Recommended Loss Forensics: Romo vs. the League's Top QB

[iceberg]

Yes, they believe , but they know that there is a realty and that realty would leave them broke if they were betting men. It makes it hard to have a realistic conversation about the state of the team when they let their emotions fuel their argument. There are expectations of an average defense by some posters and the talent level will be lucky for them to be ranked 30th in the league during the coming season . How can you have a honest conversation with fans that think like that? You can't.

what makes it hard to have a realistic conversation about this is people "make up" stats that apply to no other player in the league and then say it's the only stat that matters. "elimination games" is a stat made up by frustrated cowboy fans to keep the blame simple and their anger focused.

how is this without emotion?

how can you say "romo lovers" and expect to be taken seriously when you more or less make fun of people by saying that? then i don't understand how you and KJJ can sit there and say people think romo is perfect.

show me ONE SINGLE POSTER who's EVER said that? again, you make crap up about your "arguments" then expect to be taken seriously. peplaw lays out the entire playoff season last year to prove KJJ's stat of TD/INT ratio is all that matters and was totally inaccurate. but when pressed for how this "measurement" works, KJJ says something to the effect of "i replied somewhere else, go look it up" when EVERYONE ELSE is replying IN THIS THREAD?

when your only goal seems to be to dog on romo and you can't back it up with facts, just dressed up opinions and made up figures and stats, how you you expect to be taken seriously, much less have a "realistic conversation"?

romo is not perfect. no one has ever claimed otherwise. he is however the best qb we've had on this team in quite awhile. yes he's made some boneheaded mistakes as all qb's have done in their career and yes, it's frustrating. the only thing more frustrating is to have people prance around make up stats and putting it all on romo when in fact, we're just not a great team across the board. it's frustrating to try to have a "realistic conversation" with someone who in actuality has no intention of being involved in one.

simple fact of the matter is KJJ is a troll who enjoys stirring things up "within boundaries" and has told people in PM's that's what he loves to do and according to one PM to 5stars, KJJ has 8 million followers on the internet. man, that's twice as many as sarah palin has likes on facebook so how come i've never heard of him until in here? how come i regret even that small fact of my life cause to me he's worse than the spam phone calls i get 8 times a day. at least in here i can "turn him off".

what i don't get about you is at times you can seem very realistic and "open minded" yet if people disagree with what KJJ says and go through long and tenuous efforts to prove him wrong, you dismiss what they say as easily as he does and deem him the martyr.

all that anyone has ever done to poor KJJ is to ask him to back up what he says with facts, figures and the same set of rules that apply to every other player in the league. he's failed 100% to do so in every sense of the word.

but he's right to you and a handful of others that romo sucks and is the sole reason for our misery.

 

[KJJ]

Yes, they believe , but they know that there is a realty and that realty would leave them broke if they were betting men. It makes it hard to have a realistic conversation about the state of the team when they let their emotions fuel their argument. There are expectations of an average defense by some posters and the talent level will be lucky for them to be ranked 30th in the league during the coming season . How can you have a honest conversation with fans that think like that? You can't.

They believe in their hearts which can override any rational thinking that might be going on inside their head. There's a collection of sports fans who operate with their head (intellectually) and those who operate with their heart (emotionally) and a few who go with their gut. People who make the best decisions typically operate from all three. Your mind, emotions and intuition should all be cooperating and working together to formulate a reality-based plan from which you can operate. The problem on FAN boards is they're heavily populated with homers who operate strictly with their heart which results in a conflict between them and those who are realists. If a FAN is torn between what their head is saying and what their heart is saying they'll go with their heart.

Every person has intuition that feeling about something but FANS here don't don't pay attention to any negative feeling they may have in their gut or what their head may be telling them they continue to go with their heart that gets broken every year by the Cowboys. They only want to see the good in Romo and if anyone mentions his negatives (which some are clearly in denial over) whether it be a fan here or someone in the media they cry foul. I've seen well respected broadcasters like Al Michaels and Brent Musberger get ripped to shreds by FANS on this board because of a less than glowing opinion they had of the Cowboys.

