OT: BRADY or PAPI....

[Don_the_patfan]

Re: Re: OT: BRADY or PAPI....

I never understood how people can find basebal boring. Football with it's 900 commercials a game (and right after something happens on the field) is more tiresome.

The only time I have baseball on tv is when i want to go to sleep. Not even trying to be funny i appreciate it as it helps me fall asleep. Between spits and glove fixing and the bat going back and forth ...zzzz...sorry spaced out a bit. You get what i am saying. But hey whatever floats your boat

 

[coolguy]

The best players in baseball succeed 30% of the time, so even if you can't avoid him the odds are in your favor.

 

[Tunescribe]

Positively preposterous! Portly, paunchy Papi, the pudgy porker, is a PED pill popper who poo-poos proper professional protocols.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: OT: BRADY or PAPI....

At the end of the day Ortiz is a nice player for us, he has a unique personality, but he isn't even a top 25 player in MLB according to most player rankings.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course there is. He wins more. He wins more in the playoffs. He has a better passer rating (efficiency) indoors and a better passer rating outdoors.
To call a statement that Brady is better than Manning homerish is to admit you either are uninformed or bias.

Want more?
Brady has been the QB on the #1, #3, #10, #12 highest scoring single season offenses in NFL history.

Brady's career W/L record is 142-41. Mannings is 162-71.

To equal Bradys win % Manning would need to win approx his next 84 consecutive games.
To fall to Mannings win % Brady would have to lose approx his next 23 consecutive games.

Playoffs?
Brady 17-7. Manning 9-11 (including by the way 2-5 in the past 7 years)

Brady would need to go one and done 14 straight seasons to get to Manning playoff win % while Manning would need to win about 18 straight, to get to Bradys win %. Of course that is twice as many as he has won in his career in 20 games.

Exactly what metric do you think supports your side?

 

[TyronePoole]

Of course there is. He wins more. He wins more in the playoffs. He has a better passer rating (efficiency) indoors and a better passer rating outdoors.
To call a statement that Brady is better than Manning homerish is to admit you either are uninformed or bias.

I probably shouldn't be bothering with this because it will go nowhere with a confirmation biasing gentleman such as yourself but, there is literally not enough LOLOLOLs on the planet for the idea that wins are an "objective measure of qb efficiency." You literally have no concept of sample size, statistical variance, objectivity or any reasonable analytical measure of quarterback efficiency if you claim that to be the case.

Regardless, here's a good article explaining why you are wrong:

Advanced NFL Stats: The Myth of Playoff Peyton

It's like basically not even an argument outside of this segment of the country (and before you you punt to it, it's not about jealousy, no one give a flying **** that Eli both sucks and is a 2 time winning SB champion or that Aaron Rodgers is always there at the end of the year despite his defense being complete aids).

People nationally probably underrate Brady but he is just not on Manning's level by any analytic metric or by the all-too-obvious eye test, it's borderline unanimous. Any argument otherwise is fueled by insane homerism or a hilarious misunderstanding of either how the game works or variance or both.

 

[chasa]

gotta go brady, drafted by the pats > traded for by the sox.

Now if Pedroia wins a couple of more titles we may have a discussion

 

[Patsrock]

It's impossible to compare the two. One is arguably up for discussion as one of the GOATS in his respective sport, while the other one is up for discussion just to make the Hall of Fame.

Now if we're talking about being clutch in the biggest stage, I can see how people would argue Ortiz is more clutch.

I guess the best way to compare the two is to put them in critical situations in the biggest game and which one would you feel more confidence in.

For example, who would you bet more on:

Brady in the SB, down 4 with 2 minutes to go needing a TD?

Or

Ortiz bottom of the ninth 2 outs bases loaded down by 1 in game 7 of the WS? One hit wins the entire thing, one out ends the run.

One can argue that Ortiz just needs to get a hit, but conversely he also just has one chance to get a hit. Brady in that 2 minute drive has 4 downs, ways to stop the clock, etc. Ultimately it really does come down to which one makes the plays.

So who do you have more confidence in to be clutch?

