All I know that a passer rating in the low 60’s is pretty bad, and one in the upper 150’s is downright phenomenal. Everything else, such as how the number is calculated, etc., has so far eluded me.
Any help, please?
The NFL explains here: http://www.nfl.com/news/981202qbrate.html
Or you can just plug in the numbers: http://www.primecomputing.com/
You and I must be talking about different things. That explanation on the NFL page made it look like a rating of 2.0+ is Hall-of-Fame worthy, yet Kurt Warner, in a bad season, scored 67.4.
Oh, never mind. I missed a step. Please ignore what I just said.
Wiki looks to be about the best reference source for this question.
The most important distinction to remember is that it’s an efficiency rating, meaning rates are more valued than sum totals. In most cases this accurately highlights a superior performance, but it doesn’t always capture the full picture. The Wiki article does a good job of summarizing the pros and cons.
That link was correct, just a reasonably poor description. Read the last paragraph carefully and you’ll see that it indeed describes the correct system showing the expected results. The Wiki article is still far superior in detail and clarity.