Interesting Trend: QBs who have thrown 43+ TDs are 0-8 in attempt to win SB

[WaterfallJumper]

While I agree with Deus on this one, it's possible that the high passing TD numbers could -- and I'm speculating blindly here, because I'm up in the middle of the night for work and don't feel like doing the research -- be at the detriment of a well-developed running game. If that's the case, then perhaps when teams reach the playoffs, it's more difficult to be one dimensional on offense. I'm sure someone with time to burn could review the numbers.

Otherwise, 7 out of 50-something isn't terribly compelling. It's also not particularly relevant to the way the game plays out when the team has to execute, as mentioned in some of the examples above. How about analyzing the Super Bowl win/loss record by color of the Patriots jerseys, or the type of hoodie Belichick wears? That seems to go over with the easily-amused-by-numbers crowd.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

While I agree with Deus on this one, it's possible that the high passing TD numbers could -- and I'm speculating blindly here, because I'm up in the middle of the night for work and don't feel like doing the research -- be at the detriment of a well-developed running game. If that's the case, then perhaps when teams reach the playoffs, it's more difficult to be one dimensional on offense. I'm sure someone with time to burn could review the numbers.

Otherwise, 7 out of 50-something isn't terribly compelling. It's also not particularly relevant to the way the game plays out when the team has to execute, as mentioned in some of the examples above. How about analyzing the Super Bowl win/loss record by color of the Patriots jerseys, or the type of hoodie Belichick wears? That seems to go over with the easily-amused-by-numbers crowd.

As I said, the touchdowns was not why they lost the Superbowl. Merely an interesting stat to digest as we await the afccg. Its a fact, when a QB throws incredible amounts of touchdowns during the season, they seem to falter. Its an intriguing pattern.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

As I said, the touchdowns was not why they lost the Superbowl. Merely an interesting stat to digest as we await the afccg. Its a fact, when a QB throws incredible amounts of touchdowns during the season, they seem to falter. Its an intriguing pattern.

It's more of an anomaly than a "stat," but I'm glad you find it interesting.

Look, Kurt Warner led the league in passing TDs and won a SB in 1999. He threw for 41 TDs. That's the last time the MVP won the Super Bowl the same year. Nine more MVPs have made the SB since then and lost. That's a stronger trend than yours, but it doesn't really have anything to do with how the games themselves unfolded. But, whatever helps pass the time.

NFL Passing Touchdowns Single-Season Leaders | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

It's more of an anomaly than a "stat," but I'm glad you find it interesting.

Look, Kurt Warner led the league in passing TDs and won a SB in 1999. He threw for 41 TDs. That's the last time the MVP won the Super Bowl the same year. Nine more MVPs have made the SB since then and lost. That's a stronger trend than yours, but it doesn't really have anything to do with how the games themselves unfolded. But, whatever helps pass the time.

NFL Passing Touchdowns Single-Season Leaders | Pro-Football-Reference.com

I agree its not why they unfolded that way.

 

[Coolade2]

Hehe... I'll comment cuz it's 4:00 in the afternoon here .

Interesting but not causal. Soo . What does that mean? We need an analogy. It's like getting divorced 8 times but having gigantic boobs.. the boobs are nice but hey they didn't get the job done.. hehe. But it doesn't mean having great endowment will hurt the next try. . Unless... Hehe. There is some unconscious tie-in where the pschological effect like over confidence or distraction spoils the water. . does that help the cause?

