PDA

View Full Version : Adjusted Comeback Efficiency



Ravage!!!
02-05-2010, 07:37 PM
Interesting read. Got this from another board, found it interesting to see.


http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ram...ack-efficiency

Also interesting to see how people react to some of their favorite QBs ranked low, and QBs that are disliked ranked high

dogfish
02-05-2010, 09:00 PM
Hmm...We can't seem to find that
The page you requested was not found. Please check the URL and try again. If you believe you have reached this page in error, please contact webmaster@footballoutsiders.com with the URL.
Posted by: admin on 25 Aug 2008

0 comments


link no workee for me, trouble. . . .

frauschieze
02-05-2010, 10:18 PM
Try this one:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency

I'd post the article but there's lots of stats columns and it would be funky.

dogfish
02-05-2010, 10:25 PM
kyle orton doesn't need to come back, because kyle orton is always winning. . . . :heh:

The Glue Factory
02-06-2010, 11:13 AM
I wonder if they had gone back far enough to include Elway where he would rank. Given his SB number I'd guess pretty high.

Ravage!!!
02-06-2010, 04:49 PM
I wonder if I can connect this to my "10 point in the second half" observation?? :confused:

T.K.O.
02-06-2010, 06:06 PM
dont trust anything that ranks marc bulger ahead of dan marino and bret favre......:laugh:

Dean
02-06-2010, 07:50 PM
Ouch! Fourty-first is dismally low.


02 Feb 2010

Adjusted Comeback Efficiency Guest column by Nicholas Higgins

One graphic that sometimes pops up late in NFL games is "number of game-winning drives," which is implied to be a metric of clutch quarterback ability. However, this figure is meaningless out of context, and raises a number of questions. How many opportunities did the quarterback have to lead a game-winning drive? If the quarterback leads his team on a drive to take the lead with one minute left, and then his defense subsequently surrenders a touchdown, shouldn’t he still get credit for that drive? What if the quarterback leads the team on a long drive to the 5-yard line, only for the kicker to miss the game-winning, chip-shot field goal as time expires?

The purpose of the Adjusted Comeback Efficiency (ACE) Rating is to provide a comprehensive figure for measuring a quarterback’s performance in potential game-winning or game-tying situations. First, the methodology of the ACE rating will be briefly explained. This is followed by an analysis of the results. At the end, the methodology calculations are shown in greater detail for those that are interested.

Basic Methodology
The ACE rating compares a quarterback's outcome in a given situation to the expected or average outcome in that situation. Adjustments were made for four factors: starting field position, time remaining in game, deficit (how many points behind), and outcome (no score, field goal attempt, touchdown). For example:

Quarterback A: after an interception return, he starts at his opponent's 5-yard line down by one point with two minutes to go

Quarterback B: after a kickoff, he starts at his own 20-yard line down by 8 points with 30 seconds to go

Quarterback A has a much easier scenario than Quarterback B. Therefore, the ACE rating gives more credit to Quarterback B for a successful comeback than Quarterback A, and penalizes Quarterback B less than Quarterback A for failure. A touchdown is worth more credit than a field goal in most situations (one exception: overtime). If the offense attempts a field goal, it is irrelevant for the ACE rating whether the kicker makes it or misses it. Instead, the quarterback gets credit based on the average success rate for that distance of field goal, such that a short field goal attempt receives more credit than a long field goal attempt.

There are some more adjustments, but the concept is simple: The ACE rating calculates how efficient a quarterback is in potential comeback situations, taking into account the level of difficulty of the situation.

Quarterback Rankings
This list includes all quarterbacks with at least 30 qualifying drives from 1998 to 2009 (including playoffs). For some quarterbacks, this means that this data set only captures part of their career (e.g. Dan Marino at No. 43 from the last two years of his career, 1998-99). At the bottom, I have listed some noteworthy young quarterbacks that have not yet reached the drive threshold, although caution should be exercised with such thin data. For each player, we also provide the NFL's QB rating for comparison purposes.

