Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Super Bowl Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

    I'll just say that the human brain is horrible at remembering factual things. Our brains fill in the gaps with invented things, naturally, in order to fit our idea of what happened. Relying on your memory from the past 10 years isn't a reliable source. It not just you, but anyone. Very few people have the ability to recall things as they actually happened. Eyewitnesses are notorious for disagreeing on what they "saw."

    Which is why I rely on stats. Whatever your opinion of them, they're 100% factual. They don't change over time. A "bad throw" has a lot of subjectivity to it, but an interception rate stat does not. I would just point out that all the GOAT level QBs on average throw about 1 pick a game in the playoffs, so if I was told that Peyton has an INT problem, I would think his INT rate would be significantly higher than the others. If it's not, I simply conclude that he throws INTs at the same rate as the rest of them.
    Last edited by Since86; 02-05-2014, 09:50 AM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      . I would just point out that all the GOAT level QBs on average throw about 1 pick a game in the playoffs, so if I was told that Peyton has an INT problem, I would think his INT rate would be significantly higher than the others. If it's not, I simply conclude that he throws INTs at the same rate as the rest of them.
      Peyton: 24 INTs in 23 postseason games (1.04)
      Brady: 22 INTs in 26 postseason games (0.85)


      Those may seem to you to be pretty equal rates, but to actually be equal rates you'd have to give Brady 5 more interceptions over his career (making it 27 in 26 games).

      Peyton real INT rate is ~22% higher than Brady's (1.04/0.85 - 1). You say this difference is not significant, but I don't see why. I sure hate it when prices rise 22% at the gas pump!

      Since 8 of Brady's 18 career victories were in games decided by 7 points or less, it is not hard to imagine scenarios where, if indeed Brady threw postseason picks at exactly the same rate as Peyton, that his career record might be a much closer to 0.500 than 18-8, depending on when those 5 extra picks occurred, of course. Put them all in opening round games and he might have even started to pile up the one-and-dones.

      BTW,
      Montana: 21 INTs in 23 games (0.91)
      Bart Starr: 3 INTs in 10 games (0.30)
      Unitas: 10 INts in 9 games (1.11)
      Marino: 24 INTs in 18 games (1.33)
      Elway: 21 INTs in 22 games (0.95)
      Aikman 17 INTs in 16 games (1.06)
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-05-2014, 11:59 AM.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        Peyton: 24 INTs in 23 postseason games (1.04)
        Brady 22 INTs in 26 postseason games (0.85)

        Those may seem to you to be pretty equal rates, but to actually be equal rates you'd have to give Brady 5 more interceptions over his career (making it 27 in 26 games).

        Peyton real INT rate is ~22% higher than Brady's (1.04/0.85 - 1). You say this difference is not significant, but I don't see why.

        Since 8 of Brady's 18 career victories were in games decided by 7 points or less, it is not hard to imagine scenarios where, if indeed Brady threw postseason picks at exactly the same rate as Peyton, that his career record might be a much closer to 0.500 than 18-8, depending on when those 5 extra picks occurred, of course. Put them all in opening round games and he might have even started to pile up the one-and-dones.
        Because the difference is one game. He threw 4 INTs against the Pats in 2003 playoffs. Had he simply thrown 2 that game, instead of 4, the INT rate would be 0.95. The difference is very minimal. We're talking about a difference of 2-3 INTs over a 13year period.

        If his rate was closer to 2 a game, then I'd completely agree. But it's not. I get that it's 22% difference but then again 3 is 50% bigger than 2, and I'll take the belief that there isn't much difference between 3 and 2. The difference in their rate is less than 0.2. It takes 5 games for Peyton to throw 1 more INT than Tom. How many losses does that translate to, if Tom threw one extra pick every 5 games? Probably not much, if any.
        Last edited by Since86; 02-05-2014, 12:03 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Imagine someone trying to argue that Barry Sanders was an "average" RB, and then dismissed his personal stats and simply cited his 78-82 team record.
          Barry Sanders only won none playoff games, Tony Gonzalez one won one...

          Both are among the best if not the best at their positions in NFL history.
          Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
          I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

          Comment


          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

            If you start picking and choosing what game or games to omit from the analysis, then analysis stops making sense pretty rapidly. can I just wipe away Brady's two 3 INT games and give him 16 INTs in 24 games?

