4th Quarter Comeback Analysis

[th87]

OK I see the weighing of scenarios, but If you're analyzing "QB x' 4th Quarter Comebacks" then I'm not sure how he - as the individual being attributed varying degrees of success or failure - shouldn't get a positive score for scenario #4. The individual being measured did nothing different from scenario #2 so why would he be attributed different weights in the metric for instances where he performed equally successfully in the same circumstance?

Building his own team's defensive performance into the model that purports to evaluate the performance of a QB delivers misleading results I'd say.

This is a good point. I'll definitely revisit this.

[th87]

By including the clock in the evaluation, you make a whole host of factors important that the QB has minimal control over. Opponents TOs, strength of run game, play calls (in breaking or out breaking routes to preserve time on drive?) and D strategy (bleed yards or force 3 and out?), confusion on the sideline (a Packer specialty) a factor of the QB evaluation.

You also penalize big plays, which is the bread and butter of the Packer offense. Your evaluation rewards a specific, short passing QB and offense or a good running game.

So its far from clear that a QB who scores well with your criteria, is a good choice for a team's QB.

I do, however, still think this is an area that McCarthy needs to rethink his approach. Mostly about time and the running game.

Obviously it won't be perfect, but I think the ultimate goal of a late 4th quarter comeback is to go ahead AND leave as little time on the clock as possible. If a team is successful in doing so, despite opponents TOs, and D strategies, then they should be rewarded accordingly. So too should be the offense that gets the winning score in OT.

The issue of a big play quick score would then still rely on a defensive stop to complete, and so I don't consider this the "holy grail" of clutch comebacks. This situation would still be scored positively, and I don't know that it happens often enough for the Packers relative to the Patriots that it would make a huge difference in numbers.

Adjustment suggestions are welcome though.

[pbmax]

Obviously it won't be perfect, but I think the ultimate goal of a late 4th quarter comeback is to go ahead AND leave as little time on the clock as possible. If a team is successful in doing so, despite opponents TOs, and D strategies, then they should be rewarded accordingly. So too should be the offense that gets the winning score in OT.

The issue of a big play quick score would then still rely on a defensive stop to complete, and so I don't consider this the "holy grail" of clutch comebacks. This situation would still be scored positively, and I don't know that it happens often enough for the Packers relative to the Patriots that it would make a huge difference in numbers.

Adjustment suggestions are welcome though.

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.

[vince]

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.

Rodgers/Rest of Team is likely among the best in the league in this area since midpoint 2010 - at least on par with Brady/Pats.

His career performance is heavily impacted by his first 2 1/2 years and the relatively small sample size in the 4 1/2 years since unable to overcome the relatively large sample in that time.

[pbmax]

Rodgers/Rest of Team is likely among the best in the league in this area since midpoint 2010 - at least on par with Brady/Pats.

His career performance is heavily impacted by his first 2 1/2 years and the relatively small sample size in the 4 1/2 years since unable to overcome the relatively large sample in that time.

In this discussion, it has to be remembered that these losses occurred with a team that has the second best record in the League over McCarthy's tenure. So this is an interesting gap in their resume, not a fatal flaw. The losses are small in number compared to the rest of the League overall.

But within that group of losses, I don't think this team is built for come from behind. Part of it is coaching strategy (the team's late game strategy practically invites close finishes at times) and some of it is Rodgers (relying solely on short passing). But largely its dependent on the strength of the running game. If the Packers can run on a team, they don't fall behind after getting a lead. If they can't they are vulnerable. And as good as Lacy is, the Packers are not a run the clock out team against a good run defense. They aren't hopeless, but its not the strength of the O line.

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

[vince]

In this discussion, it has to be remembered that these losses occurred with a team that has the second best record in the League over McCarthy's tenure. So this is an interesting gap in their resume, not a fatal flaw. The losses are small in number compared to the rest of the League overall.

But within that group of losses, I don't think this team is built for come from behind. Part of it is coaching strategy (the team's late game strategy practically invites close finishes at times) and some of it is Rodgers (relying solely on short passing). But largely its dependent on the strength of the running game. If the Packers can run on a team, they don't fall behind after getting a lead. If they can't they are vulnerable. And as good as Lacy is, the Packers are not a run the clock out team against a good run defense. They aren't hopeless, but its not the strength of the O line.

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

That makes perfect sense PB, but I'm not clear on how that relates to thes facts. This study indicates that (notwithstanding the question of weighting to value different comebacks differently) since the Miami game in 2010, Rodgers has 14 successful 4th Q comeback attempts against 5 failed 4th Q comeback attempts. That's a .737 success rate. That's at least equal to McCarthy's win/loss % in that time and with a small sample size, you can say that it's right in the ballpark. While what you're saying may be true, I don't see how you can derive that conclusion from this information.

[mraynrand]

I want Dyoop to subject this to principle component analysis.

[pbmax]

That makes perfect sense PB, but I'm not clear on how that relates to thes facts. This study indicates that (notwithstanding the question of weighting to value different comebacks differently) since the Miami game in 2010, Rodgers has 14 successful 4th Q comeback attempts against 5 failed 4th Q comeback attempts. That's a .737 success rate. That's at least equal to McCarthy's win/loss % in that time and with a small sample size, you can say that it's right in the ballpark. While what you're saying may be true, I don't see how you can derive that conclusion from this information.

14 and 5 (which almost sounds too good compared to my memory) is about what I would expect for a 19 game stretch from a team as good as the Packers. But I am still less than thrilled with the offense needing a score late in the game.

They took strides this year against good defenses (Miami, Seattle) but its not as efficient as the rest of the O.

[th87]

There may be another metric to work in - that is, "Losses where team had to settle for tying FG on last drive", and change the "Losses where lead or tie was achieved..." metric to "Losses where lead was achieved..." The assumption in this scenario is that the offense had one minute or more and were down by 3. This would highlight the game that shall not be named and the 49ers playoff loss last year, off the top of my head. I wonder if this would highlight any aggressiveness issues relative to other teams.

But that would be a lot of work.

[th87]

There may be another metric to work in - that is, "Losses where team had to settle for tying FG on last drive", and change the "Losses where lead or tie was achieved..." metric to "Losses where lead was achieved..." The assumption in this scenario is that the offense had one minute or more and were down by 3. This would highlight the game that shall not be named and the 49ers playoff loss last year, off the top of my head. I wonder if this would highlight any aggressiveness issues relative to other teams.

But that would be a lot of work.

Never mind - it looks like that happened only those two times.

[th87]

OK I see the weighing of scenarios, but If you're analyzing "QB x' 4th Quarter Comebacks" then I'm not sure how he - as the individual being attributed varying degrees of success or failure - shouldn't get a positive score for scenario #4. The individual being measured did nothing different from scenario #2 so why would he be attributed different weights in the metric for instances where he performed equally successfully in the same circumstance?

Building his own team's defensive performance into the model that purports to evaluate the performance of a QB delivers misleading results I'd say.

Okay, so adjusting the formula to weigh Scenario 4 the same as Scenario 2 (2 points):

Rodgers career 4QCR = -0.2
Rodgers since mid-2010 = 0.95

Brady 4QCR = 0.60

So it looks like Rodgers' numbers are fantastic, but the Packers have suffered this type of loss in 6 out of 19 comeback opportunity games since mid-2010. Namely:

2010 MIA
2010 @ATL
2012 @IND
2012 @MIN
2013 SF playoff
2014 Game that shall not be named

In all of those games, the defense displayed total "unclutchness". In four of them, there was nothing the offense could've done to avoid what happened (scored the necessary TDs). In two of them, the offense had to settle for FGs.

[Jimx29]

You're missing one important stat that i'm interested in.......how many hours do you sleep on average?

[th87]

You're missing one important stat that i'm interested in.......how many hours do you sleep on average?

I'm not that clutch at end-of-day situations, so not as much as I should.

[mraynrand]

Okay, so adjusting the formula to weigh Scenario 4 the same as Scenario 2 (2 points):

Rodgers career 4QCR = -0.2
Rodgers since mid-2010 = 0.95

Brady 4QCR = 0.60

Was a scale established yet? (i.e. are there NFL norms and a range) This is too much number salad to sift through. But if the scale is from -100 (Grossman, Tagge) to +100 (Elway), then Rodgers and Brady are no different; it's all a wash.

[sharpe1027]

Interesting discussion. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you score early and often in the 4th quarter, you get lower rating under this metric. In the extreme case, a QB that scores 21 points in the 4th looks worse than one that struggles the entire quarter and throws one late TD.

I have no idea if that matters in the Rodgers vs Brady comparison, but I think the whole concept of "clutch" is suspect as a QB metric. This is still one of the best breakdowns.