Rank QB ACE Drives CBs CB% QBR QBR Rank Rank Diff
1 E.Manning 1.55 66 28 42.4% 79.2 32 31
2 B.Roethlisberger 1.44 78 34 43.6% 91.7 8 6
3 P.Manning 1.40 145 62 42.8% 95.2 4 1
4 P.Rivers 1.36 51 22 43.1% 95.8 2 -2
5 A.Rodgers 1.33 32 13 40.6% 97.2 1 -4
6 M.Schaub 1.33 38 14 36.8% 91.3 9 3
7 J.Cutler 1.32 55 21 38.2% 83.8 20 13
8 T.Green 1.31 105 37 35.2% 86.0 16 8
9 T.Romo 1.31 45 15 33.3% 95.6 3 -6
10 D.Brees 1.31 88 36 40.9% 91.9 7 -3
11 C.Palmer 1.30 76 27 35.5% 87.9 12 1
12 J.Plummer 1.27 108 39 36.1% 74.7 49 37
13 J.Delhomme 1.25 90 32 35.6% 82.1 27 14
14 T.Brady 1.24 85 38 44.7% 93.3 6 -8
15 R.Gannon 1.21 83 27 32.5% 89.8 11 -4
16 D.Culpepper 1.19 85 25 29.4% 87.8 13 -3
17 J.Garcia 1.17 107 35 32.7% 87.5 14 -3
18 A.Brooks 1.12 81 29 35.8% 78.5 36 18
19 V.Testaverde 1.10 70 23 32.9% 78.6 35 16
20 M.Hasselbeck 1.09 101 33 32.7% 83.3 23 3
Rank QB ACE Drives CBs CB% QBR QBR Rank Rank Diff
21 D.Flutie 1.08 66 22 33.3% 78.7 33 12
22 M.Cassel 1.07 34 11 32.4% 79.6 30 8
23 S.McNair 1.06 107 32 29.9% 83.8 20 -3
24 C.Batch 1.05 38 13 34.2% 77.9 38 14
25 D.Garrard 1.04 58 17 29.3% 84.9 19 -6
26 G.Frerotte 1.04 40 11 27.5% 74.6 50 24
27 K.Warner 1.02 95 23 24.2% 93.7 5 -22
28 J.Fiedler 1.02 52 15 28.8% 77.1 39 11
29 C.Pennington 1.01 69 18 26.1% 90.1 10 -19
30 C.Chandler 1.01 36 11 30.6% 80.6 29 -1
31 K.Collins 1.00 124 36 29% 75.7 44 13
32 D.Bledsoe 0.99 125 33 26.4% 78.7 33 1
33 M.Vick 0.97 62 17 27.4% 75.9 43 10
34 M.Bulger 0.96 77 24 31.2% 82.4 25 -9
35 T.Banks 0.96 44 11 25% 73.0 51 16
36 B.Leftwich 0.95 47 14 29.8% 79.6 30 -6
37 M.Brunell 0.94 98 27 27.6% 83.4 22 -15
38 D.Marino 0.94 32 9 28.1% 74.9 48 10
39 D.McNabb 0.94 129 38 29.5% 86.5 15 -24
40 B.Favre 0.93 187 57 30.5% 85.3 18 -22
Rank QB ACE Drives CBs CB% QBR QBR Rank Rank Diff
41 K.Orton 0.92 38 12 31.6% 76.9 40 -1
42 T.Couch 0.92 63 17 27.0% 75.1 47 5
43 B.Johnson 0.91 110 28 25.5% 81.9 28 -15
44 J.Kitna 0.88 107 26 24.3% 76.6 42 -2
45 T.Maddox 0.87 43 11 25.6% 76.7 41 -4
46 B.Griese 0.85 84 22 26.2% 82.7 24 -22
47 R.Grossman 0.84 35 9 25.7% 69.5 58 11
48 D.Carr 0.83 58 18 31.0% 75.2 46 -2
49 S.Beuerlein 0.81 52 11 21.2% 85.6 17 -32
50 J.P.Losman 0.80 34 8 23.5% 75.6 45 -5
51 D.Anderson 0.76 36 8 22.2% 69.7 56 5
52 Q.Carter 0.76 34 8 23.5% 71.7 54 2
53 E.Grbac 0.73 52 11 21.2% 78.2 37 -16
54 J.Campbell 0.72 54 12 22.2% 82.3 26 -28
55 A.Feeley 0.70 33 8 24.2% 69.6 57 2
56 J.Harbaugh 0.70 36 8 22.2% 72.2 53 -3
57 K.Boller 0.66 42 10 23.8% 70.6 55 -2
58 J.Harrington 0.60 50 11 22.0% 69.4 59 1
59 T.Dilfer 0.56 62 10 16.1% 72.8 52 -7
60 A.Smith 0.55 34 6 17.6% 69.2 60 0
Rank QB ACE Drives CBs CB% QBR QBR Rank Rank Diff
X NFL AVERAGE 1.00 5527 1617 29.3% 81.2 X X
X J.Flacco 1.31 26 10 38.5% 84.9 X X
X C.Henne 1.10 17 5 29.4% 75.2 X X
X M.Ryan 1.77 19 10 52.6% 84.3 X X
X M.Sanchez 1.04 12 3 25.0% 63.9 X X
X V.Young 1.15 29 12 41.4% 72.3 X X

