Holy crap man... I stopped reading that. Are people honestly comparing maybe the best quarterback who ever lived to Chad Pennington? No. Really, stop that... It's almost hysterical. Now listen, I loved Chad as much as the next guy, I really did, I loved him as a human being. You don't see many guys in the league with his character. With that being said, He had 1 good season and two halves of other good seasons. So in total it was about 2 good years we had out of him. Chad Pennington and Brett Favre don't belong in the same sentence. I can't believe this is even debatable. Stats are for losers and shittypanties. Let's just laugh at this. That's all this is.
It's not just being healthy. It's being healthy AND producing. Wins produced uses a linear regression model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis It's kind of like Bill James' Win Shares.
Who cares about some baseball book? Baseball has nothing to do with football unless you're talking about Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders. So this guys statistical analysis says favre is better because he stays healthy and produces. Again something we already knew. What I'm trying to understand is how this formula that calculates some averages that Garcia and Penny rank above Favre. How does that formula relate to actual football? This guy has formulas that calculate "net points", "net points per play", and "wins produced per 100 plays" without taking into consideration actual TD passes thrown. How can you possibly relate something to points or wins produced when not taking into consideration the most important measure of points in the actual game?
I would like to know how Brett's OT pass in Denver last year fits into the the "math "equation". Math is a wonderful thing but it's the "INTANGIBLES" that are what Brett's all about !!!
Attempting to draw conclusions from statistics and data is totally stupid. What kind of pussy attempts to go beyond what their eyes see?
