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.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by KC native

Are you serious?

Yes

Would you like to make a Sig bet on it?

Loser wears a Sig created by the winner until draft day

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Sorry but any poll where eli manning is #1 and tom Brady is #43 and there's a bunch of lesser players in between is utter garbage.

gotta actually read the article, bro

he refines everything and Brady ends up at #6

the point of the thread was to discuss the idea that Brady never has had enough weapons, yet:

with a replacement level QB playing his postseason games, the expected record would have been 12.6 - 13.4 (because his teams were always so good)

whereas Peyton in the same scenario would have had teams that went 8 - 16 (because he was their entire team)

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

gotta actually read the article, bro

Sorry I couldn't finish when I read the part about eli manning being #1 and something about the chess elo system (which is used for individuals and only gets really accurate AFTER about 25 games) being used for teams ...with 16 game seasons... Terrible idea

[Hootie]

Meh.

Just read an article about football and posted it on a football board. Found it interesting that Tom has always gotten an excuse for not having enough weapons, yet without Tom, his teams (according to research done by Nate Silver) would have gone 12.6 - 13.4 with a replacement level QB in postseason games started by Tom Brady (and finished).

That's it.

But no one wanted to talk about it. Fair enough!

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Meh.

Just read an article about football and posted it on a football board. Found it interesting that Tom has always gotten an excuse for not having enough weapons, yet without Tom, his teams (according to research done by Nate Silver) would have gone 12.6 - 13.4 with a replacement level QB in postseason games started by Tom Brady (and finished).

That's it.

But no one wanted to talk about it. Fair enough!

So Tom's at a +6 while Peytun is at a +3?

Sounds about right.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Meh.

Just read an article about football and posted it on a football board. Found it interesting that Tom has always gotten an excuse for not having enough weapons, yet without Tom, his teams (according to research done by Nate Silver) would have gone 12.6 - 13.4 with a replacement level QB in postseason games started by Tom Brady (and finished).

That's it.

But no one wanted to talk about it. Fair enough!

You didn't even read the entire article, I'm assuming.

1.) He starts with his own made up underlying stats/formulas (ELO ratings).

2.) After his first formulaic attempt produced "ridiculous" results by his own admission, he made up another formula and adds it into the mix.

3.) He estimates (his own words) - "In the case of Peyton Manning’s teams, I estimate that pulling Manning would hurt them by about a touchdown (7 points) per game."

4.) He offers no evidence that the Patriots teams were usually better, instead just making a blanket statement, and then pointing only to the Cassel year. "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.)". In other words, he used raw numbers, ignoring SOS and the fact that Brady took a team to something that had never been done before (16-0), and sang the praises of 11-5 under Cassel, instead of killing the drop from Manning to Painter, when Cassel's played at a far higher level than Painter (In other words, he's a better than replacement player himself, if Painter is truly replacement level).

Also, since I believe you have saying that clutch does not exist, you must have completely missed this part, where he makes it abundantly clear that he believes clutch does, indeed, exist:

This is also not to say that clutch quarterbacking doesn’t exist. As my colleague Benjamin Morris has repeatedly documented, some quarterbacks — including Peyton Manning — consistently manage the game better in clutch situations, such as during a fourth-quarter comeback drive. Indeed, clutchness is so intrinsic to quarterbacking that it’s hard to distinguish a clutch QB from a good QB.

In short, to paraphrase a great movie: You keep using that article. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Now, is your nonsense done for this thread, or are we going to see that, once again, Hootie gotta Hootie?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Yes

Would you like to make a Sig bet on it?

Loser wears a Sig created by the winner until draft day

No, Hootie's love for Peyton Manning means he literally can't shut up about it.

[ndws]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

gotta actually read the article, bro

he refines everything and Brady ends up at #6

the point of the thread was to discuss the idea that Brady never has had enough weapons, yet:

with a replacement level QB playing his postseason games, the expected record would have been 12.6 - 13.4 (because his teams were always so good)

whereas Peyton in the same scenario would have had teams that went 8 - 16 (because he was their entire team)

So basically, when you rely on a single player entirely too much in a TEAM oriented game, it doesn't turn out so well? Shocking.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I'll just leave this here.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ramming-league

[Perineum Ripper]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

I'll just leave this here.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ramming-league

He should not talk anymore

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

People often forget during the Manning/Brady debate that Tom has had on his side probably the greatest coach of all time.

It sure as hell isn't 'probably'. It's 'arguably' and I would argue against Belichick as the greatest coach of all time, I can guarantee you that.

[Baby Lee]

Boom.

EDIT: Dammit CP, your clock is a minute off.

[MTG#10]