Elimination games -- Most skewed statistic

[Galian Beast]

I keep hearing that Romo isn't very good in do or die games.

For the regular season, this means that your team from the get go isn't very good.

To be in a do or die game it generally means you're trying to get to 9-7 or 10-6.

Can someone compare a legit or elite QB who has a good record in regular season finales where they are 8-7 or 9-6 and needed the final game in order to make the playoffs?

I'm not sure what quarterbacks people are thinking about.

It is a completely skewed stat, that first off requires the quarterback to be on a poor team in the first place. Second the sample rate for such games is ridiculously small.

I would argue that Romo has more of these games than most quarterbacks do because the cowboys are that average type team that Romo puts in position to get to the playoffs in the first place.

Romo has failed to make the playoffs four years. Two of which he was injured and missed significant games.

If you put it on your QB that your 8-8 or 9-7 team doesn't make the playoffs, you're being terribly short sighted. And if you have any credibility you would create a neutral standard in which to compare Romo to.

Please let me know which clutch quarterbacks have great success on average teams.

 

[5Stars]

I keep hearing that Romo isn't very good in do or die games.

For the regular season, this means that your team from the get go isn't very good.

To be in a do or die game it generally means you're trying to get to 9-7 or 10-6.

Can someone compare a legit or elite QB who has a good record in regular season finales where they are 8-7 or 9-6 and needed the final game in order to make the playoffs?

I'm not sure what quarterbacks people are thinking about.

It is a completely skewed stat, that first off requires the quarterback to be on a poor team in the first place. Second the sample rate for such games is ridiculously small.

I would argue that Romo has more of these games than most quarterbacks do because the cowboys are that average type team that Romo puts in position to get to the playoffs in the first place.

Romo has failed to make the playoffs four years. Two of which he was injured and missed significant games.

If you put it on your QB that your 8-8 or 9-7 team doesn't make the playoffs, you're being terribly short sighted. And if you have any credibility you would create a neutral standard in which to compare Romo to.

Please let me know which clutch quarterbacks have great success on average teams.

Well, I like this post and agree with most of it.

But, some posters might forget that Brady took an undefeated team to the SB, and the team lost. It was all his fault.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

IMO, this is because of the type of team that this organization wishes to put together. It's been Jerry's mantra to just get in the tournament, then anything can happen. Remember Jerry's famous statement, that "that should of been us instead of the Giants," the year the Giants won the super bowl?

If this team was built with the goal of wining 12 or 13 games, then elimination games would not be a problem. But when you build a team that you hope can win 8-9 games and maybe squeeze into the tournament, well you see what happens. Its all put on Tony's shoulders, even when the defense lays an egg.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I keep hearing that Romo isn't very good in do or die games.

For the regular season, this means that your team from the get go isn't very good.

To be in a do or die game it generally means you're trying to get to 9-7 or 10-6.

Can someone compare a legit or elite QB who has a good record in regular season finales where they are 8-7 or 9-6 and needed the final game in order to make the playoffs?

I'm not sure what quarterbacks people are thinking about.

It is a completely skewed stat, that first off requires the quarterback to be on a poor team in the first place. Second the sample rate for such games is ridiculously small.

I would argue that Romo has more of these games than most quarterbacks do because the cowboys are that average type team that Romo puts in position to get to the playoffs in the first place.

Romo has failed to make the playoffs four years. Two of which he was injured and missed significant games.

If you put it on your QB that your 8-8 or 9-7 team doesn't make the playoffs, you're being terribly short sighted. And if you have any credibility you would create a neutral standard in which to compare Romo to.

Please let me know which clutch quarterbacks have great success on average teams.

I've beaten this to death on here many times so I won't go full bore on it, but to summarize the main points:

1) There's no such things an "elimination game", it's basically a made up concept to demonize Romo (Phil Simms recently admitted such: http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...eams-doing-cartwheels-trying-to-get-him.html/

2) No other quarterback in history is on record as playing an "elimination game", which is strange. You can't find a single reference of it, no matter how good you are with google (For example, the mighty RGIII is 0-1 in playoff games, but he is also 1-1 in "elimination games". Can you find a reference of that? Of course not.)

