I'm not going to be make any claims that he is better, but I am perfectly fine with the production ISU has gotten out of Kempt.
My Pledge—No More Trolling
- Thread starter YeahBuddy
- Start date
The metrics say you are the delusional one...
http://www.espn.com/ncf/qbr/_/page/1 (Kempt @ 27; 72.1qbr)
http://www.espn.com/ncf/qbr/_/page/2 (Stanley @ 67; 55.9qbr)
I get that ISU is more of the math/science school, but you guys aren't displaying 3rd grade math skills.
And those numbers don't include Stanley's 7 fumbles. Think how big of difference it would be if they included that!
You realize statistically TJ Hockenson was much better than Chase Allen, right? You realize statistically, Matt Nelson was just as good as Matt Leo, right? Are you prepared to say that statistics are the only thing that matters in evaluating a player, and ready to accept the consequences that come with a statement like that?
How else do you judge a QB? Comparing a QB to a defensive player is pretty smart on your part though lol
Well in the case of a QB, the QBR is what the experts use. 72.9 to 55.9 is what a statistician would term "statistically significant."
You don't hear of TER or DLR very often, do you?
You’re obviously not very bright. I compared a defensive player to another defensive player, not to a QB.
I have never seen or heard of an “expert” using QBR. I don’t think any football analyst that is into advanced metrics has ever advocated for that stat; in fact, most of them think it is garbage. The only people who use QBR are TV announcers, radio shock jocks, etc.
So if you can't use stats to judge a QB what can you use? Eye test certainly favors Kempt based on how wildly inaccurate Stanley is throwing the ball
It’s using the Aaron white measurements, when he mentioned how they kept losing to teams but were better than them. So scoreboard and stats have no value.
Kempt and Stanley were within 2% of each other in adjusted completion percentage (74.4 vs. 72.8). If Stanley was wildly inaccurate, Kempt wasn’t much better.
I believe that is actually the Monte Morris measurements system.
Lol we can't use QBR to determine who's better but you're using adjusted completion percentage?!?
I would say that Stanley has more potential but I think they each had their good and bad moments last year. Couldn't say who was better last year as it is hard to say. Kempt certainly had better receivers. Both led their teams to some big wins.
What were Kempt's bad moments last year? He didn't turn the ball over and completed a high percentage of passes