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.

[Donger]

Because this needed a second thread?

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Bro.

This isn't about that.

It's only benching Tom and Peyton for the playoff games they played in ... they are 26 1 game samples and 24 1 game samples. That's it.

again, prove it


or shut the **** up

[LoneWolf]

So the moron who wrote this article predicts Brady's teams would have lost 6-7 more playoff games without Brady and predicts Manning's teams would have lost 3 more games without Manning, and you are using this article as some sort of validation to your Manning > Brady argument?

Hootie gonna Hootie.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Donger

Because this needed a second thread?

it didnt need a second post, let alone thread

[Prison Bitch]

The "Hootie Double-Down"

Always great for a cheap laugh

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

JFC you and prison bitch...

prove those replacement player win/loss numbers.

I don't have to prove anything.

538 (owned by ESPN) has a guy who is paid to research these things and provide mathematical analysis of what he finds.

I linked the article, stop trying to accuse me of pulling things from thin air.

According to his research, Matt Cassel would have gone 12-14 or 13-13 in playoff games started by Tom Brady.

Matt Cassel would have gone 8-16 in games started by Peyton Manning.

Now, if you want to dig deeper, this still doesn't suggest Peyton > Tom in the postseason.

Since Tom is 18-8 (they threw out the Bledsoe game) and Peyton is 11-13.

So Tom has still been 5 games better than replacement to Peyton's 3.

The point it really makes is ...

TOM BRADY HAS ALWAYS HAD BETTER TEAMS SO STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN "TOM HAS NO WEAPONS" TRIPE.

[PizzaDoughz]

Hootie's still going at it I see

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

So the moron who wrote this article predicts Brady's teams would have lost 6-7 more playoff games without Brady and predicts Manning's teams would have list 3 more games without Manning, and you are using this article as some sort of validation to your Manning > Brady argument?

Hootie gonna Hootie.

Nope.

Read my last post.

Just said the same thing.

Tom has been 1.2 wins better than his ELO predictions and Peyton has been 2.2 wins worse than his.

This is more or less proof that debunks the idea that Tom Brady doesn't have any weapons.

He's had the weapon of having the best team in football for about 1.5 decades now. Not to mention his head coach...

[keg in kc]

This is turning into Michael Scott on Football.

[the Talking Can]

so, in an imaginary world....


in the real world, Brady trumps Manning in every category

end of story

[Easy 6]

This obsession has gone too far, turn off the laptop and step outside for some fresh air and sunshine.

[Hootie]

Haha.

I'm going at it by posting an article that states what I've been stating for years with statistical proof.

Tom has been OK in the postseason. Not great. Not clutch. He's been pretty good. According to this article, even a little bit better than Manning.

But neither of them have been great by any standard.

[KCUnited]

Approaching blackbob levels.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

I don't have to prove anything.

538 (owned by ESPN) has a guy who is paid to research these things and provide mathematical analysis of what he finds.

I linked the article, stop trying to accuse me of pulling things from thin air.

According to his research, Matt Cassel would have gone 12-14 or 13-13 in playoff games started by Tom Brady.

Matt Cassel would have gone 8-16 in games started by Peyton Manning.

Now, if you want to dig deeper, this still doesn't suggest Peyton > Tom in the postseason.

Since Tom is 18-8 (they threw out the Bledsoe game) and Peyton is 11-13.

So Tom has still been 5 games better than replacement to Peyton's 3.

The point it really makes is ...

TOM BRADY HAS ALWAYS HAD BETTER TEAMS SO STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN "TOM HAS NO WEAPONS" TRIPE.

so some guys mathematical analysis says it so it HAS to be right?


seriously?

[PizzaDoughz]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

This obsession has gone too far, turn off the laptop and step outside for some fresh air and sunshine.

I don't think he's going to stop anytime soon.