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 JASONSAUTO

and i guarantee i can hold my liquor infinity times better than your dumb ass.

maybe, but I can juggle knives better than you and I can carry three cups in one hand so ...

score another one for the dragon!

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Yes.

According to the statistics ran by Nate Silver, a very respected member of sports media, Tom Brady's teams with a REPLACEMENT LEVEL QB would have gone 12.6 - 13.4 in his 26 completed postseason starts. Peyton Manning's with that same REPLACEMENT LEVEL QB would have gone 8 - 16.

Thus, the idea that Tom Brady doesn't have enough weapons is criminally stupid.

Thanks for playing.

It's still not "proof". Just like WAR in baseball isn't "proof". It is a prediction based on a mathematical equation.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

maybe, but I can juggle knives better than you and I can carry three cups in one hand so ...

score another one for the dragon!

i can carry three cups in one hand too, busboy

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Hahahaha.

Who the **** cares about that in a 'QB driven' league?!?!?!



Perhaps the most tired meme in all of football.

I agree.

So it's official, then.

Tom Brady has always been on better teams than Peyton Manning so we can no longer pretend that Tom only loses because he doesn't have enough weapons ... since his teams are always expected to win...and even with Matt Cassel, still expected to win half of the time in the most pressure packed games (playoff games) as proven by Nate Silver.

Whereas, without Peyton, his team would only be expected to win 1 out of every 3 times.

[Eleazar]

Flacco > Brady OR Manning.



Never go full Hootie

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Flacco > Brady OR Manning.



Never go full Hootie

Sanchez > Brady, Elway, Manning, etc.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

It's still not "proof". Just like WAR in baseball isn't "proof". It is a prediction based on a mathematical equation.

Ok, fair.

So the same people, like Prison Bitch (and me), who put a high emphasis on WAR, it's fair to say that this is a pretty revealing article and it kind of dispels a few myths about Tom Brady, correct?

Or are we just going to pretend WAR is no longer a good metric whatsoever because I brought it up and it kind of painted a picture I've been trying to paint for like 10 years now?

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Flacco > Brady OR Manning.



Never go full Hootie

According to this metric, he is more CLUTCH than Brady or Manning in the postseason.

This metric has nothing to do with who is the more talented or better QB.

Moron.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

No, not at all.

Brady's teams 12.6 - 13.4 with replacement level QB
Manning's teams 8 - 16

and if you don't want to agree with that, fine

but baseball geeks think of WAR as gospel, and none of this was math done by me

It was research done by someone who has more credentials than anyone on this board.

Any analysis that suggests Trent Dilfer, Mark Sanchez and Tony Eason are better quarterbacks than Tom Brady is the spastic rambling of a reerun.

See below for a mathematical proof that Hootie is an idiot:



Don't blame me if you don't understand it. The math proves it. Hootie is an idiot.

[TLO]

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

I agree.

So it's official, then.

Tom Brady has always been on better teams than Peyton Manning so we can no longer pretend that Tom only loses because he doesn't have enough weapons ... since his teams are always expected to win...and even with Matt Cassel, still expected to win half of the time in the most pressure packed games (playoff games) as proven by Nate Silver.

Whereas, without Peyton, his team would only be expected to win 1 out of every 3 times.

here you go again saying this article actually PROVES something.


cue the "i never said that" post

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by notorious

Sanchez > Brady, Elway, Manning, etc.

Not a big enough sample size, but he does have postseason wins against Brady and Manning in games the Jets were heavy underdogs in so of course it's going to skew the numbers.

But no, Sanchez isn't even on the list.

Tom is 6th; Peyton is 28th; Rodgers is 20th; Luck is 30th

learn to read

(I stated Tom as 43rd as an eye opener on your Sanchez list. Everyone knows that)

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

(I stated Tom as 43rd as an eye opener on your Sanchez list. Everyone knows that)

You make threads like this to get attention. Everyone knows that.

[Hootie]

LET ME JUST REPHRASE THIS, MORONS

THE WAR AT THE QB LEVEL IN POSTSEASON GAMES FOR BRADY AND MANNING:

BRADY 12.6-13.4
MANNING 8-16

DISCUSS.

(Or ignore it)

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

maybe, but I can juggle knives better than you and I can carry three cups in one hand so ...

score another one for the dragon!