I see. You called something "irrelevant to the discussion". Actually it's irrelevant to your assumed perspective on how how PFF does what they do, not to the discussion itself. At least we agree that strip sacks and batted passes are relevant. What we don't know is how or with what kind of weighting PFF considers them, if at all, numerically.
You assume that PFF accounts for strips sacks and forced interceptions on hurries and hits, as well as batted balls, "somewhere" other than in their Pass Rush Productivity (PRP) 1:00 / 0.75 / 0.75 weightings. Perhaps, perhaps not.
They do produce the "premium" Pass Rush Grade (PRG) stat that looks to be on a 0-100 scale so something in addition to PRP is factored into that. We know not what. Perhaps the calculation of the PRG is disclosed to premium subscribers. Perhaps not. You are assuming something not in evidence.
Here's another oddity I just noticed in the pass rusher ranking example I posted earlier, though 2016 week 7:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-the-nfls-top-25-pass-rushers/
PFF ranks the pass rushers, but not in the order of their PRG numerical ranking. So beyond PRP and PRG there is some other unidentified third layer of evaluation.
Note Miller at #2. What in the notes suggests they rated him higher than PRG would indicate? Strip sacks. He's the only player in the list noted for this element of production. If they had a numerical valuation for them, wouldn't it stand to reason it would be incorporated in the PRG or some third numerical super ranking?
Conversely, Wake is rated lower than his PRG would indicate. The notes highlight his low pass rush snap count. That is a relevant consideration we've not discussed. It also appears not to be numerically accounted for.
This ranking suggests subjective non-numerical inputs. Otherwise, why not put a number on those factors and incorporate them numerically in the rankings?
Without seeing inside the black box formulas, I would not assume where turnovers (or batted balls) are incorporated
numerically or if they are accounted for numerically at all.
But let's say you're right on one particular point. Let's say turnovers and batted balls are not factored into the 1:00 / 0.75 / 0.75 PRP ratios. In that case, sacks get an edge solely on lost yards. If so, PFF should not call it a "productivity" rating since there are obviously productive plays that are not included. They should call it simply a "Pressure Ranking" or something of the sort. This is peculiar.
What is also peculiar, as noted before, the roundness of these numbers and the fact that hits and hurries are coincidentally ranked the same. What this also suggests is that beyond turnovers and batted balls, passer rating outcome differences between hits and hurries are not included in the PRP ratios. Maybe that difference is included in the PRG rating. Or maybe not.