What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

QB Choke Index (1 Viewer)

Hi bf,

I guess it can be anything you want it to be. I think it's more along what MT said when he started:

I'm suggesting that, with the small sample sizes of playoff games along with high standard deviation of weekly QB performance in general, any kind of "playoff choking effect" we find will probably have no more statistical significance than the pastrami effect.
Joe, Are you disagreeing with my example that the 4 INTs game was a bad game? That it was more than one standard deviation from Manning's norm for the season?

Is 4 INT's outside the normally high standard deviation? Well, He averaged .6 INTs per game that season and never threw more than 2 INTs that season, so his normally high standard deviation for 2003 was .72. Which means that one would expect him to get .6 INTs per game, would be between 0 and 1 INTs 68% of the time, and would be between 0 and 2 INTs

But that's a small sample size since it's just a 16 game season, so let's look at his 112 career games where he averages closer to 1 INT per game (mostly in his first two seasons, but in the interest of accuracy and fairness, we'll use all the data points we can). He's only had one other 4 INT game through all the data points in his seven year career. His average was 1.07 INTs per game. His standard deviation is .98. That means that Manning's 4 INT game was three standard deviations from his entire career - meaning it should happen less than one third of 1% of the time. As a sanity check, those numbers played out fairly regularly during his regular season performance - he had just one 4 INT game in 112 regular season games, which is perfectly within the expected bounds.

So there's about a .3% chance of that game happening, and it happens in the playoffs? That's pretty statistically unlikely. But he could be really unlucky. Then again, his completion percentage was 2 STDev's away from his career norm, which should happen about 5% of the time.

Can we agree that a game that bad, even in a small sample size, was extremely unlikely to happen? And that it did happen?

 
Buried somewhere in one of the Manning-is-a-choker threads, I posted that the Colts in the Manning era have exactly the playoff record you would expect based on their seedings. They have been the higher seed 3 out of 8 times, and they've one 3 of 8 games. Even Steven. :boxing:
Manning: 0/1 in expected win games in 2005 post-season.Brady: 1/1 in expected win games in 2005 post-season.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you break down every QB's performance according to how well each has played after I've eaten a pastrami sandwich the previous Wednesday, you will find that certain QBs have done much better than normal in pastrami weeks while others have totally choked.
:lmao:
 
Great post Doug. A couple of names I wasn't expecting in the even to plus catagory where:

Rypien

Dilfer

Everett

Wilson

Krieg

Another thing that caught my eye. 4 QB's totaling +4.5 were coached by Joe Gibbs. Those QB's were Rypien, Williams, Schroeder & Hunphries. When add in Theissman that nakes 5 QB's. Not sure if Joe is a + or - but I would guess a +.
I was noting that too. My quick review of Theismann's stats puts him at a -2.0 net, given that his playoff teams appear to have always been the higher seed under this formula, but he came out with 2 losses, once in the Super Bowl to the Raiders, and once the following year in the opening round to the Bears.

 
As an added thought, one thing that this formula seems to favor are QB's whose teams get on hot streaks for one year. For example, you have the 1989 Rams that won two road games and then lost in the NFC Championship Game to the 49'ers. That accounts for Jim Everett's +2 rating, given that he never did anything else remarkable in the playoffs in his career. Another guy like Everett, who appears to have been omitted from this list, is Jim Harbaugh. Like Everett in 1989, Harbaugh led a wild card team to the conference championship game in 1995 before losing. He too would be a +2 despite having lost every other of his five playoff games that he played in. Neither of these two guys should be regarded as a great or even good playoff QB despite their score in this formula. One thing IMHO therefore needs to be adjusted here. To me, it's its own virtue to win games that you're expected to win. We're piling on Peyton Manning right now for failing to do that, so we may as well praise someone when they do it to. While it's certainly more impressive to win when you shouldn't, I do think that winning when you should should be given more value on this scale than losing when you should.

