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.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

SAUTO aint never been a sucker.

I don't believe you.

[notorious]

ComoDragon

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by KC native

I don't believe you.

and again no ****s were given.

[Baby Lee]

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.

Who gives a shit about other teams.

How about we stop pretending that the Chiefs would 'rape faces' if the only thing we changed was some magical superstar QB we missed out on [Rodgers being the exception] or upgrading team deficiencies if a waste of team so long as Alex is our QB.

[Just Passin' By]

Poor Hootie. So pathetic......

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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?

I've never been a staunch proponent of WAR, but I understand why people use it. WAR has been around for a number of years and baseball in general is easier to analyze through statistics. The article you posted uses an equation made up by one guy who has an agenda.

[PizzaDoughz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Poor Hootie. So pathetic......

But he's talking about football! Doesn't matter that he's almost always wrong and admittedly said himself he's trolling

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

I've never been a staunch proponent of WAR, but I understand why people use it. WAR has been around for a number of years and baseball in general is easier to analyze through statistics. The article you posted uses an equation made up by one guy who has an agenda.

Nate Silver has an agenda?

That article actually had nothing to do with Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Well, Peyton Manning a little bit.

I used his analysis to spawn this thread.

I found the WAR measurement to be interesting.

12.6 - 13.4
8 - 16

By that metric, replacement level QB is supposed to go 1-1 in the playoffs playing instead of Tom Brady and 1-2 in the playoffs playing instead of Peyton Manning.

Kinda dispels the notion Brady has never had enough weapons...

Unless you don't agree with WAR. I follow advanced statistics, Nate Silver is a highly respected advanced statistics guy ... so it's not gospel.

Pretty sure if it said something like :

Tom Brady : 8 - 18
Peyton Manning : 12 - 12

everyone would be like "omg hahahahah omg Peyton hahahah omg so bad!"

But, instead, it painted a picture that Tom has been on better teams his whole career so now it's just a nonsense agenda.

YEP.

GOT IT.

NOT ENOUGH WEAPONS!

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by PizzaDoughz

But he's talking about football! Doesn't matter that he's almost always wrong and admittedly said himself he's trolling

Dear guy no one has ever heard of:

I said, in one post, the THREAD TITLE was a TROLL meant to GARNER ATTENTION.

At no other point in this thread, other than the knive juggling post, was a trolling anyone.

I've tried to discuss the featured article on ESPN.com's fivethirtyeight written by Nate Silver.

But, instead, the usual suspects showed up to tell me I'm pathetic, which, is pretty hypocritical considering I can post this thread once a day and get 500 responses every single time by the same 5 guys.

All I want is REAL DISCUSSION!

Tom : 12.6 - 13.4
Peyton: 8 - 16

REPLACEMENT LEVEL QB

DISCUSS!

PLEASE!

[FringeNC]

Suffers from the same problem all QB metrics do: isolating the effect of QB play. Stats like adjusted yards per attempt are great at measuring the effectiveness of a team's passing attack, which is whole lot more than QB performance.

I don't see how the idea of a replacement level QB solves the issue at all. You're simply measuring the Green Bay (or whoever) passing attack versus the average passing attack of a team with an injured QB, not Aaron Rodgers. Aaron Rodgers is a great QB, not doubt, but his coach and GM are pretty good, too. Didn't Flynn set some club records a few years ago?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Dear guy no one has ever heard of:

I said, in one post, the THREAD TITLE was a TROLL meant to GARNER ATTENTION.

At no other point in this thread, other than the knive juggling post, was a trolling anyone.

I've tried to discuss the featured article on ESPN.com's fivethirtyeight written by Nate Silver.

But, instead, the usual suspects showed up to tell me I'm pathetic, which, is pretty hypocritical considering I can post this thread once a day and get 500 responses every single time by the same 5 guys.

All I want is REAL DISCUSSION!

Tom : 12.6 - 13.4
Peyton: 8 - 16

REPLACEMENT LEVEL QB

DISCUSS!

PLEASE!

You really shouldn't be surprised that if you cover yourself with shit, people will tell you smell, Hootie. That doesn't make it a good thing.

[LoneWolf]

Hootie, when posters say that Brady hasn't had the same caliber of weapons as Manning, they are talking about offensive weapons. If you want to include their defenses, fine, but you are arguing with yourself when you choose to do that. Nobody in their right mind is saying Manning has had the same type of defenses on his teams that Brady has.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Hootie, when posters say that Brady hasn't had the same caliber of weapons as Manning, they are talking about offensive weapons. If you want to include their defenses, fine, but you are arguing with yourself when you choose to do that. Nobody in their right mind is saying Manning has had the same type of defenses on his teams that Brady has.

Weapons are weapons, bro. Tom has had better teams in more postseason games than Peyton, and it clearly isn't close

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Donger

You really shouldn't be surprised that if you cover yourself with shit, people will tell you smell, Hootie. That doesn't make it a good thing.

Stop trolling me or I'll report you. I can't handle it.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Stop trolling me or I'll report you. I can't handle it.

I'm trying to help you.