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
PFF Best and Worst vs Steelers
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="Magooch" data-source="post: 1076771" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>I'm just curious with regards to PFF grades, I have never really dug in to much to how they arrive at their final numbers....I know that about 60 is considered "average" but is that also more or less their "starting point"?</p><p></p><p>Point of comparison... there are a lot of similar stats sites who offer similar "performance grades" in soccer on a match by match basis. But most of those are largely additive/subtractive. They all have their own twists and particular algorithms and whatnot, but broadly speaking you'll start a match with roughly a 6/10 rating. Positive actions throughout a match will push that upwards, negatives will ding it downwards. </p><p></p><p>now as I understand it I DO think PFF uses a similar system, they grade every player for every play with a -2 to +2 range and a neutral 0 as the "most likely" or "expected" outcome. But what is not clear to me is where their scoring's starting point is. If a player starts at a 60 and does everything he is "expected" to do, he finishes with a 60 give or take a few. </p><p></p><p>Anyhow, the tricky thing you have to keep in mind too is that while they are time-bound (or in this case snap counts I guess), my understanding is that these scores ARE cumulative...and so in that sense if you only play 10 snaps, even if all 10 are perfectly played, "above expectation" snaps, the best you could do is add +20 to your grading (and again, starting from...?) - on the flip side if you absolutely flop for 10 snaps the worst it does is -20. But as a secondary factor of this, if you don't get a ton of snaps, then you just don't get a ton of opportunity to help (or hurt) your score. </p><p></p><p>So, not sure where I was really going with that, but it's something to keep in mind at least.</p><p></p><p>If you start at zero and work your way up for instance...Kraft played 58 snaps. That means he earned on average +1.6 PFF "points" per snap he played. Which is basically to say every snap worked out to being WELL above average. By the same measure hypothetically speaking if you started at a baseline score of 60, it would be a per snap score of about +0.58</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1076771, member: 17987"] I'm just curious with regards to PFF grades, I have never really dug in to much to how they arrive at their final numbers....I know that about 60 is considered "average" but is that also more or less their "starting point"? Point of comparison... there are a lot of similar stats sites who offer similar "performance grades" in soccer on a match by match basis. But most of those are largely additive/subtractive. They all have their own twists and particular algorithms and whatnot, but broadly speaking you'll start a match with roughly a 6/10 rating. Positive actions throughout a match will push that upwards, negatives will ding it downwards. now as I understand it I DO think PFF uses a similar system, they grade every player for every play with a -2 to +2 range and a neutral 0 as the "most likely" or "expected" outcome. But what is not clear to me is where their scoring's starting point is. If a player starts at a 60 and does everything he is "expected" to do, he finishes with a 60 give or take a few. Anyhow, the tricky thing you have to keep in mind too is that while they are time-bound (or in this case snap counts I guess), my understanding is that these scores ARE cumulative...and so in that sense if you only play 10 snaps, even if all 10 are perfectly played, "above expectation" snaps, the best you could do is add +20 to your grading (and again, starting from...?) - on the flip side if you absolutely flop for 10 snaps the worst it does is -20. But as a secondary factor of this, if you don't get a ton of snaps, then you just don't get a ton of opportunity to help (or hurt) your score. So, not sure where I was really going with that, but it's something to keep in mind at least. If you start at zero and work your way up for instance...Kraft played 58 snaps. That means he earned on average +1.6 PFF "points" per snap he played. Which is basically to say every snap worked out to being WELL above average. By the same measure hypothetically speaking if you started at a baseline score of 60, it would be a per snap score of about +0.58 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
Today at 3:25 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Today at 12:29 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Cornelius Weems
Today at 12:05 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 7:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:52 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
PFF Best and Worst vs Steelers
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
