4th Quarter Comeback Analysis

[th87]

Situation #1:
Score with 5 minutes left, defense gives up one 4:50 drive and no score. Offense kneels down to win. Result, 2 points.


Situation #2:
Score with 5 minutes left, defense holds with a 1:00 drive. Offense score again. Defense holds on next drive (or not). Result, 1 point (two defensive holds).

Both scores at 5:00 are identical. Situation #2 is at least as clutch as situation #1.
Maybe if the metric was per drive/opportunity rather than per game? Otherwise, the number of defensive stops can differ for identical go ahead situations.

Maybe make it a 2 point value if the subsequent defensive stop results in another offensive score that now gives more than a one possession lead. This way, only one defensive stop was "needed".

[sharpe1027]

Maybe make it a 2 point value if the subsequent defensive stop results in another offensive score that now gives more than a one possession lead. This way, only one defensive stop was "needed".

That doesn't take into account differences due to the other team's drive time eating up more or less clock. How about weight the opportunities based on time left at the start of the drive? If you really wanted to get fancy, you could also weight based on starting field position using the expected score value from each starting position.

[Smidgeon]

The problem with advanced metrics is that there's always something else to consider. If we really wanted to go complex, each QBs "clutchness" would be weighed against the opposing QBs "clutchness" in each game. Is the defense trying to hold against Elway, Brady, or Manning? Or is the defense making a stand against Quinn, Gabbart, or Russell? That would affect things too.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting actually doing all that crazy work. But just highlighting that there's a point where you just have to summarize things.

Otherwise, very interesting statistics.

[pbmax]

There is also a problem of definition. Clutchness is such an broad excuse to dismiss and credit performance for reasons that may have mostly to do with outside factors that its easy to dismiss.

However, the "hot hand" concept, that streaks are not just statistical fluctuations, has been gaining ground after initially being dismissed by data types.

So you have to know what you are describing in order to be able to look at it analytically. Its a reason, as we have discovered in this thread, that 4QC is a problematic concept and gauge. Even the guy who started all this, Scott Kacsmar, admits we haven't narrowed down what exactly it is telling us about teams and the QB.

[th87]

That doesn't take into account differences due to the other team's drive time eating up more or less clock. How about weight the opportunities based on time left at the start of the drive? If you really wanted to get fancy, you could also weight based on starting field position using the expected score value from each starting position.

Yeah, that would be good, but more work than I can afford! I have to draw the line somewhere, and it would still be illustrative IMO, but with the understanding that it isn't perfect.

[th87]

The problem with advanced metrics is that there's always something else to consider. If we really wanted to go complex, each QBs "clutchness" would be weighed against the opposing QBs "clutchness" in each game. Is the defense trying to hold against Elway, Brady, or Manning? Or is the defense making a stand against Quinn, Gabbart, or Russell? That would affect things too.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting actually doing all that crazy work. But just highlighting that there's a point where you just have to summarize things.

Otherwise, very interesting statistics.

Thanks!

But yeah, we do have to draw the line somewhere.

[th87]

There is also a problem of definition. Clutchness is such an broad excuse to dismiss and credit performance for reasons that may have mostly to do with outside factors that its easy to dismiss.

However, the "hot hand" concept, that streaks are not just statistical fluctuations, has been gaining ground after initially being dismissed by data types.

So you have to know what you are describing in order to be able to look at it analytically. Its a reason, as we have discovered in this thread, that 4QC is a problematic concept and gauge. Even the guy who started all this, Scott Kacsmar, admits we haven't narrowed down what exactly it is telling us about teams and the QB.

True, but I suspect extrapolating this to all QBs will still tell us that Brady/Luck/Wilson are better than most, and will uncover a few surprises (like Rodgers after mid-2010). Before this, I didn't know that Rodgers during that time period would blow Brady out for his career (granted much smaller sample space).

