Breaking down Brady/Manning winning %

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Here is a look at the numbers from a different perspective to show just how dominant Tom Brady has been over this generation's biggest rival, Peyton Manning. Yes, you hear a lot that Brady and Manning are the "greatest winners in the NFL." You hear that the Colts won the most games of the last decade and they have a playoff streak. You'd think that these two are just about equal. Then you are told that Manning has more wins than Brady, so he must be better at winning. Actually, the opposite is true, and it couldn't be more true. Brady dominates Manning in winning on Sunday.

Since we are not idiots, we look at the numbers by percentages. This is because of the obvious fact that a guy hitting .333 is better than a guy hitting .211, even if the .211 has more hits.

Brady, 125-36 (.776)
Manning, 140-71 (.664)

The most remarkable part of this comparison is that Brady is not far behind Manning in wins, despite that Manning has played in 50 more games. To put theses number into perspective, let's do a little math to figure out just how great this gap is:

For Manning to get his winning percentage to Brady's level, he would have to win 91 consecutive games. If the Colts went 16-0 in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, Manning would still win a lesser percentage of games than Brady. Brady would have to lose 27 consecutive games to match Manning's current percentage.

If you took away Manning's worst 30 games of his career, all losses, he would then be roughly tied with Brady (if you were trying to pin it on his rookie season, there goes the argument, even though I don't hear pundits saying they should remove his cumulative passing yds and tds from that season.) Likewise, if you took out 53 of Brady's wins, he would still be ahead of Manning's current percentage.

What Manning has done is very good, although his "dominance" has been done before by numerous quarterbacks. What Brady has done is almost statistically impossible. If Brady keeps up a winning % over .750, that record will never be broken; although statisticians hold certain records in high regard, this might be the most unbelievable record in sports.

One other interesting fact:

Brady has more career wins (125) than interceptions (121). Manning would have to win his next 77 games, with no losses and no interceptions, to have the same results.

 

[ZeroSinceSpyGate]

Here is a look at the numbers from a different perspective to show just how dominant Tom Brady has been over this generation's biggest rival, Peyton Manning. Yes, you hear a lot that Brady and Manning are the "greatest winners in the NFL." You hear that the Colts won the most games of the last decade and they have a playoff streak. You'd think that these two are just about equal. Then you are told that Manning has more wins than Brady, so he must be better at winning. Actually, the opposite is true, and it couldn't be more true. Brady dominates Manning in winning on Sunday.

Since we are not idiots, we look at the numbers by percentages. This is because of the obvious fact that a guy hitting .333 is better than a guy hitting .211, even if the .211 has more hits.

Brady, 125-36 (.776)
Manning, 140-71 (.664)

The most remarkable part of this comparison is that Brady is not far behind Manning in wins, despite that Manning has played in 50 more games. To put theses number into perspective, let's do a little math to figure out just how great this gap is:

For Manning to get his winning percentage to Brady's level, he would have to win 91 consecutive games. If the Colts went 16-0 in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, Manning would still win a lesser percentage of games than Brady. Brady would have to lose 27 consecutive games to match Manning's current percentage.

If you took away Manning's worst 30 games of his career, all losses, he would then be roughly tied with Brady (if you were trying to pin it on his rookie season, there goes the argument, even though I don't hear pundits saying they should remove his cumulative passing yds and tds from that season.) Likewise, if you took out 53 of Brady's wins, he would still be ahead of Manning's current percentage.

What Manning has done is very good, although his "dominance" has been done before by numerous quarterbacks. What Brady has done is almost statistically impossible. If Brady keeps up a winning % over .750, that record will never be broken; although statisticians hold certain records in high regard, this might be the most unbelievable record in sports.

One other interesting fact:

Brady has more career wins (125) than interceptions (121). Manning would have to win his next 77 games, with no losses and no interceptions, to have the same results.

Sanchez has a better playoff percentage then manning but does that make him better? Winning percentage really doesn't mean anything individual accomplishments do.

 

[xmarkd400x]

.776 is a fitting Patriot / New England winning percentage =)

 

[Jangles]

Pretty sure guys other than Brady and Manning suited up for those games.

While Brady is great, his winning percentage isn't 100% on him. It's a team effort

 

[upstater1]

Sanchez has a better playoff percentage then manning but does that make him better? Winning percentage really doesn't mean anything individual accomplishments do.

So does that Minnesota Viking kid who started one game in his entire life and is 1-0.

Now, let's get back to talking about real QBs who have played the game for more than 2 full seasons.

The Jets do not have a seat at the big boy table (1969!!!) though in a decade they may get their "feet" in the door.

 

[upstater1]

Pretty sure guys other than Brady and Manning suited up for those games.

While Brady is great, his winning percentage isn't 100% on him. It's a team effort

Given Brady's supporting cast of receivers over the years compared to Manning's, and given Manning's playoff record and penchant for throwing poor INTs at the worst moments, I'd agree more with the OP than with you.