We see it all the time on this board someone in the media being called out as a hater by a FAN because of an honest, candid opinion they had of the team or Romo that was deemed negative. The stats/passer ratings/rankings that are posted on Romo by percy and others have brainwashed a lot of FANS into believing Romo is a better QB than some HOF QB's including two QB's that have 22 playoff wins between them and led the Cowboys to 5 SB championships. Romo is a very good QB and everyone agrees but as Parcells said years ago he has some warts and he still has them.

 

[peplaw06]

First off let's clear some things up I never said the stat is without flaw.

What stat? Stats have numbers right? Averages, totals, and percentages... You haven't posted stats, you've posted opinions.

All stat's are flawed

How is a "stat" flawed? Opinions are flawed. Rules may have exceptions, but we don't have evidence of a rule here.

Percy has stated that a QB's passer rating correlates to winning more than any other stat and I'm sure he can list a number of games to back that up.

He hasn't listed the number of games, he's done the correlation.

That stat is also flawed because I've listed a number of games in which the losing QB had the higher passer rating over the winning QB.

The whole point of correlation is that you show how often the stat you've presented results in a win. It can't be flawed as long as the math is done correctly.

The Cowboys lost 3 games last season in which Romo had a higher passer rating than the winning QB.

So if out of 16 games, there are 3 where the "hypothesis" fails, then that's a winning correlation of 13 out of 16 times, or 81.25%.... The correlation tells you how often there is an exception. If you did the research and showed us how often there was an exception to your rule, then you could begin making your case, but you won't do it.

The second thing I want to make clear is this guy who told me to prove my opinion I did a couple of weeks ago in another thread Percy started on Romo. I had this same exact discussion with him and his tag team partner who once again joined him in this thread. I listed a number of postseason and SB games supporting my position. I listed the SB's the Cowboys had in the 90's along with those in the 70's but that wasn't good enough for him or his partner because they have an agenda and aren't looking for a civil discussion. Both are following the same theme they did in the other thread a couple of weeks ago. They've made up their minds they're not going to agree with anything I have to say and are bent on stirring things up. Immediately after I posted yesterday a mod came in and passed out a warning. I've learned that if you keep exchanging with FANS who are becoming very argumentative and insulting the hammer will eventually come down and I'm the one who will likely take the fall because I'm the one who's been labeled a hater/troll.

I have only made up my mind because the other side hasn't been presented or proven. It's a one-sided argument.

Anyway a QB's TD to turnover ratio is the stat I put the most weight on. Ask any HC and player and they'll tell you that turnovers can cost you more games than anything especially in the playoffs. A QB committing multiple turnovers is a recipe for getting beat. Romo's TD to turnover ratio in his 7 elimination games is 8-12. Naturally a QB's passer rating is affected by their TD to turnover ratio but a QB can still maintain a high passer rating despite multiple turnovers even one that helps cost their team the game if they keep their completion percentage high and throw some TD's. With all the rule changes through the years and the NFL being a pass happy league it's inflated the passer ratings of QB's which is why 7 of the top 10 career passing rating leaders are current QB's.

How can you possibly speculate what "any HC and player" would tell you?

The completion percentages of QB's are increasing and with more on their plate than ever before their TD to turnover ratio is having an even bigger impact in big games. This is why the last 5 SB winning QB's had the better TD to turnover ratio over the opposing QB. Everything we're discussing in this thread is based on ones personal opinion. I'm not saying I'm right and someone else is wrong I'm giving my opinion. No one ever ends up agreeing in these arguments regardless of how many facts you post. I can list 100+ games to back my position and someone who opposes it can list 100+ games to disprove my position. I can do the same thing to them with their position because there's plenty of exceptions to every rule with stats being flawed.

Oh boy... Now it's even a bigger impact than it was before the last 5 Super Bowls. Lemme guess... you're not gonna prove that one either?

 

[CCBoy]

Court room rah rah, and being a fan aren't on the same venue...