 
Tangent question: How indicative is the seeding of the team's strength?Whether it's in season injuries (with the guy healthy now) or tough schedule or whatever, how accurately does the seed reflect the real strength of the team?I ask because of the PIT thing yesterday being the #6 seed. And a team like San Diego or Kansas City not making the playoffs had me thinking a little too. J

 
Tangent question: How indicative is the seeding of the team's strength?

Whether it's in season injuries (with the guy healthy now) or tough schedule or whatever, how accurately does the seed reflect the real strength of the team?

I ask because of the PIT thing yesterday being the #6 seed.

And a team like San Diego or Kansas City not making the playoffs had me thinking a little too.

J
Or on the flip side, you have last year's NFC field which was rounded out with the 8-8 Vikings to make one of the weakest brackets in memory.
 
Tangent question: How indicative is the seeding of the team's strength?

Whether it's in season injuries (with the guy healthy now) or tough schedule or whatever, how accurately does the seed reflect the real strength of the team?

I ask because of the PIT thing yesterday being the #6 seed.

And a team like San Diego or Kansas City not making the playoffs had me thinking a little too.

J
Not sure how easily we can look back at history to see who "should have had a better record", but it turns out Manning played one game as a lower seed against a team that had a worse record than they did, and lost. They also played one game as a higher seed than a team that had the same record, but were allowed to host the game because they won their division. Data if you're interested:

In 2005, Indy was the #1 seed, and lost to Pittsburgh, who got edged out of the three seed by Cinci. Indy still would have been favored.

In 2004, Indy lost to New England, who was the #1 seed, and was two games ahead of the division winning Colts. Both teams were correctly seeded. The 12-4 Colts also got to host the 10-6 Broncos.

In 2003, Indy lost to New England, who was the #1 seed, and was two games ahead of the division winning Colts, who edged out Tennessee on a tie breaker. Both teams were correctly seeded. The 12-4 Colts also got to host the 10-4 Broncos, and go on the road to play the 13-3 Chiefs.

In 2002, Indy (11-5) was one game behind Tennessee. They lost on the road to the division winning New York Jets (9-7), who had a worse record, but higher seed than they did.

In 2001, Indy missed the playoffs.

In 2000, Indy lost to their division rival, at Miami. The two teams were correctly seeded.

In 1999, Indy lost at home to their soon-to-be division rival, Tennessee. Both teams had the same record, but Tennessee had to play at Indy because they came in second in the AFC Central.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IIRC, this is the first time in league history a team with 14 or more wins failed to win a playoff game, isn't it?Those of you who have been around here long enough know I'm not in the "Manning = Choker" camp unilaterally. However, one definitely has to look at the body of evidence and start to wonder when the lie becomes the truth.

 
I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I don't mean who had the better record. I mean who is better at that point.

New England was a good case. Fortunately for them, their division was a cake walk with Miami as the next best team. But say if they played in a tough division, their early season injuries and troubles would have seeded them lower than they deserved. (well maybe not what they "deserved" as I like the system, but maybe not where they would rank at that point) They were much healthier and "on a roll" when the playoffs came around. They could have been hurt in their seeding by earlier mistakes / problems that were now nonexistent. That's more what I was wondering when I asked about how indicative seeding was of the true strength. Don't know the answer. Just wondering out loud.

J

Tangent question: How indicative is the seeding of the team's strength?

Whether it's in season injuries (with the guy healthy now) or tough schedule or whatever, how accurately does the seed reflect the real strength of the team?

I ask because of the PIT thing yesterday being the #6 seed.

And a team like San Diego or Kansas City not making the playoffs had me thinking a little too.

J
Not sure how easily we can look back at history to see who "should have had a better record", but it turns out Manning played one game as a lower seed against a team that had a worse record than they did, and lost. They also played one game as a higher seed than a team that had the same record, but were allowed to host the game because they won their division. Data if you're interested:

In 2005, Indy was the #1 seed, and lost to Pittsburgh, who got edged out of the three seed by Cinci. Indy still would have been favored.