 

[RodThePat]

Sanchez has a better playoff percentage then manning but does that make him better? Winning percentage really doesn't mean anything individual accomplishments do.

Sanchez has played in 4 postseason games, Manning has played in 19. We are talking about almost 200 games of data for each player as the basis for the comparison. Even you know your argument is dumb.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

OP here.

You guys are nuts.

First of all, the Mark Sanchez argument is ******ed and not worth getting into. It's common sense that anything statistically significant tends to even out over time. Why even go there? That is exactly why this pct. is incredible.

For those of you talking about others suiting up on the field. These stats demonstrate the gap is so wide that any of those arguments are very hard-pressed, especially considering this is the NFL, and there is a salary cap, and the Colts have a proven winner in Bill Polian's management.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Sanchez has a better playoff percentage then manning but does that make him better? Winning percentage really doesn't mean anything individual accomplishments do.

Spoken like a true Jets fan, ZeroSince1969.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Winning percentage means very little over 5 games.

It means a lot more over 50 games.

It means everything over 150 games.

 

[xmarkd400x]

Winning percentage means very little over 5 games.

It means a lot more over 50 games.

It means everything over 150 games.

Agreed. The bigger the sample size, the better it is.

 

[brady199]

I remember when people around here were saying Brady was better then Manning and it just seemed like a bunch of homers.

Then it seemed maybe they were in the same ballpark

Then it semmed it could go either way depending on what you valued in a qb

Now it seems just obvious

If QB is the most important position in football and Brady leaves the game as the best, then the argument becomes is he the best Player in the NFL ever? That would of been laughable 5 or 6 years ago.

And it is rediculous to say a qb shouldn't have a win% attached to them. Pitchers rely on their team scoring and a bullpen to finish off what they started, at least a qb typically 99% of the time finishes what they start.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I remember when people around here were saying Brady was better then Manning and it just seemed like a bunch of homers.

Then it seemed maybe they were in the same ballpark

Then it semmed it could go either way depending on what you valued in a qb

Now it seems just obvious

If QB is the most important position in football and Brady leaves the game as the best, then the argument becomes is he the best Player in the NFL ever? That would of been laughable 5 or 6 years ago.

And it is rediculous to say a qb shouldn't have a win% attached to them. Pitchers rely on their team scoring and a bullpen to finish off what they started, at least a qb typically 99% of the time finishes what they start.

The object of the game is to win the game. Whatever stats have correlation to winning, they fall short of actually winning, which is the end goal.

That said, Brady has done what has not been done before. The argument that Manning is better is entirely hypothetical- and relies on him eclipsing in theory something that is being done in reality.

I will argue that Charles Barkley would have won 8 championships with the Bulls, while Michael Jordan would have won zero with the Suns/Sixers/Rockets. Prove me wrong.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I will argue that Charles Barkley would have won 8 championships with the Bulls, while Michael Jordan would have won zero with the Suns/Sixers/Rockets. Prove me wrong.

Poor example.

Jordan was a better player than Barkley by every measure except rebounding.

Barkley's prime ended in 1995. Jordan was still the NBA's best player in 96,97 and 98.

 

[seven]

That said, Brady has done what has not been done before.

Good piece Iceman.

Great, hopefully prescient Quote on Dangerous Daniel Woodhead:
Originally Posted by Ice_Ice_Brady
"This guy was in football because of the New York Jets."

And the New York Jets are soon to be out of football because of Danny Woodhead.
______________________________________________
I think the tide turned on the old Brady/manning thing after Peyton's INT deluge/slump.
Some supporting views, and words from BB on INts.


I can't put Manning, today, over Otto Graham, Joe Montana and Tom Brady.
Peter King January 10, 2011
Ravens-Steelers, Jets-Patriots set up great divisional weekend - Peter King - SI.com

Brady, not Manning, is era's best QB.
Jason Whitlock December 06, 2010, 11:56 AM EST.
For those of us who have long been skeptical of the national media’s premature and unjustified anointment of Peyton Manning as the greatest quarterback of all time, our day is here.
Peyton Manning can't compare to Tom Brady - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

Stats say Patriots' Tom Brady better than Colts' Peyton Manning -
Kerry J. Byrne - SI.com
Stats say Patriots' Tom Brady better than Colts' Peyton Manning - Kerry J. Byrne - SI.com

Tom Brady 2010: Better than 2007
Gene Wojciechowski ESPN.com December 19, 2010
Brady hasn't lost a regular season home game in more than four years.
The New England Patriots and Tom Brady needed only 43 offensive plays to down Matt Flynn and the Green Bay Packers. - ESPN

____________________________________________________
Tom Brady broke Bernie Kosar‘s record for most consecutive pass attempts without an interception on Sunday.
Belichick coached both players —
Kosar was with him in Cleveland when he set the old record of 308;

“I think probably more the other way around, I think I’m fortunate to have been the coach during those two periods where my starting quarterback didn’t turn the ball over.
I think a lot more of that is a reflection and a compliment to the player throwing the ball instead of the coach. They’re the ones who have to make the decisions, see the defenses and make the throws and take the hits from the pass rush and all that, so … certainly Bernie and Tom deserve credit for those streaks, not the coach.