 

[KJJ]

You keep acting like you proved something 3 weeks ago... You did the same thing you're doing now... In fact, you posted this:



You refused to prove your thesis then, and you're refusing to prove it now.

I ended up listing more games we went on for several pages you're just cherry picking a comment. You were trying to waste my time like you are now. Read through this thread your partner in crime who was packing along with you 2 weeks ago gave me credit for listing 15 games. lol Every stat/rule has many exceptions to it whether it be a QB's TD to turnover ratio or their passer ratings. I mentioned 3 games Romo lost last season in which he had the higher passer rating than the opposing QB. He also won 2 games vs the Giants last season where Eli finished with the higher passer rating in both games.

I'm just using Romo as an example but you have to remember his passer ratings are some of the highest in the league every season which is why his career passer rating ranks 5th all-time. There's some teams where their QB doesn't produce the high passer ratings that Romo does so their passer ratings and those of the QB's they oppose each week aren't going to always correlate to who won and who lost

 

[5Stars]

I ended up listing more games we went on for several pages you're just cherry picking a comment. You were trying to waste my time like you are now. Read through this thread your partner in crime who was packing along with you 2 weeks ago gave me credit for listing 15 games. lol Every stat/rule has many exceptions to it whether it be a QB's TD to turnover ratio or their passer ratings. I mentioned 3 games Romo lost last season in which he had the higher passer rating than the opposing QB. He also won 2 games vs the Giants last season where Eli finished with the higher passer rating in both games.

I'm just using Romo as an example but you have to remember his passer ratings are some of the highest in the league every season which is why his career passer rating ranks 5th all-time. There's some teams where their QB doesn't produce the high passer ratings that Romo does so their passer ratings and those of the QB's they oppose each week aren't going to always correlate to who won and who lost

This is nothing but fluff...if what you say in this post is your opinion, then why do you always come here trolling that it's Romo's fault for losing games.

And...it is not always the QB's fault why a team won or lost. It is the TEAM that won or lost, not just one man, however you cannot get that through your tunnel vision about Romo. However, Cowboy FANS know football is a team game.

The name of this team is The Dallas Cowboys....not The Dallas Romo's.

 

[jnday]

what makes it hard to have a realistic conversation about this is people "make up" stats that apply to no other player in the league and then say it's the only stat that matters. "elimination games" is a stat made up by frustrated cowboy fans to keep the blame simple and their anger focused.

how is this without emotion?

how can you say "romo lovers" and expect to be taken seriously when you more or less make fun of people by saying that? then i don't understand how you and KJJ can sit there and say people think romo is perfect.

show me ONE SINGLE POSTER who's EVER said that? again, you make crap up about your "arguments" then expect to be taken seriously. peplaw lays out the entire playoff season last year to prove KJJ's stat of TD/INT ratio is all that matters and was totally inaccurate. but when pressed for how this "measurement" works, KJJ says something to the effect of "i replied somewhere else, go look it up" when EVERYONE ELSE is replying IN THIS THREAD?

when your only goal seems to be to dog on romo and you can't back it up with facts, just dressed up opinions and made up figures and stats, how you you expect to be taken seriously, much less have a "realistic conversation"?

romo is not perfect. no one has ever claimed otherwise. he is however the best qb we've had on this team in quite awhile. yes he's made some boneheaded mistakes as all qb's have done in their career and yes, it's frustrating. the only thing more frustrating is to have people prance around make up stats and putting it all on romo when in fact, we're just not a great team across the board. it's frustrating to try to have a "realistic conversation" with someone who in actuality has no intention of being involved in one.

simple fact of the matter is KJJ is a troll who enjoys stirring things up "within boundaries" and has told people in PM's that's what he loves to do and according to one PM to 5stars, KJJ has 8 million followers on the internet. man, that's twice as many as sarah palin has likes on facebook so how come i've never heard of him until in here? how come i regret even that small fact of my life cause to me he's worse than the spam phone calls i get 8 times a day. at least in here i can "turn him off".

what i don't get about you is at times you can seem very realistic and "open minded" yet if people disagree with what KJJ says and go through long and tenuous efforts to prove him wrong, you dismiss what they say as easily as he does and deem him the martyr.

all that anyone has ever done to poor KJJ is to ask him to back up what he says with facts, figures and the same set of rules that apply to every other player in the league. he's failed 100% to do so in every sense of the word.

but he's right to you and a handful of others that romo sucks and is the sole reason for our misery.

