When the last Bill Barnwell article was posted here (about whether or not the Pats'-style 2TE offense is the wave of the future), it sparked a conversation that I may have slightly derailed by making it about his Football Outsiders background and his over-reliance on stats without context.
To that effect, I actually really liked today's article, and for anyone who isn't familiar with his (or Football Outsiders' in general) work, it's a great opportunity to get on board, as he does a really good job of introducing the reader to some of the most fundamental of advanced football statistics. He also makes a very straightforward and compelling case for why statistics do matter, and can offer insight where "all that matters is the W" cannot. It won't be everyone's cup of tea, but for those who have an interest, I'd definitely encourage reading on:
Breaking down the best of the NFL stats - Grantland
Specifically, I was relieved to read the following:
Quote:
|
The Chiefs and their difference, a full three wins, would fit into the very last category within the table, one that suggests that they'll decline by 2.5 wins this season. Of course, that's just the average change, and the Chiefs may benefit greatly from full years with Eric Berry, Jamaal Charles, and Matt Cassel; like every bit of information that surrounds a team, it's important to blend the statistics with the specific context to which they're being applied.
|
In my previous criticism of him, the bone that I was picking was essentially that he wasn't paying enough heed to the bolded part of that paragraph, on either a team or individual level. Context matters, and in this article he does a pretty good job of acknowledging that where it needs to be acknowledged. Specifically, he acknowledges it in a very compelling way re: Tom Brady. When explaining how unpredictable the "Record in Close Games" stat is, year-over-year (or even half-season over half-season), he offered up the following information:
Quote:
|
If there's an exception to the rule, as with the Pythagorean expectation, it's having a great quarterback. Peyton Manning was 64-33 in those games with the Colts, and it's not surprising when you consider how well he managed endgame scenarios. Tom Brady is 43-15 in those same games. On the other hand, Aaron Rodgers is 13-17 in one-touchdown games, and Drew Brees is 22-16 during his time in New Orleans (after going 14-14 as the Chargers starter). So some great quarterbacks seem to drastically outperform the expected regressions, but others don't.
|
If we need any reminder of how exceptional Brady is, and the ways in which he really does stand head and shoulders above even the other elites at quarterback, I think that's a great example. In essence, in games decided by a touchdown or less, we have:
Brady with the Patriots: won 74.1% of games
Manning with the Colts: won 65.9% of games
Brees with the Saints: won 57.9% of games
Rodgers with the Packers: won 43.3% of games
Granted, it's not an end-all measurement by any means, since as a standalone yardstick it would deem it 'better' to win by 3 than by 30. Still an interesting point, though, since the context here is that it seems like the
only way to consistently maintain a good record in close games is with either Tom Brady or Peyton Manning at quarterback. They've been so good that they're simply statistical exceptions to a rule that applies to everyone else in the league.
7Likes
Latest Bill Barnwell article has something interesting to say about Tom Brady
Linear Mode