Note that the league average is exactly 1.00. A comeback is defined as a successful drive (tie the game or take the lead if trailing; take the lead if the game is tied). CB% is comebacks divided by drives. QBR is QB Rating, QBR Rank is their rank by QB Rating, and Rank Difference is the ACE Rating rank minus the QB Rating rank.

The rankings largely conform to what one would expect: Philip Rivers is a great quarterback no matter the situation, and Joey Harrington is not. The notable cases are when a player’s clutch performance (ACE rating ranking) differs greatly from their overall performance (QB Rating ranking). Eli Manning stands out with the top ACE rating in spite of his below-average QB rating. Eli also has a Super Bowl ring -- in fact, the last four Super Bowls have been won by the players with the top three ACE ratings, and Peyton may make it five in a row. The relationship between ACE rating and Super Bowl success will be analyzed further later on in this column.


Jake "the Snake" Plummer has an even larger differential than Eli Manning, matching Plummer’s reputation as a clutch (but mediocre) quarterback. Another Jake (Delhomme) is a surprising player to see ranked 13th, although perhaps this helps explain how an average quarterback reached a Super Bowl in 2003 and the NFC Championship Game in 2005. Bears fans probably would not expect Jay Cutler to finish in the top 10, but should be happy to learn that their franchise quarterback has consistently had an above-average ACE rating every season (even 2009!). It is still early in their careers, but Aaron Rodgers (fifth) and Matt Schaub (sixth) have both had very promising starts.

Among active players, the quarterback with the biggest negative differential between his ACE rating and QB rating is Jason Campbell. He has an average QB rating, but his terrible ACE rating (0.72, 54th) places him in dubious company, including Quincy Carter, Elvis Grbac, and A.J. Feeley. After Campbell, the players with the largest negative differentials are two superstars with reputations for big mistakes in big moments: Donovan McNabb and Brett Favre. McNabb (0.94, 39th) and Favre (0.93, 40th) both have ACE ratings that confirm their below-average performance in clutch situations. The peak of Favre's career (1995-97) is cut off by the 1998 start date for the our data, but with by far the most comeback opportunities (187) of anyone on the list, there are no issues with data credibility for Favre (his personal credibility is a separate debate).

There is one big-name "choker" quarterback whose reputation is cleared by his ACE rating: Tony Romo. While Romo has a lower ACE rating than QB rating, his ACE rank (ninth) is quite respectable and only looks poor in comparison to his superb QB rating rank (third).

There are two other particularly interesting players whose ACE ratings are lower than their QB ratings: Kurt Warner and Tom Brady.

Warner is fifth in QB rating over the past dozen years, but 27th in ACE rating. Warner has had a very unusual career, however, with higher highs and lower lows than the typical player. He had an above-average ACE rating in all of his six best seasons (1999-2001, 2007-09), and he has been fantastic in the playoffs (2.29 ACE Rating in 11 drives, the best of all quarterbacks with at least five drives). Kurt Warner from his glory years (1999-2001) with the Rams would have the fourth-best ACE rating, which is closer to where one would expect him to rank. His career ACE Rating is killed by a stretch of games covering three years from 2002-04 when he failed on 21 consecutive potential comeback drives, the longest streak of any player between 1998 and 2009.

