Keyplay1
08-31-2011, 02:44 PM
I know--I Know. You're thinking. No, not another one of those things.
Believe me. I am with you 100%. I absolutely do not ever read or even look at stuff like that and I do think something about this was posted here a while ago and I did not open the thread.
But this is what happened. I was going to search for some info about a player I was considering adding to my final 53 roster and I accidently clicked open a site one above or below and opened the " Cold Hard Facts" site. Ehh! I go there once in a while so I took a look at the menu and the following caught my eye.
THERE WAS A HEADLINE ABOUT QB RANKINGS OR SOMETHING and this was under it--
"According to ESPN’s QBR, in 2008, both Orlovsky (51.1 QBR) and Thigpen (50.8 QBR) contributed more to winning NFL games than Super Bowl hero Roethlisberger (46.4 QBR)." The following is the beginning of the article.
Imagine you’re a life-long Steelers fan sitting nervously on the edge of your seat during Super Bowl XLIII. Ben Roethlisberger takes the field at his own 22 yard line with just 2:30 left in a desperate effort to erase a 3-point Arizona lead.
Now imagine your buddy sitting next to you turns to say, “You know, I’d feel a lot better about Pittsburgh’s chances if Dan Orlovsky or Tyler Thigpen was calling signals because both have a better QBR than Big Ben.”
You would have looked at him and said, “You have picked a spectacularly bad time to go completely *@%!! nuts! … And what in the wide, wide world of sports is QBR?!”
QBR is an acronym for “Total Quarterback Rating,” the very first made-for-TV sports “statistic” brought to you by [Insert Sponsor’s Name Here] and to be televised and discussed wall-to-wall on ESPN.
“The goal behind any player rating should be determining how much a player contributes to a win,” wrote QBR’s Dr. Frankenstein, ESPN Director of Analytics Dean Oliver. QBR “is a statistical measure that incorporates the contexts and details of [a quarterback’s] throws and what they mean for wins,” Oliver added.
Really?
Well, in 2008 Orlovsky QBRed the Lions to 10 losses in 10 games as Detroit became the first team in history to finish 0-16. Thigpen was only a little better, QBRing the Chiefs to only one win in the 14 games in which he participated.
Roethlisberger QBRed Pittsburgh to 12 regular-season wins, two more wins over San Diego and Baltimore in the AFC playoffs, and concluded the season with a majestic two-minute, 78-yard, fourth-quarter scoring drive capped by a perfect TD toss to secure a Super Bowl win over the Cardinals. Cold, Hard Football Facts named that effort the third-best drive in Super Bowl history.
But according to ESPN’s QBR, in 2008, both Orlovsky (51.1 QBR) and Thigpen (50.8 QBR) contributed more to winning NFL games than Super Bowl hero Roethlisberger (46.4 QBR).
Does anyone outside the film screening rooms of ESPN really believe Pittsburgh would have won that Super Bowl with Orlovsky or Thigpen under center? Made the playoffs? Finished .500?
This was so freaking nuts I thought it would be worth looking at. This was just the beginning of the article and all that concerned Pittsburgh. The rest of the quite long article tried to explain the "metrics" of this crap. I do not want to insult my fellow board members by posting a link to this story but this part was so hilarious and absurd I did read it.
We got any head shrinkers on this board to try and explain some of these things. :Cheers :Cheers
Believe me. I am with you 100%. I absolutely do not ever read or even look at stuff like that and I do think something about this was posted here a while ago and I did not open the thread.
But this is what happened. I was going to search for some info about a player I was considering adding to my final 53 roster and I accidently clicked open a site one above or below and opened the " Cold Hard Facts" site. Ehh! I go there once in a while so I took a look at the menu and the following caught my eye.
THERE WAS A HEADLINE ABOUT QB RANKINGS OR SOMETHING and this was under it--
"According to ESPN’s QBR, in 2008, both Orlovsky (51.1 QBR) and Thigpen (50.8 QBR) contributed more to winning NFL games than Super Bowl hero Roethlisberger (46.4 QBR)." The following is the beginning of the article.
Imagine you’re a life-long Steelers fan sitting nervously on the edge of your seat during Super Bowl XLIII. Ben Roethlisberger takes the field at his own 22 yard line with just 2:30 left in a desperate effort to erase a 3-point Arizona lead.
Now imagine your buddy sitting next to you turns to say, “You know, I’d feel a lot better about Pittsburgh’s chances if Dan Orlovsky or Tyler Thigpen was calling signals because both have a better QBR than Big Ben.”
You would have looked at him and said, “You have picked a spectacularly bad time to go completely *@%!! nuts! … And what in the wide, wide world of sports is QBR?!”
QBR is an acronym for “Total Quarterback Rating,” the very first made-for-TV sports “statistic” brought to you by [Insert Sponsor’s Name Here] and to be televised and discussed wall-to-wall on ESPN.
“The goal behind any player rating should be determining how much a player contributes to a win,” wrote QBR’s Dr. Frankenstein, ESPN Director of Analytics Dean Oliver. QBR “is a statistical measure that incorporates the contexts and details of [a quarterback’s] throws and what they mean for wins,” Oliver added.
Really?
Well, in 2008 Orlovsky QBRed the Lions to 10 losses in 10 games as Detroit became the first team in history to finish 0-16. Thigpen was only a little better, QBRing the Chiefs to only one win in the 14 games in which he participated.
Roethlisberger QBRed Pittsburgh to 12 regular-season wins, two more wins over San Diego and Baltimore in the AFC playoffs, and concluded the season with a majestic two-minute, 78-yard, fourth-quarter scoring drive capped by a perfect TD toss to secure a Super Bowl win over the Cardinals. Cold, Hard Football Facts named that effort the third-best drive in Super Bowl history.
But according to ESPN’s QBR, in 2008, both Orlovsky (51.1 QBR) and Thigpen (50.8 QBR) contributed more to winning NFL games than Super Bowl hero Roethlisberger (46.4 QBR).
Does anyone outside the film screening rooms of ESPN really believe Pittsburgh would have won that Super Bowl with Orlovsky or Thigpen under center? Made the playoffs? Finished .500?
This was so freaking nuts I thought it would be worth looking at. This was just the beginning of the article and all that concerned Pittsburgh. The rest of the quite long article tried to explain the "metrics" of this crap. I do not want to insult my fellow board members by posting a link to this story but this part was so hilarious and absurd I did read it.
We got any head shrinkers on this board to try and explain some of these things. :Cheers :Cheers