I prefer sugar-coated fennel seeds.
But it really isn’t.
That’s my biggest problem with PFF. It’s subjective opinion masquerading as objective measurement. A person watches the game and assigns a number to how they think the player performed. What’s the difference between a 60 and a 70, let alone a 58 vs. a 61?
Don’t even get me started on having a tenths-place decimal on there
PFF is interesting. Taken over a season or a broad swath of players, it’s directionally correct. But so is the eyeball test at that level. PFF isn’t objective data, and the idea that their measurement system can distinguish between a 57.7 rating and a 53.3 rating is ludicrous.
I’m 90.5% sure you’re right, but then there is only a 10.3% chance of that.
They’re not the numbers you like. That’s fair. I can agree.
But they are another set of information one can use to help determine an outcome.
They’re like evidence in a courtroom tv show. Some will get thrown out based on hearsay. Some will be staunchly argued that they must stay and be used for the closing argument.
I don’t believe the graders use the 1-100 metric. They grade every play from -2.0 to +2.0.
Those numbers then get transposed onto sea scrolls that lie in caves, eventually discovered by archeologists, translated into various languages making their way to the internet for the true believers, non believers or skeptics
That is correct. Their grades are based solely on what the person did to contribute to any given play.
0 means they did their job.
+2 means they had a positive impact
-2 means they had a negative impact.
Everything is subjective.
They hire a guy. Give him some quick training. Hand him a book and tell him to grade the game.
There’s not…but there is consistency with the marketing!