Talk:Passer rating

message: From the article: Another criticism is the fact that rushing yards gained by a quarterback do not result in his getting a higher rating — a particularly important contemporary issue due to the recent emergence of many excellent running quarterbacks in the NFL, most notably Steve Young, Daunte Culpepper, Donovan McNabb, John Elway and Michael Vick and players like Damon Allen and Kerry Joseph in the CFL..  On the other hand, Vick holds the NCAA freshman record for passing efficiency and Young is the former record holder for passer rating in a season. This record was shattered in 2004 by Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning.
Response: The entire "On the other hand..." statement about NCAA passing efficiency records is not only irrelevant, there's no way that Peyton Manning, in the NFL in 2004, could break an NCAA record in that year! This section is poorly worded, and seems more like a backhand attempt to promote Vick and Young.
-- MattBattison
Another Response: And was John Elway ever a mobile quarterback? He certainly wasn't toward the end of his career...
""Health warning"" - The calculation of this rating makes no sense and to describe it as passing efficiency is inaccurate. The fact is that this statistic is meaningless because it is passing judgement on the performance of the quarterback when it is no such thing. The variables used depend on far more than the performance of the quarterback but depend on the performance of the whole offence. Completions depend on the receiver and the offensive line as much as the quarterback. Yardage is often down to the receiver and the blocking by the offence as a whole. Similarly touchdowns are dependent on how good the receivers are. Finally interceptions can be for a myriad of reasons and are often nothing to do with the QB. If the NFL wants credibility it needs to have credible statistics not a load of nonsense. Rexhorwood (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: An obvious criticism -- I'm surprised it's not mentioned -- is that the rating is too complex and thus has no intuitive meaning for regular fans. If the TV announcer says that the starting QB has thrown 2 interceptions in each of the last 14 games, the average viewer will think that the the QB should perhaps be replaced. If the same announcer says that the QB has had a rating of 91.2 for the year, most viewers will await a further prompt ("... which is the highest in the conference!") to digest the information better. This isn't true of yards per carry, batting average, rebounds per game, etc. Even more complicated stats like slugging percentage at least measure something pretty straightforward. QB rating doesn't measure anything, it's an attempt to produce a super-stat that represents everything about a QB.Priceyeah 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessarily complex 

message: This chart  shows the draft results of a new rating formula I propose (min. 100 games):
TG=TDs per game  YG=yards per game  TD-INT=career differential  PC=%completion  SBW=SuperBowl wins  SBA=Superbowl appearances:
rating=[0.20*TG+0.20*YG/100+0.20*(TD-INT)/100+0.20*PC+0.15*SBW+0.05*SBA]/2.5
This rating addresses some of the criticisms of the current rating formula on the main page
--Billymac00 02:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice, but... W:NOR The Monster (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Rating 

message: as of 2006, there are 23 modern era QBs in the Hall of Fame, alphabetically:
Aikman,Blanda,Bradshaw,Dawson,Elway,Fouts,Graham,Griese,Jurgensen,Kelly,Layne
Marino,Montana,Moon,Namath,Starr,Staubach,Tarkenton,Tittle,Unitas,VanBrocklin
Waterfield and Young.
Examining the statistics, the typical Hall of Fame quarterback will exceed the following career criteria:attempts>4500, yards >30000, TDs>150 and TD/INT ratio > 1.25, %completion >50%.  
Often the HOF quarterback has a Superbowl win and appears in the all-time top 10 for at least 1 major passing category.  
A quarterback appears to be a "lock" if he meets any of the following over his career:
TDs>250(Manning,Montana,Favre*,Marino,Fouts,Moon,Jurgensen,Tarkenton,Elway,Unitas) completions>3000 (Montana,Fouts,Moon,Elway,Tarkenton,Favre*) 
TD/INT ratio > 1.50 (Young,Manning*,Montana,Brady*,Favre*,Marino,Cunningham*) 
%completion>60% (Kelly,Favre*,Aikman,Brady*,Young,Montana,Manning*)
has multiple SuperBowl wins (Bradshaw,Brady*,Montana,Starr,Young,Aikman,Elway)
Considering the aforementioned, three active players, Favre, PManning, and Brady are locks to get in, and strong cases can be made for McNabb*,McNair* and Cunningham.
* indicates not yet in HOF
--Billymac00 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall of Fame 

message: The article does not explain what the college formula is. Does anyone know? Makerowner 04:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  College System 

message: "The NCAA passer rating system has no upper limit"
I do not believe that is correct.  The longest possible pass is 99 yards, so the best rating possible would occur if one threw every single pass 99 yards for a touchdown.  If my calculations are correct, that would yield: (100 * 1.0) + (8.4 * 99) + (330 * 1.0) - (200 * 0.0) = 1261.6.  If that is the case, then it's very inaccurate to say that the rating system "has no upper limit."Mickeyg13 06:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. I edited the section to clarify this point. I think "no upper limit" was referring to the fact that none of the NCAA passer rating components are capped (like the max of 2.375 in the NFL), but it was still rather confusing. Chaz Beckett 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Rating has no upper limit??? 

