If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

 (CoachBox.com) How to compute the NFL's quarterback passer rating 40 More: Spiffy
•       •       •

10612 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2004 at 5:47 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:    more»

40 Comments   (+0 »)
 Paginated (50/page) Single page Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML Show posts from ignored users

Here's the formula that really matters:

Days left in January: 18
Days left in February: 29
Days left in March: 31

Therefore,

18+29+31=78

78+4=days left until April 4th

So,

82 days until baseball starts another glorious season.

P.S. Look at passer ratings like a grade in grade school: 0-59=F 60-69=D 70-79=C 80-89=B 90+=A

The better quarterbacks in the NFL will have at least a 79 passer rating, and I think it's a tad higher for NCAA.

Here's a very handy little on-line calculator you can use to calculate a QB rating for a game or a season or a lifetime.

http://www.cupcakes.net/dereksqb2.htm

Considering it was cancelled last year, I bet they'll be starting the season early in Japan this year. Yay, baseball! Football is my second favorite, though.

Both sports have the aspect of complete and utter ulcer-inducing anxiety prior to the play/pitch. Plus, it's much easier to blame the manager/coach in these sports and still adore the team. I just love that in both sports even the smallest of errors or heroics can completely change the game. Sure, a guy can make a spectacular, gravity-defying dunk, but it's still only two points. One swing of the bat wins a game. One errant throw loses the game. I'm sorry, Brett.

They can do math?

I have an Excel spreadsheet that computes QB rating if anyone cares...

Define: Slow News Day

Looks like a pretty complicated formula to me. But couldn't they have put just a bit more thought into it, though, and made a perfect quarterback rating something like, oh say, 100? instead of 160-something-point-something or whatever the heck it is now?

QB rating goes hand in hand with the other pointless statistics thrown out during a game ("6 straight wins at home with temperature above 50 in games where the kicker's name has 3 or more vowels")

*Madden voice* "Now yah see here Donovan McNabb, he's a great player. He completes 100% of the passes that he throws where the receiver catches the ball. That's the kinda quarterback you need in the NFL."

wow, at least they dont use the formula as the BSC.

who the fark came up with all that garbage?? divide a into b to make c then divide c by 12 to make d then subtract 6 to make e.......

how bout: % of completions per attempt, yards per att,% of td's per,and % of picks per, * all the percentages by 10, than add all the flippin #'s up.

oh, and baseball BLOWS. any activity which involves your thumb firmly planted up your ass for 95% of the time is not a sport.

No, just like, double it and add 30!

/CFL hoser

I update mine live so I can make McGuire/Theisman/Madden type comments: "You need a Donnovan McNabb or a Peyton Manning in there to get a great QB rating like that in the National Football League." "I would make love to Mike Vick and his passer rating right now if I could, he is the most exciting player in the National Football League."

I named my cat "John Elway" so I can put "a John Elway" into the game anytime they need one.

I hate TV announcers and their useless and sometimes obviously incorrect or homoerotic comments, but won the Fark football pool

i`m still confused

Its really simple. Just follow the instructions, then multiply by .10 and you have Joey Harrington's rating. Easy as pie.

{I hate TV announcers and their useless and sometimes obviously incorrect or homoerotic comments, but won the Fark football pool}

Worst all time was Hank Stram. He would actually say things like, "Hey if he had caught that ball, it woulda been
a reception"

THe calculation is similar to what use to evaluate airborne exposures, called a time weighted average. Silica dust exposure is the same way, three components all with a variety of different scales combined into one.

I've always wondered if drugs were involved at the meeting of the minds that came up with this wacky pass rating scheme. Well, it was the 70's :)

My favorite Maddenism was where it was tied at the half...

(madden) "With the score tied at the half, the team that's gonna win this game is the team that can move the football down the field and score the most points."
Genius, pure genius.

/farkin'@ work

I think the perfect ratings is 158.3. Which means almost all the video games out there get this wrong, because I've gotten way higher ratings than that.

ElwoodCuse:

I know, I've had it happen too. Here's what I look at when I want to feel better about life:

See? Much better! Carolina is going down, and I don't mean to Houston!

Elwood: That's an arbitrary cut-off for the NFL. I've seen lists of college quarterbacks who have passer ratings of 200 and up.

I think Patten, the wide receiver, had the best QB rating on the 2001 Patriots team for a while. 1 for 1 with 1 TD, 0 interceptions, and 60 yards = maximum possible rating. The coach likes trick plays.

What an idiotic statistic.

Just because you can multiply two numbers together and then add them to a third doesn't mean that you should, and it doesn't mean that the result is in any way meaningful.

This is just an arbitrary hodge-podge.

1. Pull number out of ass
2. ???
3. Profit!

Football stats, like all stats, really don't mean too much, especially during the play-offs. All that matters is who wins and who doesn't.

GO PATS!!!!

It's going to be cold as hell in Foxboro this weekend, don't forget your choker, Payton.