3) Teams don't fail to make the playoffs because they lost an "elimination game", they didn't make the playoffs because their record wasn't good enough. People who think linear can't go out of the box and see that, so they put the entire weight of the season on one regular season game that counts the same as the others. In an actual playoff game, each game is a season of itself. You lose and you're gone, whether you were 15-1 or 8-8.

4) Why don't "elimination games" come earlier in the season? In 2013, Eli and the Giants controlled their destiny with 3 games to go. 1st game up, they laid a 34-0 egg versus the Falcons (0TDs and 2 INTS for Eli). But wait, things broke their way and with two weeks to go, they still controlled their destiny for the wild card with an outside chance for the division against the Ravens. Whoops, a 33-14 beating. Now, in Week 17 hey, the Giants get to play a meaningless, feel good game against the Eagles. 42-7. 5TDs for Eli. Great game, Eli. You're the best. Nevermind you basically lost two "elimination games" in a row. You get off clean.

 

[CoCo]

IMO, this is because of the type of team that this organization wishes to put together. It's been Jerry's mantra to just get in the tournament, then anything can happen. Remember Jerry's famous statement, that "that should of been us instead of the Giants," the year the Giants won the super bowl?

If this team was built with the goal of wining 12 or 13 games, then elimination games would not be a problem. But when you build a team that you hope can win 8-9 games and maybe squeeze into the tournament, well you see what happens. Its all put on Tony's shoulders, even when the defense lays an egg.

I hardly think Jerry is trying to put together a borderline team that "just gets in" which is kind of what you're implying. Of course his goal is to put together a team capable of winning 12/13 games, even 16 regular season games. Any evidence to suggest he's content to be a mediocre team hoping to get hot?

And please responders, spare us the "if he was serious about winning he'd fire the GM." True or not, it adds nothing to this point.

 

[CF74]

I wasn't aware it was an official statistic, interesting...

 

[Galian Beast]

IMO, this is because of the type of team that this organization wishes to put together. It's been Jerry's mantra to just get in the tournament, then anything can happen. Remember Jerry's famous statement, that "that should of been us instead of the Giants," the year the Giants won the super bowl?

If this team was built with the goal of wining 12 or 13 games, then elimination games would not be a problem. But when you build a team that you hope can win 8-9 games and maybe squeeze into the tournament, well you see what happens. Its all put on Tony's shoulders, even when the defense lays an egg.

It's not easy to put together a 12 or 13 win team. We've only ever got 13-3 twice in Cowboys history. 12-4 is also really difficult in the NFC East...

 

[03EBZ06]

Never even heard of elimination game stat before Romo. Also, what the the elimination game stat of other starting QB? We only hear about Romo's elimination game stat by mediots and some of the moronic fans.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I've beaten this to death on here many times so I won't go full bore on it, but to summarize the main points:

1) There's no such things an "elimination game", it's basically a made up concept to demonize Romo (Phil Simms recently admitted such: http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...eams-doing-cartwheels-trying-to-get-him.html/

2) No other quarterback in history is on record as playing an "elimination game", which is strange. You can't find a single reference of it, no matter how good you are with google (For example, the mighty RGIII is 0-1 in playoff games, but he is also 1-1 in "elimination games". Can you find a reference of that? Of course not.)

3) Teams don't fail to make the playoffs because they lost an "elimination game", they didn't make the playoffs because their record wasn't good enough. People who think linear can't go out of the box and see that, so they put the entire weight of the season on one regular season game that counts the same as the others. In an actual playoff game, each game is a season of itself. You lose and you're gone, whether you were 15-1 or 8-8.

