>>150070706
Did you know that within passer rating you can reconstruct league averages in the 1960s?
Look at pic rel. This was set such that if you set any of those a,b,c,d equal to 1, that will equal 1960s league average (~). So for example, if we let c = 1
1 = (TD/AT) * 20 ---> 1/20 = (TD/ATT) ---> 5% TD%. You can do the same for all of them and you get the following 1960 averages:
CMP% ~ 50%
Y/A ~ 7.0
TD% ~ 5%
INT% ~ 5.5%
By the way, every single value here, the ceiling of 2.375, or the floor of 0 is completely arbitrary. There is no reason why it should have those weights, no statistically or mathematically principled reason.
Let me show you some absurd scenario
Suppose QB A has the following stat line in the middle of a game:
19/28, 195 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT — passer rating: ~96.58
If his next pass .is an incompletion, his updated stat line becomes:
19/29, 195 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT — passer rating: 93.32
But if instead he completes a pass for -14 yards, his new stat line is:
20/29, 181 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT — passer rating: 94.18
In other words, passer rating rewards completing a pass for significant negative yardage more than it does simply throwing an incompletion.
Passer rating in general hugely overvalues completions, and overvalues INTs.
>>150070767
No, blacks have been good at boxing from the start. Same with basketball. In boxing you had Henry Armstrong, Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Leonard, in the early to mid 20th century as the most notable boxers.