[sharpe1027]

Yeah, that would be good, but more work than I can afford! I have to draw the line somewhere, and it would still be illustrative IMO, but with the understanding that it isn't perfect.

Can't fault you for that. I think I would lean toward a weighting that gave points relative tot the statistical average of points scored at the starting yard line for the NFL and then weighted from there based on a sliding scale that increased value as the time remaining decreased. But that is just my definition.

[vince]

True, but I suspect extrapolating this to all QBs will still tell us that Brady/Luck/Wilson are better than most, and will uncover a few surprises (like Rodgers after mid-2010). Before this, I didn't know that Rodgers during that time period would blow Brady out for his career (granted much smaller sample space).

Yeah while not perfect and other variables exist which also discount the impact of a QB's clutchness on game outcomes, you can see the general picture much more clearly, which is really what matters. As Ayn suggested, more data points would allow for a more complete picture about who's better than who and by how much. But that's a ton of work obviously.

Thanks again for your effort on this th. The perception of Rodgers being "unclutch" persists among a lot of fans from the start of his career despite the reality over the last 4-5 years. Your analysis helps helps to break through the fog.

[woodbuck27]

Thoughts so far?

I havn't perused this thread beyond post # 6.

My first reaction:

WOW ! AND I'm very grateful for all the work/analysis you've done to compose this historic post on Packerrats.

Based on your work th87 we now have 'a model' to rank any NFL QB in history in terms of their 4QC prowess. That 'of course' pertinent as long as the game based data is available.

Somehow a mere 'Reputation Point' doesn't serve.

You certainly do deserve that and THANK YOU SO MUCH.

My name is Ed. . . . . woodbuck27.

[woodbuck27]

I'm not sure what to make of the formula th. It might be better to say that Rodgers was successful in 17 of the 35 instances and unsuccessful in 18. So he's 17-18 or .485 (that don't make the playoffs). Only 6 of Rodgers' 17 successes and 13 of Rodgers' 18 failures came in his first three years. So he's had 11 successes and 5 failures since. That's .687 since 2010. That's selective obviously but it's where one trend breaks into the opposite direction. And when you look at 2010 the trend changed direction in the middle of the year. All the successes occurred at the end of that year and all the failures happened in the beginning of the year.

So it's only 4 of Rodgers' successes happened before the midway point of 2010 and 16 of his 18 failures. He's 13 and 2 in 4th quarter comebacks since the halfway point of 2010. .866. That's pretty damn good.

Brady is 45-23 (.661) for his career. That could be the best ever overall.

I was expecting a challenge to th87's work. A constant and respected ingredient of Packerrats.

It's interesting how statistics may be maneuvered to exclude this/that to skew something to fit any debate.


" Brady is 45-23 (.661) for his career. That could be the best ever overall." Vince

Therein lies the lead to examination.

Is that the case !? How does Tom Brady's 4QR prowess compare to the NFL leaders amongst in NFL history and 4QC's ?

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...cks_career.htm

and ...Now I'll review this entire thread.

[woodbuck27]

I like the different weights, with vince making a good point about an adjustment.

But the metric still is more about the team than the QB.

But I do think it hits on the issue that plagues M3's approach. I do not think this is a coincidence that Rodgers suffers along with the rest of the team in this area. He contributes (short passing is not top strength) but its not the only thing going on.

The problem with big plays to tie or win in this scenario is that they suffer in the comparison to longer, lengthier drives. If you score from 40 yards out, you will be leaving more time on the clock.

4QC's (Teams QB) !?

Isn't it any teams success in terms of any games roster on both sides of the ball and ST's?

Importantly whomever is calling plays on 'O' - 'D' and ST's in any comeback bid and success thereof.

Should we give so much credit to the QB?

Secondly:

I like th87's model because that member bases analysis of 4QC need (opportunity) and success or not; based on a measured and simple mathematical number system and resultant scenario.

[woodbuck27]

Edit............

Taking the ball out of your best players hands is the biggest mistake.

Yes.