Are people looking at the wrong stats when assessing QBs - can we come up with something better?

[Oldfan]

Sorry Oldfan but that's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing 'La La La I can't hear you' - no offense

That was kind of the whole point of me starting this thread - if we could try and pull out valuable intangible from numbers that people overlooked - I've been trying to keep up with this thread but i still haven't read anything to say 3rd down efficiency isn't a good sign of clutch. I can't recall if it was you who said there was no such thing as 'clutch', but that is an 'intangible' that may perhaps be distilled from the stats.

(don't get me wrong the battle royal between you and Lombardi_kid_bro has been very interesting)

It was LKB who said that clutch doesn't exist. I think it exists, but you won't ever find it from the stats because there's no way to distinguish it statistically from pure chance (LKB says it's pure chance).

So, here you're telling that I'm putting my head in the sand and ignoring something that you believe exists but I don't. If you told me you were searching for the Easter Bunny, I'd ignore you for the same reason.

As for your belief in third-down efficiency being clutch, it isn't up to others to prove you wrong. It's your claim, so the burden is on you to prove it is. Your problem in doing that is that there are too many potential causes affecting that stat that have nothing to do with "clutch."

[K.O. Johnny]

It was LKB who said that clutch doesn't exist. I think it exists, but you won't ever find it from the stats because there's no way to distinguish it statistically from pure chance (LKB says it's pure chance).

So, here you're telling that I'm putting my head in the sand and ignoring something that you believe exists but I don't. If you told me you were searching for the Easter Bunny, I'd ignore you for the same reason.

You're contradicting yourself. You say clutch exists and then you say it's the search for the Easter Bunny. I presume you don't think it can be 'pulled' out of stats. Fair enough - that's what I was looking for in this thread

[Oldfan]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how you reconcile Belichick's reliance on system to giving Drew Bledsoe the largest contract in the history of the NFL to date despite Tom Brady being on the team.

The QB is the most important player in the offense, so he's paid more than other players. Belichik didn't know what he had in Brady when he offered that contract to Bledsoe.

---------- Post added January-7th-2011 at 01:52 PM ----------

It was LKB who said that clutch doesn't exist. I think it exists, but you won't ever find it from the stats because there's no way to distinguish it statistically from pure chance (LKB says it's pure chance).

You're contradicting yourself. You say clutch exists and then you say it's the search for the Easter Bunny. I presume you don't think it can be 'pulled' out of stats. Fair enough - that's what I was looking for in this thread

Clutch Stat = Easter Bunny

[GibbsFactor]

You're contradicting yourself. You say clutch exists and then you say it's the search for the Easter Bunny. I presume you don't think it can be 'pulled' out of stats. Fair enough - that's what I was looking for in this thread

Clutch is probably being defined as performance under pressure. No offense to anyone, but playing QB in the NFL is always under pressure. So the mere fact that they are starting in the NFL at QB makes them "clutch". The difference between a Joe Montana and Brett Farve is that Montana didn't make costly late game mistakes as often as Farve. That's the current definition of clutch. Yet, doesn't Farve lead the league in all time 4th quarter come backs? So who's to say the pressure of winning a game in the 4th quarter in week 4 is higher than the pressure in the NFC championship game? You'd assume it is but to understand a competitor is to understand that they want to perform their best all the time. So the pressure to win that week 4 game may be the same as the pressure to win the Superbowl while playing the game. Other factors then come into play such as exploiting matchups and defensive talent. There's too many things out of the control of the quarterback. Trends emerge over time to give an indication that a quarterback is "clutch" but you then have to take into consideration the playmakers around the QB, the management from the sidelines and the talent the QB is facing on defense. All of those things make it an intangible and thus very difficult to rate.

If you say a QB is clutch because he wins the NC on the last drive but all season long he's executed the offense with ease, is he clutch or just a great player that can execute the offense? Is it the fact that he's executing the offense while playing superior defenses (assuming the opponent in the championship game is better than the teams faced in the regular season) clutch or that he's just able to execute the game plan against the team he's facing?

I just don't buy the fact that a quarterback is clutch simply because he can execute his offense towards the end of the game. I tend to get better as the game goes on too. You get a feel for the game.

[Oldfan]

...I just don't buy the fact that a quarterback is clutch simply because he can execute his offense towards the end of the game...

If you gathered a large sample of stats on any particular drive, say the last drive in the first quarter, the second drive in the third quarter, or the last drive in the fourth quarter -- the best football teams would be outstanding in all.

So, QBs on the elite teams should be expected to be outstanding in their final drives.

[Horatio]

Fantasy Football has ruined the average fan's understanding of what statistics are important. People drool over QBs like Jay Cutler because he passes for 300 yards every game...but does he win consistently? No, and the only stat which indicates consistency in winning is YPA.

Guess who has the highest YPA in playoff history? Bart Starr. Starr had SIX seasons in the 1960s in which he rated 8.2 YPA or higher...and anything above 7.0 is considered good.

The famous Packers running game? In 1965-67, their three consecutive title years, their running game was ranked 11th, 14th, and 4th. Their passing game, in terms of YPA was ranked 2nd, 1st, and 1st.

Running is certainly necessary and crucial to winning games...after you have scored points, which you can only do with an efficient passing game.

[Oldfan]

Fantasy Football has ruined the average fan's understanding of what statistics are important. People drool over QBs like Jay Cutler because he passes for 300 yards every game...but does he win consistently? No, and the only stat which indicates consistency in winning is YPA.

Guess who has the highest YPA in playoff history? Bart Starr. Starr had SIX seasons in the 1960s in which he rated 8.2 YPA or higher...and anything above 7.0 is considered good.

The famous Packers running game? In 1965-67, their three consecutive title years, their running game was ranked 11th, 14th, and 4th. Their passing game, in terms of YPA was ranked 2nd, 1st, and 1st.

Running is certainly necessary and crucial to winning games...after you have scored points, which you can only do with an efficient passing game.

Your stats are lying to you, Horatio. Forget those rankings. Lombardi's Green Bay Sweep was so difficult to stop that defenses had to commit more personnel, which, in turn, made Bart Starr's play action passes more effective.

Today's game is different, though. You're right that the passing game is more important now.