9 minutes ago, downundermike said:

You said you can take the average of the averages, so just apply your math and give me an answer.

Passer rating isn't an average. It is a measure of performance, like a grade in a class, not like a batting average.

You absolutely can take three passer ratings from three games to get an average. The reason it isn't great to do that is because TDs and ints tend to be hard to predict.

So in a three-game stretch, a qb might have five TDs and three ints. If you use the passer rating for those three games (which essentially turns the three games into one game), where they happen doesn't matter. All that matters is that they happened.

If you use the average passer rating, it does matter. In which game the TDs and ints happen can have a big impact on the final average.

So it doesn't work great to use the average passer rating to judge a qb's performance over time.

But it is fine to use average passer rating instead of just the passer rating to compare smaller sets of data, such as three games versus three games, since the timing of the TDs and ints will have an impact on those particular games, and those are the only games you are worried about. As long as the qb played the whole games, the average is valid.

 

12 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

So, confession, I was a little tipsy when I made that post. Friday afternoons are probably a good time to ignore most of what I write, since golf leads right into happy hours. I did have a pretty big argument about Mailata in the preseason with a few people right before he became a starter, and one of them did start posting way less right after that. But the two are most likely unrelated.

So my bad for bringing that up. The tequila was running heavy.

I post plenty of ish on here when I'm drunk. But when I'm wrong I don't blame it on the alcohol. I'll admit when I'm wrong

2 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Finally.  The AceNova excuse.  Well done.  

We've come full circle. What a ride 

Just now, Godfather said:

I post plenty of ish on here when I'm drunk. But when I'm wrong I don't blame it on the alcohol. I'll admit when I'm wrong

Wrong about that. Drunk or sober, math is pretty standard.

Just now, jsb235 said:

Wrong about that. Drunk or sober, math is pretty standard.

Apparently not

19 minutes ago, MF POON said:

I agree that jsb's selected 3 game stretch is more impressive.  Hurts passed for more yardage, had more pass attempts, and kept a 66% completion percentage. Isn't throwing more and running less something DUM and his crew are always criticizing Hurts over?  So it's funny that he finds that to be the less impressive stretch.  

Oh well, at least this thread is entertaining

NYG, WAS, NYG - 11-23 ( .323 winning percentage ) Eagles scored 27 PPG

DET, LAC, DEN - 19 - 31 ( .395 winning percentage ) Eagles scored 32.6 PPG.  Also note that Denver was 8th in yards per game allowed, and 3rd in PPG allowed.

 

7 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

Passer rating isn't an average. It is a measure of performance, like a grade in a class, not like a batting average.

You absolutely can take three passer ratings from three games to get an average. The reason it isn't great to do that is because TDs and ints tend to be hard to predict.

So in a three-game stretch, a qb might have five TDs and three ints. If you use the passer rating for those three games (which essentially turns the three games into one game), where they happen doesn't matter. All that matters is that they happened.

If you use the average passer rating, it does matter. In which game the TDs and ints happen can have a big impact on the final average.

So it doesn't work great to use the average passer rating to judge a qb's performance over time.

But it is fine to use average passer rating instead of just the passer rating to compare smaller sets of data, such as three games versus three games, since the timing of the TDs and ints will have an impact on those particular games, and those are the only games you are worried about. As long as the qb played the whole games, the average is valid.

 

Your whole premise is flawed. There's a very standard calculation of passer rating. It's clearly defined. Just like a batting average calculation is very clearly defined. You'll never get anywhere until you come to grips that your entire foundation is flat out wrong. 

22 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

So, confession, I was a little tipsy when I made that post. Friday afternoons are probably a good time to ignore most of what I write, since golf leads right into happy hours. I did have a pretty big argument about Mailata in the preseason with a few people right before he became a starter, and one of them did start posting way less right after that. But the two are most likely unrelated.

So my bad for bringing that up. The tequila was running heavy.

10 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

You absolutely can take three passer ratings from three games to get an average.

All you have to admit is the following, and this will stop.  If not, I will start posting my spreadsheet every time I find 10 more examples of you average not aligning with the facts.

"Taking the average of 3 QB ratings is not the actual QB rating for those 3 games"

@HazletonEagle set an expectation, and I bet I can get it to several 100 cases, if not 1000 plus.

 

6 minutes ago, downundermike said:

 

"Taking the average of 3 QB ratings is not the actual QB rating for those 3 games"

@HazletonEagle

 

Yup, it is the average. Was that the big disagreement? Of course the average qb rating is not the qb rating. They are two different things 

 

6 minutes ago, downundermike said:

NYG, WAS, NYG - 11-23 ( .323 winning percentage ) Eagles scored 27 PPG

DET, LAC, DEN - 19 - 31 ( .395 winning percentage ) Eagles scored 32.6 PPG.  Also note that Denver was 8th in yards per game allowed, and 3rd in PPG allowed.

 

I thought you guys were just going off of his overall QB rating for the 3 game stretch,  yet now you want to bring in all these other factors to support your argument?  What does the winning percentage and team points have to do with his own performance?  Did you even watch the Detroit game?? lol

1 minute ago, jsb235 said:

Yup, it is the average. Was that the big disagreement? Of course the average qb rating is not the qb rating. They are two different things 

So….you’re just creating your own standards because…reasons?

2 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

Yup, it is the average. Was that the big disagreement? Of course the average qb rating is not the qb rating. They are two different things 

9 minutes ago, MF POON said:

I thought you guys were just going off of his overall QB rating for the 3 game stretch,  yet now you want to bring in all these other factors to support your argument?  What does the winning percentage and team points have to do with his own performance?  Did you even watch the Detroit game?? lol

First of all, the QB rating over my 3 game stretch was higher, whether you calculate it correctly, using jsb's incorrect method, or any other method you can pull out of your ass.