Kurt Warner ACE by Year
Years ACE Drives CB CB%
1999-2001 1.39 28 10 36%
2002-2006 0.35 30 2 7%
2007-2009 1.26 37 11 30%
Total 1.02 95 23 24%

Brady has a very high ACE rating -- 1.24 -- but that still doesn't seem to fit his reputation as the best clutch quarterback of the past decade, and he ranks eight places lower in ACE (14th) than he does in QB rating (6th). Brady’s career ACE rating is dragged down by his uncharacteristically poor 2009 season, when he went 1-for-10 on comebacks and had the first below-average seasonal ACE rating of his career (not counting 2004, when he only had one comeback drive). If 2009 is removed, his ACE rating is 1.32, which would be eighth on the list. Brady has also been in easier comeback situations than other quarterbacks. His average degree of difficulty per drive was the easiest of any player in the top 20 of the ACE rankings. Finally, there's the Adam Vinatieri effect: Every time Vinatieri hit a clutch kick in the playoffs, Brady was measured based on what we would expect from an average field-goal kicker instead. This is how Brady can lead all quarterbacks in actual comeback percentage (45 percent) but rank just 14th in ACE.

Tom Brady ACE by Year
Years ACE Drives CB CB%
2001 1.30 14 7 50%
2002 1.02 11 4 36%
2003 1.12 18 9 50%
2004 0.00 1 0 0%
2005 1.90 7 5 71%
2006 1.35 14 7 50%
2007 1.80 10 5 50%
2009 0.40 10 1 10%
Total 1.24 85 38 45%

Both Warner and Brady, of course, appear on this list of Super Bowl champion quarterbacks:

ACE for Super Bowl Champion Quarterbacks
Year Team Player Off. ACE Off. Drives Def. ACE Def. Drives
1998 DEN J.Elway 1.54 9 1.07 8
1999 STL K.Warner 1.43 10 1.07 7
2000 BAL T.Dilfer 0.31 9 0.71 15
2001 NE T.Brady 1.30 14 0.63 17
2002 TB B.Johnson 0.87 8 0.34 13
2003 NE T.Brady 1.12 18 0.72 31
2004 NE T.Brady 0.00 1 0.42 14
2005 PIT B.Roethlisberger 1.78 7 0.83 16
2006 IND P.Manning 2.07 15 1.00 25
2007 NYG E.Manning 1.68 11 0.34 25
2008 PIT B.Roethlisberger 1.41 15 1.19 18
2009 IND P.Manning 2.67 9 0.37 14
2009 NO D.Brees 1.79 12 0.30 22

First, it should be stated that there are data thinness issues when looking at data from a single season (especially Brady in 2004, who had just one drive). Returning to the theory of a possible relationship between playoff success and ACE rating, the above table shows that the Super Bowl-winning quarterback had a seasonal ACE rating of at least 1.40 in every season except for a stretch from 2000 to 2004. The winners from 2000 to 2004 (plus the 2007 Giants) were all defensive-minded teams with defensive ACE ratings below 0.75 (low is good for defenses). The 2000 Ravens in particular could not rely on their quarterback, as Trent Dilfer finished next-to-last in the ACE rating rankings. However, Dilfer did not face a potential comeback situation during that playoff run. Looking at this year’s Super Bowl, the Colts and Saints have been extraordinarily strong on both sides of the ball from an ACE rating perspective.

Drew Brees ACE by Year
Year ACE Drives CB CB%
2001 2.20 2 1 50.0%
2002 1.19 19 8 42.1%
2003 0.00 2 0 0.0%
2004 1.68 10 5 50.0%
2005 1.20 12 5 41.7%
2006 1.14 11 3 27.3%
2007 1.17 4 1 25.0%
2008 1.18 16 6 37.5%
2009 1.79 12 7 58.3%
Total 1.31 88 36 40.9%

Super Bowl XLIV will match Drew Brees (tenth, career ACE rating of 1.31) and Peyton Manning (third, career ACE rating of 1.40). Brees’s ACE rating rank is a little lower than his QB rating rank (seventh), but both are excellent. Ignoring the seasons with fewer than 10 drives, Brees has been remarkably consistent over his career, with an above-average ACE rating in every season, and had his best season to date in 2009.