4) Why don't "elimination games" come earlier in the season? In 2013, Eli and the Giants controlled their destiny with 3 games to go. 1st game up, they laid a 34-0 egg versus the Falcons (0TDs and 2 INTS for Eli). But wait, things broke their way and with two weeks to go, they still controlled their destiny for the wild card with an outside chance for the division against the Ravens. Whoops, a 33-14 beating. Now, in Week 17 hey, the Giants get to play a meaningless, feel good game against the Eagles. 42-7. 5TDs for Eli. Great game, Eli. You're the best. Nevermind you basically lost two "elimination games" in a row. You get off clean.

Ever heard of a tournament where there is a double elimination? Lose two and go home.

The play-offs in the NFL are single elimination games. Lose one and go home.

Dallas played a single elimination game against the Commanders at the end of last year. Want to move on, then win.

What did they do?

They lost and the season was done.

Elimination games are what they look like.

Come big or go home.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Never even heard of elimination game stat before Romo. Also, what the the elimination game stat of other starting QB? We only hear about Romo's elimination game stat by mediots and some of the moronic fans.

At one time they did not keep stats on sacks. As fans become enamored with the excuses stats offer, then each category will suddenly become germane.

Hence the elimination stat.

I've never seen it as a category, but that doesn't mean these results cannot be tabulated.

 

[85Cowboy85]

The thing about the elimination games statistic is it would not even be brought up if he were say 3-0 in non playoff elimination games. Those games would be ignored and deemed irrelevant. The entire focus would be on the playoff record. It's a classic example of coming to a conclusion first then working backwards.

I think Tony's fourth quarter passer rating is among the highest in league history. You better believe if it weren't the networks would flash it next to his name every time they did a Cowboys game. If it was Eli who had the highest rating we would never hear the end of it. Yet in this case it will seldom be mentioned. Why? Because it doesn't fit the preconceived narrative.

It's really the laziness that gets me more then anything else. You want to argue Tony is a choke fine be my guest. But give me something more then his team's record is such and such in some subset of selectively chosen games. You have stats guys working in the booth in baseball who can tell you the last time somebody hit two inside the park home runs the second Friday of October. Break it down by drive. Let's see the situational stats in comparison with other players.

Instead what we get is basically the announcers will assert it and attribute the assertion to somebody else (usually the fans) in order to build up plausible deniability. That way they don't actually have to put their name on defending the claim or present any evidence to back it up. And thus largely without hard evidence the claim is repeated over and over with very little in terms of actually investigating it.

 

[Rack]

At one time they did not keep stats on sacks. As fans become enamored with the excuses stats offer, then each category will suddenly become germane.

Hence the elimination stat.

I've never seen it as a category, but that doesn't mean these results cannot be tabulated.

I think the people that "Tabulate" them and say "So and so is X-X in elimination games" is ignorance.

If they were to replace "So and so" with the name of the team (being that football is the ultimate team sport) then it might hold water.

Pointing out 1 player's "record" in certain types of games is irrelevant. How'd the whole team do?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ever heard of a tournament where there is a double elimination? Lose two and go home.

The play-offs in the NFL are single elimination games. Lose one and go home.

Dallas played a single elimination game against the Commanders at the end of last year. Want to move on, then win.

What did they do?

They lost and the season was done.

Elimination games are what they look like.

Come big or go home.

Regurgitate an insurance commercial and ESPN and you have a 2deep post.

What point did you address of his post? I see none of it. I just see a repeat of the premise that he was refuting. Might as well have left out the quote.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At one time they did not keep stats on sacks. As fans become enamored with the excuses stats offer, then each category will suddenly become germane.

Hence the elimination stat.

I've never seen it as a category, but that doesn't mean these results cannot be tabulated.

Sabermetrics has rejected W-L for pitchers and that is more direct and cause and effect because of the nature of how baseball is played. The pitcher matches up against every player on the other team.

Sacks are counted because there is a direct relationship between what a player does. A specific act. There is no such thing in W-L. It's made up nonsense.

