≡ Menu

Adam Steele is back for another guest post. You can view all of Adam’s posts here. As always, we thank him for contributing.


There have been countless attempts at deducing the clutchiness of NFL quarterbacks, most of which involve tallying playoff wins and Super Bowl rings. Today I’m going to take a stab at the clutch conundrum using a different approach: Pythagorean win projection. If a quarterback’s actual win/loss record diverges significantly from his Pythagorean estimated record, perhaps we can learn something from it. I began this study having no idea how it would turn out, so there were definitely some surprises once I saw the end results. This study evaluates the 219 quarterbacks who started at least 32 games since 1950, including playoffs but excluding the 1960-64 AFL (lack of competitive depth).

Here’s how to read the table, from left to right: points per game scored by the QB’s team in games he started, points per game allowed in his starts, total starts, total wins (counting ties as a half win), Pythagorean projected wins based on the points scored and allowed in his starts (using a 2.37 exponent), and the difference between his actual win total and Pythagorean win projection.

If you want to make the case for Peyton Manning and Tom Brady (in either order) being the two greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game, this is a good place to start. According to Pythagoras, they are the two biggest overachievers in NFL history. In a league where records in close games regress heavily toward the mean from one season to the next, Manning and Brady have consistently defied the odds and won games they had no business winning, year in and year out. The presence of Dan Marino at #3 runs counter to the popular narrative of the Dolphins great coming up small in big moments; despite often being saddled with mediocre teammates, Miami won significantly more games than it should have with Marino under center. Conversely, John Elway’s reputation as a winner has long exceeded his statistical output, but in this case the numbers agree with conventional wisdom. Elway’s Broncos won 10 more games than expected, and I’d say it’s fair to give most of the credit to Elway himself.

Dan Pastorini is a fascinating case, at least to me. By any statistical measure, Pastorini is one of the worst long term starters in NFL history. Yet he also ended up as one of the most prolific Pythagorean overachievers in history! How did this happen? I don’t have an answer, but I do have a theory. Despite Pastorini’s poor play, the Oilers’ staff noticed that the team was winning an inordinate percentage of close games when he started. Given that us humans are loathe to accept the vagaries of random chance, someone in Houston probably concluded that Pastorini must be clutch and/or have winnersauce flowing through his veins. And since winnersauce is such a rare quality, the Oilers kept starting him even though he played like Christian Ponder.

Take a gander at the biggest underachievers, it surely must be a bunch of scrubs. Instead we find… Hall-of-Famers, MVP’s, and Pro-Bowlers? I was beyond shocked to see Bart Starr dead last, and nearly as surprised to see Aikman, Bradshaw, and Young down there with him. Besides having a bust in Canton, these guys have something else in common – they all played on dominant teams. The tendency of dominant teams is to win big and lose close, the perfect recipe for tricking Pythagoras into thinking the team isn’t winning as many games as it should. I feel safe in concluding that’s the reason for these all-time greats to appear so low on this list. Really bad quarterbacks like Randy Wright, Blaine Gabbert (thus continuing our streak of mentioning Justin Blackmon or someone on the ugly 2012 Jaguars), and Dennis Shaw don’t get much of a chance to underperform: those three are the only ones on here with less than 10 Pythagorean wins.

Now I’ll turn the floor over to the FP readership. Does this study reveal anything significant, or is it mostly statistical noise? If you believe the former, which QB’s stand out to you and why?

{ 38 comments }