 

[Seacoast Fan]

ok back to the thread

LOL.
Perhaps if someone was paying full attention to what you are actually saying, rather than, say, European politics , that person would understand that you are not claiming any statistical relevance.....hence, your comment that it just might be a coincidence.
Personally, I found (a) your OP to be interesting and (b) your analogy between posters to be accurate, at least in this case.
Getting back on topic indeed, one of my pet peeves when watching a football game or any sporting event is when the announcers start talking about “records” which really aren’t records at all, but just statistics that may or may not have any actual relevance or meaning. That doesn’t mean they are not interesting to ponder sometimes. Perhaps the lack of a 43 touchdown passer winning a Super Bowl means ... live by the td pass, die by the td pass. Or, oh, I don’t know, maybe it’s a coincidence.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

LOL.
Perhaps if someone was paying full attention to what you are actually saying, rather than, say, European politics , that person would understand that you are not claiming any statistical relevance.....hence, your comment that it just might be a coincidence.
Personally, I found (a) your OP to be interesting and (b) your analogy between posters to be accurate, at least in this case.
Getting back on topic indeed, one of my pet peeves when watching a football game or any sporting event is when the announcers start talking about “records” which really aren’t records at all, but just statistics that may or may not have any actual relevance or meaning. That doesn’t mean they are not interesting to ponder sometimes. Perhaps the lack of a 43 touchdown passer winning a Super Bowl means ... live by the td pass, die by the td pass. Or, oh, I don’t know, maybe it’s a coincidence.

Its probably a coincidence. I do find it intriguing that teams who lived by the pass (as you said), didn't win the Superbowl. Kurt Warner did at 41 though.

Its a stat that Mahomes can definitely end though.

And, its fine. Deus is a smart football fan, but that argument was funny so it I got a good laugh at least. I appreciate and am happy you liked the OP.

 

[LightSkinSmurf]

Sometimes common sense just prevails. I don't feel the need to expand on that.

 

[Triumph]

Hehe... I'll comment cuz it's 4:00 in the afternoon here .

Interesting but not causal. Soo . What does that mean? We need an analogy. It's like getting divorced 8 times but having gigantic boobs.. the boobs are nice but hey they didn't get the job done.. hehe. But it doesn't mean having great endowment will hurt the next try. . Unless... Hehe. There is some unconscious tie-in where the pschological effect like over confidence or distraction spoils the water. . does that help the cause?

NO

 

[Triumph]

Mahomes did not throw a TD pass last game.

Indy was 0 - 9 on 3rd down so I dare say that Mahomes had plenty of chances

 

[supafly]

Interesting but not causal. Soo . What does that mean? We need an analogy. It's like getting divorced 8 times but having gigantic boobs.. the boobs are nice but hey they didn't get the job done.. hehe. But it doesn't mean having great endowment will hurt the next try. . Unless... Hehe. There is some unconscious tie-in where the pschological effect like over confidence or distraction spoils the water. . does that help the cause?

I’m so confused right now. Were there 16 boobs in total or just the same 2 boobs over 8 separate divorces? More importantly, how does this apply to Mahomes, who I’m almost certain doesn’t even have boobs?

 

[Triumph]

 

[Ring 6]

Its probably a coincidence. I do find it intriguing that teams who lived by the pass (as you said), didn't win the Superbowl. Kurt Warner did at 41 though.

Its a stat that Mahomes can definitely end though.

And, its fine. Deus is a smart football fan, but that argument was funny so it I got a good laugh at least. I appreciate and am happy you liked the OP.

But you are picking 8 instances of teams that had a 1/32 chance of winning the Sb and calling the fact that they didn’t surprising.

Look at it this way. Of the top 32 passing TD season 2 of them won SBs. So if you throw a very high number of TDs you are twice as likely to win the Sb than if you do not.

Also 8 made it to the Sb making it 4 times as likely as not 8/32 vs 1/16 odds.

 

[Ring 6]

While I agree with Deus on this one, it's possible that the high passing TD numbers could -- and I'm speculating blindly here, because I'm up in the middle of the night for work and don't feel like doing the research -- be at the detriment of a well-developed running game. If that's the case, then perhaps when teams reach the playoffs, it's more difficult to be one dimensional on offense. I'm sure someone with time to burn could review the numbers.

Otherwise, 7 out of 50-something isn't terribly compelling. It's also not particularly relevant to the way the game plays out when the team has to execute, as mentioned in some of the examples above. How about analyzing the Super Bowl win/loss record by color of the Patriots jerseys, or the type of hoodie Belichick wears? That seems to go over with the easily-amused-by-numbers crowd.

