538 Calls Tom Brady the 43rd Clutchest Postseason QB

[Hootie]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...s-eli-manning/

I found the following interesting:

Here’s the problem: This way of thinking about quarterbacks forces them to compete against themselves. Sure, the Patriots have often been favored to win their postseason games. But a lot of that is because Brady is their quarterback. How might the Pats have expected to do with a replacement-level QB instead?

They might not have been totally hopeless. Brady has usually had a little bit more talent surrounding him than Peyton Manning has. (Matt Cassel, who rates as somewhere between average and replacement-level, led New England to an 11-5 record when Brady was hurt in 2008.) Bill Belichick would probably have snuck them into the playoffs a few times. But they’d also have been playing good opponents. Our method projects them to a 12-14 or 13-13 postseason record rather than Brady’s 18-8.

I calculate these estimates based on a quarterback’s adjusted net yards per attempt (ANY/A), a metric that accounts for yardage, attempts, touchdowns, interceptions and sacks — basically it’s a better version of the NFL’s passer rating. A replacement-level quarterback typically posts an ANY/A at about 80 percent of the league average, so a QB gets credit for any performance above and beyond that.1 I then translate this into points added or subtracted in the regular season2 and translate points into a team’s Elo rating to evaluate the impact the QB had on his team overall.3

It’s notoriously difficult, of course, to distinguish the performance of a quarterback from that of his teammates, but this method produces some reasonable-seeming results. This year’s Green Bay Packers project as a slightly below-average team with a replacement-level guy subbed in for Aaron Rodgers , for instance. Instead of having been 59 percent favorites in their Sunday game against the Cowboys, as they were based on Elo ratings, they’d have been roughly 2-to-1 underdogs.

The principle is simply that the better the quarterback, the more his team would be harmed by removing him. In the case of Peyton Manning’s teams, I estimate that pulling Manning would hurt them by about a touchdown (7 points) per game. That’s enough to demote them to a projected 8-16 record in the 24 postseason games Manning has played.

This article projects that, with a replacement level QB, The Patriots postseason record would have been 12-14 or 13-13 without Tom Brady (they are taking out the Bledsoe game).

It projects that Manning's teams would have been 8-16 without Peyton Manning.

Pretty much has always been my point. Manning has a history of not playing like God in the playoffs, but he has always had a hell of a lot more on his shoulders than Tom Brady. And the whole idea of the "Tom doesn't have enough weapons!!!" is criminally stupid.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You called on a site (ESPN) that came up with the abomination known as QBR in support of Silver's formula.

It's doesn't get much stupider than that.

Oh it does.

Care to guess?

Ok I'll spoil it!

COLDHARDFOOTBALLFACTS.COM

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Oh it does.

Care to guess?

Ok I'll spoil it!

COLDHARDFOOTBALLFACTS.COM

And, once again, Hootie gotta Hootie.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

The issue with that is that you're comparing the QB to himself, essentially. If QB A and QB B play identically in the postseason, but QB A played better in the regular season, using that method would show that QB B was better in the postseason, when in reality, they played the same.

His second analysis shows those QBs against a replacement, rather than against their regular season selves. That's where the 18-8 vs 13-13 and 11-13 vs 8-16 comes from.

and This.

and I never once said that the article in question proves that Manning is better than Brady in the postseason. People are grasping at straws on that one.

THE POINT OF THE THREAD IS TO SHOW WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS:

BRADY ISN'T REALLY THAT CLUTCH. HE'S GOOD. BUT CLUTCH ISN'T THE WAY TO DESCRIBE HIM.

AND BRADY HAS HAD MORE WEAPONS ON HIS TEAM THAN ANYONE IN NFL HISTORY.

My God, A REPLACEMENT LEVEL QB, statistically would've played .500 football in the 26 postseason games Brady started ACCORDING to Nate Silver's advanced statistics.

No, this isn't proof that Matt Cassel would've gone 13-13 in the postseason in those 26 games. It's just advanced statistics. So brush them off, I don't care.

Pretty sure if these same statistics said Brady's teams would've been 8 - 18 and Manning's 12 - 12 everyone would've 'D AND 'D all over the place.

No double standard, at all!

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Oh it does.

Care to guess?

Ok I'll spoil it!

COLDHARDFOOTBALLFACTS.COM

Ad hominem. Attack the numbers, not the source. You're wasting time with this.

I'm not attacking Silver, or 538. I'm attacking the methodology which I think is sketchy at best. Basically, it's ok for discussion I guess, but I can't really feel any confidence at all in the numbers. Just too many variables. Waaaay too many variables.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

And, once again, Hootie gotta Hootie.

You've brought brilliant analysis to this thread.

So, the advanced statistics say a replacement level QB would've gone 13-13 in Brady started (and finished) playoff games and the same replacement level QB would've gone 8-16 in Manning started (and finished) playoff games.

And you're rebuttal is ...

"Uh Nate Silver is dumb. Hootie gotta Hootie."

Brilliant.