Peyton Manning ACE by Year
Year ACE Drives CB CB%
1998 0.39 17 1 5.9%
1999 1.02 15 6 40.0%
2000 0.97 8 2 25.0%
2001 0.40 10 1 10.0%
2002 1.49 13 6 46.2%
2003 1.59 18 9 50.0%
2004 2.12 13 8 61.5%
2005 0.58 3 0 0.0%
2006 2.07 15 10 66.7%
2007 1.26 11 3 27.3%
2008 1.54 13 9 69.2%
2009 2.67 9 7 77.8%
Total 1.40 145 62 42.8%
1998-2001 0.72 50 10 20.0%
2002-2009 1.74 95 52 54.7%

Some (*cough* Bill Simmons *cough*) have theorized that Peyton was a choker for most of his career but became clutch somewhere around the Super Bowl victory in 2006. The theory is right, but the timing is wrong -- the year Peyton Manning became clutch was 2002. Looking at the above table, it can be seen that Peyton indeed had some rough years early in his career (including a 1-for-19 start). Since 2002, Peyton has performed exceptionally well. In fact, Peyton from the last 8 seasons would be the top quarterback by far with a 1.74 ACE rating. A close Super Bowl could come down to whichever team has the ball last.

Detailed Methodology
The set of data includes all drives where the game is tied or the team is behind 1-8 points in the fourth quarter or overtime from the regular season and the playoffs from 1998 season through the conference championships of the 2009 season. Drives with no offensive plays (i.e. return touchdown) and kneel-downs before overtime were removed.

The ACE Rating is calculated by dividing the Outcome value by the Expected value. Calculation 1 looks at how the Outcome value is determined, and Calculation 2 looks at how the Expected value is determined. Here are the formulas:

•ACE = Outcome / Expected
•Outcome = Deficit-Result Factor * FG% Factor (only for field goal attempt; use 1.0 for touchdowns)
•Expected = Deficit-Time Remaining Factor * LOS Factor
To demonstrate, the following example will be used below: a team is down by two points with three minutes to go, starts at their own 20-yard line, and drives to the 26-yard line for a 43-yard field goal attempt.

Calculation 1A (Deficit-Result Factor): Each deficit/result combination is assigned a point value, ranging from 0 (no points scored) to 1 (touchdown, usually).

Points Scored
Deficit 0 3 6 7 8
0 0.00 0.88/1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 0.00 0.88/1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 0.00 0.88/1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3 0.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00
4 0.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00
5 0.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00
6 0.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00
7 0.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00
8 0.00 0.05 0.50 0.50 1.00

*For cells with two values, the second value is used in the last 30 seconds of regulation and overtime

Deficit
(points) CB%
0-3 35.3%
4-7 23.0%
8 11.9%

*Comeback Rate means tying the game or taking the lead if behind, and taking the lead if tied

The first table shows the points assigned to each result, taking into consideration both the deficit and the result. For example, when the deficit is 0-3 points, a field goal is suboptimal because a touchdown would give the team a bigger lead and require that the opponent score a touchdown next time rather than a field goal. Therefore, a touchdown should receive more credit -- except at the very end of the game or overtime, when the size of the lead no longer matters because the other team will not have a chance to come back. The second table is used to determine how much more credit a touchdown deserves in normal circumstances, with a 0.12 gap (1.00-0.88) selected because the comeback rate is around 12 percent higher when the deficit is 4-7 points compared to 0-3.

A touchdown is only suboptimal when the team is down eight points and fails on the two point conversion. In this data set, two point conversions when behind by eight points were converted half of the time (33 out of 66 attempts). Therefore, a team that scores a touchdown but fails the two point conversion is assigned a value of 0.50 because the touchdown put them in a 50-50 situation to tie the game. In the example, the team is down by two points and attempts a field goal with three minutes to go, so the Deficit-Result Factor would be 0.88.