Further, sabermetrics has also demonstrated how the notion of both clutch and later games in a season being erroneous. There is no difference between it and the control ie the whole.

 

[Derinyar]

Sabermetrics has rejected W-L for pitchers and that is more direct and cause and effect because of the nature of how baseball is played. The pitcher matches up against every player on the other team.

Sacks are counted because there is a direct relationship between what a player does. A specific act. There is no such thing in W-L. It's made up nonsense.

Further, sabermetrics has also demonstrated how the notion of both clutch and later games in a season being erroneous. There is no difference between it and the control ie the whole.

Clutch is the favored crutch of the person who is looking for a narrative argument. Miguel Cabrera won the MVP last year in part because his team made the playoffs which gave him the narrative of leading his team to the playoffs. Narrative arguments make me grind my teeth because there is no way to refute them because they use no logic.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Clutch is the favored crutch of the person who is looking for a narrative argument. Miguel Cabrera won the MVP last year in part because his team made the playoffs which gave him the narrative of leading his team to the playoffs. Narrative arguments make me grind my teeth because there is no way to refute them because they use no logic.

Exactly. Ignorance is the driving force behind it.

If there is no difference between an isolated event and the control group then that parameter has no bearing on the outcome. Small sample sizesw can be overcome by expanding the set to include all contributors. When this is done there is no difference between the isolated event and the whole.

2deep specifically has had this pointed out to him over and over again over the years. Yet he repeats the same drivel over and again.

 

[KJJ]

I wasn't aware it was an official statistic, interesting...

I hope it becomes an official statistic because according to the OP and one other fan in this thread I'm the one who created it. :laugh2:

 

[Flinger]

On the Sirrus NFL station, Phil Simms was saying "what is this, some stat contrived just to make Tony Romo look bad?". Said it was the most ridiculous thing he's ever heard, it's the utlimate team game and it isn't even true about Romo.

But, what does he know?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I keep hearing that Romo isn't very good in do or die games.

For the regular season, this means that your team from the get go isn't very good.

To be in a do or die game it generally means you're trying to get to 9-7 or 10-6.

Can someone compare a legit or elite QB who has a good record in regular season finales where they are 8-7 or 9-6 and needed the final game in order to make the playoffs?

I'm not sure what quarterbacks people are thinking about.

It is a completely skewed stat, that first off requires the quarterback to be on a poor team in the first place. Second the sample rate for such games is ridiculously small.

I would argue that Romo has more of these games than most quarterbacks do because the cowboys are that average type team that Romo puts in position to get to the playoffs in the first place.

Romo has failed to make the playoffs four years. Two of which he was injured and missed significant games.

If you put it on your QB that your 8-8 or 9-7 team doesn't make the playoffs, you're being terribly short sighted. And if you have any credibility you would create a neutral standard in which to compare Romo to.

Please let me know which clutch quarterbacks have great success on average teams.

I would argue that if you're trying to get to 9-7 or 10-6, you clearly arn't a poor team.

I would also argue that while Romo has put us in position to make the postseason at the end of the year at times (like the second half of last season), he's also sometimes helped put us in the position to be having to win the last game to make the postseason (like the first half of last season).

 

[TwoDeep3]

Regurgitate an insurance commercial and ESPN and you have a 2deep post.

What point did you address of his post? I see none of it. I just see a repeat of the premise that he was refuting. Might as well have left out the quote.

I am not putting any weight on anything in this thread other than when someone states an elimination game is bogus. And we both know that it is not true, there are such things.

Hence the Commander game last year which eliminated Dallas from the play-offs.

You can run out your intelligentsia posts but in the end you once again took a shot at me with no substance what-so-ever.

And that includes your sabermetric comments since I do not value stats except win-lose, which for a team is the only stat that matters.

Fact is I find people who toss out stats are usually on the losing end of the results, and are trying to came to a conclusion why even though the score was on the wrong side, they actually won.

But keep it up. You make me look good.