            Expecting to see the rate up near 2 and then say "aha!" is unrealistic. Curtis Painter is near 1.0 for his career too (regular season of course).

            I'll also take the belief that there isn't much difference between 3 and 2 but that there might be a pretty big difference between 30 and 20. Sample size, ya know?
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-05-2014, 12:16 PM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              How many losses does that translate to, if Tom threw one extra pick every 5 games? Probably not much, if any.
              In the playoffs,
              Brady's record is 10-2 when throwing 0 INTs (83.3%)
              but 8-6 when throwing one or more INTs (57.1%)


              Michael Jordan’s career free throw percentage: 83.5%
              Shaquille O’Neal’s career free throw percentage: 52.7%


              It’s hard to hide INTs, similar in some ways to how hard it would be to pretend that Shaq is pretty much like MJ at the free throw line.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                If you start picking and choosing what game or games to omit from the analysis, then analysis stops making sense pretty rapidly. can I just wipe away Brady's two 3 INT games and give him 16 INTs in 24 games?

                Expecting to see the rate up near 2 and then say "aha!" is unrealistic. Curtis Painter is near 1.0 for his career too (regular season of course).

                I'll also take the belief that there isn't much difference between 3 and 2 but that there might be a pretty big difference between 30 and 20. Sample size, ya know?
                I'm not picking and choosing which games are in or out, they're all in, which is why I left them all in when I did my analysis. I was giving an example, putting the difference between 0.85 and 1.04 into perspective. The difference is literally one game. Not saying the game should be removed, I'm saying one game can make the 0.2 difference completely disappear.

                I'm not saying I expect a rate near 2. You've got to keep the conversation within context. It was a counterpoint to Pogi saying that most of the time, Manning gets rattled and throws picks. My point was merely that the other QBs throw picks at nearly the same rate. If Manning's picks are a result of him getting rattled and not being able to handle the pressue, then what does that say about the other QBs?

                Yeah, sample size is important. I've never said anything different, nor did I intend to imply it. But telling me that something is 22% larger, doesn't give context. Just like the other point, I was merely giving the 22% context on what the difference really is. 22% difference sounds a like bigger than +0.2 interceptions per game. And that's the reason you cited the percentage difference, to show just how big that 0.2 difference is. My point is showing just how small that difference can be.

                Do we honestly think the difference between Mannings' sub-.500 record and Brady's nearly .700% is 0.2ints a game? No way.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                  Here's another way to look at it.

                  Peyton Manning:
                  Number of games with 0 picks: 10
                  Number of games with 1 pick: 7
                  Number of games with +1pick: 6

                  Tom Brady:
                  Number of games with 0 picks: 13
                  Number of games with 1 pick: 7
                  Number of games with +1pick: 6
                  Last edited by Since86; 02-05-2014, 01:04 PM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    In the playoffs,
                    Brady's record is 10-2 when throwing 0 INTs (83.3%)
                    but 8-6 when throwing one or more INTs (57.1%)


                    Michael Jordan’s career free throw percentage: 83.5%
                    Shaquille O’Neal’s career free throw percentage: 52.7%


                    It’s hard to hide INTs, similar in some ways to how hard it would be to pretend that Shaq is pretty much like MJ at the free throw line.
                    That's ridiculous.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                      Here's another way of looking at it. People say that Peyton is a great regular season QB but chokes when he gets into the playoffs and cites his INT rate.

                      Peyton's INT rate in the playoffs: 1.04
                      Peyton's INT rate in the regular season: 0.91

                      So he would throw one more interception every 10 games compared to his regular season rate. So instead of averaging 13.5 (there about) per season he'd average 15. Seriously, we think that 1.5ints more per season would change his greatness during the regular season to average? Come on.
                      Last edited by Since86; 02-05-2014, 01:18 PM.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        My point was merely that the other QBs throw picks at nearly the same rate.
                        and the point is incorrect.

                        A 22% difference is not "nearly the same" and more than gas selling for $3.30 a gallon is "nearly the same" as gas selling for $4.04 a gallon.

                        Excise with surgical precision one craptastic game and you only halve the difference. "Oh gee, that gas station is suddenly running a sale and its $3.65. That's nearly the same as $3.30, now!
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          and the point is incorrect.