Your Ad Here
Calculation 1B (FG% Factor; use 1.0 for a TD):

FG Length Made Att. FG%
>55 5 23 22%
>50-54 48 80 60%
45-49 87 138 63%
40-44 116 159 73%
35-39 144 181 80%
30-34 115 142 81%
25-29 135 153 88%
<25 150 158 95%

The field goal chart comes into play for every attempted FG. Whether the FG is made or missed is irrelevant for the ACE rating. To use a recent real-life example for why this adjustment is made, Kurt Warner deserved some credit for a successful drive in the 2009 Packers-Cardinals playoff game even though Neil Rackers missed the 34-yard field goal in the last minute. By setting up a 34-yard field goal, Warner gave the Cardinals an 81 percent chance to take the lead, and so a factor of 0.81 is used, as opposed to 1.00 for a touchdown (which would certainly give the Cardinals the lead). To apply this adjustment, the Deficit-Result factor is multiplied by the FG%. In the example, the team is down two points and attempts a 43-yard field goal. A 43-yard field goal has a FG% of 73 percent, so the FG% Factor is 0.73. The Outcome value in the example is calculated by multiplying the Deficit-Result Factor by the FG Factor: 0.88*0.73 = 0.64.

Calculation 2A (Deficit-Time Remaining Factor):

Time Remaining
Deficit (points) 9:00-15:00 1:15-8:59 1:00-1:14 0:30-0:59 0:00-0:29 OT
0-3 0.32 0.37 0.38 0.29 0.08 0.39
4-7 0.21 0.28 0.06 0.04 0.02 x
8 0.15 0.21 0.05 0.03 0.02 x

Note: The three factors for eight points and less than 1:15 remaining are manually selected due to thin data.

The second part of the equation is the Expected value given the time remaining at start of drive, deficit, and starting line of scrimmage (LOS). In the above table, it can be seen that drives starting with less than 1:15 remaining have a much lower average outcome, getting worse as it gets closer to the end of the game. There is another transition point around the 9:00 mark, as teams are less willing to punt and thus more likely to score with less than 9:00 remaining. In the example problem, the team is down two points with three minutes to go, so the Deficit-Time Remaining Factor would be 0.37.

Calculation 2B (Line of Scrimmage Factor, aka LOS Factor):

Starting
Line of Scrimmage ACE (before
applying LOS Factor)
Own 0-9 0.59
Own 10-19 0.72
Own 20-29 0.80
Own 30-39 1.07
Own 40-49 1.30
Opp. 50-41 1.56
Opp. 40-31 1.73
Opp. 30-21 2.01
Opp. 20-11 2.21
Opp. 10-1 2.64
All 1.00

The above table predictably shows that the ACE (without any LOS Factor) gets higher as the offense starts closer to the opponent’s goal line. In the example, the offense starts at their own 20-yard line, so the LOS Factor would be 0.80. The Expected value is calculated as the Deficit-Time Remaining Factor times the LOS Factor, or 0.37*0.80 = 0.30.

Calculation 3: ACE Rating

Completing the example, the Outcome value was 0.64 and the Expected value was 0.30, so the ACE for this drive would be found by dividing the Outcome by the Expected: 0.64 / 0.30 = 2.13. If the offense had scored no points, then the ACE would be 0.00 [0.00 / 0.30]. If the offense scored a touchdown, then the ACE would be 3.33 [1.00 / 0.30]. The career ACE rating for a QB is found by dividing the sum of all his Outcome values by the sum of all his Expected values. Due to the calculation method, the ACE rating is volatile when the data is thin, and as such it is only useful when looking at a player over multiple seasons.

In summary:

•Outcome = Deficit-Result Factor * FG% (only for FG attempt; use 1.0 for touchdowns)
•Expected = Deficit-Time Remaining Factor * LOS Factor
•ACE = Outcome / Expected
How Consistent Is ACE?
Test Correlation
1yr/1yr 0.25
2yr/2yr 0.22
3yr/3yr 0.33
CTD/3yr 0.29

The predictive ability of the ACE rating was analyzed in order to verify whether it is a meaningful statistic. One test is the correlation between a player’s ACE rating in a season (or seasons) and their ACE rating in the following season (or seasons). For credibility purposes, a player needed to have at least 10 drives in a season or 20 drives in a longer period (two years, three years, or career-to-date (CTD)) to be considered in this data set. There is a positive correlation across the results, but the magnitude is low. It would be surprising if the magnitude was high given the thinness of the data and the inherent volatility of the statistic, but the low magnitude is concerning nonetheless.

(Ed. Note: For those curious for a comparison, the year-to-year correlation of DVOA for quarterbacks is .43.)

Any statistic based on a relatively small data set is inherently suspect. Expanding the data set (e.g. including a deficit of 9-16 points) was considered, but rejected because it dilutes the meaning of a "clutch situation." The results look reasonable on the surface, with most quarterbacks performing similarly in the clutch and in general, and the exceptions (e.g. Plummer, McNabb) make sense based on experience. As seen with the earlier examples of Kurt Warner and Peyton Manning, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for past performance to not predict future performance. There is a fairly high positive correlation (0.71) between career ACE rating and career QB rating, indicating that ACE rating is not completely random.

Thanks to Jim Armstrong and Football Outsiders for supplying the drive data to perform this analysis.

Nick Higgins is an actuary living in Madison, WI. He is currently working on a book about the greatest teams in NFL history. If you are interested in writing a guest column, something that takes a new angle on the NFL, please email us your idea at info-at-footballoutsiders.com.

Posted by: Guest on 02 Feb 2010

elsid13
02-06-2010, 08:03 PM
Has Orton never lead a comeback win?

dogfish
02-06-2010, 08:09 PM
Has Orton never lead a comeback win?

does managing to hold onto a starting job all these years count?

elsid13
02-06-2010, 08:21 PM
does managing to hold onto a starting job all these years count?

Tell me when he does that.

T.K.O.
02-06-2010, 08:52 PM
Has Orton never lead a comeback win?

i'm pretty sure last years pats game qualifies:salute:
and the cincy game unless your one of THOSE fans who think we didnt deserve to win because of one of the greatest (luckiest) last minute plays in bronco history !!!!!!

Ravage!!!
02-06-2010, 10:12 PM
Ouch! Fourty-first is dismally low.

yes.... yes it is........dismally low

Shazam!
02-06-2010, 10:14 PM
My. How useless.

Ravage!!!
02-06-2010, 10:18 PM
My. How useless.

Yes... yes he is...... useless

sneakers
02-07-2010, 01:45 AM
dont trust anything that ranks marc bulger ahead of dan marino and bret favre......:laugh:

Dan Marino can die of Goneria and rot in Hell! Would you like a cookie son?

Shazam!
02-07-2010, 02:49 AM
Dan Marino can die of Goneria and rot in Hell!

He was a great QB. Second rate compared to our boy lol, but I gotta give him props.

Too me he's like Phillip Rivers. I ****ing hate the guy but he does phenomenal stuff on the Field.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-07-2010, 10:25 AM
He was a great QB. Second rate compared to our boy lol, but I gotta give him props.

Too me he's like Phillip Rivers. I ****ing hate the guy but he does phenomenal stuff on the Field.

It's a quote from Ace Ventura Pet Detective. I don' think those are sneakers' actual feelings on the matter. :listen::D

LRtagger
02-07-2010, 12:51 PM
yes.... yes it is........dismally low

38th, 39th and 40th are also dismally low.

I'm not exactly sure what this proves or is trying to display. There are plenty of selective statlines that don't accomplish or prove anything.

This statsheet seemingly takes all factors into consideration, but some key points are left out. How many clutch drives were halted due to penalties, dropped passes, fumbles, pass protection breakdowns (sacks), etc....or drives that are successful because of long TD runs, deflected passes, trick plays, questionable defensive penalties, etc? It also doesn't factor in the coaches ability to conserve or properly use timeouts.

I mean think about it...there are plenty of games that we can all remember where a team had an opportunity to come away with a clutch win and it was floundered by someone other than the QB.

You also have to consider false positives like Orton's TD against Cincy and Cutler's "fumble" against San Diego.

I appreciate how they give credit to QBs even if a kicker misses a clutch kick and also take into consideration comeback difficulty...but it still doesn't prove anything more than any other adjusted statline does.