But the way I remember it about Bernie, Bernie, like Tom, was very diligent in his preparation. He studied everything — the schemes, the players, the individual tendencies as well as the overall teams schemes and tendencies. I’d say both players are very well prepared and neither one make a lost of mistakes in terms of misreading something or not knowing who was going to run a certain route or who was hot or getting fooled by different defensive looks. Things like that.

So Bernie’s preparation was excellent, and he was a good decision-maker — very careful about where he threw the ball in terms of not turning it over and making throws like that and making good decisions and knowing when he was pressured, not taking a sack and turning it into an interception and things like that.
Trying to make plays that were impossible.
I think Tom’s kind of the same way. He reads things. Even when plays break down for one reason or another, a receiver gets jammed or there’s a breakdown in protection, or sees a good coverage that matches up particularly well against a pattern you have called, that’s when a quarterback really has to be his most sharp and most alert and not let that become a turnover or a worse play than what’s already not a good play.

I’d say Bernie and Tom throughout their careers, do a good job of that — better than a lot of quarterbacks do. It’s not only taking the plays that are there, it’s taking the plays that aren’t going to work out well, and keep them from being bad plays or turnovers.”

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Jordan was a better player than Barkley by every measure except rebounding.

Barkley's prime ended in 1995. Jordan was still the NBA's best player in 96,97 and 98.

Poor example.

Rebounds are versatility are the most important things in basketball.

Jordan had a better supporting cast with Pippen, who was a Hall of Famer. Rodman was also a Hall of Famer and played on three of those teams. John Paxson (Vinatieri) won that second championship.

Phil Jackson won five championships with the Lakers. With Jackson as a head coach, Barkley would have won eight. Sorry, but what did Jordan ever do without Pippen and Jackson? Nothing.

See where I am going?

Perhaps not the best example, but point being that even with such a discrepancy between the two players, you would never "prove" me wrong with any argument because mine is theoretical. As dumb as this argument might be, it isn't a real argument, and neither are the Colts' arguments about why Manning is better than Brady. Perhaps I would use Karl Malone as a better example next time, as his longevity stats and career point total were the most in NBA history

 

[Drewwho]

Pretty sure guys other than Brady and Manning suited up for those games.

While Brady is great, his winning percentage isn't 100% on him. It's a team effort

Wins mean something to the QB historically. Football is a team sport, for sure, but its all about the QB's...always has been and always will be.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I remember when people around here were saying Brady was better then Manning and it just seemed like a bunch of homers.

Then it seemed maybe they were in the same ballpark

Then it semmed it could go either way depending on what you valued in a qb

Now it seems just obvious

If QB is the most important position in football and Brady leaves the game as the best, then the argument becomes is he the best Player in the NFL ever? That would of been laughable 5 or 6 years ago.

And it is rediculous to say a qb shouldn't have a win% attached to them. Pitchers rely on their team scoring and a bullpen to finish off what they started, at least a qb typically 99% of the time finishes what they start.

Hmmmmm......

It was always clear to me that Brady was better than Manning, and I have never been called a homer.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Rebounds are versatility are the most important things in basketball.

You could also say clutch shooting, leadership and defense are equally as important.

Jordan had a better supporting cast with Pippen, who was a Hall of Famer. Rodman was also a Hall of Famer and played on three of those teams. John Paxson (Vinatieri) won that second championship.

I'd argue the point that Pippen would not have achieved the same level of greatness had he not played with Jordan. Pippen has said as such. We know Barkley is a HoF, but has never carried a team to a title like Jordan.

Phil Jackson won five championships with the Lakers. With Jackson as a head coach, Barkley would have won eight. Sorry, but what did Jordan ever do without Pippen and Jackson? Nothing.

...and Jackson lost 2 NBA Finals w/ LA and didn't lose any with Jordan. Pippen never made it to the finals w/o Jordan and they both failed to advance in 1994. Jackson is a great coach but great coaches need great players.

See where I am going?

Perhaps not the best example, but point being that even with such a discrepancy between the two players, you would never "prove" me wrong with any argument because mine is theoretical. As dumb as this argument might be, it isn't a real argument, and neither are the Colts' arguments about why Manning is better than Brady. Perhaps I would use Karl Malone as a better example next time, as his longevity stats and career point total were the most in NBA history

You are missing the point. Brady is better than Manning because he has won more with less talent surrounding him- thus raising the team's level of play in the process. That is what greatness does when championships are on the line. Brady does that. Jordan did that. Manning is questionable in that capacity. So was Barkley. We can agree that all players put up great numbers and are HoF material.

 

[brady199]

Hmmmmm......

It was always clear to me that Brady was better than Manning, and I have never been called a homer.

Always? You mean since Brady's first start when he beat Manning? After that game you knew? If thats the case let me be the first one to call you a homer.:biggrin2: