2016 NFL MVP Race

[The Needler]

Do you really give Brady more credit for the Patriots winning at the Jets even though he had a horribly inefficient game, for example, than you give Ryan when the Falcons lost at the Seahawks? If so, then you really are just counting QB wins like pitcher wins or batter RBIs.

OR, maybe you don't think the stats tell the story of those games when you consider:

In the final moments, Brady drove his team 83 yards downfield for the game winning touchdown; and

In the final moments, Ryan threw the pick at midfield that allowed Seattle to kick the winning field goal, and then went four and out with four straight incompletions trying to come back.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

OR, maybe you don't think the stats tell the story of those games when you consider:

In the final moments, Brady drove his team 83 yards downfield for the game winning touchdown; and

In the final moments, Ryan threw the pick at midfield that allowed Seattle to kick the winning field goal, and then went four and out with four straight incompletions trying to come back.

This is maddening logic - you don't just count the final five minutes of each game in determining a player's performance. Everything which led up to the final five minutes also counts, too.

(Also, Ryan's aforementioned interception in the Seattle game went right through the hands of Julio Jones - it was a pretty bad drop - but that's neither here nor there.)

 

[The Needler]

This is maddening logic - you don't just count the final five minutes of each game in determining a player's performance. Everything which led up to the final five minutes also counts, too.

(Also, Ryan's aforementioned interception in the Seattle game went right through the hands of Julio Jones - it was a pretty bad drop - but that's neither here nor there.)

It's maddening that you are citing advanced stats that purportedly incorporate game situation while at the same time saying that you should discount game situation. (DYAR says Ryan's game was better, QBR says Brady's was, and we don't know the special sauce of either.)

Game winning drives are not pitcher wins just because you say so.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

It's maddening that you are citing advanced stats that purportedly incorporate game situation while at the same time saying that you should discount game situation. (DYAR says Ryan's game was better, QBR says Brady's was, and we don't know the special sauce of either.)

Game winning drives are not pitcher wins just because you say so.

They're not pitcher wins "because I say so" - DYAR and DVOA would seem to be the best advanced stats we have available to us in football at the moment, QBR having widely been shown to produce more nonsensical results. (DYAR and DVOA may be "special sauce", but Aaron Schatz and others at Football Outsiders have been pretty darn good at explaining and justifying their outcomes in a way that nobody has done for QBR.) Those stats don't weight the fourth quarter any more than the first quarter, if that's what you mean by "incorporating game situation". They also attempt to untangle a quarterback's individual performance from a team's overall performance.

Tell me this: if Brady had such a great game-winning drive against the Jets, why did he have to conduct a game-winning drive against such an awful team in the first place? Even including the final drive, he threw 50 passes for 286 yards (5.72 YPA). Maybe his play before the final drive and/or the team's overall performance had something to do with it?

(EDIT - typo)

 

[The Needler]

For one, because he was constantly pressured, yet refused to allow a sack, unlike Ryan who allowed four against Seattle instead of throwing an incomplete pass?

And DYAR comes up with just as many nonsensical QB values as QBR does, I'd guess. The very same week as Pats-Jets, here are two QBs lines:

20/31 214 yards, 3 TD/1 INT
22/36 246 yards, 0 TD/3 INT

One of these QBs had 11 passing DYAR, the other, -85. Guess which.

Also, I believe you're wrong about weighting late game situations.

"Every single play run in the NFL gets a “success value” based on this system, and then that number gets compared to the average success values of plays in similar situations for all players, adjusted for a number of variables. These include down and distance, field location, time remaining in game, and the team’s lead or deficit in the game score."

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

And DYAR comes up with just as many nonsensical QB values as QBR does, I'd guess. The very same week as Pats-Jets, here are two QBs lines:

20/31 214 yards, 3 TD/1 INT
22/36 246 yards, 0 TD/3 INT

One of these QBs had 11 passing DYAR, the other, -85. Guess which.

One of them was Brock Osweiler against San Diego, which finished the season with the 8th best defense by DVOA, and one of them was Jared Goff against New Orleans, which finished the season with the 30th best defense by DVOA. What do I win?

 

[The Needler]

The congressional medal of blind reliance on black box statistics and opponent adjustments.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I guess you think Jack Morris was a no-doubt, should-have-been-first-ballot Hall of Famer, then? "Pitching to the scoreboard" and all that.

I've gone back through all of the Quick Reads articles on Football Outsiders to look at each QB's game-by-game stats and DYAR - I couldn't find or don't have access to the final, opponent-adjusted figures for each game, so there is a caveat that the final DYAR figures are probably different, although Ryan in particular did play a lot of good defenses early in the year for which the DYAR figures are likely to have been adjusted upward, while he played some bad defenses late on for which the DYAR figures have already been adjusted downward*:

Ryan
--vs. TB (L, 24-31): 27/39, 334, 2 TD, 0 INT, 3 sacks = 96 DYAR (7th of all QBs that week)
--at OAK (W, 35-28): 26/34, 396, 3 TD, 1 INT, 1 sack = 174 DYAR (2nd)
--at NO (W, 45-32): 20/30, 240, 2 TD, 0 INT, 2 sacks = 106 DYAR (6th)
--vs. CAR (W, 48-33): 28/37, 503, 4 TD, 1 INT, 3 sacks = 192 DYAR (2nd)
--at DEN (W, 23-16): 15/28, 267, 1 TD, 0 INT, 2 sacks = 89 DYAR (8th)
--at SEA (L, 24-26): 27/42, 335, 3 TD, 1 INT, 4 sacks = 93 DYAR (6th)
--vs. SD (L, 30-33): 22/34, 273, 1 TD, 1 INT, 3 sacks = 52 DYAR (11th)
--vs. GB (W, 33-32): 28/35, 288, 3 TD, 0 INT, 2 sacks = 180 DYAR (1st)
--at TB (W, 43-28): 25/34, 344, 4 TD, 0 INT, 2 sacks = 134 DYAR (4th)
--at PHI (L, 15-24): 19/33, 267, 1 TD, 1 INT, 2 sacks = 59 DYAR (12th)
--vs. ARI (W, 38-19): 26/34, 269, 2 TD, 1 INT, 3 sacks = 103 DYAR (8th)
--vs. KC (L, 28-29): 22/34, 297, 1 TD, 1 INT, 2 sacks = 101 DYAR (6th)
--at LA (W, 42-14): 18/28, 237, 3 TD, 0 INT, 2 sacks = 94 DYAR (5th)
--vs. SF (W, 41-13): 17/23, 286, 2 TD, 0 INT, 1 sack = 176 DYAR (2nd)
--at CAR (W, 33-16): 27/33, 277, 2 TD, 0 INT, 4 sacks = 84 DYAR (12th)
--vs. NO (W, 38-32): 27/36, 331, 4 TD, 0 INT, 1 sack = 188 DYAR (1st)

Brady
--at CLE (W, 33-13): 28/40, 406, 3 TD, 0 INT, 1 sack = 164 DYAR (2nd)
--vs. CIN (W, 35-17): 29/35, 376, 3 TD, 0 INT, 3 sacks = 174 DYAR (1st)
--at PIT (W, 27-16): 19/26, 222, 2 TD, 0 INT, 0 sacks = 107 DYAR (5th)
--at BUF (W, 41-25): 22/33, 315, 4 TD, 0 INT, 4 sacks = 132 DYAR (7th)
--vs. SEA (L, 24-31): 23/32, 316, 0 TD, 1 INT, 2 sacks = 119 DYAR (6th)
--at SF (W, 30-17): 25/39, 280, 4 TD, 0 INT, 1 sack = 103 DYAR (7th)
--at NYJ (W, 22-17): 30/50, 286, 2 TD, 0 INT, 0 sacks = 42 DYAR (18th)
--vs. LA (W, 26-10): 33/46, 269, 1 TD, 0 INT, 0 sacks = 46 DYAR (14th)
--vs. BAL (W, 30-23): 25/36, 400, 3 TD, 1 INT, 1 sack = 124 DYAR (2nd)
--at DEN (W, 16-3): 16/32, 188, 0 TD, 0 INT, 2 sacks = 48 DYAR (12th)
--vs. NYJ (W, 41-3): 17/27, 214, 3 TD, 0 INT, 1 sack = 76 DYAR (14th)
--at MIA (W, 35-14): 25/33, 276, 3 TD, 0 INT, 0 sacks = 156 DYAR (2nd)

I wouldn't want to try and draw any super-technical conclusions without the full opponent-adjusted DYAR figures on a game-by-game basis, but if you want to say that Ryan was responsible for several of his team's losses (e.g., vs. San Diego and Kansas City), you still have to look at his overall contribution in those games and note that his DYAR figures - i.e., his individual contribution to his team's performance - were still very good. By the above numbers, at least, Ryan had four games which were better than Brady's best game (and another which tied Brady's best game), and Brady had three games which were worse than Ryan's worst game. Do you really give Brady more credit for the Patriots winning at the Jets even though he had a horribly inefficient game, for example, than you give Ryan when the Falcons lost at the Seahawks? If so, then you really are just counting QB wins like pitcher wins or batter RBIs.

* (EDIT: actually, Ryan's final opponent-adjusted DYAR for the season was 1,918, whereas the sum of the above numbers is 1,921 - so more or less the same, although perhaps divided differently across the specific games. Brady also gains 4 DYAR over the season, bringing his total from 1,291 in the above listing to 1,295.)

I know I said I was done... but I'll respond here anyway.

Question: Do you believe that in the game against KC that Ryan made a mistake trying to force the ball in to the receiver for the 2 point conversion try? In my opinion he did. I don't believe Brady makes that throw. I believe Brady either reads the defense, and audibles to a different play, or if that exact play had been run I believe he has the situational awareness to not risk the interception/return and he throws it away - preserving the 1 point lead. I do not believe Brady is perfect, but I believe he slides up in the pocket to avoid the outside rush and give his receivers another moment or he throws it away. I believe if Ryan throws that ball away the Falcons win (admittedly 4 minutes and change on the clock left is no guarantee). It doesn't matter how heroic Ryan was getting them to that point if he squanders it in the last moments. Did he play a superlative game until that decision? It's irrelevant to my point, so I will credit yes - whether he did or didn't. He squandered the game. Is it fair to hold 1 play against him in a team game? Only in the context of the MVP award where the QB gets to be hero or goat, yes. If he set the NFL passing record with 600 yards in that game, and made the same mistake on the 2 point conversion, his team loses. At some point (again only in the MVP context of all or nothing credit) you have to say despite his best effort he made a critical mistake and cost his team a game. In the context of the MVP award Ryan is responsible for making critical squander type mistakes against SD and KC.

If you want to say Brady can't win because suspension (even though E. Smith won playing in 13 games), then fine just say that - I might even be persuaded to agree. But if you aren't disqualifying Brady... then I'm saying that after a wash against a common Seattle opponent that Ryan had two additional squanders. I have a hard time giving the MVP to a player that played superlatively, but cost his team 2 more games than his MVP competition. At some point the gaudy numbers (to me at least) are less important then him squandering more games than Brady.

I fear I'm just repeating myself, and to others in a non-statistical, circular way... so I really am done with this rationale. I should have honored my previous decision to be done... lol

 

[InstaFace]

I'm just glad the argument is centering on Brady vs Ryan, and that everyone pretty much agrees there's not a rational argument for anyone else.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

I'm just glad the argument is centering on Brady vs Ryan, and that everyone pretty much agrees there's not a rational argument for anyone else.

I suspect that if this were the Milwaukee-centered Sons of Sixto Lezcano website, we'd be arguing about Rodgers vs. Ryan instead of Brady vs. Ryan. Rodgers also has a very strong narrative-driven case for the award, particularly if you ignore the first 10 games of the season.

 

[InstaFace]

Name a stat, be it counting or rate, traditional or modern, purely individual or more team-driven, in which Rodgers is clearly superior to both Brady and Ryan. He threw 2 TDs more than Ryan, and runs more than either of them. That's the extent of his case, as far as I can tell.

 

[Super Nomario]

STOP JUDGING QBS BY SOLELY BY WINS AND LOSSES. Really people, it's 2017 and we still have to have the QBWINZ! debate? While we're at it, let's give the pitcher with the most wins the Cy Young and the slugger with the most RBI on a winning team win the MVP.

I think this is fair, but we should also not pretend that passing statistics isolate the quarterback's performance from his teammates, either. There isn't much question that the Falcons' offense and passing offense was the most productive in the league for the full season. How we divide credit between Ryan, Julio Jones, Atlanta's OL (or Brady, Gronk, Edelman, NE's OL, etc.) is far murkier. Ryan played well in two games against weak teams without Jones, but obviously Jones is a top-five receiver that helped Ryan (and his numbers) through the course of the season. Is that enough to compensate for the statistical gap, or the games gap in Brady's case? Maybe not, but I believe in just comparing DYAR (or DVOA or QBR or ANY/A or any other stat) like it captures the QB's performance isolated from all other factors.

Name a stat, be it counting or rate, traditional or modern, purely individual or more team-driven, in which Rodgers is clearly superior to both Brady and Ryan. He threw 2 TDs more than Ryan, and runs more than either of them. That's the extent of his case, as far as I can tell.

The other major piece of Rodgers' case is his supporting cast. He had a rusty Jordy Nelson coming back from injury, a banged-up Randall Cobb, Davante Adams, a very good offensive line, and no running game to speak of. This affected Green Bay's play-action pass game, too. The Falcons ran play-action on 26% of pass plays (#1 in the league) and averaged 10.4 YPA on play-action (2nd in the league). The Packers ran play-action on 15% of pass plays (28th) and averaged 6.3 YPA when they did so (30th). Despite this, the Packers were a top-five offense (fourth in points, third in points per drive).

No one (I think) is arguing that Rodgers' numbers are as good as Ryan's, but that doesn't mean his performance wasn't as impressive or valuable, when you factor in lesser skill weapons, a defense that's just as bad, a non-existent running game, much less favorable weather conditions (Rodgers' lone zero-TD game came on an 11-degree day in Chicago, conditions Ryan never had to deal with), etc. I think it's debatable.

 

[Marciano490]

Numbers, schnumbers - I'd say Rodgers has about a 50% chance at being MVP just because of his commercials and uniform, and would take a smallish bet here on those odds against anyone thinking contrary.

 

[InstaFace]

I'm happy to do a $20 jimmy fund bet at even odds against Rodgers.

 

[Marciano490]

I'm happy to do a $20 jimmy fund bet at even odds against Rodgers.