In 2004, Indy lost to New England, who was the #1 seed, and was two games ahead of the division winning Colts. Both teams were correctly seeded. The 12-4 Colts also got to host the 10-6 Broncos.

In 2003, Indy lost to New England, who was the #1 seed, and was two games ahead of the division winning Colts, who edged out Tennessee on a tie breaker. Both teams were correctly seeded. The 12-4 Colts also got to host the 10-4 Broncos, and go on the road to play the 13-3 Chiefs.

In 2002, Indy (11-5) was one game behind Tennessee. They lost on the road to the division winning New York Jets (9-7), who had a worse record, but higher seed than they did.

In 2001, Indy missed the playoffs.

In 2000, Indy lost to their division rival, at Miami. The two teams were correctly seeded.

In 1999, Indy lost at home to their soon-to-be division rival, Tennessee. Both teams had the same record, but Tennessee had to play at Indy because they came in second in the AFC Central.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IIRC, this is the first time in league history a team with 14 or more wins failed to win a playoff game, isn't it?
Nope. The 1986 Chicago Bears did the same thing.I'm checking for others.

EDIT- in the 16-game era, the 1986 Bears and the 2005 Colts are the only teams with 14 or more wins who failed to win a playoff game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I don't mean who had the better record. I mean who is better at that point.

New England was a good case. Fortunately for them, their division was a cake walk with Miami as the next best team. But say if they played in a tough division, their early season injuries and troubles would have seeded them lower than they deserved. (well maybe not what they "deserved" as I like the system, but maybe not where they would rank at that point) They were much healthier and "on a roll" when the playoffs came around. They could have been hurt in their seeding by earlier mistakes / problems that were now nonexistent. That's more what I was wondering when I asked about how indicative seeding was of the true strength. Don't know the answer. Just wondering out loud.

J

Tangent question: How indicative is the seeding of the team's strength?

Whether it's in season injuries (with the guy healthy now) or tough schedule or whatever, how accurately does the seed reflect the real strength of the team?

I ask because of the PIT thing yesterday being the #6 seed.

And a team like San Diego or Kansas City not making the playoffs had me thinking a little too.

J
Not sure how easily we can look back at history to see who "should have had a better record", but it turns out Manning played one game as a lower seed against a team that had a worse record than they did, and lost. They also played one game as a higher seed than a team that had the same record, but were allowed to host the game because they won their division. Data if you're interested:

In 2005, Indy was the #1 seed, and lost to Pittsburgh, who got edged out of the three seed by Cinci. Indy still would have been favored.

In 2004, Indy lost to New England, who was the #1 seed, and was two games ahead of the division winning Colts. Both teams were correctly seeded. The 12-4 Colts also got to host the 10-6 Broncos.

In 2003, Indy lost to New England, who was the #1 seed, and was two games ahead of the division winning Colts, who edged out Tennessee on a tie breaker. Both teams were correctly seeded. The 12-4 Colts also got to host the 10-4 Broncos, and go on the road to play the 13-3 Chiefs.

In 2002, Indy (11-5) was one game behind Tennessee. They lost on the road to the division winning New York Jets (9-7), who had a worse record, but higher seed than they did.

In 2001, Indy missed the playoffs.

In 2000, Indy lost to their division rival, at Miami. The two teams were correctly seeded.

In 1999, Indy lost at home to their soon-to-be division rival, Tennessee. Both teams had the same record, but Tennessee had to play at Indy because they came in second in the AFC Central.
The 2002 Jets are a good example of that. Started off 2-5, but went 7-2 down the stretch with Pennington (losing both games on the road with a chance to tie or win in the final minutes). They outscored their opponents the last 9 games by 100 points. Certainly not your typical 9-7 team. The record wasn't great, but the last 9 games they outscored their opponents on average 27-16. (And only 2 of those 9 games were against teams with losing records.)
 
IIRC, this is the first time in league history a team with 14 or more wins failed to win a playoff game, isn't it?
Nope. The 1986 Chicago Bears did the same thing.I'm checking for others.

