If you like advanced stats (I'm a basketball guy), you'll like this column. http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/another-favre-column/ Cliff Notes: Since 2000, Pennington has had a higher average wins produced per 100 plays. Pennington has had injury trouble. Favre is more likely to produce a win than Pennington Over the last three years, Farve has had a better average wins produced per 100 plays than Pennington. If Favre has half the year he had last year, he will have a better wins produced per 100 plays Past performance of QBs is not a future predictor of future results
I stopped reading when his stats showed that both Pennington and Garcia were better than Favre. Let me know if anything interesting happened after that.
yeah, why wasn't Pennington voted for MVP last year? If you take the number of games take that x2 and then divide it by his average completions between 10-15 yards, and then multiply that by the remainder of the difference between TD passes minus interceptions and then take that number by the square root of Pi... there you have it! Pennington is clearly the better QB, no brainer!!!
lol. Here's another way to do it. Pennington's 2003 season doesn't count because he hurt his wrist. 2004 counts because even though he hurt his shoulder he had good numbers. 2005 doesn't count because he got hurt and 2006 doesn't count because he had surgery in between seasons. In 2007, the team sucked and he got hurt, that doesn't count. So really the only seasons of his that count towards his overall stats are 2002 and 2004 giving him a total of 35 TD's and 18 INT's. Those numbers would be even better if he had an offensive coordinator that wasn't holding him back. All Favre does is throw INT's - he's the all-time leader. He threw 29 picks in 2005 which is more than Penny threw in his entire career for years acceptable to count when talking about him.
Please....................don't mention that name again. One of the beautiful things about being at a Jet's forum is I get to start my long process of forgetting about that man they called "Tight wad Teddy" ( The anger management class is starting to help lol ) !!!
If you want to criticize my English. I wouldn't use wtf in a post. Does the bandwagon have a new posters manual? I would suggest reading it. No need to needlessly attack fellow Jets fans here before you know the ropes of the forum. As for the rest of you, this isn't some talking head using stats to prove a point. David Berri is a respected academic. He's an associate professor at Cal State Bakersfield in applied economics (mainly sports). I'm all for the Brett trade, but to the discount statistical analysis (which I argue show the benefit of the trade) is very misplaced. Based on the usernames and join dates in relation to the posts in this thread, we won't have a rational debate about Brett until Favre Fever subsides.
It's a cute article. Thanks. It is also the internet and not an english classroom so let the guy off for his sentance structure etc. Who really cares.
According to those statistics if each QB played an equal number of games against the same competition and all other variables were the same, Garcia would win the most games and score the most points, followed by Pennington, followed by Favre. The only support the statics give to Favre being better than the other two are "wins produced" which is a factor of nothing but more games being played. If I'm misinterpreting that, please explain what I am not getting. I hope that I am misinterpreting it because I'm really confused. If I am misinterpreting it, then much of what is said below should be ignored. If that is in fact what the analysis is telling us, then it does not even remotely parallel which QB is actually going to help you win more games with all things being equal. Any unbiased, rational person with a good understanding of football who has seen a good amount of all three QB's in action would disagree with what this analysis shows. I am obviously biased, but go find 1000 people that fit this description and ask them. The analysis does not take into consideration the fact that Pennington has not come close to the season he had in 2002 since then. The article does not take into consideration that Garcia has hardly been able to find and hold onto a starting job for most of his career. The analysis doesn't even take into account actual freakin touchdown passes! How can you make a statistical analysis of 3 quarterbacks that calculates "net points" and "net points per play" that doesn't include the most important measure of actual points scored in the game? That's absurd. Why are interceptions and fumbles relevant but not TD's? I don't care what kind of academic merit this guy has, the analysis is worth shit.
It would be improper to use an average stat in that way. Especially in football, you can't imply that increased play timing (for Pennington and Garcia since they had not had the same number of starts as Favre because of injury and/or benching) will equal increased production. I'll use a former Jet even though its not the best example. Lamont Jordan had a 5.2 ypc on 92 carries in 2004. In 2005 with a starting job, Jordan averaged 3.8 ypc on 272 carries. If you look at Pennington post-shoulder injury (2005-2007), Favre has certainly had a better average WP. There's also nothing wrong with stating that Garcia and Pennington have had better averages over the years than Favre. The important fact is that the stats Favre has been a consistent performer at an inconsistent production. There's a whole chapter in the book about how special Favre is because of his consistent production. Boil everything down to one game, Pennington is probably out by halftime and we as Jet fans have to endure half a game with a backup. With Favre we don't have to worry about that. For a QB, producing wins is far more important than averaging them. What more could you want as a Jets fan?
Based on what you're saying, the article implies that the only reason Favre is better is because he doesn't get injured. The other QB's have better averages at what exactly? They have a better average of some formula that evaluates "net points", "net points per play", and "wins produced per 100 plays" without taking into consideration actual TD passes thrown. What do these averages mean? I don't understand. We're talking about football, not Magic Cards or Dungeons and Dragons.
