(10-28-2020, 10:17 AM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote:

(10-28-2020, 09:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: Dude, no need to be hostile.
My point is, I don't like QBR because you can't verify it.
Here's an example:
Suppose at the end of the game, Byron Leftwich has a 105 qb rating.  But we watched the game.  We know he played poorly most of the game.  So we can get out our calculators and say things like, "If Jimmy Smith had dropped that one 4th down touchdown pass, Leftwich's rating would have been 74.". But with QBR you can't do that.  You'd have to call up ESPN and ask them, "can you tell me what Leftwich's grade would have been in this scenario?"
See the difference?
If you can't verify it or tweak it, it's not interesting. I guess it's interesting for the guys who have access to the secret sauce at ESPN, but not to me.

Again, no stat is perfect.  You can "tweak" or interpret any stat given circumstances or alternative outcomes that didn't happen.  And dropped passes is actually part of the QBR calculation, so you don't need to do that with QBR.  You would for Passer Rating  or ANY/A.  So again... your point is moot.  

If you don't like QBR because its too complicated for you to understand... that's fine.  Or as you say, "because I can't verify it".  Cool.  But to say it is inferior to the metrics of Passer Rating or ANY/A that only take into account 4 or 5 measurements is just simple-minded.

Dropped passes are part of the QBR calculation, but only if they actually happen.  You can't easily track how the number changes based on things that might have happened but didn't happen.  Unless you call ESPN and they give you access to their algorithm.  But you can consider any hypothetical you want with other metrics. That makes those other metrics more interesting for discussion, in my opinion.

---