Regarding McNabb's "Clutchness"

Not to overdo the relationship metaphors, but I really do think the growing fan resignation that it's maybe time to move on from McNabb is really best understood in those terms.  The schlubby dude married the prom queen, but 11 years later the kids are exhausting, there's pretty much nothing new happening in the bedroom, and boy that perky Jeannie down in Accounts Payable sure smiles a lot.

(Notice I know no "Jeannies" and my company doesn't have an AP department.  Seven years of actual marriage means I'm no dummy.)

So we're currently in flaw-finding mode.  Any good non-MH sort of feels guilty about the whole thing, so it helps us when we can say, "but he doesn't work out in Philly with his receivers," or "he's really just not that clutch when it matters."

It's not me, big guy, it's you.

Which brings us to this week's version, this guest column posted on Football Outsiders that purports to measure quarterback clutchness.  It's been discussed and blogged about for a couple day, but a few key points that are being missed so far:

1)  "Football Outsiders" isn't saying anything here.  It drives me nuts when people use that formulation for things posted on that site that aren't by Schatzie or once of the other staffers.  They're not an editorial monolith.  Anyway, small point, but that's why I have a blog.

2)  If clutchness is a skill that can be differentiated, how come all the good quarterbacks are at the top of the list?  The author himself makes the point that the rankings sort of look how you would expect.  That's why it's unusual to see McNabb and Favre down so low.  Basically, if you're a good quarterback the first 58 minutes, you're also a good QB the last two. *

3)  What are we actually measuring here?  I don't want to make it seem like I'm dumping on the entirety of the analysis.  I'm not.  It's actually quite impressive.  I wish I had that dataset to play around with, that's for sure.

My issue is when the analysis ends and the interpretation begins.  Something meaningful is being measured here, I just don't think it's (mostly) quarterback play.

Let's start with one example, and this is also a bit of a methodological issue.  This is how the author controls for "comeback difficulty":

Adjustments were made for four factors: starting field position, time remaining in game, deficit (how many points behind), and outcome (no score, field goal attempt, touchdown). For example:

Quarterback A: after an interception return, he starts at his opponent's 5-yard line down by one point with two minutes to go

Quarterback B: after a kickoff, he starts at his own 20-yard line down by 8 points with 30 seconds to go

Quarterback A has a much easier scenario than Quarterback B. Therefore, the ACE rating gives more credit to Quarterback B for a successful comeback than Quarterback A, and penalizes Quarterback B less than Quarterback A for failure ...

Honestly, that's awesome stuff.  I'm very impressed by the way he worked with all that data.  But here's the problem:

Re: Adjusted Comeback Efficiency
by derek@igglesblog.com :: Tue, 02/02/2010 - 10:09pm

First of all, very thought-provoking article.

I'm curious if the author considered evaluating the impact of timeouts in his expected values with various times remaining. A minute fifteen with three timeouts is a very different situation than a minute fifteen with "Oops, Reid blew all his timeouts by the start of the fourth quarter again."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=garb...

---

Re: Adjusted Comeback Efficiency
by Bionicman :: Tue, 02/02/2010 - 11:43pm

I also would like to know if the article factored in timeouts.
reply

---

Re: Adjusted Comeback Efficiency
by NickHiggins :: Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:02am

Thanks! I saw this article, and it would be interesting, but the dataset did not include any data on timeouts remaining. I agree that timeouts would probably have an impact.

If you haven't seen that ESPN link -- and most of you have, because Bounty or Sam mentioned it a few weeks back -- take a quick look at it.  In a nutshell:  Andy Reid blows a lot of timeouts that might end up being useful later.  Tom Coughlin, Bill Belichick and even Wade Phillips?  Those guys don't.

Driving 80 yards for a touchdown with three timeouts is a lot different than going the same distance with none.  And it's not just because you have more time to get downfield.  It's also because having timeouts means the defense has to respect the middle of the field, too, and even allows some runs to be called.

But the article doesn't correct for that issue -- which doesn't mean we should throw out its conclusions.  Again, he's finding something interesting.  It just means we need to think a bit harder about what's going on and not just say, "Oh, well McNabb's a choker."

4)  The final point:  close games in general.  There's another issue here, and it relates to Reid's offensive philosophy. 

It seems to me, one of the reasons McNabb doesn't lead more comebacks is simply because the Eagles aren't losing unless the passing game isn't working.  Reid and Marty's "more cowbell" approach to calling plays basically boils down to, "They're stopping the pass?  Well let's keep passing some more until it works!"

Contrast McNabb's situation with Captain Comeback's.  If the Giants are losing a close game, they've probably been running much of the day.  They actually have a different gear they can use.  Plus, defenders know the run is always a threat (see the timeouts things above) and you really, really don't want to play so soft at the line that you let Brandon Jacobs bust into the secondary like a bowling ball looking for DB pins to run over.

---

With all of that said, do I think McNabb's particularly good at running the two-minute drill?  No, I don't.  One of the things I'm most curious about when it comes to Kolb is if he can actually manage to look competent in the last two minutes, given the same coaching context.  But let's be clear about both what this analysis does, and does not, tell us.

---

* With Jake Plummer being a delicious exception to the rule.  Love that guy.