TheSolderKing
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,338
- Reaction score
- 1
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
Cam Newton? He's busy throwing interceptions. You can't seriously believe 1TD-3INT belongs in the top ten.
but he threw for 4 TD's and 400 plus yards
4-3 TD/INT Ratio
but he threw for 4 TD's and 400 plus yards
4-3 TD/INT Ratio it certainly is NOT a negative ratio
I like the traditional NFL passer rating best... perhaps it is familiarity..
NFL Stats: by Player Category
I'd like to read it. Layman's terms suck. I'd like to know what he's actually doing. Do you have a good link?
QBR is dumb.
The problem is the subjectivity on player contribution, but even more so, the clutch index is likely the biggest culprit. You can't penalize a QB for being good early and not having a tight game and then reward another for not doing well early. If I only care about the win, I want the biggest lead I can get, as early as I can get it, to put the game out of reach. Every point matters regardless of when it is scored. QBR perverts that.
This. I'm used to it, I like it better, and under most cases it seems accurately place the top QB's in order more often than not.
The QBR is dumb and uses opinions based on what someone thinks is important or not.
Actually, you've got it kind of backwards.
Traditional passer rating is based on what someone just decided was important or not. The relative weights of completion %, yards per attempt, TD% and INT% are actually entirely arbitrary.
In passer rating, completion % is reduced by .3 and then multiplied by 5 before being factored in. YPA is reduced by 3 and then multiplied by 0.25 before being factored in. Why? Because. That's why.
QBR, at least, is based on actual measurable contributions -- viz. how much did completing that pass from the 20 to the 30 yard line on 3rd down increase the average number of points scored by a team in that situation, weighted by how much that change in expected points is likely to affect who wins the game.
They are both based on what someone decided was important or not, and QBR failed in its very first week.
Nobody had to "decide" that increasing the number of points a team is likely to score or the probability they will win the game is important. (Well, I suppose, in the greater scheme of things, football isn't all that important, but, you know...)
Whatever one's complaints about QBR, that it is built on far more sound fundamental principles than traditional passer rating is objectively true.
Also, I'm curious what you mean when you say a metric "failed." I'm not sure what that could possibly mean.
You're asserting an opinion as fact. The QBR does, indeed, base itself on what someone finds important. You can explain why you think that the right things were used, but you can't honestly make the rest of your claim.
And it failed because it didn't produce the best player at #1. If it can't do that, there's no sense in trying to change from the old system.