Tom Brady has had better postseason teams than Peyton Manning. That is the premise of the argument. Tell me why this isn't true?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

AND BRADY HAS HAD MORE WEAPONS ON HIS TEAM THAN ANYONE IN NFL HISTORY.

You've gone full Hootie on this. You seriously want to argue that any of his teams (excluding Brady) were the MOST talented teams in NFL history?

You're frothing at the mouth, and getting stupider. You need to stop.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Ad hominem. Attack the numbers, not the source. You're wasting time with this.

I'm not attacking Silver, or 538. I'm attacking the methodology which I think is sketchy at best. Basically, it's ok for discussion I guess, but I can't really feel any confidence at all in the numbers. Just too many variables. Waaaay too many variables.

unless he concluded that the replacement QB for the Pats would've gone 8-18 and for Manning 12-12 ...

and then you would've just said, "omg see!"

Kind of like that website you flaunt around coldhardfootballfacts.com.

Hypocrites.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

You've brought brilliant analysis to this thread.

So, the advanced statistics say a replacement level QB would've gone 13-13 in Brady started (and finished) playoff games and the same replacement level QB would've gone 8-16 in Manning started (and finished) playoff games.

And you're rebuttal is ...

"Uh Nate Silver is dumb. Hootie gotta Hootie."

Brilliant.

Tom Brady has had better postseason teams than Peyton Manning. That is the premise of the argument. Tell me why this isn't true?

You brought up a site with one lousy formula to defend another site with a lousy formula. When I pointed out the stupidity of that maneuver, your response was to bring up a third site that I hadn't mentioned in the thread.

You're an idiot.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

You've gone full Hootie on this. You seriously want to argue that any of his teams (excluding Brady) were the MOST talented teams in NFL history?

You're frothing at the mouth, and getting stupider. You need to stop.

That's not at all what I'm arguing.

It's quite simple.

A replacement level QB + 52 Patriots in 26 postseason games (they excluded the Bledsoe game) would have won 12.6 games and lost 13.4 games.

A replacement level QB + 52 Colts or 52 Broncos in 24 postseason games would have won 8 games and lost 16.

In conclusion, Tom Brady CLEARLY played on better teams than Peyton Manning where CLEARLY he didn't have to shoulder as much of the load to ensure a playoff victory.

"Well, I sucked pretty bad today, but our defense saved us," Brady said after throwing for 239 yards, with two interceptions and, for the first time in 36 games, no TD passes. "I'm going to try to go out and do a better job in a couple of weeks, but I'm proud of this team, my teammates."

That's Tom Brady after winning the AFC Championship Game against Baltimore in the Lee Evans / Billy Cundiff game.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Tom Brady has had better postseason teams than Peyton Manning. That is the premise of the argument. Tell me why this isn't true?

So, first, you can post whatever you like, but others can create new arguments. The new argument I am introducing is that the same numbers YOU cite say Manning has UNDERperformed expected wins in the playoffs, while Brady has OUTperformed expected wins.

You havent' responded, presumably because you can't.


As to your question, I think some of Brady's teams have been better than anything Manning had. Specifically, 2004 and 2007. OTOH, I think some years Manning had better teams than, for example, the 2001 SB winning Patriots. That team's roster was a joke.

But bottom line -- like the article YOU cite says, my eyes have told me that Brady gets as much or MORE out of every team than can reasonably be had (exception of 2007 SB, when the Giants DLine dominating the offense), while Manning, well, doesn't.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You brought up a site with one lousy formula to defend another site with a lousy formula. When I pointed out the stupidity of that maneuver, your response was to bring up a third site that I hadn't mentioned in the thread.

You're an idiot.

A replacement level QB + 52 Patriots in 26 postseason games (they excluded the Bledsoe game) would have won 12.6 games and lost 13.4 games.

A replacement level QB + 52 Colts or 52 Broncos in 24 postseason games would have won 8 games and lost 16.

Now, instead of attacking me, explain to me what this means in your honest opinion.

Go.

(To me, it means that Tom Brady has benefited from having better all-around teams. Better all-around teams usually win more playoff games. The end)

Your turn.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Now, instead of attacking me, explain to me what this means in your honest opinion.

Go.

(To me, it means that Tom Brady has benefited from having better all-around teams. Better all-around teams usually win more playoff games. The end)

Your turn.

It means that someone put together yet another lousy formula, and you're clutching desperately at the flimsiest of straws.

[Hootie]

the 2001 SB Patriots?



You really want to go there?

Tuck rule. Drew Bledsoe.

LMFAO

Besides, I thought Manning was terrible until 2003.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

It means that someone put together yet another lousy formula, and you're clutching desperately at the flimsiest of straws.

lousy formula

riiiiiight

coldhardfootballfacts.com

!!!!

[Hootie]

A replacement level QB + 52 Patriots in 26 postseason games (they excluded the Bledsoe game) would have won 12.6 games and lost 13.4 games.

A replacement level QB + 52 Colts or 52 Broncos in 24 postseason games would have won 8 games and lost 16.