message: The following statement is pretty meaningless. "Conceptually the average rating would be 79.2..." Simply averaging the highest possible and lowest possible ratings does not get anything like a 'conceptual average'. (note: if if did the college 'conceptual average' would be in the neighborhood of 600.) The other fallacy in this statement is related to the idea that it is not a linear scale, rather "outstanding performances meet diminishing returns". I think that the historical average is a much more reasonable measure. maxsch 17:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the first paragraph, removing the bit on conceptual averages. maxsch 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average Rating 

message: From the Article:Evidence for the possible overemphasis on completion percentage may be seen in the following simple example in which each quarterback has three passing plays. The first two quarterbacks completed fewer passes but got a first down for their teams while the third quarterback is rated the highest, despite only gaining five yards, due to a high completion percentage.
A counterargument to the example above is that the formula should not be applied to a sample as small as 3 passes. The minimums and maximums for each of the four passing categories attempt to modify the formula to apply to small samples. But the actual merits of the formula are best examined when the samples become large enough for the minimums and maximums to become unnecessary in calculation.
Response: Based on my calculations (C=.1111,Y=2.375,T=0,I=2.375)the first quarterback in the chart should have a passer rating of 81, not 71.5.  That would make him the best of the three.  However, if you still want to make your point that quarterback 3 has the higher rating, then the "Yards" for quarterback 1 needs to be 10 which will put him at a rating of 70.6.
Odelphi 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculation Error 

message: I've moved the criticism section from the article to this page. This section has become nearly half the article and consisted almost entirely of original research. It was also very poorly sourced and organized. In my opinion, I believe the article is fine simply describing the rating without offering opinions on its perceived shortcomings. However, I could see having a brief, well-sourced section describing its most commonly mentioned deficencies. Chaz Beckett 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree completely. Good to have the text here as well. NjtoTX (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I have no objection to the removal of the above section, given the reasons provided.  But certainly, some type of criticism section is warranted, if for no other reason than the fact that most people a) don't understand it, and b)those who do understand its formulae nonetheless question why a quarterback can be called "perfect" with a 75% completion percentage.
Now we can't control what the NFL calls perfection--that's their call.  But surely there are plenty of sources out there with professional writers at least questioning the formulae, and others pointing out how the average fan is confused by it.  This, at the very least, is warranted. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of criticism section 

message: I have no objection to the final result. The individual stats might be easier to understand if, rather than use 2.375 as the top result, one uses 40 x 2.375 or 95 points - the equivalent to a grade of A in each category. I came to this conclusion decades ago when the rating system was first reset, and the section would change to something like this, the first part remaining unchanged:
....  If the result in any category is greater than 95, the given result should be 95. This makes the maximum possible quarterback rating for the NFL (95+95+95+95)/2.4 or 158 1/3. A perfect rating requires at least a 77.5% completion rate, at least 12.5 yards per attempt, a touchdown on at least 11.875% of attempts, and no interceptions.
a = 2 \times \left ({{100\% \times COMP} \over ATT} - 30\% \right )  
b = 10 \times \left ({YARDS \over ATT} - 3 \right )  
c = 8 \times \left ({{100\% \times TD} \over ATT} \right )  
d = 95 - 10 \times \left ({{100\% \times INT} \over ATT} \right ) 
Then use the above calculations to complete the passer rating:
Passer Rating_{NFL} = \left ({mm(a) +  mm(b) + mm(c) + mm(d) \over 2.4} \right ) 
where mm(x) = \text{max}(0, \text{min}(x, 95))
— Glenn L (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is your own formula, and not mentioned in any third party reliable source, it would then be considered original research, and therefore cannot be included in this article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative NFL formula 

message: Apparently ESPN has come out with its own rating system. It remains to be seen if they will be forthright in revealing the exact details on how to calculate it. If we are not able to display the entire formula via the Math formula markup like the NFL and NCAA ones, it might give the appearance that it is less important, IMO. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently someone has now created an article on it: Total quarterback rating. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the mention of ESPN's Total Quarterback Rating in this article because it seemed like WP:PROMOTION to me. Other than the fact that it has a similar name, there is no relationship between the two stats. Thoughts? aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 05:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Total Quarterback Rating article should no longer be considered promotion. As stated on that guideline and others about advertising and promotion, "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. ESPN's "QBR" has received plenty of criticism, as noted in Total Quarterback Rating#Reception. As originally stated by ESPN, they originally intended it as a replacement, or at least a more meaningful alternative, for the passer rating -- but this turned out very differently. In addition, it is also very likely someone who is looking for information on the QBR may accidentally stumble to this page instead, so there also should be a mention of it here. Otherwise, it would seem like censoring (or making it more difficult for people to find) the disadvantages and criticisms of a feature offered by a high-profile company, vis-a-vis ESPN and its proprietary statistic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting that the Total Quarterback Rating article is WP:PROMOTION; I'm just saying that it doesn't warrant a mention in the passer rating article. Outside of ESPN itself, it isn't really a recognized metric. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it should be removed entirely from this page. It was ESPN's attempt to criticize and "fix" the measurement of quarterbacks, with what it claims to be a "better stat". That is why it is mentioned in the criticism section on the passer rating article. So what if it is not widely used? Here we have a multi-million dollar corporation trying to pitch an alternative service or idea, and this product ended up being criticized itself and thus not used by most people. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just create a category of Quarterback rating methods and include both this and QBR in it?  These are not the only two, there is also DVOA and DYAR (Football Outsiders), EPA and WPA (Advanced Football), PFF Rating etc.  Most of these methods are developed by a commercial site but if they don't have wiki pages for the metric at least have a wiki site for the company that is responsible for them where it is mentioned...Aapold (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ESPN formula 

message: Regarding the Flaws section, paragraph 7, the sentence ending with "...yet nine of those seasons happened in 2018 alone." 
How is it possible to have nine seasons in one year (2018)?
Not sure that is correct. Epearlma (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaws section