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.

[Amnorix]

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?

Never align yourself with Prison Bitch. And if you do find yourself aligned with his viewpoint, seriously consider why you're wrong, because the odds are very, VERY high that you are.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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?

"PROOF"

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Any analysis that suggests Trent Dilfer, Mark Sanchez and Tony Eason are better quarterbacks than Tom Brady is the spastic rambling of a reerun.

See below for a mathematical proof that Hootie is an idiot:



Don't blame me if you don't understand it. The math proves it. Hootie is an idiot.

Forgot to carry the 7, dumbass.

[Hootie]

For instance,

When Tom Brady last won an AFC Championship Game, he admitted he played terrible, and his team picked him up. I mean, it's a direct quote:

"Well, I sucked pretty bad today, but our defense saved us," Brady said after throwing for 239 yards, with two interceptions and, for the first time in 36 games, no TD passes. "I'm going to try to go out and do a better job in a couple of weeks, but I'm proud of this team, my teammates."

Must be nice to only have to play replacement level football and still have a 50/50 shot of winning.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

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?

I'm sorry that you're so pathetic as to fall back on an obviously horribly flawed analysis in order to try scoring clearly non-existent points.

Then again, you wouldn't be Hootie...

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Never align yourself with Prison Bitch. And if you do find yourself aligned with his viewpoint, seriously consider why you're wrong, because the odds are very, VERY high that you are.

I most certainly do not.

But he parades around the Royals thread using WAR as the "be-all-end-all" yet, when I make a football thread with a WAR theme he berates me for it.

So, technically, I am not aligned with PB at all ... but I do agree with your assessment in that regard.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I'm sorry that you're so pathetic as to fall back on an obviously horribly flawed analysis in order to try scoring clearly non-existent points.

Then again, you wouldn't be Hootie...

whoa whoa whoa

NATE SILVER, BACKED BY ESPN.COM, PRINTS HORRIBLY FLAWED ANALYSIS, BUT COLDHARDFOOTBALLFACTS.COM, A BOSTON WEBSITE WITH A BOSTON WRITER, IS GOSPEL WHEN IT COMES TO THE TOM BRADY / PEYTON MANNING DEBATE?

Hilarious.

Hahahahahahaha.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

whoa whoa whoa

NATE SILVER, BACKED BY ESPN.COM, PRINTS HORRIBLY FLAWED ANALYSIS, BUT COLDHARDFOOTBALLFACTS.COM, A BOSTON WEBSITE WITH A BOSTON WRITER, IS GOSPEL WHEN IT COMES TO THE TOM BRADY / PEYTON MANNING DEBATE?

Hilarious.

Hahahahahahaha.

I get it, man. No matter how reeruned he comes off as a result, Hootie gotta Hootie.

It's all good.

[Hootie]

Brady is better in a dome because he has a 2 game sample size ... /coldhardfootballfacts.com

you're right

Nate Silver who has made a living using advanced statistics and partnered up with ESPN.com always has 'horribly flawed analysis.'

But Coldhardfootballfacts.com, a website clearly everyone has heard of and clearly isn't a Boston fan boy website that clearly isn't owned by a guy who writes for a Boston paper (oh wait, yes it is), has amazing factual evidence and amazing, well thought out analysis (minus the 'Tom Brady is better in a dome with his 5 game sample size')...

Nope.

Patriot fans aren't hypocrites at all!

JFC

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Brady is better in a dome because he has a 2 game sample size ... /coldhardfootballfacts.com

you're right

Nate Silver who has made a living using advanced statistics and partnered up with ESPN.com always has 'horribly flawed analysis.'

But Coldhardfootballfacts.com, a website clearly everyone has heard of and clearly isn't a Boston fan boy website that clearly isn't owned by a guy who writes for a Boston paper (oh wait, yes it is), has amazing factual evidence and amazing, well thought out analysis (minus the 'Tom Brady is better in a dome with his 5 game sample size')...

Nope.

Patriot fans aren't hypocrites at all!

JFC

You called on a site (ESPN) that came up with the abomination known as QBR in support of Silver's formula.

It's doesn't get much stupider than that.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

I most certainly do not.

But he parades around the Royals thread using WAR as the "be-all-end-all" yet, when I make a football thread with a WAR theme he berates me for it.

So, technically, I am not aligned with PB at all ... but I do agree with your assessment in that regard.

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.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You called on a site (ESPN) that came up with the abomination known as QBR in support of Silver's formula.

It's doesn't get much stupider than that.

That QBR thing is whacky. Hootie keeps mentioning Brady got an 8 QBR in one game, but if it's the game I think it is, Brady wasn't that bad. 2 TDs, 1 Int, 65% completion rating.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong game, but seriously, if that results in a near-zero QBR, then QBR is kinda messed up. Unless 0 QBR is flatline average and you can get a negative score, or soemthing.

Note I'm not necessarily a huge fan of passer rating either. It also has issues.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Brady is better in a dome because he has a 2 game sample size ... /coldhardfootballfacts.com

you're right

Nate Silver who has made a living using advanced statistics and partnered up with ESPN.com always has 'horribly flawed analysis.'

But Coldhardfootballfacts.com, a website clearly everyone has heard of and clearly isn't a Boston fan boy website that clearly isn't owned by a guy who writes for a Boston paper (oh wait, yes it is), has amazing factual evidence and amazing, well thought out analysis (minus the 'Tom Brady is better in a dome with his 5 game sample size')...

Nope.

Patriot fans aren't hypocrites at all!

JFC

I have tremendous respect for Silver's political analysis. I think he's a very bright guy.

This QB WAR thing though. I'm beyond skeptical.

[RobBlake]

BRady > Peyton in the post season. its not even close. If anyone thinks Peyton is better than brady in the post season then thats all you gotta know about their football intelligence and must grasp to statistics and not actually watching the game.. not only watching the game, but understanding what you are watching.

[MagicHef]

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.