Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
I'm Worried About The Vikings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 384815" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">I hesitate to continue with this discussion because I may appear to be an apologist for ESPN and I'm not. Except for Jason Wilde and Steve True who are associated with the Madison ESPN radio affiliate, I pay very little attention to, and have little respect for ESPN. I mentioned QBR in this thread because I think passer rating is flawed and am interested in a better formula. Whether or not ESPN has developed a better formula is obviously the question. </span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #141414"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"> I certainly don't hold that view and from his posts, its apparent Raptorman doesn't either. Your "logic" appears to be, because it is from ESPN it must suck. No one is arguing the opposite. </span></span></p><p></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">The formula for both passer rating and QBR were arrived at subjectively because those formulating each stat subjectively determined which stats would be used and how much weight would be given to each. Once the formula is determined, plugging in the stats is objective. What you are alleging here is ESPN is changing their formula subjectively on an ongoing basis and since we don't have access to their formula (a foolish decision by ESPN IMO) no one has any way to know that, including you. I doubt they are doing that and if that's the premise to your conclusion that it's a "complete fail" I think both your premise and conclusion are wrong. It may be a failed statistical system, but that wouldn't be why. </span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">From what is available on their website: The reason QBR doesn't correlate directly to wins is because they say they score each play individually based upon historical data they (again, foolishly) don't share with us. The reason the Lions QB rating is higher than Ben's is probably because Ben was assigned negative points for each sack he took that they determined he didn't have to. For example, if a QB takes five sacks in a game totaling 40 negative yards, they probably have a stat for how those plays negatively impact a teams' chances of winning. Keep in mind, during such a game, the Steelers could have sacked the opponent's QB 8 times for more yardage. After they assign points for each play, they then divide the credit or demerit the QB receives for that play. IOW how much responsibility should the QB be assigned for that play. For example, a QB gets less credit for a first down, 5-yard pass to a wide open WR who then eludes 3 defenders for a 50 yard gain (the QB gets 50 yards of credit in passer rating, doesn't he?) than for a third and 8 pass he puts right on the money for a 9-yard gain with no YAC. Their next step is to determine how clutch the play was and factor that in. And they say they do this for every play a QB is involved in. The other obvious reason it doesn't correlate directly to wins is because other players on O, D and STs have a lot to do with the outcome of games. My guess is if the QB throws a "perfect" pass in a clutch situation and the WR drops it, the QB probably gets some benefit from that play because he did his job. In passer rating, that wouldn't be the case. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">As I've said a couple of times, I think they err by not making their formula public. But their approach appears to be more nuanced than passer rating although we can't know that for certain until they publish it. But alleging it sucks just because ESPN developed it is a shallow argument <strong>IMO</strong>. </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 384815, member: 4300"] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000]I hesitate to continue with this discussion because I may appear to be an apologist for ESPN and I'm not. Except for Jason Wilde and Steve True who are associated with the Madison ESPN radio affiliate, I pay very little attention to, and have little respect for ESPN. I mentioned QBR in this thread because I think passer rating is flawed and am interested in a better formula. Whether or not ESPN has developed a better formula is obviously the question. [/COLOR][/FONT] [COLOR=#141414][FONT=Tahoma] I certainly don't hold that view and from his posts, its apparent Raptorman doesn't either. Your "logic" appears to be, because it is from ESPN it must suck. No one is arguing the opposite. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#141414][FONT=Tahoma] [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000]The formula for both passer rating and QBR were arrived at subjectively because those formulating each stat subjectively determined which stats would be used and how much weight would be given to each. Once the formula is determined, plugging in the stats is objective. What you are alleging here is ESPN is changing their formula subjectively on an ongoing basis and since we don't have access to their formula (a foolish decision by ESPN IMO) no one has any way to know that, including you. I doubt they are doing that and if that's the premise to your conclusion that it's a "complete fail" I think both your premise and conclusion are wrong. It may be a failed statistical system, but that wouldn't be why. [/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000]From what is available on their website: The reason QBR doesn't correlate directly to wins is because they say they score each play individually based upon historical data they (again, foolishly) don't share with us. The reason the Lions QB rating is higher than Ben's is probably because Ben was assigned negative points for each sack he took that they determined he didn't have to. For example, if a QB takes five sacks in a game totaling 40 negative yards, they probably have a stat for how those plays negatively impact a teams' chances of winning. Keep in mind, during such a game, the Steelers could have sacked the opponent's QB 8 times for more yardage. After they assign points for each play, they then divide the credit or demerit the QB receives for that play. IOW how much responsibility should the QB be assigned for that play. For example, a QB gets less credit for a first down, 5-yard pass to a wide open WR who then eludes 3 defenders for a 50 yard gain (the QB gets 50 yards of credit in passer rating, doesn't he?) than for a third and 8 pass he puts right on the money for a 9-yard gain with no YAC. Their next step is to determine how clutch the play was and factor that in. And they say they do this for every play a QB is involved in. The other obvious reason it doesn't correlate directly to wins is because other players on O, D and STs have a lot to do with the outcome of games. My guess is if the QB throws a "perfect" pass in a clutch situation and the WR drops it, the QB probably gets some benefit from that play because he did his job. In passer rating, that wouldn't be the case. [/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000]As I've said a couple of times, I think they err by not making their formula public. But their approach appears to be more nuanced than passer rating although we can't know that for certain until they publish it. But alleging it sucks just because ESPN developed it is a shallow argument [B]IMO[/B]. [/COLOR][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Schultz
ExpatPacker
Emur
Guacamole
Latest posts
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: Thirteen Below
3 minutes ago
Draft Talk
Most hated teams outside of the division
Latest: Guacamole
10 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: tynimiller
21 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Not too soon 2024 roster prediction
Latest: DoURant
30 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 3:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
I'm Worried About The Vikings
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top