I can be very open minded, but I have little respect for those that deny Romo's choke jobs when there is a long list of them. The chokes have been listed time and time again , but Romo-lovers can not say that. Why is the truth so hard to accept? Yeah, I defended KJJ when he was outnumbered 10-1. There was no way for him to win that argument against those posters. They were not going to listen anyway . This group on this board will still be defending Romo after he chokes away another five years. It is pathetic .

 

[peplaw06]

I ended up listing more games we went on for several pages you're just cherry picking a comment. You were trying to waste my time like you are now. Read through this thread your partner in crime who was packing along with you 2 weeks ago gave me credit for listing 15 games. lol Every stat/rule has many exceptions to it whether it be a QB's TD to turnover ratio or their passer ratings. I mentioned 3 games Romo lost last season in which he had the higher passer rating than the opposing QB. He also won 2 games vs the Giants last season where Eli finished with the higher passer rating in both games.

I'm just using Romo as an example but you have to remember his passer ratings are some of the highest in the league every season which is why his career passer rating ranks 5th all-time. There's some teams where their QB doesn't produce the high passer ratings that Romo does so their passer ratings and those of the QB's they oppose each week aren't going to always correlate to who won and who lost

I know you listed "some" games. Whether it was 15 or 20, or even 30, it's not enough to prove what you're saying. That's a miniscule sample size. Also, you've jumped around to different seasons... there's no framework for what games you've picked to look at. At least with my small sample size of the 11 games from the 2013 postseason I had a framework. If you don't have a framework for what games you're going to look at, you are going to get accused of cherry picking. For all I know, you may have looked at every game since the 95 Super Bowl... I don't think you have, but if you don't tell us what all you've looked at, how can anyone determine what your methodology is? I could probably go find 30 games since 1990 where teams had 4 turnovers in a game and still won the game. Do you think it would be a good argument that turning the ball over 4 times per game would correlate to a high winning percentage? Of course not, because there are probably hundreds of games since 1990 where a team with 4 turnovers lost.

Percy's stats in this thread span 3 years, and even then, he hasn't claimed in this thread that a higher passer rating correlates to a higher winning percentage more than any other stat out there. In fact, in this thread, he posted 5-10 different stats (again over the past 3 seasons) to provide a clear picture of what is happening. Your insistence that there are exceptions to the passer rating stat is a strawman, because no one's arguing a higher QB passer rating alone correlates to a higher winning percentage.

You keep grouping Percy and I together. I gotta say, thanks for the compliment, but I don't deserve to be in there with him. The research he's done dwarfs anything I'd care to undertake... I appreciate his efforts, but I wouldn't have the means or the patience to do what he's done. That is why I take such offense to you trying to come in here and defecate on this thread with half-assed theories and "rules" which have no methodology at all.

 

[Hostile]

The reason we don't get along is because you don't like negativity and consider me a negative poster. Like many of the FANS here you don't agree with my less than glowing opinions of the team and it's caused friction between us. It's no surprise you think this guy is making me look foolish because you think everyone who opposes my views makes me look foolish. You're obviously here to have a civil discussion with me and that's refreshing for a change. First off let's clear some things up I never said the stat is without flaw. All stat's are flawed which is why the guy I was arguing with was able to list several postseason games in which the winning QB's had a worse TD to turnover ratio than the losing QB's. Percy has stated that a QB's passer rating correlates to winning more than any other stat and I'm sure he can list a number of games to back that up. That stat is also flawed because I've listed a number of games in which the losing QB had the higher passer rating over the winning QB. The Cowboys lost 3 games last season in which Romo had a higher passer rating than the winning QB.

