NFL playoff thread

[MileHigh]

Manning is now 0-4 in playoff games where the temp was 40 or below, btw. (And that's not some arbitrary cutoff point where he's won a bunch of games where the temp was 43 degrees.)

Jan. 11, 2004. Arrowhead Stadium. Temperature: 40 degrees. Wind: 16 mph

Colts 38, Chiefs 31
Manning 22 of 30, 304 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INT

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200401110kan.htm

You got me. 40 on the number. Got any more? Can we have a five degree variable here? Any other wins under 45 degrees? Should I start posting his splits from various seasons that, for the most part, show a 10-point difference in QB rating from indoors to outdoors? And that his interception rate is significantly higher outdoors?

If were going to use stats to argue that Peyton Manning is the greatest quarterback in NFL history -- and what else could we use, I guess? -- let's at least acknowledge that all stats are not created equal. Just acknowledge it. That's all I'm asking for.

Manning in the playoffs:
Dome: 6-4
66 degrees: Win (rain in the Super Bowl)
61 degrees: Lose
56 degrees: Loss
54 degrees: Win
54 degrees: Lose
40 degrees: Win
34 degrees: Loss
31 degrees: Loss
27 degrees: Loss
13 degrees: Loss

 

[LongTimeListener]

Manning is now 0-4 in playoff games where the temp was 40 or below, btw. (And that's not some arbitrary cutoff point where he's won a bunch of games where the temp was 43 degrees.)

Jan. 11, 2004. Arrowhead Stadium. Temperature: 40 degrees. Wind: 16 mph

Colts 38, Chiefs 31
Manning 22 of 30, 304 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INT

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200401110kan.htm

You got me. 40 on the number. Got any more? Can we have a five degree variable here? Any other wins under 45 degrees? Should I start posting his splits from various seasons that, for the most part, show a 10-point difference in QB rating from indoors to outdoors? And that his interception rate is significantly higher outdoors?

If were going to use stats to argue that Peyton Manning is the greatest quarterback in NFL history -- and what else could we use, I guess? -- let's at least acknowledge that all stats are not created equal. Just acknowledge it. That's all I'm asking for.

Unless I misread you (which is entirely possible) this seems to move the goal posts a bit. I completely agree that A. It is easier to play QB indoors and B. Peyton Manning spent most of his career playing indoors.
My disagreement comes with using the record of Manning's teams to reach the conclusion that Manning under-performs in the playoffs. The stats just don't back that up.

I guess if people think football is like baseball and a given player can only affect one-ninth of his team's offensive plays, looking at a singular stat line can be comforting. But it doesn't work in football.

In 2010 against the Jets, Manning completed 70 percent of his passes for 225 yards and a touchdown. Rating of 108.7. Yet the Colts scored only 16 points. And Manning, the entire night, found exactly one occasion to throw the ball to Reggie Wayne (a 2-yard catch).

On the stat sheet, Peyton had a heck of a game.

 

[printit]

So guys, then, what is it that makes Peyton Manning's teams sub-.500 in the playoffs, and his offenses unable to measure up, even when those teams have been among the NFL's best offenses and had double-digit winning streaks during those regular seasons?

Just bad luck?

Peyton Manning's lifetime passer rating: regular season 95.7
Peyton Manning's lifetime passer rating: playoffs: 88.4
Not exactly falling off a cliff here. I have no idea what you mean when you say his "offenses unable to measure up" unless by that you mean that they aren't winning.

 

[RickStain]

You keep trying to make the argument that people are connecting this to baseball sabermetrics, and you're just wrong. Nobody's making that kind of argument.

I have no problem with looking beyond stat lines for a quarterback's performance evaluation. You just did a good job of it with the whole "he didn't throw to Reggie Wayne and the safe throws cost his team points but made his stat line look good" argument.

Simply citing his team's win-loss record isn't thinking beyond the stat line. It's just using a really bad stat line.

 

[LongTimeListener]

So guys, then, what is it that makes Peyton Manning's teams sub-.500 in the playoffs, and his offenses unable to measure up, even when those teams have been among the NFL's best offenses and had double-digit winning streaks during those regular seasons?

Just bad luck?

Peyton Manning's lifetime passer rating: regular season 95.7
Peyton Manning's lifetime passer rating: playoffs: 88.4
Not exactly falling off a cliff here. I have no idea what you mean when you say his "offenses unable to measure up" unless by that you mean that they aren't winning.

See my above post for what I think about those ratings.

By offenses not measuring up, I mean a team that scored 27.5 points a game (2005 Indianapolis) having three points through three quarters against Pittsburgh. Or his Denver team giving away almost as many points on turnovers (17) as they scored (21). That's what that means.

 

[RickStain]

"Through three quarters."

And now we're back to the terrible kind of cherrypicking. The fourth quarter counts, too. Some have argued it counts more than the others.

 

[Songbird]

That isn't the worst cherry-pick. You fully expect that a potent Colts team could do more than a FG through 45 minutes regardless of the 4th quarter.

 

[LongTimeListener]

You keep trying to make the argument that people are connecting this to baseball sabermetrics, and you're just wrong. Nobody's making that kind of argument.

I have no problem with looking beyond stat lines for a quarterback's performance evaluation. You just did a good job of it with the whole "he didn't throw to Reggie Wayne and the safe throws cost his team points but made his stat line look good" argument.

Simply citing his team's win-loss record isn't thinking beyond the stat line. It's just using a really bad stat line.

It's not "simply" citing it. It's in conjunction with many other factors, the most prominent being the actual game. If he were losing 31-28 solely because his defense let him down, no, W-L wouldn't have a lot to do with it. That's why there aren't many people saying "man, Russell Wilson really blew it."

The Grantland column that kicked off this latest tangent is very much an embrace of sabermetric principles. So are Football Outsiders and much other analysis out there.

 

[LongTimeListener]

"Through three quarters."

And now we're back to the terrible kind of cherrypicking. The fourth quarter counts, too. Some have argued it counts more than the others.

Three through three quarters set the pattern for the game. But, fine, 18 for the game in full-on scramble mode. Well, well below par, especially considering they had beaten this team 26-7 in the regular season.

If Peyton Manning's 290-yard stat line satisfies you that he didn't play poorly in that game, we'll just have to agree with me being right and you being wrong.

 

[RickStain]

Sabermatricians didn't invent the concept of statistical analysis. They especially didn't invent the proper understanding of statistics as a branch of mathematics.

I haven't been impressed with much of what I've seen of it in football. Football Outsiders and the like are fun diversions, but they don't seem to me to carry a ton of weight.

 

[RickStain]

"Through three quarters."

And now we're back to the terrible kind of cherrypicking. The fourth quarter counts, too. Some have argued it counts more than the others.

Three through three quarters set the pattern for the game. But, fine, 18 for the game in full-on scramble mode. Well, well below par, especially considering they had beaten this team 26-7 in the regular season.

If Peyton Manning's 290-yard stat line satisfies you that he didn't play poorly in that game, we'll just have to agree with me being right and you being wrong.

You don't seem to understand that when I point out a bad argument, it doesn't mean I disagree with the conclusion.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Sabermatricians didn't invent the concept of statistical analysis. They especially didn't invent the proper understanding of statistics as a branch of mathematics.

I haven't been impressed with much of what I've seen of it in football. Football Outsiders and the like are fun diversions, but they don't seem to me to carry a ton of weight.

You may be above it, but it's broadly accepted as advanced football analysis. I see that Barnwell thing posted here or elsewhere at least three times a week.