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.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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

I agree, but nobody calls a teams defense a weapon when talking about a quarterback's play.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm trying to help you.

Oh. Nice! Thanks so much man. I really appreciate it.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Oh. Nice! Thanks so much man. I really appreciate it.

You're welcome.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Matt Cassel 12 playoff wins

[Jim Lahey]

This thread is the stupidest ****ing thing ill read all day. JFC. 9 AFC championship appearances and Brady is trash and Manning is god. Get real.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Well we do know nine one and dones could be had by a replacement level QB

[KC_Connection]

Just more confirmation that Brady has had a ton of help in getting the postseason wins he's had, which shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.

[Jim Lahey]

The biggest joke is the notion that Manning > Brady because Cassel won 11 games with the Patriots and Curtis ****ing Painter/Kerry Collins won 2. Is Curtis Painter even in the league anymore? And Kerry Collins was what, 38? Not to mentioned they waited til 2 weeks til the regular season to sign the broke bastard. That whole season in Indy was a shitfest because they wanted Luck.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Donger

Because this needed a second thread?

Well, he'd already won the first thread, before he even posted in it (as he said), so time for a new thread for him to win.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

Matt Cassel 12 playoff wins

out of 26 with Belichick as coach scheming his opponent?

is that really out of the realm of possibility? Remember, it wasn't Cassel getting them to the playoffs in this scenario. Tom and Peyton were still the regular season QB's.

This is Cassel starting instead of Brady in 26 playoff games. And Cassel starting instead of Manning in 24 playoff games (assuming Cassel is replacement level exactly).

Nate Silver concluded in this scenario Cassel goes 12.6 - 13.4 with the Pats and 8 - 16 with the Colts / Broncos in playoff games started by those two HOF QB's.

[Iconic]

Mark Sanchez is ranked #9 above Andrew Luck, Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. Lol.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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

I think you can do alot of things with numbers and stats, but what 538 is trying to do here seems way beyond the pale.

But putting all that aside, your post above sort of clinches the entire debate. Tom OUTPERFORMS expected wins, and Peyton UNDERperforms expected wins.

And that, really, is all anyone is saying about playoff performance.

Thanks for blowing up your own argument. Well done. Time to quit while you're so far behind it isn't even funny.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Jim Lahey

This thread is the stupidest ****ing thing ill read all day. JFC. 9 AFC championship appearances and Brady is trash and Manning is god. Get real.

where are you reading Brady is trash? where are you reading Manning is God? Please link me to where this has been said.

Thank you.

[Amnorix]

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.

I'm honestly somewhat skeptical about WAR in football, regardless of the whole Brady thing.

The bottom line is baseball is barely a team game at all. It's essentially a long series of one-on-one matchups, and other than some fielding things (double plays, etc.), those one-on-one matchups determine everything.

Football involves many one-on-one matchups, of course. Two linemen facing off, and a receiver versus a CB, but they all occur within teh context of the team effort. There isn't a TON of talk about offensive line cohesion and communication because it just boils down to five guys "winning their [individual] battles", and a WRs/TEs route tree, decision whether to break off a route early, etc., isn't about one-on-one at all. It's about coordination wth the quarterback.

Stated differently, NFL players dont' plug and play nearly as well as baseball players in my view.

[Hootie]

it's tougher for Peyton to win because he has to play flawless football to win playoff games, as evidenced by the 8 - 16 expected postseason record with a replacement level player at QB

Tom, just average, as evidenced by 12.6 - 13.4 expected postseason record.

Must be nice, to have all those weapons. No?