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.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

But neither of them have been great by any standard.

Holy shit, I am going to faint.


Hootie just said Manning hasn't been great. This is progress, people.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

so, in an imaginary world....


in the real world, Brady trumps Manning in every category

end of story

so when a replacement level is supposed to go 13-13 on Brady's teams ...

you're surprised that he's won most of those games?

Must be nice to only need a replacement level guy to go 13 - 13.

Sure Manning would have won more games if his replacement level wasn't 8 - 16.

[MagicHef]

You're looking at the first chart, where the second one, down the page, is where he runs the numbers with a replacement-level QB, which is what the text you quoted is talking about.

In this chart, Brady ranks 6th, behind Eli, Montana, Warner, Flacco, and Elway.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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...

how is some guy's mathematical analysis "PROOF" of anything that would/could happen in a football game?

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

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


seriously?

Nope. Please quote where I said this.

It's an article featured on ESPN.

I found it interesting that Brady, a guy who has never had any weapons, has a team that is projected to be 13-13 in the games he's started in the playoffs with a replacement level QB.

Do you not agree with WAR in baseball? It's pretty much the hottest stat in baseball.

It's called wins above replacement.

Are you saying football can't have WAR?

Oh, ok.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

You're looking at the first chart, where the second one, down the page, is where he runs the numbers with a replacement-level QB, which is what the text you quoted is talking about.

In this chart, Brady ranks 6th, behind Eli, Montana, Warner, Flacco, and Elway.

so are you saying hootie read the wrong mathematical analysis "proof"?

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by PizzaDoughz

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

I think we all need to line up and take turns slapping him back to reality like in Airplane.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

You're looking at the first chart, where the second one, down the page, is where he runs the numbers with a replacement-level QB, which is what the text you quoted is talking about.

In this chart, Brady ranks 6th, behind Eli, Montana, Warner, Flacco, and Elway.

Yeah, I know. The thread title was for trolling purposes only.

So far, it has worked.

[PizzaDoughz]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

how is some guy's mathematical analysis "PROOF" of anything that would/could happen in a football game?

It's proof as long as it fits Hootie's agenda apparently

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Nope. Please quote where I said this.

It's an article featured on ESPN.

I found it interesting that Brady, a guy who has never had any weapons, has a team that is projected to be 13-13 in the games he's started in the playoffs with a replacement level QB.

Do you not agree with WAR in baseball? It's pretty much the hottest stat in baseball.

It's called wins above replacement.

Are you saying football can't have WAR?

Oh, ok.

you said it was "PROOF", do you neeed me to quote that post again



what does steamer say?

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

so are you saying hootie read the wrong mathematical analysis "proof"?

I think the only thing he got wrong is the thread title, it should say 6th, not 43rd.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Yeah, I know. The thread title was for trolling purposes only.

So far, it has worked.

Can you provide one reason why you shouldn't receive a time out for this? You do remember that you allowed back on a short leash, yes?

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

so are you saying hootie read the wrong mathematical analysis "proof"?

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.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Donger

Can you provide one reason why you shouldn't receive a time out for this? You do remember that you allowed back on a short leash, yes?

I was never allowed back on a short leash and I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to talk about football on this board.

You suck a lot of dick, and it grosses me out.

[notorious]

I see that Flacco is #3.