The second thing I want to make clear is this guy who told me to prove my opinion I did a couple of weeks ago in another thread Percy started on Romo. I had this same exact discussion with him and his tag team partner who once again joined him in this thread. I listed a number of postseason and SB games supporting my position. I listed the SB's the Cowboys had in the 90's along with those in the 70's but that wasn't good enough for him or his partner because they have an agenda and aren't looking for a civil discussion. Both are following the same theme they did in the other thread a couple of weeks ago. They've made up their minds they're not going to agree with anything I have to say and are bent on stirring things up. Immediately after I posted yesterday a mod came in and passed out a warning. I've learned that if you keep exchanging with FANS who are becoming very argumentative and insulting the hammer will eventually come down and I'm the one who will likely take the fall because I'm the one who's been labeled a hater/troll.

Anyway a QB's TD to turnover ratio is the stat I put the most weight on. Ask any HC and player and they'll tell you that turnovers can cost you more games than anything especially in the playoffs. A QB committing multiple turnovers is a recipe for getting beat. Romo's TD to turnover ratio in his 7 elimination games is 8-12. Naturally a QB's passer rating is affected by their TD to turnover ratio but a QB can still maintain a high passer rating despite multiple turnovers even one that helps cost their team the game if they keep their completion percentage high and throw some TD's. With all the rule changes through the years and the NFL being a pass happy league it's inflated the passer ratings of QB's which is why 7 of the top 10 career passing rating leaders are current QB's.

The completion percentages of QB's are increasing and with more on their plate than ever before their TD to turnover ratio is having an even bigger impact in big games. This is why the last 5 SB winning QB's had the better TD to turnover ratio over the opposing QB. Everything we're discussing in this thread is based on ones personal opinion. I'm not saying I'm right and someone else is wrong I'm giving my opinion. No one ever ends up agreeing in these arguments regardless of how many facts you post. I can list 100+ games to back my position and someone who opposes it can list 100+ games to disprove my position. I can do the same thing to them with their position because there's plenty of exceptions to every rule with stats being flawed.

Well, I tried.

 

[KJJ]

Well, I tried.

We all try it's a waste of time.

 

[DFWJC]

Particular stats in and of themselves are not flawed.

The use of certain stats to make a claim above and beyond exactly what the stats reflect is what is flawed.

Ex.
If a QB completes 20 out of 40 passes and the stat says his completion percentage was 50%, that stat is just fact.
If someone says the team (or any team whose QB had that mop rate) for sure won or lost due to that stat....well that is flawed.

We can draw correlations with stats --and that's sometimes their greatest -- but outside of straight raw data regurgitation, the results will always have some degree of flaws.
Again, that in no way means the actual stat is flawed, just maybe the application of it.

The OP just clearly shows certain sets of stats that usually correlated to winning and losing.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

Particular stats in and of themselves are not flawed.

The use of certain stats to make a claim above and beyond exactly what the stats reflect is what is flawed.

Ex.
If a QB completes 20 out of 40 passes and the stat says his completion percentage was 50%, that stat is just fact.
If someone says the team (or any team whose QB had that mop rate) for sure won or lost due to that stat....well that is flawed.

We can draw correlations with stats --and that's sometimes their greatest -- but outside of straight raw data regurgitation, the results will always have some degree of flaws.
Again, that in no way means the actual stat is flawed, just maybe the application of it.

The OP just clearly shows certain sets of stats that usually correlated to winning and losing.

Agreed. Was it an old baseball player that once said "Stats are like bikinis. They show a lot, but not everything"?

Quarterbacks are at the mercy of a lot of things. If a receiver drops the ball or tips it in the air and causes a pick, it goes on the QB's stat line. If a QB like Romo can put up 48, 30, and 36 points in a game but the defense can't make a stop, the QB gets the blame for losing the game (2013 reference there).

