Misusing statistics
A quick search of the site didn't show a response to this awful piece that I was directed to be 18 to 88's resident Pats fan (it did tell me the site it's from isn't well liked). Cold Hard Football Facts' "The Complete & Unabridged Guide to Why Tom Brady is Better than Peyton Manning vol II. I don't think I've ever seen so much misuse and misleading use of statistics. So I'm going to expand my 18 to 88 response in the style of my favorite baseball blog. (the bold text is from the article the normal text is me, because that's how FJM does it and because the quote boxes aren't working right)
The start off by attributing team accomplishments to Brady.
Brady boasts the seventh best passer rating in NFL history, better than Marino, Favre, McNabb and many of the other modern-era QBs mentioned among the all-time greats.
Guess who is second. The guy that they are saying isn't as good as Brady. Great start.
They go into a long rant on Manning's playoff failures and how they show he'll never win "the big one." How'd that work out? Then they go back to team accomplishments like there aren't 52 other players and a coaching staff involved.
They compare Brady vs the awful Colts Ds of 2001-2004 against Manning vs the very good Pats Ds. The Pats Ds ranked, 1st, 2nd, 17th and 6th in those years, compared to 19th 20th, 7th, 31st for the Colts. The Colts D was better one year, every other year the Pats D ranked at least 18 spots higher. Not to mention they are evaluating careers by one game a year or less.
More team accomplishments but this time in college. If Brady was better college player than Manning why did Manning go first overall and Brady in the 6th round? No one passed on Manning, every team in the league passed on Brady several times.
Brady certainly has the support of a better defense than Manning. But they have hardly been suffocating defenses like those that have carried certain other teams to Super Bowl championships. In fact, New England’s 2001 defensive unit ranked just 24th in total defense, making it the lowest rated defense ever to win a Super Bowl. The 2001 unit did rank sixth in scoring defense, surrendering 17.0 points per game. But 31 of the 39 teams to win a Super Bowl had a better scoring defense that the one Brady played with in 2001.
New England’s 2003 defense was markedly better. It ranked sixth in total defense and No. 1 in scoring defense, surrendering 14.9 points per game. That puts New England’s 2003 unit smack-dab in the middle of the championship pack: 18 Super Bowl winners boasted a better scoring defense than the 2003 Patriots.
IT WAS THE BEST D IN THE LEAGUE. They don't play the other SB champs, it only matters how good you are relative to who you play. The average level of points scored may have changed somewhat in the last 40 years.
They beat up on Trent Dilfer a bit. Brady is the second best QB in the league, of course he's better than Dilfer.
in the 2001 draft, Manning lobbied the team to select wide receiver Reggie Wayne of Miami in the first round despite the fact that the Indy offense already featured a future Hall of Fame receiving talent in Harrison and despite the fact that the porous Indy defense surrendered 20.4 PPG in 2000.
Porous? The 2000 Colts D ranked 15th. That's almost exactly average. It's actually a bit above average. They twist the language and cite a stat that doesn't give as acurate picture of where the D was.
The only time Deion Branch is mentioned in the entire article is this:
Deion Branch (a second-round draft pick from Louisville)
You mean SB MVP Deion Branch who the Seahawks traded a first round pick for. Oh, yeah he sucks gloss right over him.
New England’s offensive line in 2004 featured a second-round draft pick (Matt Light), two fifth rounders (Dan Koppen and Russ Hochstein), a seventh-round pick (Brandon Gorin) and three undrafted free agents (Stephen Neal, Joe Andruzzi and Tom Ashworth)
Two of their undrafteds are backups who started a combined 8 games.
The Colts line is similarly constructed. Tarik Glenn first rounder, Ryan Lilja undrafted, Jeff Saturday undrafted, Jake Scott 5th round, Ryan Diem 4th round and backups Tupe Peko 7th round and Makoa Freitas 6th round.
the 2003 Patriots averaged just 3.4 yards per rushing attempt. Among all Super Bowl champions, only the 1970 Colts (3.3 yards per carry) had a more ineffective ground game.
Again comparing the Pats to past SB champs this time in run O. You don't play the past champs. The run O was bad, but comparing them the other SB champs means nothing and most teams aren't going to look good when their weakest attribute is compared to 30-some NFL championship teams.
They compare them through their first 5 years not mentioning that Manning was thrown onto a 3-13 team as the starter from day one where he struggled. While Brady learned on the bench.
Brady, meanwhile, throwing to castoffs like David Patten and Dedric Ward
Ward played only a partial season in NE (4 games with 7 receptions) not a very honest example of the talent Brady played with.
Manning's 92.3 passer rating is fourth best in history. Brady's is seventh.
Manning was only 4.8 points higher than Brady so it's not a big difference when 2.2 points is the difference between Dan Marino and Mark Brunell (through 2006 since that's the list they linked). 4.8 is about the difference between Steve Young and Marc Bulger on the list they cite.
and finally and most damning. They refer to themselves in the 3rd person through the full article.
0 recs |
15
comments
Comments
I can't get this debate.
I’d be very happy if the sports-punditry found a far more meaningful “debate” to figure out. Manning v. Brady is a dumb conversation no matter how you shake it. Both are fantastic quarterbacks, both will go to Canton, and both can be argued as being the best quarterback in the league at various points in the mid 2000’s.
My question, who cares? Dead zone filler like this, (meaning Cold Hard wannabe Football Outsiders) is written to rip scabs. They want those in the Manning Camp (my god, am I in the Manning camp?) to get upset. And linked.