Today at this exact moment. I am taking Ortiz. Last yr would have Been Brady

 

[Ring 6]

I probably shouldn't be bothering with this because it will go nowhere with a confirmation biasing gentleman such as yourself but, there is literally not enough LOLOLOLs on the planet for the idea that wins are an "objective measure of qb efficiency." You literally have no concept of sample size, statistical variance, objectivity or any reasonable analytical measure of quarterback efficiency if you claim that to be the case.

Regardless, here's a good article explaining why you are wrong:

Advanced NFL Stats: The Myth of Playoff Peyton

It's like basically not even an argument outside of this segment of the country (and before you you punt to it, it's not about jealousy, no one give a flying **** that Eli both sucks and is a 2 time winning SB champion or that Aaron Rodgers is always there at the end of the year despite his defense being complete aids).

People nationally probably underrate Brady but he is just not on Manning's level by any analytic metric or by the all-too-obvious eye test, it's borderline unanimous. Any argument otherwise is fueled by insane homerism or a hilarious misunderstanding of either how the game works or variance or both.

Making excuses for Manning choking in the playoffs is not a 'metric'.

Once again.
Brady wins more in the regular season.
Brady wins more in the playoffs.
Brady is better indoors.
Brady is better outdoors.

Its football, not mathematics, so your twisting of numbers to make failure seems better than success is simply wrong.

 

[Nitro]

I'm kind of shocked baseball still has enough people paying attention to get this thread to seven pages, I figured this would be a 2 pager and fade away.

ok, carry on.

 

[TyronePoole]

Making excuses for Manning choking in the playoffs is not a 'metric'.

Once again.
Brady wins more in the regular season.
Brady wins more in the playoffs.
Brady is better indoors.
Brady is better outdoors.

Its football, not mathematics, so your twisting of numbers to make failure seems better than success is simply wrong.

hurr durrr dah team wins da derp de derp

you literally have posted nothing of relevance in this conversation.

You actually think that the above quoted (50% of which is complete drivel) has bearing on quarterback efficiency. Lol @ you

 

[unoriginal]

Here's a baseball to football comparison for you all:
11 for 16 with 2 TDs would be a great first half for Tom Brady in the Super Bowl.

Ortiz just batted .688 while the rest of his team went .169. He batted more than .500 better than the baseline against the same pitchers!
For comparison, Reggie Jackson batted .450 while the rest of his team went .221 in 1977.

I am no sports historian but I would bet that you can count on one hand the number of times a player has performed that much better than the rest of his team in a winning effort on the highest stage.

That is something to marvel over and one thing I have never seen Brady achieve.

 

[Ring 6]

hurr durrr dah team wins da derp de derp

you literally have posted nothing of relevance in this conversation.

You actually think that the above quoted (50% of which is complete drivel) has bearing on quarterback efficiency. Lol @ you

Putting aside your childish blathering, why do they play the game?

 

[Ring 6]

hurr durrr dah team wins da derp de derp

you literally have posted nothing of relevance in this conversation.

You actually think that the above quoted (50% of which is complete drivel) has bearing on quarterback efficiency. Lol @ you

I think I should have looked at your mood (drunk) and expected this.

 

[Patsrock]

I'm kind of shocked baseball still has enough people paying attention to get this thread to seven pages, I figured this would be a 2 pager and fade away.

ok, carry on.

They just got a 55.2 local rating. While it might be like the NFL. Red Sox are still relevant in this area

 

[TyronePoole]

Putting aside your childish blathering, why do they play the game?

I think I should have looked at your mood (drunk) and expected this.

is that what we're going to do? ad hom? if so gjge

otherwise what does "why do they play the game?" mean? assuming you mean some kind of iteration of "any given sunday" how do you think David Ortiz would have looked as a career Twin?

Unoriginal (who has an unparralleled X's and O's acumen on this site as far as I'm concerned) is similarly flawed in his post, especially when you look at SLG/less PAs/WAR etc. not to mention, again, sample size.

so I mean sorry but:

Manning>>Brady>>>>>>>>>>>Ortiz

 

[Ring 6]

is that what we're going to do? ad hom? if so gjge

Your call, you started the childish crap.

otherwise what does "why do they play the game?" mean? assuming you mean some kind of iteration of "any given sunday" how do you think David Ortiz would have looked as a career Twin?

If you don't understand that why bother? The point is to win. Coming up with an article that cumulates statistics without regard to situation, impact, time of game, contribution to winning or losing to imply that the QB who won 9 and lost 11 outplayed the one who won 17 and lost 6, and considers those statistics to be an accurate assessment totally discounts that the reason you play is to win.
But you know that.

Unoriginal (who has an unparralleled X's and O's acumen on this site as far as I'm concerned) is similarly flawed in his post, especially when you look at SLG/less PAs/WAR etc. not to mention, again, sample size.

See above. Statistics accumulated while losing are not comparable to statistics accumulated while winning. It is simply a fact of life.

so I mean sorry but:

Manning>>Brady>>>>>Ortiz

The only way Manning is better than Brady is if they go back, change the rules, and you don't keep score, but instead play to accumulate meaningless statistics. It seems that is your gold standard though.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's a baseball to football comparison for you all:
11 for 16 with 2 TDs would be a great first half for Tom Brady in the Super Bowl.

Ortiz just batted .688 while the rest of his team went .169. He batted more than .500 better than the baseline against the same pitchers!
For comparison, Reggie Jackson batted .450 while the rest of his team went .221 in 1977.

I am no sports historian but I would bet that you can count on one hand the number of times a player has performed that much better than the rest of his team in a winning effort on the highest stage.

That is something to marvel over and one thing I have never seen Brady achieve.

But you are leaving out half the game by not acknowledging the pitchers.
Ortiz didn't produce enough runs to win without good pitching.
Ortiz was deservingly the MVP and it was probably one of the top 10 offensive performances in world series history. I'm not sure why we have to try to act as if he did it all by himself though.

 

[TyronePoole]

Your call, you started the childish crap.


If you don't understand that why bother? The point is to win. Coming up with an article that cumulates statistics without regard to situation, impact, time of game, contribution to winning or losing to imply that the QB who won 9 and lost 11 outplayed the one who won 17 and lost 6, and considers those statistics to be an accurate assessment totally discounts that the reason you play is to win.
But you know that.

you didn't even read the article.

See above. Statistics accumulated while losing are not comparable to statistics accumulated while winning. It is simply a fact of life.

what does this even mean? So if Solder gets called for holding two weeks ago Brady's stats don't count? lololol you can't be this silly of a person can you? Let go man, it's ok, you can root for the Pats without tying yourself in logical knots having to make sure we're the GOAT at every position. Say it with me: "Brady is a great Quarterback but maybe not the best ever" ahhhhhhhhhhhh

The only way Manning is better than Brady is if they go back, change the rules, and you don't keep score, but instead play to accumulate meaningless statistics. It seems that is your gold standard though.

you mean if we go back in time to where brady had an excellent defense and Manning didn't? what is the point of this? like yeah Manning benefitted from the rule changes in 2004, wouldn't you expect the GOAT qb to benefit from those kind of changes? That doesn't undermine his greatness. Brady's numbers are way better because of those changes too. The bottom line is unless you are an insane homer everything he does and is expected to do is >> than Brady. Just grow up and get over it already.

 

[unoriginal]

But you are leaving out half the game by not acknowledging the pitchers.
Ortiz didn't produce enough runs to win without good pitching.
Ortiz was deservingly the MVP and it was probably one of the top 10 offensive performances in world series history. I'm not sure why we have to try to act as if he did it all by himself though.

Well Tom Brady doesn't play mike linebacker so I think the comparison is fair. If one goes by WHIP the Red Sox weren't spectacularly better than the Cardinals pitchers, just a .1 difference. The difference there is basically Jon Lester, the only starter with a WHIP under 1.00 (0.65). But he would have needed a WHIP around 0.25 to compare to Ortiz's batting superiority.

The Red Sox hit for a worse average than the Cardinals, and that they were even close was the sole work of David Ortiz. He hit .688 and the next best Red Sox player, Ellsbury, hit .250. The next best player on either team was Allan Craig, at .375. That's just nuts. You take Ortiz out of the lineup, I think the Sox lose in 5 games. I can't say that about any single pitcher.

I believe Brady has meant more to the Patriots over his career than Ortiz has to the Sox. But that was one of the greatest individual championship performances in any sport. They should begin building his statue on Yawkey Way immediately. once they find enough bronze.