PFF Thru Raiders Game

[G man]

(11-23-2021, 05:03 PM)ochocincos Wrote: This is what it used to be back in 2015, but I recall there being something about that changing. I'd have to search to find it.
Their site doesn't state it on their Player Grades page https://www.pff.com/grades

EDIT - Found the reference to it from a post actually criticizing PFF grades in Summer 2020:
https://www.si.com/nfl/cardinals/news/pff-player-grades-deserve-scrutiny

Yeah I don’t doubt that and it does feel a little out of sync with reality. I on put had those numbers because I had the 2015 screenshot on my phone because someone asked me.

So fully prepared to concede they are out of date

[*bfine32*]

During the signing this year one that struck me as "What ever" was Awuzie; boy was I wrong. He quite possibly might be our most valuable piece on Defense.

Hendrickson is very good, but we also have Hubbard and Sample

Reader is killing it, but we have Larry O and Hill

Without Awuzie; Apple is our #1 CB

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-23-2021, 04:37 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Get your hearing checked.

Hilton is listed at 66.8, is that above or below league average? There has to be a league average number, not in some grade school grading system with a 9.8% margin of error. Is league average for CBs in their rating system above or below that 66.8 rating of Hilton for this week? These averages should change from week to week as 32 teams don't share ratings points. Some weeks, most DBs are going to get torched and some weeks most of them are going to shine, especially late in the season, so these weekly averages should be fluid.

With the grading scale explained, if you're looking for a solid number as to where he stands, out of 81 CBs who qualify by playing 50% of max snaps, Hilton is the 26th rated CB by grade. The highest grade is an 87.7 and the lowest is 42.2

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-23-2021, 05:33 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: With the grading scale explained, if you're looking for a solid number as to where he stands, out of 81 CBs who qualify by playing 50% of max snaps, Hilton is the 26th rated CB by grade. The highest grade is an 87.7 and the lowest is 42.2

There are currently 34 CBs with a grade of 60.0-69.9

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(11-23-2021, 04:47 PM)ochocincos Wrote: They do a hard number, and they've stated in the past that 60.0-69.9 is considered "solid starter" level.

It's technically possible (although improbable) that more than half of the players at a position could be above or below "average."

I think you actually kinda hit it right on the head in your grading school system analogy.

Think of 60-69 as a C, which is considered a passing grade. The entire class could get that grade if they perform well enough.

If you're looking for a week-to-week spread of numbers by position that then calculates a mean or something like that, they don't have that to my knowledge (at least not for free or for the tier pricing that I pay for).

Also, I don't appreciate the attitude of "get your hearing checked" comment. I don't know what prompted you to be snarky with me, as I was not trying to be that way toward you.

I admire your loyalty to other people's opinions but all I did was say that there needs to be a comparative system because sometimes I find their ratings to be comical and your first response is "So what I'm hearing is...you're gonna start the competitor to PFF?"


I'd rather trust my eyes than some lone guy assigned to evaluate the game.  If there is a comparative system for me to observe, I'd be more likely to accept some of these ratings in a "Maybe they're seeing something I'm not" kind of way. I don't hate PFF but I do get annoyed with people's faith in their accuracy. On a previous board, one poster would almost never post on Gamedays and most of Monday but suddenly became full of opinions on Sunday's game an hour after the PFF ratings release.

MLB average batting averages via google
2017 - .255
2018 - .248
2019 - .252
2020 - .245

Now it would be easy to say that the league average for those 4 years is .250 or even simpler and lazy like PFF to say .245 to .255 is average batting average for a MLB player. But a .250 average in 2018 and 2020 would be in the upper half of the league. In 2017 and 2019, that same .250 average would put you in the lower half of the league. Your level of play didn't change at all but the entire league fluctuated. You can never really tell that with the numbers that I've seen posted from PFF.

Which is why I brought up Mike Hilton. He is listed in your post as 39th, which is a higher rating than at least 25 other starting #1 or #2 CBs, including Eli Apple. These numbers would mean more to me if I knew how much higher his 66.8 is from the midpoint. Is he in a 10 way tie with one percentage point ahead of the league average or is he alone in 39th, ten full points ahead of the league average?

[*ochocincos*]

(11-23-2021, 08:42 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: I admire your loyalty to other people's opinions but all I did was say that there needs to be a comparative system because sometimes I find their ratings to be comical and your first response is "So what I'm hearing is...you're gonna start the competitor to PFF?"


I'd rather trust my eyes than some lone guy assigned to evaluate the game.  If there is a comparative system for me to observe, I'd be more likely to accept some of these ratings in a "Maybe they're seeing something I'm not" kind of way. I don't hate PFF but I do get annoyed with people's faith in their accuracy. On a previous board, one poster would almost never post on Gamedays and most of Monday but suddenly became full of opinions on Sunday's game an hour after the PFF ratings release.

MLB average batting averages via google
2017 - .255
2018 - .248
2019 - .252
2020 - .245

Now it would be easy to say that the league average for those 4 years is .250 or even simpler and lazy like PFF to say .245 to .255 is average batting average for a MLB player. But a .250 average in 2018 and 2020 would be in the upper half of the league. In 2017 and 2019, that same .250 average would put you in the lower half of the league. Your level of play didn't change at all but the entire league fluctuated. You can never really tell that with the numbers that I've seen posted from PFF.

Which is why I brought up Mike Hilton. He is listed in your post as 39th, which is a higher rating than at least 25 other starting #1 or #2 CBs, including Eli Apple. These numbers would mean more to me if I knew how much higher his 66.8 is from the midpoint. Is he in a 10 way tie with one percentage point ahead of the league average or is he alone in 39th, ten full points ahead of the league average?

I didn't mean for "So what I'm hearing is...you're gonna start the competitor to PFF?" to be snarky. 
I actually was meaning it as serious. I think it could be valuable for PFF to have a similar, comparable rating system competitor. There seem to be quite a number of people who disagree with PFF's ratings, so I think there would be enough interest from people willing to join and contribute to such an effort if someone started it up.

As for the average, I got your point, but there is no easily-broadcasted "average" by PFF.
Perhaps it's an enhancement they could do, but it probably would have to be manually calculated by someone right now.
I would say the best way to do it is to take the scores of all the eligible players and divide by the number of players to get the collective's average. But that's quite a bit of effort to do it for every position, especially year-by-year, and it would require the highest tier to see previous years for collective player grades.

Going on a tangent now - batting average is going by the wayside now. It's all about OPS now.