Announcement

**hoosier** · 07-31-2009, 01:22 PM

Re: Bedard and Football Outsiders--Good Read

Originally posted by pbmax

To truly compare whether you can "Know How to Win", you would need to compare the vet to younger starters (or more experienced teams to younger teams) and see if there is any correlation between the experience and winning close games. You cannot easily compare them to their backups as the backup is on the bench for a reason: they are a worse player. Knowing how to win is a useless distinction if all it means is that you are overall more talented as a player.

When people say Joe the Quarterback "knows how to win" are they always talking about an experienced vet? Did Jeff George "know" more in his prime than Matt Ryan in his first year? Instead of comparing vets to rooks, I think Barnwell actually gets it right when he talks about comparing the same team to itself from one year to another. Assuming the composition of the team remains fairly similar, if there is really a difference between players who "know how to win" close games and those who don't know how to win, you should see fairly consistent success in close games from year to year with certain teams. Barnwell claims that's not the case (see below), and that teams which are highly successful in close games one year tend to revert to mediocre records in close games the next year.

EDIT: Didn't Waldo make a similar point several weeks ago? I wonder who got it from whom....

You can pick any historical quarterback. Take Joe Montana -- the clutchest quarterback who ever lived. In games decided by a touchdown or less, he was 40-29 -- that's a 58% winning percentage. In all other games? 78-22 (78% winning percentage). Even if you include his 5-2 record in close games in the playoffs, he wins 59.2% of his close games and 76.7% of his non-close games.

It's not just a quarterback effect, either. Since 1994, 11 teams have gone undefeated in a given season in games decided by a touchdown or less, putting up a combined record of 55-0. In the following season, those same teams -- in those same close games -- went 40-43. From perfect to below .500? How can that be a skill?

**pbmax** · 07-31-2009, 01:37 PM

Re: Bedard and Football Outsiders--Good Read

Originally posted by hoosier

When people say Joe the Quarterback "knows how to win" are they always talking about an experienced vet? Did Jeff George "know" more in his prime than Matt Ryan in his first year? Instead of comparing vets to rooks, I think Barnwell actually gets it right when he talks about comparing the same team to itself from one year to another. Assuming the composition of the team remains fairly similar, if there is really a difference between players who "know how to win" close games and those who don't know how to win, you should see fairly consistent success in close games from year to year with certain teams. Barnwell claims that's not the case (see below), and that teams which are highly successful in close games one year tend to revert to mediocre records in close games the next year.

EDIT: Didn't Waldo make a similar point several weeks ago? I wonder who got it from whom....

I think in general, when reporters go to that lazy line, they are talking about either experience or usually, previous winning. I am not sure how many Ryan articles suggested that he knew how to win, what I do know is how many claimed he was "preternatural", "mature for his age", "serious" and "well-adjusted". But you make a good point that knows how to win doesn't have to be a vet.

The problem with comparing a team to itself is that there is no baseline. Is 56% good, is 58% above average? Or are they just typical numbers for teams that have multiple double digit winning seasons? Would a "knows hot to win" QB improve a poor team in close games?

FO has been banging this drum for a while. I don't know when Waldo published his stuff first.

**hoosier** · 07-31-2009, 02:03 PM

Now I'm remembering a good point that was raised by someone in an earlier discussion of close games: how do you define "close games"? Whether you define a close game as a 3, 5 or 7 point game, fixating on the final score alone can be deceptive. How many times have we seen one team blow the other off the field for the first 50 minutes and then let off the gas at the end, knowing they had the game won....If we really want to compare performances in close games we would almost need to go through the NFL video archives and watch all of a team's games for an entire season or more.

**pbmax** · 07-31-2009, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by hoosier

Now I'm remembering a good point that was raised by someone in an earlier discussion of close games: how do you define "close games"? Whether you define a close game as a 3, 5 or 7 point game, fixating on the final score alone can be deceptive. How many times have we seen one team blow the other off the field for the first 50 minutes and then let off the gas at the end, knowing they had the game won....If we really want to compare performances in close games we would almost need to go through the NFL video archives and watch all of a team's games for an entire season or more.

Another excellent point. I think some other parameters would help. Like within seven at the start of the quarter OR withing seven and a possession and time left for the team that is behind. That would eliminate some garbage time scoring.

**pbmax** · 07-31-2009, 04:06 PM

wrong thread

**pbmax** · 07-31-2009, 04:07 PM

Wrong thread

**Freak Out** · 07-31-2009, 05:28 PM

You be double the trouble.

Announcement

Bedard and Football Outsiders--Good Read

Bedard and Football Outsiders--Good Read

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment