No, this article isn’t an article about quarterbacks squaring off against ancient Greek mathematicians. Today, we’re going to look at quarterback win-loss records and see how they compare to their Pythagorean win-loss records.

Over 30 years ago, Bill James wrote that, on average, baseball teams’ true strengths could be measured more accurately by looking at runs scored and runs allowed than by looking at wins and losses. Since then, sports statisticians have applied the same thinking to all sports. The formula to calculate a team’s Pythagorean winning percentage is always some variation of:

(Points Scored^2) / (Points Scored ^2 + Points Allowed^2)

With the exponent changing from 2 to whatever number best fits the data for the particular sport. In football, that number is 2.53. We can look, for example, at the Pythagorean records for each team in the league last season, and line it up against their actual record:

Pythagorean records aren’t perfect predictors of the future, and no one claims that they are. To the contrary, it is established that there are better models one could use to predict a team’s future record. That said, for predictive purposes, Pythagorean records certainly have one benefit: they are more predictive than actual win-loss records.

But as is apt to happen when new statistics are introduced, certain other conclusions tend to be drawn. Consider the underlying features of the Pythagorean record: it says that wins and losses are irrelevant. A team that goes 1-2 while winning 30-0 and losing 17-16 and 17-14 will have a better Pythagorean record than a team that goes 3-0 while winning each game 20-17. What’s happened in recent years is “stats” guys tend to cite certain teams (think the Eagles and Chargers) as being “better than their record” because of their underlying statistics. Other might respond by simply saying that those teams tend to “choke” and don’t play up to their talent level.

As a result, in some corners, overachieving relative to your Pythagorean record is almost considered synonymous with being clutch, while underachievers are chokers. But, of course, arguments go both ways: Yes, one could argue that by winning frequently in close games, a team or quarterback is a winner and clutch and all that jazz. Alternatively, one could argue that by frequently losing in close games, a quarterback is unlucky, and underrated by those whom emphasize win-loss records for quarterbacks.

That said, we can at least add to the discussion. Presented below is the Pythagorean record for every quarterback with at least 100 games started (post-season, included) since 1950. As always, quarterbacks who played before 1950 may be included, but only their stats from since 1950 will be presented below. The list is sorted by quarterbacks with the most wins over Pythagoras.

QB	G	W	L	T	WIN%	PF	PA	Pyth W	Diff
Peyton Manning	227	150	77	0	0.661	5862	4848	140.3	9.7
Jake Plummer	142	71	71	0	0.5	2803	3116	61.5	9.5
Dan Marino	258	155	103	0	0.601	5945	5354	146	9
Dan Pastorini	122	59	63	0	0.484	2229	2570	50.1	8.9
John Elway	252	162	89	1	0.645	5864	4896	154.3	8.2
Tom Brady	181	140	41	0	0.773	4885	3303	132	8
Jay Schroeder	104	64	40	0	0.615	2097	1962	56.4	7.6
Jeff George	127	47	80	0	0.37	2231	2997	40.8	6.2
Eli Manning	130	77	53	0	0.592	3102	2874	71.3	5.7
Ken Stabler	158	103	54	1	0.655	3557	2910	98.6	4.9
Brian Sipe	113	57	56	0	0.504	2248	2390	52.1	4.9
Fran Tarkenton	250	130	114	6	0.532	5350	5235	128.4	4.6
Steve McNair	163	96	67	0	0.589	3541	3210	91.6	4.4
Neil Lomax	102	47	53	2	0.471	2110	2358	43.9	4.1
Jim Zorn	106	44	62	0	0.415	2120	2557	40.7	3.3
Jim Plunkett	154	80	74	0	0.519	3143	3143	77	3
Y.A. Tittle	139	78	56	5	0.579	3390	3087	77.7	2.8
Jake Delhomme	104	61	43	0	0.587	2260	2057	58.2	2.8
Babe Parilli	104	50	47	7	0.514	2308	2349	50.8	2.7
Sonny Jurgensen	149	69	73	7	0.487	3210	3369	69.9	2.6
Matt Hasselbeck	158	83	75	0	0.525	3513	3461	80.5	2.5
Joe Namath	132	64	64	4	0.5	2960	3049	63.5	2.5
John Brodie	164	76	80	8	0.488	3548	3698	77.7	2.3
Joe Theismann	132	83	49	0	0.629	2899	2425	80.7	2.3
Jeff Blake	100	39	61	0	0.39	2000	2482	36.7	2.3
Phil Simms	169	101	68	0	0.598	3430	2996	98.8	2.2
Ben Roethlisberger	127	90	37	0	0.709	2964	2155	87.8	2.2
Trent Dilfer	119	63	56	0	0.529	2121	2085	60.8	2.2
Neil O'Donnell	107	58	49	0	0.542	2126	2046	56.1	1.9
Bobby Layne	139	83	52	4	0.612	3298	2814	83.3	1.7
Tommy Kramer	114	56	58	0	0.491	2343	2431	54.3	1.7
Joe Ferguson	175	80	95	0	0.457	3287	3557	78.8	1.2
Daunte Culpepper	104	43	61	0	0.413	2234	2616	41.8	1.2
Jim Hart	182	87	90	5	0.492	3830	3912	88.6	0.9
Charley Johnson	124	59	57	8	0.508	2756	2751	62.1	0.9
Chris Chandler	155	69	86	0	0.445	3056	3361	68.2	0.8
Archie Manning	139	35	101	3	0.263	2212	3365	35.7	0.8
Earl Morrall	108	67	38	3	0.634	2258	1840	67.7	0.8
Jim McMahon	103	70	33	0	0.68	2137	1606	69.3	0.7
Joe Montana	187	133	54	0	0.711	4605	3245	132.4	0.6
Jim Kelly	177	110	67	0	0.621	4107	3394	109.4	0.6
Norm Van Brocklin	105	63	38	4	0.619	2808	2340	64.4	0.6
Danny White	102	67	35	0	0.657	2573	2012	66.4	0.6
Jim Harbaugh	145	68	77	0	0.469	2708	2853	67.7	0.3
Billy Kilmer	121	63	57	1	0.525	2441	2357	63.2	0.3
Dave Krieg	184	101	83	0	0.549	3926	3631	101.1	-0.1
Richard Todd	112	50	61	1	0.451	2251	2429	50.6	-0.1
Jon Kitna	125	50	75	0	0.4	2611	3057	50.2	-0.2
Tobin Rote	119	51	64	4	0.445	2722	2959	53.2	-0.2
Jack Kemp	111	67	41	3	0.617	2586	2132	68.8	-0.3
Bobby Hebert	103	56	47	0	0.544	2190	2027	56.5	-0.5
Craig Morton	154	86	67	1	0.562	2948	2657	87.1	-0.6
Lynn Dickey	113	46	64	3	0.42	2226	2497	48.3	-0.8
Kerry Collins	187	84	103	0	0.449	3671	3949	84.9	-0.9
Ken O'Brien	112	50	61	1	0.451	2261	2403	51.7	-1.2
Randall Cunningham	144	85	58	1	0.594	3320	2816	86.8	-1.3
Brett Favre	322	199	123	0	0.618	7751	6361	200.4	-1.4
Brad Johnson	132	76	56	0	0.576	2806	2444	77.4	-1.4
Carson Palmer	108	50	58	0	0.463	2389	2467	51.8	-1.8
Jeff Garcia	122	60	62	0	0.492	2751	2704	62.3	-2.3
Bernie Kosar	115	56	58	1	0.491	2397	2349	59	-2.5
Kurt Warner	129	76	53	0	0.589	3440	2885	78.6	-2.6
Vinny Testaverde	219	92	126	1	0.422	4271	4734	95.3	-2.8
Drew Brees	162	97	65	0	0.599	4335	3596	99.8	-2.8
Roger Staubach	131	96	35	0	0.733	3121	2005	98.8	-2.8
Milt Plum	103	56	41	6	0.573	2243	1909	61.9	-2.9
Dan Fouts	178	89	88	1	0.503	4231	4100	92.5	-3
Philip Rivers	103	66	37	0	0.641	2783	2097	69.2	-3.2
Johnny Unitas	194	124	66	4	0.649	4725	3594	129.3	-3.3
George Blanda	108	55	52	1	0.514	2707	2519	58.9	-3.4
Steve Bartkowski	131	60	71	0	0.458	2670	2727	63.8	-3.8
Norm Snead	158	52	99	7	0.351	3096	3784	59.4	-3.9
Boomer Esiason	178	83	95	0	0.466	3893	3960	87.1	-4.1
Warren Moon	213	105	108	0	0.493	4665	4568	109.3	-4.3
Jim Everett	158	66	92	0	0.418	3190	3477	70.4	-4.4
Steve Grogan	138	75	63	0	0.543	3089	2741	79.4	-4.4
Steve Beuerlein	104	48	56	0	0.462	2106	2090	52.5	-4.5
Bob Griese	162	98	61	3	0.614	3427	2717	104.1	-4.6
Roman Gabriel	159	86	66	7	0.563	3386	2923	94.1	-4.6
Steve DeBerg	144	54	89	1	0.378	2822	3245	59.4	-4.9
Mark Brunell	161	83	78	0	0.516	3480	3233	88	-5
John Hadl	169	82	78	9	0.512	3712	3470	91.7	-5.2
Donovan McNabb	177	107	69	1	0.607	4056	3235	113.2	-5.7
Trent Green	115	56	59	0	0.487	2883	2712	61.9	-5.9
Drew Bledsoe	199	101	98	0	0.508	4128	3889	107	-6
Steve Young	157	102	55	0	0.65	4045	2958	108.1	-6.1
Terry Bradshaw	177	121	56	0	0.684	4045	2776	127.7	-6.7
Troy Aikman	180	105	75	0	0.583	3950	3241	112.1	-7.1
Ron Jaworski	151	77	73	1	0.513	2878	2616	84.6	-7.1
Ken Anderson	178	93	85	0	0.522	3794	3433	100.2	-7.2
Rich Gannon	139	80	59	0	0.576	3352	2706	87.9	-7.9
Len Dawson	167	99	60	8	0.617	3927	2972	111.8	-8.8
Bart Starr	167	103	58	6	0.635	3840	2786	115.6	-9.6

(If you want to see a the list of the 271 quarterbacks with at least 20 games started, click here.)

What conclusions can we draw from this list? To each his own, of course. But for my money, not too much. John Elway and Tom Brady have reputations for being clutch, and indeed, they rank in the top six in quarterback wins over Pythagoras. But Jeff George was 6.2 wins over Pythagoras on significantly fewer starts, and ahead of “clutch” heroes such as Eli Manning and Ken Stabler. And any list that goes “Peyton Manning–Jake Plummer–Dan Marino” just looks odd. What’s even more surprising is who is at the bottom of the list. Bart Starr is considered one of the clutchest quarterbacks in football history, but this says he underachieved to the tune of 10 wins in his career. Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw and Steve Young — Hall of Famers with 10 Super Bowl rings among them — are in the bottom 10. Some think Philip Rivers isn’t clutch, and he sits below average on the above list: right next to Johnny Unitas.

Looking at the data on a per-game basis — i.e., wins over Pythagoras per game — doesn’t seem any more useful. The top overachieving quarterbacks are Jay Schroeder, Dan Pastorini, Jake Plummer, Jeff George, Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Brian Sipe, Peyton Manning, Neil Lomax and Dan Marino. The worst ten? From worst to tenth to worst, the list goes: Bart Starr, Rich Gannon, Len Dawson, Trent Green, Ron Jaworski, Steve Beuerlein, Ken Anderson, Troy Aikman, Steve Young and Terry Bradshaw.

It would seem difficult to cite this in support of Eli Manning or Tom Brady being clutch on one hand, and not to follow up by calling Bart Starr and Troy Aikman, chokers. As is often the case, I think the take-away is the least sexy one. Great quarterbacks tend to play well, but who wins close games often has more to do with luck than ability. Labels like clutch are finicky, anyway. Is Matt Ryan clutch? He’s got a reputation as being both “ice” cool in the clutch and of being a playoff choker. Is Tom Brady less clutch now than he was a seven years ago? When Aaron Rodgers’ reputation as being a “choker” because of a 1-11 record in close games dispelled when his team stormed through the playoffs and won Super Bowl XLV? Or does he still carry the label since his teams never trailed in three of those games and he never lead a 4th quarter comeback during the playoff run? After all, Rodgers is only 3-18 when presented with 4th quarter comeback opportunities.