troyaikman.wordpress.com/cate...iency-ratings/

FlyingElvis75

I'd say that's silly, since wins are dependent on far, far more than passing performance. In any case, PR isn't meant to assess team winning ability - it's meant to assess passing performance.

[Edit] The examples I posted above aren't exactly subjective, either. 575 yards > 188 yards, obviously; 97.9% > 80%; 8 TDs > 2 TDs.

From a scoring standpoint, 1 INT is at worst -2 TDs, i.e. you lose a touchdown you may have scored without the INT, and the opposition scores off your INT. In the worst case, then, 3 TDs + 1 INT = 1 TD. So, even in the worst possible case, 8 TDs + 1 INT > 2 TDs.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

FlyingElvis75

Hehe. Good point. I question the timing, but agree with the content.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

TomBrady'sGoat

I already knew passer rating was a crappy stat. I didn't know it was based on 1973 standards. That's ridiculous.

It is useful for the extremes. If a guy has a rating >100 you know he had a good game, while a rating <50 tells you he had a crappy game.

It's of little usefulness when comparing similar QBs or when the rating falls somewhere in the 70-90 range.