SOCALORADO.
02-08-2010, 09:52 AM
Those ranking are from 98 on.
Elway would destroy those #s.
In Elway’s career, his offensive linemen and wide receivers have been voted to the Pro Bowl a combined seven times. In Dan Marino’s 16 seasons, Miami Dolphins offensive linemen and wide receivers have been selected to the Pro Bowl 30 times. … Though usually surrounded by a human rummage sale, Elway had won more games as a starter than any other quarterback in NFL history (148). It’s the equivalent of carving Mount Rushmore with a spoon or composing Beethoven’s Ninth on a kazoo.
But Elway’s career has been about more than just winning. It has been about escaping defeat a half page from the end of the novel, leaping over pits of fire with the microdot hidden in his cigarette lighter. On first down Elway was ‘pretty average,’ his Stanford coach Paul Wiggin once said. But when the elementary school kids are being held hostage and the detonator reads 00:03, who would you rather have clipping the wires than Elway? He may be the only quarterback in history who could stand on his own two-yard line, trailing by five with less than two minutes to play, no timeouts left, windchill –5, and cause the opposing coach to mutter, ‘We’re in trouble.’” --Rick Reilly, Sports Illustrated, qtd. in Austin Murphy’s The Super Bowl: Sports Greatest Championship

SOCALORADO.
02-08-2010, 09:52 AM
He was a great QB. Second rate compared to our boy lol, but I gotta give him props.

Too me he's like Phillip Rivers. I ****ing hate the guy but he does phenomenal stuff on the Field.

Dan Marino's what I call a 'Yeah, but . . .' guy. As great as he is and as great as he's been, people will always say, 'Yeah, but he never won a Super Bowl.' I think Marino's going to have to live with that for a long time.

People used to talk about all the Super Bowls Elway lost. Well, I called a few of those games, and what people seem to forget is that those teams weren't that good. John Elway was the sole reason why those Bronco teams were playing in the Super Bowl. He was the closest thing to a one-man gang I've ever seen. Elway absolutely thrived under pressure. When you got down to the end of the game and his team was behind, he knew what to do. He was one of the few quarterbacks to play the game who really knew the game. He knew what to do, how to move the ball, how to save time. And he relished those decisions.

A lot of people say they want the ball to take the last shot, but there's not a lot of them who really want it.

John Elway wanted the ball."--John Madden

SOCALORADO.
02-08-2010, 09:55 AM
“I've seen every quarterback ever produced of note--Sid Luckman, Sammy Baugh, Johnny Unitas--and nobody impressed me as much as John Elway, especially his ability to come from behind. He's the best two-minute quarterback I've ever seen. He's the all-time comeback king.”--Art Modell, Ravens owner quoted from NFL.com

Dirk
02-08-2010, 10:07 AM
Having to be a comeback QB master like Elway meant one thing. They usually were behind. If Elway had talent around him and on the defensive side of the ball. Being more balanced. Elway would no doubt have a ring for each of his SB appearences.

frenchfan
02-10-2010, 05:17 AM
Having to be a comeback QB master like Elway meant one thing. They usually were behind. If Elway had talent around him and on the defensive side of the ball. Being more balanced. Elway would no doubt have a ring for each of his SB appearences.Agreed...

I wish we could make a deal and put John with the 49ers and Montana with the Broncos... I don't think Broncos would have made 3 SB in the 80's... But I'd bet 49ers would have at least won 4 SB...
Not saying Joe Cool wasn't a great QB... He obviously was... But that John is underrated because of the lack of talent he had around him...

Dean
02-10-2010, 02:25 PM
Agreed...

I wish we could make a deal and put John with the 49ers and Montana with the Broncos... I don't think Broncos would have made 3 SB in the 80's... But I'd bet 49ers would have at least won 4 SB...
Not saying Joe Cool wasn't a great QB... He obviously was... But that John is underrated because of the lack of talent he had around him...



If you don't think that the Broncos would have made the Super Bowl, why as a fan would you wish for that?:confused:

In-com-plete
02-10-2010, 03:30 PM
Long live Jake Plummer baby!

claymore
02-10-2010, 03:33 PM
does managing to hold onto a starting job all these years count?

You are on fire in this thread and Im only halfway thru the first page. :flame:

frenchfan
02-11-2010, 07:37 AM
If you don't think that the Broncos would have made the Super Bowl, why as a fan would you wish for that?:confused:I guess you missed my point... It was just to enlight how #7 is underrated and why some of his stats are not so great... And to explain that saying one QB is better than the other is not really easy and why I think Elway > Montana...

I've never wished Elway wasn't a Bronco ;)