Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix
I pay no attention to baseball threads, so I will take your word for it. Sounds like we have one thing we agree on.
The real problem for you here is that you posted this link to prove one thing -- that Brady's teams (absent Brady) have been better than Manning's teams (absent Manning).
The other thing the article "proves" is that Brady has outperformed his team's expected wins, while Manning has underperformed them. Specifically, Brady has gotten 1.2 MORE wins than ELO projected, and Manning has gotten 2.2 FEWER wins than ELO projected.
1.2 more wins and 2.2 fewer wins doesn't sound like much, but in the context of the number of games played, it's significant. Brady wins 5% MORE than he "should", and Manning wins 10% LESS than he "should".
So who is more clutch?
But let's put all that aside. I think it's basically all junk science. None of it holds any water at all with me.
|
The issue with that is that you're comparing the QB to himself, essentially. If QB A and QB B play identically in the postseason, but QB A played better in the regular season, using that method would show that QB B was better in the postseason, when in reality, they played the same.
His second analysis shows those QBs against a replacement, rather than against their regular season selves. That's where the 18-8 vs 13-13 and 11-13 vs 8-16 comes from.