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.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by RobBlake

I agree. Let us also take into consideration of longevity.. brady still looks like he can go another 3-4 years

Yeah. It's interesting, actually. Manning is only about 18 months older than Brady, but because he came into the league younger and started earlier, he has played WAAY more games. 256 to Brady's 209. That 47 game difference is just one shy of three full years.

It will be interesting to see how much longer both of them play. If the second half of the season si where Manning is now, physically, then he ought to retire. Brady, meanwhile, doesn't look all that bad for his advanced years. There was a LONG article on his unusual workout routine designed in part to extend his career.

Fitness nuts might find it interesting.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/12/10/tom...ts-age-fitness

[Baby Lee]

This whole discussion is missing a heaping bowl of regular season to playoff falloff.

Manning has plenty of record breaking seasons followed by squaddush.

Brady has plenty of pitched regular season battles followed by nutting up to the SB.

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

I responded, but only once, so I understand if you didn't see it.

[lcarus]

They're 2 all-time great QBs. You guys are just splitting hairs really.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Donger

Because this needed a second thread?

Second? Shit I wish it was just the second. He's going Bobtard stupid and shitting on every thread.

[jspchief]

Here's the thing Hootie; clutch is a SUBJECTIVE term based on OPINION. It's a team game. These are performances spread over various years, against uncommon opponents, with varying teammates, varying weather conditions, varying officiating crews, etc etc.

There aren't going to be stats that prove or disprove this. People may use stats to try and support their argument, but they will never be definitive.

At the end of the day, you hold an opinion that very few people agree with. It's such an uncommon opinion, you're very unlikely to change anyone's opinion. So it's time to let it go.

[Hootie]

Sanchez isn't really ranked #9 on the list we're referencing that Brady is #6 on, for the record.

He's #9 on the Brady is #43 list.

[Hootie]

So ...


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.

Anyone wanna tell me Brady doesn't have enough weapons? I'm still waiting for someone to explain this one to me.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

So ...


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.

Anyone wanna tell me Brady doesn't have enough weapons? I'm still waiting for someone to explain this one to me.

If you don't buy the formula, the reported results are meaningless. That should have been easy enough for you to figure out. Even Silver understood that, and tweaked things.

Silver on that very list:

But this is a somewhat ridiculous list. The top five consists of one great quarterback, Joe Montana, along with two pretty good ones (Eli Manning and Flacco). It also has Trent Dilfer and Jeff Hostetler. Meanwhile, Brady ranks just 43rd by this measure.

I love that you're ignoring the whole

We can rerun the numbers for all 180 playoff quarterbacks, comparing each QB’s actual record against the simulated one achieved by replacement-level QBs against the same schedule. By this measure, Peyton Manning moves up to 28th on the postseason list; there’s only about a 10 percent chance that a replacement-level QB could have equalled or bettered his 11-13 record.

"Brady at 6, Manning way down at 28" part, though.

Hootie gotta Hootie.

[Hootie]

I haven't talked about the 'somewhat ridiculous list' one time.

I've talked about the 12.6 - 13.4 and the 8 - 16

Premise: Tom Brady has QB'd better teams than Peyton Manning. Thus, it's not strange he has more playoff wins than Peyton Manning.

The end.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

I haven't talked about the 'somewhat ridiculous list' one time.

I've talked about the 12.6 - 13.4 and the 8 - 16

Premise: Tom Brady has QB'd better teams than Peyton Manning. Thus, it's not strange he has more playoff wins than Peyton Manning.

The end.

Reality: You used the "43rd clutchest postseason QB" as your title, and that's from that list,

Also reality: Even the cherry picked site you chose has Brady (#6) as better than Manning (#28), when adjusting for exactly what you're talking about.

In other words, dumbass, even if we were to buy into the formula, Brady > Manning.

And, in regards to the quality of said formulations, even with the tweaks, Silver still has Trent Dilfer in at #7.

But....

Hootie gotta .... well, you know.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

So ...


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.

Anyone wanna tell me Brady doesn't have enough weapons? I'm still waiting for someone to explain this one to me.

Brady has had plenty of weapons for most of his time. There have been years (like last year) where the cupboard is pretty bare.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

I haven't talked about the 'somewhat ridiculous list' one time.

I've talked about the 12.6 - 13.4 and the 8 - 16

Premise: Tom Brady has QB'd better teams than Peyton Manning. Thus, it's not strange he has more playoff wins than Peyton Manning.

The end.

Don't everyone hydroplane on hootie's rainslick of analysis.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Here's the thing Hootie; clutch is a SUBJECTIVE term based on OPINION. It's a team game. These are performances spread over various years, against uncommon opponents, with varying teammates, varying weather conditions, varying officiating crews, etc etc.

There aren't going to be stats that prove or disprove this. People may use stats to try and support their argument, but they will never be definitive.

At the end of the day, you hold an opinion that very few people agree with. It's such an uncommon opinion, you're very unlikely to change anyone's opinion. So it's time to let it go.

.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Don't everyone hydroplane on hootie's rainslick of analysis.

It's as if he wants to see just how stupid he can make himself look.