Adjusted Pass Rating Romo 17th

[DogFace]

I wondered what some of you thought about this ranking.
Maybe some of the stat guys around here can comment on his formula.

http://www.footballperspective.com/adjusting-passer-rating-for-era-part-v-the-results/

 

[okstateCowboy]

Sid Luckman couldn't be a backup in today's league

 

[Bleu Star]

I wondered what some of you thought about this ranking.
Maybe some of the stat guys around here can comment on his formula.

http://www.footballperspective.com/adjusting-passer-rating-for-era-part-v-the-results/

Looks about right.

 

[diefree666]

A very well done article. Have always thought that Otto Graham was a time traveler; he had to be! When you are so much better than everyone else.
The closest I think to Otto was Marino; the way he smashed records years before everyone else.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Eh. Formula is obviously slanted in favour of the guys none of us remember. Makes it a bit suspect form the outset in my view

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He complains about arbitrary limits and values and then goes and does it himself.

For example he complains about the floor which equates 30% completion percentage and to 0%. Similarly he complains about a diminishing return on YPA over 12.5.

All he does here is wave his hands.

He doesn't at any point check the data set to see what if any impact it would have and more importantly he never ever considers mechanics or correlate the values to wins or something else that was similarly important.

I blame this on a US education system that judges on memorizing minutiae and ignores the why of pretty much everything.

Prima facie, there are not QBs with completion percentages below 30% and there are no YPA over 12.5. Prima facie QB rating correlated those stats to wins.

The blog's method is garbage.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Eh. Formula is obviously slanted in favour of the guys none of us remember. Makes it a bit suspect form the outset in my view

He makes the assumption that there is some sort of commonality between the eras and normalizes to a baseline. As I said in the above post this is completely obtuse to the mechanics of the game where the rules have changed repeatedly.

It is impossible to compare apples to apples because the datasets are from games with different rules. It would be like trying to normalize stats between baseball and softball. It's obtuse to reality.

 

[diefree666]

Eh. Formula is obviously slanted in favour of the guys none of us remember. Makes it a bit suspect form the outset in my view

A student of the game would know ALL of them. just because you skipped school means nothing.

 

[diefree666]

He makes the assumption that there is some sort of commonality between the eras and normalizes to a baseline. As I said in the above post this is completely obtuse to the mechanics of the game where the rules have changed repeatedly.

It is impossible to compare apples to apples because the datasets are from games with different rules. It would be like trying to normalize stats between baseball and softball. It's obtuse to reality.

Just because you claim it is not impossible does not make it so. Looking at the listing there are a couple that I would question there at the top 30 or so. Steve Young for example. BUT a lot of them I can agree with the ranking through the era's as I was lucky enough to watch all those that played starting about 1970.

And guess what? The ol mark one eyeball generally will tell you who really is worthy and who is not.

 

[DFWJC]

Athletes on offense and especially defense are way better now--or at least bigger,stronger, faster--but the rules are different too.

 

[Bullflop]

Such comparisons of totally different eras and circumstances are difficult, if not impossible, to accurately discern. It's futile at best, imho.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just because you claim it is not impossible does not make it so. Looking at the listing there are a couple that I would question there at the top 30 or so. Steve Young for example. BUT a lot of them I can agree with the ranking through the era's as I was lucky enough to watch all those that played starting about 1970.

And guess what? The ol mark one eyeball generally will tell you who really is worthy and who is not.

We are talking statistics not your romantic notions of worth.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Such comparisons of totally different eras and circumstances are difficult, if not impossible, to accurately discern. It's futile at best, imho.

Unless they account for things like the length of games, rules for pass rush, rules for pass defense, scoring rules, etc then they are not taking into account reality.

He defines passers by how much better they did than their contemporaries on average as if talent is even for year to year as well. Prima facie it is garbage.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...f-the-rules-from-hashmarksto-crackback-blocks

It's not remotely the same game it was 70 years ago when Graham was playing.

 

[Bullflop]

Unless they account for things like the length of games, rules for pass rush, rules for pass defense, scoring rules, etc then they are not taking into account reality.

He defines passers by how much better they did than their contemporaries on average as if talent is even for year to year as well. Prima facie it is garbage.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...f-the-rules-from-hashmarksto-crackback-blocks

It's not remotely the same game it was 70 years ago when Graham was playing.

Well stated. I agree completely. It's difficult enough to compare apples to apples without it extending it to comparisons of apples to oranges. The many obvious differences between the current era and that of numerous decades ago has changed playing conditions enough to render accurate comparisons nothing other than a waste of time. It's simply a fool's game to even consider making such impractical comparisons to begin with.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

A student of the game would know ALL of them. just because you skipped school means nothing.

 

[CCBoy]

A student of the game would know ALL of them. just because you skipped school means nothing.

I see...philosophizing in a crapper...yea, go figure. Heck, even the burn barrel provides better relief in that mental hail storm.

 

[adbutcher]

He makes the assumption that there is some sort of commonality between the eras and normalizes to a baseline. As I said in the above post this is completely obtuse to the mechanics of the game where the rules have changed repeatedly.

It is impossible to compare apples to apples because the datasets are from games with different rules. It would be like trying to normalize stats between baseball and softball. It's obtuse to reality.

And the amount of games or opportunities to pass.

 

[pete026]

You guys missed the point of the thread........ a desperate attempt to maintain Romo relevant on the Zone. It was never about the idea or formula per se.

 

[diefree666]

You guys missed the point of the thread........ a desperate attempt to maintain Romo relevant on the Zone. It was never about the idea or formula per se.

and another romo hater spews garbage

 

[diefree666]

We are talking statistics not your romantic notions of worth.

are you smart enough to remember what Mark Twain said about statistics?