                          A 22% difference is not "nearly the same" and more than gas selling for $3.30 a gallon is "nearly the same" as gas selling for $4.04 a gallon.

                          Excise with surgical precision one craptastic game and you only halve the difference. "Oh gee, that gas station is suddenly running a sale and its $3.65. That's nearly the same as $3.30, now!
                          And that's why I used my 2 and 3 example. Is two "nearly the same" as 3? Yes. Eventhough there is a 50% difference between. That's more than twice the difference than 22%, yet any rational person would agree 2 is nearly 3. Throwing out 22% completely removes any sense of context.

                          22% more of 2 is 2.44. 22% more of 200 is 244. Are 200 and 244 nearly the same? No. Are 2 and 2.44 nearly the same? Yes. Crazy how percentages can change perception of what "nearly" is, when both examples are using 22%.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                            Here are some more interesting interception numbers. (This is prior to this years playoffs)

                            Prior to 1999 only 8 QBs have thrown more than 100 pass attempts in the second half of a playoff game, when the score was within one possession.
                            Manning: 126-202 62.4comp% 1508yds 9tds 3ints
                            Brady: 173-282 61.3comp% 1868yds 12tds 9ints


                            Brees (9-0), Eli(7-0), and Flacco(9-3) are the only QBs that have a better TD:INT ratio than Peyton in one possession playoff games.
                            http://www.advancednflstats.com/2013...ff-peyton.html
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                              Football Outsiders compiled QB drive stats for the playoffs again this year (this doesn't include the Super Bowl but includes everything else). These are career playoff stats per drive.

                              http://www.footballoutsiders.com/sta...on-drive-stats

                              Out of the 32 QB's with enough playoff starts to be in the sample, Peyton's teams are 2nd in yards per drive in the playoffs. They are 10th best in points per drive, 4th best in avoiding punts, 14th best at avoiding turnovers, and 3rd worst at average starting field position.

                              In comparison, Brady's teams are 11th in yards per drive, 12th in points per drive, 21st in avoiding punts, 8th best at avoiding turnovers, and 20th out of 32 in field position.

                              So absolutely, Peyton has turned the ball over a little more than a guy like Brady. But he also had produced more yards and less punts while battling worse field position, and it has averaged out to slightly better points per drive.

                              All those stats make perfect sense when considering situation as well. Brady has been playing with many leads, which has led to less turnovers and more punts. Manning has had more deficits, which lead to more yards but more turnovers. Their offenses have been essentially the same efficiency over the years though in slightly different ways.

                              I do question the thought that Manning was often the one who made the big mistake that lost the game though. The criticism for Manning for most of his career was that he didn't do enough, not that he made crucial mistakes. In fact, in his 12 playoff losses, only five of them have had an INT that mattered whatsoever. 2003 NE, 2007 SD, 2009 NO, 2012 Baltimore, 2013 Seattle. Most of the games before that he either threw no INT's, threw them way after the game had been decided, or won the game despite INT's. As you can see, it's really increased recently but for most of his career that wasn't an issue.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                                When comparing Manning and Brady's playoff stats, it's important to keep this in mind:

                                Brady has played in 26 playoff games. 8 of those games have been in the Conference Championship round, and 5 of them of been the Super Bowl. So half of Brady's playoff games have been in either the AFCCG or Super Bowl, i.e. the highest level of competition. It's fair to assume that New England regularly advancing so far in the playoffs has taken a bit of a ding on Brady's playoff stats since he is so often playing against the best of the best. Brady has only played in 3 Wild Card games in his entire career.

                                Conversely, Manning has played 23 playoff games, 4 of which were Conference Championships and 3 of which were Super Bowls. So only roughly 30% of Manning's career playoff games have been in the AFCCG or Super Bowl (7/23), compared to 50% for Brady. Also, Manning has 7 Wild Card games compared to just 3 for Brady. Logically, a wild card opponent is going to be weaker than an AFCCG opponent in any given year. Manning has pretty good stats in those 7 wild card games (102 passer rating). For instance, Manning was able to really pad his stats against the Broncos in the 2003 and 2004 wild card rounds. Well, Brady was just sitting at home that week since the Pats were on a bye.

                                So yeah, their overall playoff stats are pretty close, but a higher percentage of Brady's playoff games have been played deep into the playoffs against the best of teams.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X