538 Calls Tom Brady the 43rd Clutchest Postseason QB

[Hootie]

Meh.

Just read an article about football and posted it on a football board. Found it interesting that Tom has always gotten an excuse for not having enough weapons, yet without Tom, his teams (according to research done by Nate Silver) would have gone 12.6 - 13.4 with a replacement level QB in postseason games started by Tom Brady (and finished).

That's it.

But no one wanted to talk about it. Fair enough!

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Meh.

Just read an article about football and posted it on a football board. Found it interesting that Tom has always gotten an excuse for not having enough weapons, yet without Tom, his teams (according to research done by Nate Silver) would have gone 12.6 - 13.4 with a replacement level QB in postseason games started by Tom Brady (and finished).

That's it.

But no one wanted to talk about it. Fair enough!

So Tom's at a +6 while Peytun is at a +3?

Sounds about right.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Meh.

Just read an article about football and posted it on a football board. Found it interesting that Tom has always gotten an excuse for not having enough weapons, yet without Tom, his teams (according to research done by Nate Silver) would have gone 12.6 - 13.4 with a replacement level QB in postseason games started by Tom Brady (and finished).

That's it.

But no one wanted to talk about it. Fair enough!

You didn't even read the entire article, I'm assuming.

1.) He starts with his own made up underlying stats/formulas (ELO ratings).

2.) After his first formulaic attempt produced "ridiculous" results by his own admission, he made up another formula and adds it into the mix.

3.) He estimates (his own words) - "In the case of Peyton Manning’s teams, I estimate that pulling Manning would hurt them by about a touchdown (7 points) per game."

4.) He offers no evidence that the Patriots teams were usually better, instead just making a blanket statement, and then pointing only to the Cassel year. "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.)". In other words, he used raw numbers, ignoring SOS and the fact that Brady took a team to something that had never been done before (16-0), and sang the praises of 11-5 under Cassel, instead of killing the drop from Manning to Painter, when Cassel's played at a far higher level than Painter (In other words, he's a better than replacement player himself, if Painter is truly replacement level).

Also, since I believe you have saying that clutch does not exist, you must have completely missed this part, where he makes it abundantly clear that he believes clutch does, indeed, exist:

This is also not to say that clutch quarterbacking doesn’t exist. As my colleague Benjamin Morris has repeatedly documented, some quarterbacks — including Peyton Manning — consistently manage the game better in clutch situations, such as during a fourth-quarter comeback drive. Indeed, clutchness is so intrinsic to quarterbacking that it’s hard to distinguish a clutch QB from a good QB.

In short, to paraphrase a great movie: You keep using that article. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Now, is your nonsense done for this thread, or are we going to see that, once again, Hootie gotta Hootie?