EDIT- in the 16-game era, the 1986 Bears and the 2005 Colts are the only teams with 14 or more wins who failed to win a playoff game.
Yup, thanks redman, I too ran the numbers and saw the Bears fell short too. The Colts are the first AFC team to suffer that fate, and being one of two is still quite a dubious honor.
 
I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I don't mean who had the better record. I mean who is better at that point.

New England was a good case. Fortunately for them, their division was a cake walk with Miami as the next best team. But say if they played in a tough division, their early season injuries and troubles would have seeded them lower than they deserved. (well maybe not what they "deserved" as I like the system, but maybe not where they would rank at that point)  They were much healthier and "on a roll" when the playoffs came around. They could have been hurt in their seeding by earlier mistakes / problems that were now nonexistent. That's more what I was wondering when I asked about how indicative seeding was of the true strength. Don't know the answer. Just wondering out loud.

J

Tangent question: How indicative is the seeding of the team's strength?

Whether it's in season injuries (with the guy healthy now) or tough schedule or whatever, how accurately does the seed reflect the real strength of the team?

I ask because of the PIT thing yesterday being the #6 seed.

And a team like San Diego or Kansas City not making the playoffs had me thinking a little too.

J
Not sure how easily we can look back at history to see who "should have had a better record", but it turns out Manning played one game as a lower seed against a team that had a worse record than they did, and lost. They also played one game as a higher seed than a team that had the same record, but were allowed to host the game because they won their division. Data if you're interested:

In 2005, Indy was the #1 seed, and lost to Pittsburgh, who got edged out of the three seed by Cinci. Indy still would have been favored.

In 2004, Indy lost to New England, who was the #1 seed, and was two games ahead of the division winning Colts. Both teams were correctly seeded. The 12-4 Colts also got to host the 10-6 Broncos.

In 2003, Indy lost to New England, who was the #1 seed, and was two games ahead of the division winning Colts, who edged out Tennessee on a tie breaker. Both teams were correctly seeded. The 12-4 Colts also got to host the 10-4 Broncos, and go on the road to play the 13-3 Chiefs.

In 2002, Indy (11-5) was one game behind Tennessee. They lost on the road to the division winning New York Jets (9-7), who had a worse record, but higher seed than they did.

In 2001, Indy missed the playoffs.

In 2000, Indy lost to their division rival, at Miami. The two teams were correctly seeded.

In 1999, Indy lost at home to their soon-to-be division rival, Tennessee. Both teams had the same record, but Tennessee had to play at Indy because they came in second in the AFC Central.
The 2002 Jets are a good example of that. Started off 2-5, but went 7-2 down the stretch with Pennington (losing both games on the road with a chance to tie or win in the final minutes). They outscored their opponents the last 9 games by 100 points. Certainly not your typical 9-7 team. The record wasn't great, but the last 9 games they outscored their opponents on average 27-16. (And only 2 of those 9 games were against teams with losing records.)
Thanks Chase. That's a good example. I wonder how many teams are like that? J

 
I think many of us have asked ourselves similar questions (i.e. who is the biggest choker? etc.) or debated them over beers with the boys. I continue to be amazed at how Mr. Drinen is able to identify and present the statistics and information that shed light on these types of questions.Excellent work. :thumbup:

 
IIRC, this is the first time in league history a team with 14 or more wins failed to win a playoff game, isn't it?
Nope. The 1986 Chicago Bears did the same thing.I'm checking for others.

EDIT- in the 16-game era, the 1986 Bears and the 2005 Colts are the only teams with 14 or more wins who failed to win a playoff game.
Yup, thanks redman, I too ran the numbers and saw the Bears fell short too. The Colts are the first AFC team to suffer that fate, and being one of two is still quite a dubious honor.
If you want to see an amazing set of stats, take a look at the QB statistics for the 1986 Bears. If you just saw that and knew nothing else about the team you'd figure it was a 2-14 team rather than a 14-2 team. :lmao:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top