I don't understand how Peyton Manning had a "perfect" rating last week then. I mean he did well, but what if he would have completed 100% of his passes (he didn't), and what if they were all for touchdowns? Wouldn't he have technically done better than he did, and shouldn't any rating system rate that sort of performance better?

Strange system there...

Football stats, like all stats, really don't mean too much

Um, there are baseball stats that allow you to predict how many runs a team is going to score next year with a pretty high degree of accuracy.

It's just that those are not "Batting Average", "Home Runs", and "RBIs", and since the popular conception is formed based on those, the popular conception becomes "stats don't really mean too much".

REDARMYVODKA

oh, and baseball BLOWS. any activity which involves your thumb firmly planted up your ass for 95% of the time is not a sport.

Right, because there's so much action in football when the team with the ball lets the play clock run down to one second before snapping the ball. I especially like it when a team has no chance of winning because there are two minutes left in the game and the other team can just kneel on the ball.

I'm not saying I don't like football, but don't accuse baseball of having no action.

Jesus 2.0

Baseball? Who cares? I'd rather watch my finger nails grow, thank you very much.

Seriously though, They may be important to someone, but not me. I like watching the games, I'll leave the math to the geeks.

That article was farking ridiculous. It's a word for word copy of the NFL one they linked to without the discussion at the top. And they're both worthless explanations for the system. I'd much rather see an equation with an explanation for each term than be handed an algorithm that reads like an income tax form.

PottyMcNugg: I think perhaps the people who had the most reason to be happy about that game are the bootleg T-shirt sellers in the stadium neighborhood. "Fourth and 26" is going to be the new "Dallas Sucks".

/fly, eagles, fly

#1 way to speed up football games.
eliminate the "ice the Kicker" time out.
Teams always do this I have not seen any evidence
that it works. It does make the otherwise exciting
last minutes of close games to drag ass.

I'd still take "ice the kicker" over the foul line bullshiat you get at the end of not-really-that-close basketball games. This is especially pronounced in the NCAA tournament (the only thing about it I don't like).

ElwoodCuse:

True. What can you think of for the Panthers? I mean, we all know what Dallas "does" and what sexual affliation the Giants are, but what do you think the bootleg dudes with the t's are gonna have as the hot shirt aside from "4th and 26?" I gotta feeling they'll make us proud...err...sort of.

Looks like 158.3333333... is the best you can do.

What is Peyton Manning's Rating, so far, for the playoffs? Like around 140?

The qb rating is worthless. The only rating that matters is the number of rings on your finger. Look at Bradshaw, he had four but do you think his rating caused that or maybe the other guys on the field playing. People overuse statistics in all sports these days. Being a Skins fan, I keep reminding everyone on how the Redskins won super bowls with no name talent. Yes, there were some great players on those teams but no "superstars." How many years until Mark Ripien is going to be voted into the Hall of Fame? hahaha.

The only story is, take the Carolina Panthers and add the same scenario, a couple of stars but mostly no name players. Don't underestimate the Cats. They can beat Philly but either one is going to lose to the AFC contender.

MooseBayou - Peyton's QB rating in this post season is 156.9.

just plain sick.

There is a great misconception in QB rating. It is assumed that the highest rating possible for a game is 158.3. That is incorrect. It is so foolish that one QB can get a perfect 158.3 rating say throwing for 24-25 300 4td 0int(just off the top of my head) and that a QB can go 40-40 580 6td and 0int and have the same rating. It just doesn't work like that. Actually if anyone is interested and a sports fan. Go buy last week's sports weekly(formerly baseball weekly). There is a nice article in there explaing the QB rating and how stupid it is to arbitrarily cut it off at 158.3. He also said that at half of peyton's game against the bronco's his ACTUAL rating was like 290 or something like that. Now that's just plain sick.

I think the passer rating is a useful statistic (to stat geeks like me, anyway) but the way they compute it is unneccesarily complicated. There's got to be a less convoluted way of doing it that still produces a useful rating.

And ark2612 makes a good point that it should not be arbitrarily cut off at 158.3. Sure, one guy might have a "perfect" game and get the maximum rating, but another guy, also perfect, might throw for one more touchdown or a few more yards. Should they have exactly the same rating? I say NO.

rmdw, most serious football fans will tell you Namath wasn't a superstar QB. He really gets more credit than he deserves and a 65.4 rating sounds about right for him.

Also, a career rating can't be assumed to indicate that's how the guy played each year of career. What I mean by that is some years are better than others. Some quarterbacks have started off lousy and improved drastically as they age. Others were great in their younger days, then fall apart in their 30s.

So I agree with you that QB Rating might be a meaningless stat if we're talking about career ratings (or single game ratings, for that matter). But I think they're more interesting and useful if we're talking about single season ratings, or post-season ratings.

Some people don't care for any of the numbers. To each his own.

My career NFL passer rating is 39.6! w00t!

And you can argue about the relevance of passer rating all you want...there's only one passer rating that matters to me....

COOLNESS!!!

Displayed 40 of 40 comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Submit a Link »

From the Fark Shop:
More from the Fark Shop »

Report