In a very tight race, I’d tip my vote to Manning. Brady gets points for doing well with often very average receivers, with the exception of 2007. But overall, if I was going to build a team around a quarterback, it’d be Manning.
Now excuse me while I was all this Colts love off of me.
-Chris
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by River City Rage on Jul 12, 2008 6:43 PM EDT 0 recs
Yeah it's pretty pointless
But this kind of thing has been around forever in sports and always will be. Russell or Chamberlain? Bird or Magic? Mays or Mantle? Williams or DiMaggio? It’s just nice for us Colts fans to have our QB in the debate. And even nicer to have him the clear victor ;)
by ctnyc on
Jul 13, 2008 12:12 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Did you say something mean about FO?
because that will get me nearly as upset as I was about the CHFF article.
You ain't gotta have John Madden, You ain't gotta have Dick Vitale,
You ain't gotta Lee Corso, You ain't gotta have Stuart Scott,
You ain't gotta have Linda Cohn, Know what I'm talking bout,
You ain't gotta have the staff of ESPN
You ain't gotta have ABC staff just to talk sports baby, cuz I got game
-Lil' Wayne "Earthquake"
by shake n bake on
Jul 13, 2008 12:45 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I think he was making fun of CHFF
Saying they’re wannabe FO.
by Marik on
Jul 13, 2008 11:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Making fun of CHFF
I have a lot of respect for Aaron and the other guys over at FO. Their devotion to finding the best way to compare players and eras is fascinating. Very smart stuff.
So no, I was not saying something mean about FO. It was a shot at CHFF.
-C
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by River City Rage on
Jul 13, 2008 4:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
ok it still doesn't read right to me but
now I know you mean the right thing.
You ain't gotta have John Madden, You ain't gotta have Dick Vitale,
You ain't gotta Lee Corso, You ain't gotta have Stuart Scott,
You ain't gotta have Linda Cohn, Know what I'm talking bout,
You ain't gotta have the staff of ESPN
You ain't gotta have ABC staff just to talk sports baby, cuz I got game
-Lil' Wayne "Earthquake"
by shake n bake on
Jul 13, 2008 5:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I’d say this helps Manning look better with all of the manipulation of stats.
http://naptownsfinest.com
by Colts Homer on Jul 12, 2008 8:24 PM EDT 0 recs
It’s a worthless debate. If every player in the NFL were available for draft, I think that Manning would clearly be the first overall draft pick. I mean, there’s not even an cognizant argument for any other player. Brady clearly benefits from an excellent supporting cast., which on both sides of the ball is better than Manning has had for most of his career.
It’s all about perception. And CHFF has never been known for objective analysis.
Here’s a good stat for you. Super Bowls lost: Brady 1, Manning 0.
Bob Sanders eats a forest on Friday so he can lay the wood on Sunday.
http://sportscircuits.wordpress.com
http://monkeybiziu.deviantart.com
by MonkeyBusiness on Jul 13, 2008 12:46 AM EDT 0 recs
Foreheads
How is this not taken into account? Manning leads in this category by at lest 10:1.
by beckmania on Jul 13, 2008 1:39 PM EDT 0 recs
here's an even better stat
Manning – one super bowl win
Brady – zero super bowl wins
I don’t consider the cheating Patriots to have won anything. I don’t acknowledge any of their narrow-margin supposed superbowl victories at all. As far as I’m concerned, the cheaters have won a big fat zero. Who knows what impact the cheating had. It must have made a difference, or they wouldn’t have risked everything and done it. I’d take Manning any day over Brady. I still have that ridiculous image tatooed in my brain (prior to the last superbowl) of Brady saying…..’we’re only going to score 17 points, heh, heh, heh….....O.K.?’ Now,........that’s funny.
by drlove on Jul 13, 2008 4:27 PM EDT 0 recs
great example how stats can be skewed
to make any type of argument you want. That being said, I’d take Brady over Manning only because I think he can do more with less around him. Manning has had incredible talent surrounding him on the offensive side of the ball almost his entire career whereas Brady has been throwing and handing off to very average players his entire career, except for 2007 and we all saw what he did, just throw for 50 TDs and go 17-1.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 14, 2008 8:41 AM EDT 0 recs
The thing about skewed stats is
anyone that is reasonably intelligent and informed should be able to recognize it.
You can love me or hate me
I swear it wont make me or break me
Im goin whereva da money take me
Until they funeral and wake me
-Lil' Wayne My Blog
by shake n bake on
Jul 14, 2008 11:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Indeed
And again, just because stats can be skewed does not mean that they are worthless. The individual bears a great deal of the responsibility for interpretation. When stats are being deliberately misused, this should be recognized and pointed out. To ignore all stats simply because they are sometimes skewed by unscrupulous people is not a rational or productive response (I’m talking to you, Terry).
by ctnyc on
Jul 14, 2008 12:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
CHFF
I have a long history with bashing CHFF. Bottom line: They skew numbers to back-up an opinion rather than come to an opinion based on numbers.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Jul 14, 2008 12:49 PM EDT 0 recs
I think Romo
has only been good because of the unbeievable talent pool around him. He has played with the toughest receiver to ever cover, Mr. Class, and truly one of the greatest TE’s in football in Jason Witten. Not to mention MBIII. Give Joey Harrington the same tools, and he would prove that he outshines Romo.
I’m just sayin’.
by coltsfanawalt on Jul 14, 2008 3:00 PM EDT 0 recs