You struck the nail squarely on the head.
First using individual football statistics to correlate to team success is folly.
Second we are using one stat of a QB and inferring that it means something to then draw a conclusion based upon assumptions. For example, you and others brought up what this might mean about teams that rely on passing and are one dimensional. But drawing an arbitrary line of number of td passes and considering all above the line one dimensional is inaccurate. Why would throwing the ball into the end zone rather than running it a few times make you one dimensional? There are many other criteria to determine if a team is one dimensional.
Further the line of success has been drawn at 1/32 odds and we looked at 7 examples. Out of the top 32 passing td seasons those QBs/teams get to a SB 4 times more than average and win it twice as often. So in effect this contrived stat would prove the opposite of what it was intended to, that high passing td teams (and by the way we are using individual stats not teams which could further confuse the issue for QBs who missed games during the year) have a very high correlation with getting to and winning the Sb.
Football and statistic are a poor match especially when trying to use one category to correlate to team success.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

But you are picking 8 instances of teams that had a 1/32 chance of winning the Sb and calling the fact that they didn’t surprising.

Look at it this way. Of the top 32 passing TD season 2 of them won SBs. So if you throw a very high number of TDs you are twice as likely to win the Sb than if you do not.

Also 8 made it to the Sb making it 4 times as likely as not 8/32 vs 1/16 odds.

I appreciate the kind reply. This is a level headed reply and it makes sense.

 

[Coolade2]

I’m so confused right now. Were there 16 boobs in total or just the same 2 boobs over 8 separate divorces? More importantly, how does this apply to Mahomes, who I’m almost certain doesn’t even have boobs?

Tried to find anaaalogy.. funny one. To me anyway. . Point is boobs or TD passes are not enough..!

Need other stuff too..! Kinda simple really.

 

[Sicilian]

I think it's a strangely arbitrary number to stop at 43... my guess is (without bothering to look anything up myself), is that if you started to include QBs who threw for 42 TD's, it makes the point less "interesting".

I don't mean to poo-poo on your thread, I like factoids like this as well. I just think a better measure might be looking at the record of the TD leader each year. While still not relevant to anything in the future, it would at least give us a sample point in each of the 50+ years.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Still interesting that nobody who has thrown 43+ has won the Superbowl in my opinion. If we only count 45+, thatd be less cherry picked.

Why, when there have been so few that have done it? You're acting as if throwing that many TDs has been an every year accomplishment when almost all the occasions (6 of 8) have been within the past 15 years, and you're implying that the weak correlation might be proof of causation.

There are 12 playoff teams each year. If you assume, for now, that every team has an equal chance of winning the Super Bowl from that field, then each team has roughly an 8% chance.

There have been eight scenarios where a given team has entered the playoffs with a 43+ TD quarterback, and we’ll put an 8% chance of winning each time. The chances that ZERO of these teams will win a SB is 51%. The chances that one or more 43+ TD teams would win a SB is 49%.

Now you may counter that some of these teams have been better than average and therefore would have better than an 8% chance, pushing the average probability up overall, and that is true. But even if you gave each of those teams a 20% chance (which is extremely high), there’s still a 25% chance of zero titles in 8 attempts, which is still very far from high probability that a SB win should have occurred from a 43+ TD team.

Edit: I included Mahomes season which is still in progress, so there have only been 7 opportunities, making it even less probable than those percentages.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Mahomes did not throw a TD pass last game.

Indy was 0 - 9 on 3rd down so I dare say that Mahomes had plenty of chances

You can dominate a game without throwing a TD pass. Brady only threw one against the Chargers while Rivers threw three. Who played better?

 

[Quest4SevenHomie]

The 2017-18 Eagles didn't have a prolific defense nor were they anywhere close to what the Chiefs have on offense, and yet, they still won a Super Bowl.

They were a rare anomaly who happened to make ONE defensive play that sealed their win.