Here it is in a spreadsheet, each game head to head, or the average QB rating, both are a false way to calculate it, but I win in both scenarios.

When you calculate the QB rating correctly my stretch is also higher.  There is no way you can figure the QB rating to make it higher for the last 3 games of the season, because it is not the case.

32 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Finally.  The AceNova excuse.  Well done.  

In hindsight I was actually pretty spot on with those posts. 

4 minutes ago, downundermike said:

First of all, the QB rating over my 3 game stretch was higher, whether you calculate it correctly, using jsb's incorrect method, or any other method you can pull out of your ass.

Here it is in a spreadsheet, each game head to head, or the average QB rating, both are a false way to calculate it, but I win in both scenarios.

When you calculate the QB rating correctly my stretch is also higher.  There is no way you can figure the QB rating to make it higher for the last 3 games of the season, because it is not the case.

Your 3 game stretch may have a very minimal higher %, but that doesn't make it a more impressive stretch when I factor in everything else.

Just now, MF POON said:

Your 3 game stretch may have a very minimal higher %, but that doesn't make it a more impressive stretch when I factor in everything else.

Chiming in here to prevent a crapfest, but passer rating was the original standard to be used. So he is correct to use it. 

Whether using an average or the rating itself is the subject of the debate, but if that needs to be further litigated, my position is clear. 

Just now, jsb235 said:

Chiming in here to prevent a crapfest, but passer rating was the original standard to be used. So he is correct to use it. 

Whether using an average or the rating itself is the subject of the debate, but if that needs to be further litigated, my position is clear. 

At any point did you two also argue the actual stats (yards, completions, %, TD/INT) from those games? 

It's not really that big of a deal, but I just don't see why judging a 3 game stretch based on rating alone would be much of an argument.  You could just total it up and have a clear winner.  

Just now, MF POON said:

At any point did you two also argue the actual stats (yards, completions, %, TD/INT) from those games? 

It's not really that big of a deal, but I just don't see why judging a 3 game stretch based on rating alone would be much of an argument.  You could just total it up and have a clear winner.  

MF Poon:

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

MF Poon:

It's only Hurts' first season

1 minute ago, MF POON said:

At any point did you two also argue the actual stats (yards, completions, %, TD/INT) from those games? 

It's not really that big of a deal, but I just don't see why judging a 3 game stretch based on rating alone would be much of an argument.  You could just total it up and have a clear winner.  

Nope, this came out of another discussion unrelated to mike where per game passer rating was the agreed upon metric. 

Which is the issue. I said his best three game stretch, using per game passer rating, was at the end of the season. Mike jumped in and said it was in the middle. I had rounded off and found both were even, but mike said the middle was higher, which, to his credit, it was by three tenths. 

So that's how this started. I was averaging per game passer rating, which is totally fine by math standards, while mike was using qb rating, which is, to be fair, how the nfl does its passer rating. 

And here we are. 

12 minutes ago, MF POON said:

Your 3 game stretch may have a very minimal higher %, but that doesn't make it a more impressive stretch when I factor in everything else.

 

Not 30 minutes ago you called me out for bringing in other factors, not it is OK for you to do it ??

Also, it was not about impressive, he stated as fact that it was the highest stretch of QB rating, and he was proven wrong.

 

30 minutes ago, MF POON said:

I thought you guys were just going off of his overall QB rating for the 3 game stretch,  yet now you want to bring in all these other factors to support your argument?  What does the winning percentage and team points have to do with his own performance?  Did you even watch the Detroit game?? lol

 

Denver game is the 3rd highest QB rating of the 6 QB ratings in our discussion.  That rating was against the #8 defense in yards allowed, and #3 in points allowed.  No wonder only you are allowed to bring in other factors, because when I do it, it is absolutely devastating to your argument.  

Just now, downundermike said:

 

Not 30 minutes ago you called me out for bringing in other factors, not it is OK for you to do it ??

Also, it was not about impressive, he stated as fact that it was the highest stretch of QB rating, and he was proven wrong.

 

 

Denver game is the 3rd highest QB rating of the 6 QB ratings in our discussion.  That rating was against the #8 defense in yards allowed, and #3 in points allowed.  No wonder only you are allowed to bring in other factors, because when I do it, it is absolutely devastating to your argument.  

And quite frankly, from just the eye test, the first half against Denver was BY FAR the best Hurts has played. It actually gave me a great sense of hope for him, only to see it vanish in the Mile High air in the 2nd half. 

3 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

Nope, this came out of another discussion unrelated to mike where per game passer rating was the agreed upon metric. 

Which is the issue. I said his best three game stretch, using per game passer rating, was at the end of the season. Mike jumped in and said it was in the middle. I had rounded off and found both were even, but mike said the middle was higher, which, to his credit, it was by three tenths. 

So that's how this started. I was averaging per game passer rating, which is totally fine by math standards, while mike was using qb rating, which is, to be fair, how the nfl does its passer rating. 

And here we are. 

That must have been tough for you after you called me out and were going to make me quit the board.

But for 100% transparency, the correct QB ratings for those stretches are 102.62 and 101.31, 1.31 in my favor.

3 minutes ago, downundermike said:

That must have been tough for you after you called me out and were going to make me quit the board.

But for 100% transparency, the correct QB ratings for those stretches are 102.62 and 101.31, 1.31 in my favor.

Not really. I know no one cares about this. Losing by a rounding error is not a big deal. In two weeks, when games count, this will be a distant memory. 

And, ultimately, i got the bigger win, which was that i got you to prove Hurts was a rounding error away from playing his best after the nfl had allegedly figured him out, when he should have been playing his worst. So you were actually doing the heavy lifting in that argument.