By the way, it really makes no sense to have this formula BY ITSELF. You can just look at the points each QB scored last season. I understand you're trying to predict how a particular QB will do against a particular defense, hence this doesn't really have any meaning and we can't comment on it outside of the context of the full formula (including the "secondary formula").

If this formula is anything close to the defensive one then we should be in good shape.
It will be a nice tool to use when comparing of facets of which QB to start during the season.

For defenses you could take say 15 guys and have them rank the secondaries from 1 to 32, much like our player rankings. Unless you think of another nifty formula for that as well

chaindog35 wrote:I understand what they're saying Plindsey, they're just saying that alot of Qbs throw both alot of tds and alot of INTs and are good fantasy qbs despite the turnovers they make.

Which is why I squared the number of TD's, rather than going with a straight up ratio.... So that QB's who throw a lot of both are still rewarded for their TD numbers, and not penalized so much for their interceptions....

I like the formula. In a good game, a QB might throw one INT... which if any of you math wizards can figure out, dividing something by one stays the same...

In a game where someone throws 3 or 4 INTs, where it really counts on Plindsey's scale, chances are they aren't passing for 300 yards and 3 TDs. Therefore... the scale works.

Nice work as always.

Collins has had what would be considered awful games by NFL standards,but would be pretty good fantasy wise.He often throws for 275-300 and multiple TD's,but then throws 3-4 picks in the game.Especially in a league that doesn't penalize,or penalize to much for INT's,that would be a fantastic fantasy day.You kind of have to tweak the scale to fit your particular scoring I think.

Nilmerf wrote:Just so you know, if a QB throws zero interceptions.. the formula blows up.

maybe if the QB throws no INT's, that section of the formula is listed as "1", so then it has no negative impact.

Still.. quarterback is the kind of position you can set by judgement just as well, probably better, than using an imperfect formula. Most guys will just use the same quarterback for every game except the bye anyways.

I agree with Nilmerf. The defensive rankings are great and very helpful, but this "ranking" wouldn't be. Not to mention, if you're set on having one, it doesn't need to be this complicated. Just utilize QB points per game (for a given scoring system) and defensive "points allowed per game to QBs" and you'll have a far simpler formula that's far more accurate than what you're suggesting. You could take the ratio of the difference between each of those values and the corresponding average value and you'd end up with a vastly superior ranking. The people piling on saying how amazing this is are the ones who don't understand the math well enough to know what it really means.[/i]