10-18-2023, 07:10 PM
(10-18-2023, 06:28 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Where someone falls in the rankings doesn't mean what they achieved is automatically good or bad.
For example, if you get a 60% on a test but 90% of the class did worse than you, does that mean you did well? No.
Or if you got a 93% on a test but over half the class did better than that, does that mean you did bad? No.
You measure on a static metric, not relative. At least I don't. 65% is good enough in my book. Always will be.
What matters more in this case is what you're also mentioning though - YPA.
Being 65% but only 4 YPA is different if 65% and 7 YPA.
The 65-7 is clearly better.
But what I was responding to was "bad accuracy." If that person thinks 65% is bad, that's on them. But I don't think that's bad.
Your test example doesn't work as well compared to the NFL. With a test, you always measure statically because there an established scale to grading. The reason a 60% isn't good is because we know exactly where it falls on that scale. However, in the NFL, that scale only exists relatively - there is no static scale, and the scale changes over time.
If I go back to 1990 and score an 80% on a test, that 80% is viewed the same in 2023. However, if Joe Burrow goes back to 1971 and completes 65% of his passes, that 65% is viewed very different than it is in 2023. In 1971, 65% is comfortably leading the league. In 2023, it is tied for 19th. In this situation, good and bad are all relative. In order to be good, someone else has to be bad because a static scale doesn't exist.
As far as accuracy goes, I think there are better metrics that can be used to try to account for how accurate a QB is. PFF's adjusted completion percentage is a pretty good one. It accounts for drops, batted passes, spikes and throwaways. Essentially, all "aimed" passes downfield.
