When I go to the all time best games link provided in that article, Charlie Batch is nowhere to be found and a Carson Palmer game from 2009 is the best ever.
Michael David Smith @MichaelDavSmith 3h3 hours ago
Michael David Smith Retweeted Nathan Jahnke
ESPN still says Charlie Batch had a 99.9 QBR but now says he didn't have enough plays to qualify for Best Game Ever
Quote:
Michael David Smith @MichaelDavSmith 4h4 hours ago
ESPN has changed its QBR "All-Time Best Games" page and no longer credits Charlie Batch as No. 1 all-time, following my criticism yesterday.
Michael David Smith @MichaelDavSmith 3h3 hours ago
Michael David Smith Retweeted Nathan Jahnke
ESPN still says Charlie Batch had a 99.9 QBR but now says he didn't have enough plays to qualify for Best Game Ever
Quote:
Michael David Smith @MichaelDavSmith 4h4 hours ago
ESPN has changed its QBR "All-Time Best Games" page and no longer credits Charlie Batch as No. 1 all-time, following my criticism yesterday.
Its rated a 99.9, so how isn't a the best game ever? What a joke of a stat
Its rated a 99.9, so how isn't a the best game ever? What a joke of a stat
As flawed as the stat is, it's hardly unreasonable to have a minimum number of plays for inclusion on the leaderboard. Rankings for just about any rate stat include some kind of minimum.
Its rated a 99.9, so how isn't a the best game ever? What a joke of a stat
As flawed as the stat is, it's hardly unreasonable to have a minimum number of plays for inclusion on the leaderboard. Rankings for just about any rate stat include some kind of minimum.
But a QB is in on every play. If the D shows an all out blitz and the QB audibles to a run, and the RB takes it 80 yards for the TD, should the QB be penalized for that?
Stats shouldn't have subjective portions to them. And if you're going to review tape so QBs don't get penalized for drops, then you have to do the opposite and penalize them for drop INTs. But again, that's partially subjective.
Michael David Smith Retweeted Nathan Jahnke
ESPN still says Charlie Batch had a 99.9 QBR but now says he didn't have enough plays to qualify for Best Game Ever
ESPN has changed its QBR "All-Time Best Games" page and no longer credits Charlie Batch as No. 1 all-time, following my criticism yesterday.
Quote:
Michael David Smith @MichaelDavSmith 3h3 hours ago
Michael David Smith Retweeted Nathan Jahnke
ESPN still says Charlie Batch had a 99.9 QBR but now says he didn't have enough plays to qualify for Best Game Ever
Quote:
Michael David Smith @MichaelDavSmith 4h4 hours ago
ESPN has changed its QBR "All-Time Best Games" page and no longer credits Charlie Batch as No. 1 all-time, following my criticism yesterday.
Its rated a 99.9, so how isn't a the best game ever? What a joke of a stat
With that said, this is a just another example of why you can only take stats as part of the equation and not gospel. And I'm a stats geek.
With that said, this is a just another example of why you can only take stats as part of the equation and not gospel. And I'm a stats geek.
No it's a joke, its not a stat, there is an element of art to it.
As flawed as the stat is, it's hardly unreasonable to have a minimum number of plays for inclusion on the leaderboard. Rankings for just about any rate stat include some kind of minimum.
Quote:
Its rated a 99.9, so how isn't a the best game ever? What a joke of a stat
As flawed as the stat is, it's hardly unreasonable to have a minimum number of plays for inclusion on the leaderboard. Rankings for just about any rate stat include some kind of minimum.
But a QB is in on every play. If the D shows an all out blitz and the QB audibles to a run, and the RB takes it 80 yards for the TD, should the QB be penalized for that?
Stats shouldn't have subjective portions to them. And if you're going to review tape so QBs don't get penalized for drops, then you have to do the opposite and penalize them for drop INTs. But again, that's partially subjective.