Book it.

 

[coremiller]

I think this is fair, but we should also not pretend that passing statistics isolate the quarterback's performance from his teammates, either. There isn't much question that the Falcons' offense and passing offense was the most productive in the league for the full season. How we divide credit between Ryan, Julio Jones, Atlanta's OL (or Brady, Gronk, Edelman, NE's OL, etc.) is far murkier. Ryan played well in two games against weak teams without Jones, but obviously Jones is a top-five receiver that helped Ryan (and his numbers) through the course of the season. Is that enough to compensate for the statistical gap, or the games gap in Brady's case? Maybe not, but I believe in just comparing DYAR (or DVOA or QBR or ANY/A or any other stat) like it captures the QB's performance isolated from all other factors.

The other major piece of Rodgers' case is his supporting cast. He had a rusty Jordy Nelson coming back from injury, a banged-up Randall Cobb, Davante Adams, a very good offensive line, and no running game to speak of. This affected Green Bay's play-action pass game, too. The Falcons ran play-action on 26% of pass plays (#1 in the league) and averaged 10.4 YPA on play-action (2nd in the league). The Packers ran play-action on 15% of pass plays (28th) and averaged 6.3 YPA when they did so (30th). Despite this, the Packers were a top-five offense (fourth in points, third in points per drive).

No one (I think) is arguing that Rodgers' numbers are as good as Ryan's, but that doesn't mean his performance wasn't as impressive or valuable, when you factor in lesser skill weapons, a defense that's just as bad, a non-existent running game, much less favorable weather conditions (Rodgers' lone zero-TD game came on an 11-degree day in Chicago, conditions Ryan never had to deal with), etc. I think it's debatable.

These are fair points. I've never said stats definitively answer any of these questions. But they have to be the starting place. So e.g. if you want to argue that Rodgers was more valuable, you have to start by acknowledging that there's a pretty big gap in statistical performance, which gives you a large burden to make up, and then try to explain how factors those stats don't account for make up the difference. I'd note also that your response involves citing other, different stats, which is fine: we can then have a discussion about the meaning of those stats. It's the hand-waving away data with limited personal observation and subjective feeling, ("Ryan may have had great stats, but I saw him make mistakes I know in my heart of hearts my dear Tommykins would never have made") that don't advance the discussion and are worthy of derision.

Besides the general methodological points, I'd take issue with some of your specifics. GB finished 5th in rushing offense DVOA, for example, while Atlanta was 7th, so it's not true that GB "had no running game to speak of." And while Rodgers did face tougher weather, he faced much easier defenses: GB's offense ranked 27th in SOS, while Atlanta ranked 2nd.

 

[Dan Murfman]

Tom Curran on WEEI just said he voted for Brady

 

[Super Nomario]

These are fair points. I've never said stats definitively answer any of these questions. But they have to be the starting place. So e.g. if you want to argue that Rodgers was more valuable, you have to start by acknowledging that there's a pretty big gap in statistical performance, which gives you a large burden to make up, and then try to explain how factors those stats don't account for make up the difference. I'd note also that your response involves citing other, different stats, which is fine: we can then have a discussion about the meaning of those stats. It's the hand-waving away data with limited personal observation and subjective feeling, ("Ryan may have had great stats, but I saw him make mistakes I know in my heart of hearts my dear Tommykins would never have made") that don't advance the discussion and are worthy of derision.

Yeah, I agree with this.

Besides the general methodological points, I'd take issue with some of your specifics. GB finished 5th in rushing offense DVOA, for example, while Atlanta was 7th, so it's not true that GB "had no running game to speak of." And while Rodgers did face tougher weather, he faced much easier defenses: GB's offense ranked 27th in SOS, while Atlanta ranked 2nd.

Fair point on defenses. The run DVOA is misleading. The Packers were reasonably efficient when they did run the ball, but they didn't have a true running back much of the year, and as a consequence finished 29th in rushing attempts. After Lacy went down Week 6, only three times did a RB even have 10 carries in a game. They didn't have a RB with 100 attempts. In fact, Rodgers finished their team leader in rushing TDs and DYAR and ended up less than 100 yards behind Montgomery for the team lead. When I say "they didn't have a running game," I don't mean "they had a bad running game." I mean, "they didn't have a running game."

 

[coremiller]

Yeah, I agree with this.


Fair point on defenses. The run DVOA is misleading. The Packers were reasonably efficient when they did run the ball, but they didn't have a true running back much of the year, and as a consequence finished 29th in rushing attempts. After Lacy went down Week 6, only three times did a RB even have 10 carries in a game. They didn't have a RB with 100 attempts. In fact, Rodgers finished their team leader in rushing TDs and DYAR and ended up less than 100 yards behind Montgomery for the team lead. When I say "they didn't have a running game," I don't mean "they had a bad running game." I mean, "they didn't have a running game."

Running production is an area where Rodgers does have a real advantage. He had 51 carries for 383 yards and 4 TDs; Ryan had 22 carries for 128 yards and 0 TDs.

Rodgers also managed to be a very good scrambler/runner without taking a lot of sacks -- he had a lower sack rate than Ryan despite playing a style that leads to more sacks (QBs who run/scramble almost always have higher sack rates, which is one reason why sack rate is a flawed stat). Ryan's sack rate was clearly the weakest part of his game this year, perhaps because he threw downfield more, as evidenced by the high Y/C (another problem with sack rate stats)? It was the highest sack rate of his career. Although sacks are an ANY/A component and so aren't something we need to mentally adjust ANY/A for.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

Running production is an area where Rodgers does have a real advantage. He had 51 carries for 383 yards and 4 TDs; Ryan had 22 carries for 128 yards and 0 TDs.

Running production is factored into DVOA and DYAR, isn't it?

 

[amarshal2]

In baseball we have these nice, neat WAR statistics that do a very good job telling us who is the MVP or who the top 2 or 3 people should be in the event it's very close. No such statistics exist in the NFL which screws everything up. We put too much weight on these statistics when in reality the surrounding cast and some portion of luck has outshined actual variation in play. It's just too difficult to parse value in the NFL. But the existence of the accurate WAR stastic makes MLB potentially an interesting comparison.

In baseball, how often does someone come out of relative obscurity (in terms of MVP awards) to have a ridiculous, MVP caliber season by advanced metrics and then go back to obscurity? It happens, but it's rare.

-I checked Brady Anderson's 1996 season. He jumped to 10th in WAR out of nowhere and fell right back into nothing. This is as close as it gets, although he topped out #10.
-Louis Gonzalez was 4th in WAR in his ridiculous 2001 season but he was 32nd the year before and 23rd the year after. He made it on the MVP ballot again. A pretty big outlier season but not insane.
-Our beloved Tacoby Bellsbury was #1 in WAR in 2011 with 9.4 and never again finished above 6...a big outlier...but his 5.6 in 2013 was good enough for 14h in MLB.

Now, these are just three cherry picked guys out of a MUCH MUCH larger pool (all MLB hitters vs. 32 QBs), but I think it's instructive. Using MLB hitters as a guide, it's not a regular occurrence for a guy to suddenly be the actual best or nearly the best (using WAR) player in the game out of nowhere and then fall back into obscurity.

Where am I going with this? Matt Ryan should not win the MVP while Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers should win.

Here's what it comes down to...
Do I think it's more likely that Cam Newton was a middle of the pack QB in 2014, the #1 QB in 2015, and the #30 QB in 2016?
OR
Do I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Cam wasn't the best last year but he's not the worst this year. He's been about average and some circumstance and luck pushed him up or down.

...Do I think Matt Ryan is the #1 QB in the NFL in 2016, or do I think he's probably more like 2015, 2014, and 2013 Matt Ryan?

In both cases, I absolutely believe the latter.

Since we don't really know who the best player in the game is, we should rely on history as a guide to help us decide who the best player was in a single season. These 5 guys have the best stats, which among them has established a track record of performance that spans more than 1-2 years?

Now, it's possible I'm wrong and Matty Ice has established a new baseline. But I'd rather screw over every Brady Anderson rather than screw over Mike Trout. If Brady Anderson is really Mike Trout, he'll prove it over the next few years and we can screw over the next one year wonder and give it to Ryan then. But giving it to Cam Newton, Rich Gannon, and Matt Ryan says more about the approach people are using to give out the award than it does about the actual winners. I'm sorry, but Cam Newton was not the best player in the NFL last year.

Do I believe Matt Ryan was the best QB in the NFL this year or do I believe a guy who has established he's among the greatest of all time who had one of the best statistical seasons of his career?

I pick the latter every time. It's Tom Brady. If it's not Tom Brady, it's Aaron Rodgers. The rest is just us not knowing how to parse value in the NFL.

 

[coremiller]

Running production is factored into DVOA and DYAR, isn't it?

FO calculates DVOA and DYAR for QB rushing, but breaks it out separately. They don't list combined totals.

FWIW, I think DYAR works a lot better for QB passing than QB rushing. From what I've been able to glean about their method, I have some issues with how they calculate replacement level baselines for QB rushing. It's a really tricky problem because of style variance and selection bias. If you try to actually look at how replacement level QBs perform, you run into the problem that a replacement-level QB could be a stiff who can't run at all or a great runner who can't throw (e.g Tyrelle Pryor when he was still playing QB). Or if you use some kind of "X% of average or 1 std dev below mean" approach, you have to adjust somehow for the fact that the sample is skewed because good running QBs run more, and bad-running QBs run only in the most ideal situations, which drives the average up.

Ultimately, having different replacement baselines for QB rushing and QB passing isn't analytically pure. There are only replacement players based on their total mix of skills; there is no such thing as a replacement-level skill. In the same way a good hitter or good fielder can be a replacement-level player if his defense or hitting is awful, you need to look at total value above/below average and compare that to replacement level. Having separate replacement baselines for different skills doesn't make sense.

[/rant]

One useful thing FO does do for QB rushing is eliminate kneel-downs from their raw data. That makes their raw QB rushing data more useful than PFR's.

 

[BigJimEd]

In baseball we have these nice, neat WAR statistics that do a very good job telling us who is the MVP or who the top 2 or 3 people should be in the event it's very close. No such statistics exist in the NFL which screws everything up. We put too much weight on these statistics when in reality the surrounding cast and some portion of luck has outshined actual variation in play. It's just too difficult to parse value in the NFL. But the existence of the accurate WAR stastic makes MLB potentially an interesting comparison.

In baseball, how often does someone come out of relative obscurity (in terms of MVP awards) to have a ridiculous, MVP caliber season by advanced metrics and then go back to obscurity? It happens, but it's rare.

-I checked Brady Anderson's 1996 season. He jumped to 10th in WAR out of nowhere and fell right back into nothing. This is as close as it gets, although he topped out #10.
-Louis Gonzalez was 4th in WAR in his ridiculous 2001 season but he was 32nd the year before and 23rd the year after. He made it on the MVP ballot again. A pretty big outlier season but not insane.
-Our beloved Tacoby Bellsbury was #1 in WAR in 2011 with 9.4 and never again finished above 6...a big outlier...but his 5.6 in 2013 was good enough for 14h in MLB.

Now, these are just three cherry picked guys out of a MUCH MUCH larger pool (all MLB hitters vs. 32 QBs), but I think it's instructive. Using MLB hitters as a guide, it's not a regular occurrence for a guy to suddenly be the actual best or nearly the best (using WAR) player in the game out of nowhere and then fall back into obscurity.

Where am I going with this? Matt Ryan should not win the MVP while Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers should win.

Here's what it comes down to...
Do I think it's more likely that Cam Newton was a middle of the pack QB in 2014, the #1 QB in 2015, and the #30 QB in 2016?
OR
Do I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Cam wasn't the best last year but he's not the worst this year. He's been about average and some circumstance and luck pushed him up or down.

...Do I think Matt Ryan is the #1 QB in the NFL in 2016, or do I think he's probably more like 2015, 2014, and 2013 Matt Ryan?

In both cases, I absolutely believe the latter.

Since we don't really know who the best player in the game is, we should rely on history as a guide to help us decide who the best player was in a single season. These 5 guys have the best stats, which among them has established a track record of performance that spans more than 1-2 years?

Now, it's possible I'm wrong and Matty Ice has established a new baseline. But I'd rather screw over every Brady Anderson rather than screw over Mike Trout. If Brady Anderson is really Mike Trout, he'll prove it over the next few years and we can screw over the next one year wonder and give it to Ryan then. But giving it to Cam Newton, Rich Gannon, and Matt Ryan says more about the approach people are using to give out the award than it does about the actual winners. I'm sorry, but Cam Newton was not the best player in the NFL last year.

Do I believe Matt Ryan was the best QB in the NFL this year or do I believe a guy who has established he's among the greatest of all time who had one of the best statistical seasons of his career?

I pick the latter every time. It's Tom Brady. If it's not Tom Brady, it's Aaron Rodgers. The rest is just us not knowing how to parse value in the NFL.

This just seems like your are trying hard to find a reason not to give it to Ryan. Seems like a lot of people are doing this. He's Matty Ryan. How can he be MVP?

Baseball is not a good analogy. Lot more players and lot longer season.

Yes Brady and Rodgers are better qbs. Much better careers and almost anyone would pick them for a playoff game.

But this season Ryan was better. It's just that easy. I don't think it's even close when it comes to Rodgers.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I've lost track, is this discussion about who *will* win MVP or who *should* win MVP? I only ask because I think it's giving far too much credit to the majority of writers to be in tune with advanced metrics in the NFL. And that's not even a knock on them - I think they lag far behind those in baseball both in accuracy and transparency, which is to say nothing of them being much less readily available or mainstream.

Raw stats and narrative win the NFL MVP. I put money on Rodgers at 11:1 weeks ago and I feel pretty good about that bet. I think Ryan deserves it tho.

 

[Marciano490]

I've lost track, is this discussion about who *will* win MVP or who *should* win MVP? I only ask because I think it's giving far too much credit to the majority of writers to be in tune with advanced metrics in the NFL. And that's not even a knock on them - I think they lag far behind those in baseball both in accuracy and transparency, which is to say nothing of them being much less readily available or mainstream.

Raw stats and narrative win the NFL MVP. I put money on Rodgers at 11:1 weeks ago and I feel pretty good about that bet. I think Ryan deserves it tho.

I'd ask if you want to lay some of that risk off on me, but last poster I asked to do that got jinxed.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Yes Brady and Rodgers are better qbs. Much better careers and almost anyone would pick them for a playoff game.
But this season Ryan was better. It's just that easy. I don't think it's even close when it comes to Rodgers.

Yup. This is what it comes down to.

Brady and Rodgers are both better QBs, but Ryan performed so much better than everyone else this year that it shouldn't even be close.

Any argument about wins, or comebacks, or anything like that is just discounting defenses and supporting casts as being worthless - which is abject nonsense.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

...Do I think Matt Ryan is the #1 QB in the NFL in 2016, or do I think he's probably more like 2015, 2014, and 2013 Matt Ryan?

Apart from the rejoinders already posted above...how far out of obscurity do you think Matt Ryan has come this year? He had a very mediocre season last year - which in large part is almost certainly down to him struggling to learn Kyle Shanahan's new offense from scratch - but before that he wasn't exactly Brady Anderson:

--2015: 19th in DYAR, 18th in DVOA, 15th in QBR (and in more traditional stats he was 5th in passing yards, 6th in Completion %, and 17th in TDs)
--2014: 7th in DYAR, 9th in DVOA, 10th in QBR (5th in yards, 7th in Cmp%, 10th in TDs)
--2013: 4th in DYAR, 9th in DVOA, 10th in QBR (4th in yards, 4th in Cmp%, 9th in TDs)
--2012: 5th in DYAR, 8th in DVOA, 4th in QBR (5th in yards, 1st in Cmp%, 5th in TDs)
--2011: 6th in DYAR, 7th in DVOA, 5th in QBR (8th in yards, 11th in Cmp%, 6th in TDs)
--2010: 5th in DYAR, 7th in DVOA, 3rd in QBR (9th in yards, 12th in Cmp%, 7th in TDs)
--2009: 13th in DYAR, 15th in DVOA, 15th in QBR (21st in yards, 23rd in Cmp%, 13th in TDs)
--2008: 7th in DYAR, 4th in DVOA, 3rd in QBR (13th in yards, 17th in Cmp%, 16th in TDs)

I absolutely believe that advanced stats in football are nowhere near as advanced as they are in baseball, but that doesn't render them worthless. And the above profile shows a QB who had solidly established himself in the second tier, just below the elite, before this season and then made a leap this season.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

I've lost track, is this discussion about who *will* win MVP or who *should* win MVP? I only ask because I think it's giving far too much credit to the majority of writers to be in tune with advanced metrics in the NFL. And that's not even a knock on them - I think they lag far behind those in baseball both in accuracy and transparency, which is to say nothing of them being much less readily available or mainstream.

FWIW, insofar as ESPN.com might be seen as a reliable indicator of average sportswriterly opinion, I'd note that their 13-person voting panel finally came around to a pro-Ryan stance this week:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18402518/nfl-mvp-poll-2016-matt-ryan-unseats-tom-brady-no-1

I really think Atlanta getting the #2 seed and a bye is what will ultimately give Ryan the award as much as the statistical case on his behalf.

 

[tims4wins]

I hope Brady DOESN'T win, the two times he did the Pats failed in the playoffs

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'd ask if you want to lay some of that risk off on me, but last poster I asked to do that got jinxed.

It wasn't a huge bet and we (a friend and I kind of have a joint account on bovada, place small daily bets and cash out at a certain ceiling leaving money to play with in the account; rinse repeat) hedged with Ryan at 5:1 and also took Brady and Elliot (though I forget their odds). I think worst case scenario is if Ryan wins we lose like $10. Anyone else we cash, albeit to varying degrees.

 

[bradmahn]

The other major piece of Rodgers' case is his supporting cast. He had a rusty Jordy Nelson coming back from injury, a banged-up Randall Cobb, Davante Adams, a very good offensive line, and no running game to speak of. This affected Green Bay's play-action pass game, too. The Falcons ran play-action on 26% of pass plays (#1 in the league) and averaged 10.4 YPA on play-action (2nd in the league). The Packers ran play-action on 15% of pass plays (28th) and averaged 6.3 YPA when they did so (30th). Despite this, the Packers were a top-five offense (fourth in points, third in points per drive).

This was real interesting, SN. Do you have the play-action figures on Brady?

coremiller: do you know the origins of the multipliers in the ANY/A formula?

 

[coremiller]

This was real interesting, SN. Do you have the play-action figures on Brady?

coremiller: do you know the origins of the multipliers in the ANY/A formula?

I think it's based on an Expected Points Added type of analysis. So, scoring a TD changes your points expectation on average about as much as gaining 20 yards of field position, and throwing an interception changes your points expectation about as much as losing 45 yards of field position.

here's some background: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4db6.html?p=633

If the data were freely available, a real EPA analysis would probably be even better than ANY/A (and both FO's DVOA is and ESPN's QBR are based on similar kinds of analysis, I think). But I don't think anyone publishes EPA anymore since Brian Burke moved to ESPN and stopped publishing his stuff independently. If anyone knows where that data is available, please link to it.

The value of ANY/A compared to EPA is that it's much, much easier to calculate than EPA. You don't need the big dataset that you would need to determine the EPA for every play based on changes in down/distance/field position. You only need basic box score totals (attempts, yards, TDs, INTs, sacks, and yards lost on socks) plus the two TD and INT constants.

 

[Oppo]

Haven't watched them in years but Kornheiser and Wilbon agree it's Brady 1, Rodgers 2. They basically said it would be stupid, unthinkable, etc to give the award to Ryan, saying they go with the eye test over uber statistics (they are impressed more by Brady's td/int record) and that Ryan has a better WR and RB than the other 2, inflating his stats.

Edit: I believe they both agreed they'd fire someone who works for them if they were to vote for Ryan. And I realize their game is to create attention and viewers.

 

[Super Nomario]

This was real interesting, SN. Do you have the play-action figures on Brady?

FO actually reports them on the team level (which I should have mentioned for Ryan / Rodgers, but obviously it matters more for Brady where he didn't play four games). NE is 12th in % of PA at 19%, 4th in PA efficiency at 9.5 YPA.

EPA would probably be even better than ANY/A (and both FO's DVOA is and ESPN's QBR are based on similar kinds of analysis, I think). But I don't think anyone publishes EPA anymore since Brian Burke moved to ESPN and stopped publishing his stuff independently. If anyone knows where that data is available, please link to it.

PFR.com reports EPA in its PBP data. I think last year I exported a CSV for the MVP candidates and tallied it. Or tried to; it ends up trickier than you think. I might try to do that for these guys. There are limitations with that, of course, too - if Brady throws a little screen to James White and he takes it 78 yards for a touchdown*, this is going to show up as a great play for Brady instead of for White. IOW, we can be pretty sure we will find Ryan showing up well in EPA (though it will be interesting if his gap is larger or smaller than in other statistics), but it still doesn't account for the Julio Jones Problem.

*this hypothetical is of course absurd. We all know James White would be tackled at the one.

Win Probability Added would probably be even better for MVP, though of course that isn't dis-aggregating teammates' contributions either.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Latest MVP odds from Bovada:

Ryan: -200
Rodgers: +275
Brady: +375
Elliott: +2200

 

[Seels]

I don't really know how to state this so I'll just go at it.

I do not trust defensive DVOA this year. There were too many injuries and too much variance to put much weight into season wide stats for this. Defensive DVOA has the Panthers, a team who gave up 400 total points, as the 10th best defense. I legit don't give a shit what special factors go into it, a team that gives up 400 points is not a top anything defense. The Jaguars are also 13th despite giving up 400 points. San Diego is 10th...

The Patriots are 16th despite giving up the fewest points. I can understand strength of schedule and other things that weigh into them not being at the top. I can not comprehend any adjustment which has the best scoring defense by a significant amount barely in the top half of the league. Would anyone trade the Patriots defense for any of the teams above? I sure as shit wouldn't. Same with Kansas City really. Theirs is the 14th best by DVOA. Just doesn't pass the smell test.

I think there are plenty of fine reasons to support Ryan winning MVP, though it's a marginal toss up over Brady. I don't think DVOA or anything defensive should play into it. I really don't think their against schedule is anything special for defenses except Seattle Denver and Philly...maybe KC. Teams like TB Carolina and San Diego FO likes despite them not having very special defenses at all.

 

[amarshal2]

Apart from the rejoinders already posted above...how far out of obscurity do you think Matt Ryan has come this year? He had a very mediocre season last year - which in large part is almost certainly down to him struggling to learn Kyle Shanahan's new offense from scratch - but before that he wasn't exactly Brady Anderson:

--2015: 19th in DYAR, 18th in DVOA, 15th in QBR (and in more traditional stats he was 5th in passing yards, 6th in Completion %, and 17th in TDs)
--2014: 7th in DYAR, 9th in DVOA, 10th in QBR (5th in yards, 7th in Cmp%, 10th in TDs)
--2013: 4th in DYAR, 9th in DVOA, 10th in QBR (4th in yards, 4th in Cmp%, 9th in TDs)
--2012: 5th in DYAR, 8th in DVOA, 4th in QBR (5th in yards, 1st in Cmp%, 5th in TDs)
--2011: 6th in DYAR, 7th in DVOA, 5th in QBR (8th in yards, 11th in Cmp%, 6th in TDs)
--2010: 5th in DYAR, 7th in DVOA, 3rd in QBR (9th in yards, 12th in Cmp%, 7th in TDs)
--2009: 13th in DYAR, 15th in DVOA, 15th in QBR (21st in yards, 23rd in Cmp%, 13th in TDs)
--2008: 7th in DYAR, 4th in DVOA, 3rd in QBR (13th in yards, 17th in Cmp%, 16th in TDs)

I absolutely believe that advanced stats in football are nowhere near as advanced as they are in baseball, but that doesn't render them worthless. And the above profile shows a QB who had solidly established himself in the second tier, just below the elite, before this season and then made a leap this season.

What do these stats say about Brady in 2007 vs 2016? Much better in 07, right? He's easily better now.

Hey, here's a publication with Brady as #1 and well ahead of Ryan. According to PFF, he put up the most efficient season in a decade.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-2016-pff-all-pro-team/

I don't trust PFF but I don't trust FO either. That was my point. If Matt Ryan is actually a great QB we'll know in a year or two.

 

[amarshal2]

This just seems like your are trying hard to find a reason not to give it to Ryan. Seems like a lot of people are doing this. He's Matty Ryan. How can he be MVP?

Baseball is not a good analogy. Lot more players and lot longer season.

Yes Brady and Rodgers are better qbs. Much better careers and almost anyone would pick them for a playoff game.

But this season Ryan was better. It's just that easy. I don't think it's even close when it comes to Rodgers.

Arguably the greatest QB of all time just put up arguably his greatest season of all time (he looks better now than ever before) and I'm the one trying hard not to give it to someone?

We all agree the stats are far from perfect. I'm not anti stats at all in life but these stats are much more directional than they are ordinal.

Analyzing football is inherently subjective. The best ever just put up his best ever. Can't it be that simple?

 

[RetractableRoof]

One of the areas that Ryan is being touted as being historic and leaps and bound better than the other QBs is DYAR.
Ryan: 1918, Brady: 1295, Rogers: 1251. The personnel advantage he has in his receivers is significant, but is often glossed over. The numbers below show receiving DWAR by those who would line up for Brady and for Ryan.

2016 Receiving DYAR by Teams Players
        NEP WR | ATL WR
    Hogan: 145 | 458: Jones
 Mitchell: 131 | 189: Gabriel
  Amendola: 84 | 124: Sanu
   Edelman: 48 | 90: Robinson
               | 70: Hardy

        NEP TE | ATL TE
  Bennett: 200 | 107: Hooper
    Gronk: 156 | 84: Toilolo
               | 25: Tamme

        NEP RB | ATL RB
    White: 161 | 140: Freeman
    Lewis: -25 | 135: Coleman
               | 18: DiMarco

Below shows the most common formation break downs for each team. Using the numbers from above in a crude manner, roughly each time Ryan/Brady brought his team to the line the talent available to him was as so:

ATL 2016 Formation Percentage:
     11: 60% => Total available receiving DYAR: 1018
               WR [Jones (458), Gabriel (189), Sanu (124)]  *Jones missed 2 games
               TE [Hooper: 107]
               RB [Freeman: 140]

    12: 14% => Total available receiving DYAR: 978
               WR [Jones (458), Gabriel (189)]  *Jones missed 2 games
               TE [Hooper: 107, Toilolo: 84]
               RB [Freeman: 140]

    21: 15% => Total available receiving DYAR: 1029
               WR [Jones (458), Gabriel (189)]  *Jones missed 2 games
               TE [Hooper: 107]
               RB [Freeman: 140, Coleman: 135]

NEP 2016 Formation Percentage:
    11: 46% => Total available receiving DYAR: 721
               WR [Hogan (145), Mitchell (131), Amendola (84)]
               TE [Bennett: 200]
               RB [White: 161]

    12: 12% => Total available receiving DYAR: 793 [w/ Gronkowski]
               WR [Hogan (145), Mitchell (131)]
               TE [Bennett: 200, Gronkowski: 156]
               RB [White: 161]

            => Total available receiving DYAR: 637 [w/o Gronkowski]
               WR [Hogan (145), Mitchell (131)]
               TE [Bennett: 200, ???] *No other TE had qualifying # receptions
               RB [White: 161]

    21: 19% => Total available receiving DYAR: 612
               WR [Hogan (145), Mitchell (131)]
               TE [Bennett: 200]
               RB [White: 161, Lewis: -25] *No other RB had qualifying # receptions

Short term injuries, substitution patterns, and other assorted small differences aside, in general terms:

• Most times an 11 formation was in play Ryan had a 297 DVAR talent advantage available to him. Pretty damn significant. (The numbers actually look a bit worse when Amendola misses his time because Edelman's number is about half of Amendola's.)
• Most times a 12 formation was in play Ryan had a 185 DVAR talent advantage available to him when Gronk was still on the field for Brady. When Gronk lost his debate with Earl Thomas, the number rose to a 341 DVAR talent advantage.
• Most times a 21 formation was in play Ryan had a 417 DVAR talent advantage available to him.

I know this isn't accurate per se. But short of watching film breakdown and charting each play for the whole season this is a crude approximation of just how significant a talent advantage Ryan had in producing his numbers. Ryan had a 623 DVAR lead over Brady in specific. Considering Brady missed 4 games, and how much more talent Ryan was working with (by the numberzzzz!11), I don't believe Ryan outclassed Brady in DVAR - I view them as roughly equal with Ryan having a small advantage. Certainly not lapping Brady by any means.

DYAR percentages from: http://www.footballoutsiders.com
Formation percentages from: https://www.profootballfocus.com/offensive-packages/

 

[Gdiguy]

Analyzing football is inherently subjective. The best ever just put up his best ever. Can't it be that simple?

Not when he missed 1/4 of the season, no it can't.

Considering Brady missed 4 games, and how much more talent Ryan was working with (by the numberzzzz!11), I don't believe Ryan outclassed Brady in DVAR - I view them as roughly equal with Ryan having a small advantage. Certainly not lapping Brady by any means.

Why are we considering Brady missed 4 games? This is the entire argument - no-one here is arguing that if you were to pick any player to play one playoff game, or if we're going by who is more likely to be better next year, or if Brady had played a full season, Brady wouldn't have won easily. But in reality, he missed 1/4 of the season - and even if we don't 'punish' him (ala 'steroid users can't win any award'), he still has to be treated as any injured player that misses 1/4 of the season when you're considering an award for most value over the entire season.

The rest of your post is interesting, but it still does seem like a lot of stretching to ultimately claim that, at best, Brady is roughly in the ballpark of Ryan

 

[amarshal2]

Because most of us don't want to penalize Brady for missing games through no fault of his own. You say you don't want to penalize him and then you penalize him like he was injured when he was not, in fact, injured.

 

[coremiller]

Are these terrible arguments you guys are making actually meant to convince anyone not already converted to the High Church of Tom, or just signal to each other how committed you are to the Glorious and Noble Cause?

 

[johnmd20]

Because most of us don't want to penalize Brady for missing games through no fault of his own. You say you don't want to penalize him and then you penalize him like he was injured when he was not, in fact, injured.

Actually, most of us are smart enough to realize that while Brady got railroaded, he still missed 25% of the season.

 

[amarshal2]

Are these terrible arguments you guys are making actually meant to convince anyone not already converted to the High Church of Tom, or just signal to each other how committed you are to the Glorious and Noble Cause?

There's definitely some exaggerated style on my behalf. I get that Ryan is going to win the award. I get that most statistical cases support him. I get that nobody would ever take my approach seriously and that it would result in Brady or Rodgers winning the award every year. That's way too boring for the public who likes the "best story" award and likes arguing about the nuances of stupid shit.

But whether he should win or not, there are a few points I've made I actually believe:
-These stats are directional and too much is made of them for these awards. You don't hear BB quoting DYAR because he understands how flawed it is and how it doesn't replace watching a lot of film (which admittedly, I'm not). I really like stats in general but have never been persuaded by any of the football ones enough to pay attention after 2 minutes. They always look bizarre when ranked ordinally.
-Brady looks as good as he's ever looked. That's not enough to win him the award, I get that, but I have a really hard time buying that Matt Ryan was actually better in isolation. We'll never know.
-I really don't care about the 4 misses games. I understand the math, I understand it makes me look like a homer, but those games are illegitimate in my eyes. So, fuck the NFL, I'm Just prorating the last 4 games in my head.

As I said, Matt Ryan will win. I won't care very much. If I had a vote I'd vote for Brady because of how well he played.

 

[Van Everyman]

Are these terrible arguments you guys are making actually meant to convince anyone not already converted to the High Church of Tom, or just signal to each other how committed you are to the Glorious and Noble Cause?

You, sir, are being an asshole.

Frankly, I think you are probably correct on the merits – at least most of them (I agree w Retractable that you are severely undervaluing Brady's lack of mistakes). But damned if you aren't making it really hard to agree with you.

For instance, instead of calling everyone who may not have watched Ryan much this year or delved into the advanced stats an ignorant cretin, you could be making arguments like this:

Tom Brady is having a terrific season -- one of the best of his career, in fact. But he should not win his third MVP award.

If no one else really stood out, Brady missing four games wouldn’t be an issue. If his rate stats were clearly better than the rest of the field, you would have no choice but to give him the MVP despite the ridiculous Deflategate suspension.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. There is not a clear gap between Brady and everyone else, because Atlanta Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan is on par with, or ahead of Brady in just about every category. And yes, playing and contributing in four more games matters, regardless of whether or not Brady should have been suspended (he shouldn’t have).

Because of the difference in games played, Ryan naturally has a sizable advantage in the traditional counting stats. Through Week 16, the former Boston College Eagle has 4,613 passing yards to Brady’s 3,278 and 34 touchdown passes to Brady’s 25.

But Ryan also has the edge in many rate stats. He leads the league in passer rating (115.5), QBR (82.2) and yards per attempt (9.26), while Brady ranks second in all those categories at 110.7, 81.9 and 8.22, respectively. Ryan also beats out Brady in completion percentage (69.5 to 66.7) and yards per game (308 to 298).

If you want to get into more advanced metrics, Ryan leads all quarterbacks in Football Outsiders’ DYAR (Defense-adjusted yards above replacement) and DVOA (Defense-adjusted value over average), which adjust for situation and opponent, while Brady has the top quarterback grade on Pro Football Focus.

It’s also worth noting that Ryan leads the best offense in football, as the Falcons average 33.5 points per game. The Patriots have averaged 27.1 points per game on the season and 29.5 in the 11 games Brady has played.

Instead if berating people about how wins don't really matter, you could put it this way:

There are two areas where Brady has a clear edge over Ryan that are worth mentioning. He has the better record (10-1 compared to Ryan’s 10-5) and he has thrown fewer interceptions (two in 11 games compared to Ryan’s seven in 15).

The problem with simply pointing to their records, though, is that Brady has a better team around him. For as much as the Patriots’ defense was criticized at times earlier in the season, they currently rank first in the NFL in points allowed at 15.7 per game (as our Chris Price points out, the numbers suggest this is one of the best defenses of the Bill Belichick era). The Falcons, meanwhile, rank 25th at 24.9 points allowed per game.

At the risk of simplifying, Atlanta has needed more from its offense than New England has, and Ryan has delivered. The Falcons have allowed 24 or more points 10 times this season (including all five of their losses), while the Patriots have allowed that many in just two of Brady’s starts. The Falcons won’t be getting home field throughout the playoffs like the Patriots probably will be, but Ryan has still led them to a division title and possibly a first-round bye (they need to beat New Orleans on Sunday to clinch that).

Instead of being obnoxious about how Brady couldn't possibly be as valuable as Ryan because he played four less games, you could have framed it thusly:

The interception rate and general lack of mistakes is a legitimate advantage to Brady, and would presumably be one of the key points for anyone arguing in his favor. But it’s not like Ryan is having a bad year in terms of picks (his mark of 1.4 percent of passes intercepted is still good for seventh in the NFL), and it’s tough to argue that one metric makes up for Ryan’s edge in so many others. At the very least, their per-game numbers are very close. And again, Ryan did it for four more games, which logically adds more value -- four games of Ryan being great is better than four games of Brady not playing.

And rather than calling anyone whose view may be impacted by the fact that we are comparing the a player who is not merely "great" but the GOAT to a guy who has had moderate success "blind," you could say it like this:

Brady has obviously had a way better career than Ryan, and if you had to take one of them to win a playoff game, you’d still take Brady every time. But the MVP isn’t a career honor and it’s not about projecting ahead to the playoffs. It’s a regular-season award, and as good as Brady has been this season, Ryan has been a little better and a little more valuable.

http://m.weei.com/sports/boston/football/patriots/scott-mclaughlin/2016/12/27/why-matt-ryan-not-tom-brady-should-win-n

But you're not doing any of that. Because while you may be right—and I think you will be proven so by the vote—you also seem dead set being an asshole about it. And nobody likes an asshole.

 

[DJnVa]

Do I believe Matt Ryan was the best QB in the NFL this year or do I believe a guy who has established he's among the greatest of all time who had one of the best statistical seasons of his career?

I pick the latter every time. It's Tom Brady. If it's not Tom Brady, it's Aaron Rodgers. The rest is just us not knowing how to parse value in the NFL.

I'm really confused as to why baseline matters for a single season award.

If next season some completely middle of the road QB (say Andy Dalton) suddenly goes for 48 TDs and the Bengals go 14-2, while Brady/Rodgers go 35/10 or something, is Dalton moved down your list because his baseline isn't as high? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[DJnVa]

The other major piece of Rodgers' case is his supporting cast. He had a rusty Jordy Nelson coming back from injury

But his play this season shows that even though Jordy Nelson was coming back from injury he was the old Jordy Nelson. He ended the season with 97 catches, 1300 yards, and 14 TDs. He shouldn't be mentioned in a sentence when saying Rodgers had a weak supporting cast just because people assumed he'd be rusty.

 

[Van Everyman]

There's definitely some exaggerated style on my behalf. I get that Ryan is going to win the award. I get that most statistical cases support him. I get that nobody would ever take my approach seriously and that it would result in Brady or Rodgers winning the award every year. That's way too boring for the public who likes the "best story" award and likes arguing about the nuances of stupid shit.

But whether he should win or not, there are a few points I've made I actually believe:
-These stats are directional and too much is made of them for these awards. You don't hear BB quoting DYAR because he understands how flawed it is and how it doesn't replace watching a lot of film (which admittedly, I'm not). I really like stats in general but have never been persuaded by any of the football ones enough to pay attention after 2 minutes. They always look bizarre when ranked ordinally.
-Brady looks as good as he's ever looked. That's not enough to win him the award, I get that, but I have a really hard time buying that Matt Ryan was actually better in isolation. We'll never know.
-I really don't care about the 4 misses games. I understand the math, I understand it makes me look like a homer, but those games are illegitimate in my eyes. So, fuck the NFL, I'm Just prorating the last 4 games in my head.

As I said, Matt Ryan will win. I won't care very much. If I had a vote I'd vote for Brady because of how well he played.

Agree, particularly with respect to advanced football stats. In a game as dependent on team play as football, I don't know how you can extrapolate definitive conclusions when you have to account for things like offensive line play, complementary skill players, defenses, scheme, etc. At least with pitchers in baseball, you can control for a clear set of factors – hitter, park, defensive positioning, etc. In football, everything is so much more dependent on so many other factors – one reason, I suspect, that the "Is Brady a product of the system he's in?" debate has gone on for so long. But as a result, I can't credit Brady for his YPC any more than I can credit his receivers or Dante Scarnecchia for that matter.

Which leaves you with the "eye test" which is unsatisfying I admit and sounds like something one of Billy Beane's scouts in Moneyball would rely on (tho Brady does pass the Confidence/Girlfriend test with flying colors).

At the end of the day, I suspect the "narrative arguments" for and against—Brady was suspended so can't win on principle/Brady is the GOAT so must win on principle—will cancel each other out – and that the factor that is going to decide this for most voters in Ryan's favor is that Brady missed four games and in those games, his replacements did almost as good of a job as he did.

 

[BigJimEd]

Arguably the greatest QB of all time just put up arguably his greatest season of all time (he looks better now than ever before) and I'm the one trying hard not to give it to someone?

We all agree the stats are far from perfect. I'm not anti stats at all in life but these stats are much more directional than they are ordinal.

Analyzing football is inherently subjective. The best ever just put up his best ever. Can't it be that simple?

Sorry. I singled out your post unfairly. It is more of a general feeling I get from posters on here as well as other people and some media members. Seems like many are looking for reasons to dismiss Ryan.

Who would I pick to start a playoff game is irrelevant to me. What they've done in their career is irrelevant.
I think Brady is close. The TD/Int ratio is obviously fantastic. However he missed a 1/4 of the season. Unfairly for sure. But for this seasonal award I don't think it matters why he did just that he missed them.
I think that gives Ryan an edge.

Rodgers and others are quite a bit aways to me.

 

[coremiller]

You, sir, are being an asshole.

Frankly, I think you are probably correct on the merits – at least most of them (I agree w Retractable that you are severely undervaluing Brady's lack of mistakes). But damned if you aren't making it really hard to agree with you.

For instance, instead of calling everyone who may not have watched Ryan much this year or delved into the advanced stats an ignorant cretin, you could be making arguments like this:



Instead if berating people about how wins don't really matter, you could put it this way:



Instead of being obnoxious about how Brady couldn't possibly be as valuable as Ryan because he played four less games, you could have framed it thusly:



And rather than calling anyone whose view may be impacted by the fact that we are comparing the a player who is not merely "great" but the GOAT to a guy who has had moderate success "blind," you could say it like this:



http://m.weei.com/sports/boston/football/patriots/scott-mclaughlin/2016/12/27/why-matt-ryan-not-tom-brady-should-win-n

But you're not doing any of that. Because while you may be right—and I think you will be proven so by the vote—you also seem dead set being an asshole about it. And nobody likes an asshole.

Do you really think those arguments haven't been made in this thread? I even made some of them!

There is precedent for winning the MVP while playing fewer games: Joe Montana won in 1989 despite playing in only 13 games. But he also was leading one of the best teams of all time and blew away the competition statistically -- he had a 112.4 passer rating (setting the record at the time) when no else was above 92. Brady doesn't have that sort of edge this year. Brady and Ryan are about even statistically rate-wise (113.6 vs 113.2 passer rating, 8.97 vs. 8.73 ANY/A, and through Week 13 Atlanta had played the hardest set of opposing defenses in the league according to Football Outsiders, while New England was 23rd (although that will change after playing the Ravens this week). Whether it's his fault that Brady didn't play in four games shouldn't be relevant -- the fact is that he didn't, and he hasn't blown away the field enough in the other games to make up for it. It's Ryan's award to lose right now.

Except it's not. The MVP is not a predictive award, it's based only on past performance. Going forward for the playoffs I'd pick Brady, because Brady has been playing consistently at a MVP or close to it level since 2004 or so, while Ryan's only done it for this year, so there's some chance Ryan reverts to his career mean, which is a lot lower than Brady's. But that doesn't change the fact that Ryan has been more valuable during the 2016 regular season.

The issue isn't 12 games of Brady vs. 16 games of whatever random QB most teams were running out there. It's 12 games of Brady vs. 16 games of one of the better QB seasons in league history, that was better to or at least equal to Brady's performance on a pure rate perspective and included, you know, four more games.

Super Nomario raised some legitimate counterarguments (weaknesses of statistical analysis, weather/dome, supporting cast, etc.), and I've tried to do some work and dig up data to make a reasoned response to those points. But a lot of the responses have been "Winz!!!! and "but the stats feel wrong!" and "But Tom is the greatest and Ryan is a scrub!" and "yes he didn't play as many games, but I'll just pretend in my head he did!" That kind of thing deserves mockery rather than counterarguments, which is why I'm being an asshole about it.