 

[burmafrd]

just thought I would throw some more sand in the eyes of the haters like KJJ


Source: SB Nation
Time: Jul 10 4:00 PM ET



Myths about Tony Romo being a choke artist get debunked routinely, so someone created the "elimination games" stat. Here is a closer look at that "statistical proof" and a new stat for "playoff hunt" games.

I always laugh at the "statistical proof" used to define Tony Romo's ability in big games...excuse me, elimination games. When an undrafted rookie rises to the helm of the Dallas Cowboys and becomes one of the top 10 quarterbacks in the league, you have a cornucopia of factors that are sure to create drama and inspire the anti-Cowboys nation. At every turn, memes and myths would pop up taking shots at Romo's abilities, and BTB (and other media sources) would often disprove those fallacies in short order. First, it was claimed that Romo's statistical superiority didn't matter because he couldn't get it done in the fourth-quarter. Then it became about Romo not being able to play well in the important games late in the season. But the truth shall set you free...

Romo ranks sixth among active QBs for the most fourth-quarter comebacks - playing fewer games than anyone ahead of him on that list and those below him on the Top 10 list
Romo ranks ninth among active QBs for the most game winning drives - again, playing fewer games than those above him on the list
Romo has had phenomenal fourth-quarter QB ratings. This 2012 article states his 102.1 QB rating in the fourth-quarter is the best in the league, considerably surpassing the elite QBs like Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady. His 2012 rating (101.2) and 2013 rating (105.6) means he is likely still the best in the league in the fourth-quarter.
In games in Dec. and Jan. Romo has 63.3 completion % and 50 TD vs. 29 INT
So after all these previous myths were debunked, the national media create a new statistic to show viewers why they had been badmouthing Tony Romo...the elimination game stat. This is a collection of data from seven games in Romo's 100+ game starts. It includes four playoff games and three Week 17 matchups that determined whether the Cowboys would make it to or progress in the playoffs.

What it does not include are games like the Week 17 domination over the Eagles in '09 because the Cowboys 11-5 record didn't demand a victory to make the playoffs. A game, where coincidentally, Romo had a great performance does not get included because despite it being the final week of the season against a division rival that you would see again in the wild card playoff round, and despite the fact it determined who would become the NFC East champ...a loss would not have eliminated the Cowboys from the playoffs, so it is apparently unimportant.

For the sake of time, let's breeze past my adamant objections to terms like "big games" and "chokes when it matters" being used based off of this ‘elimination game data set.' Because every game in a 16-game schedule holds important playoff ramifications, and matchups against division rivals are "big games," and nationally televised games are "big games," and week 15 and 16 games that must be won to keep your team in the playoff hunt are "big games," and matchups to clinch a playoff spot are "big games," and week 17 matchups for the division crown are "big games." So, let's just ignore the problem with this definition of important elimination games, which boils down to a limited data set used as empirical evidence to one of the greatest intangibles in sports.

Let's just concentrate on the limited scope of this great derogatory myth, because even that makes me laugh.

Used "properly," this data set will show you that Romo in big games - sorry, did it again, elimination games - just can't win and is a choke artist. You can point to seven interceptions in those seven "most important games," top it off by including a few sack fumbles, wrap it in a bow highlighting the 1-6 W/L record...and there you go!

"Statistical proof" that Romo just can't win the games that matter most:

ELIMINATION GAMESCmpAttCmp%TDINT
2006 Playoffs vs SEA17 29 58.6% 1 0
2007 Playoffs vs NYG18 36 50.0% 1 1
2008 WK17 vs PHI21 39 53.9% 0 1
2009 Playoffs vs PHI23 35 65.7% 2 0
2009 Playoffs vs MIN22 35 62.9% 0 1
2011 WK17 vs NYG29 37 78.4% 2 1
2012 WK17 vs WAS20 37 54.1% 2 3
Totals15024860.5%87
There are many reasons a QB can struggle in a game, including bad weather, an old offensive-line breaking down and getting abused by the defense, and wide-receivers dropping wide open passes that could lead to TDs and wins. But let's ignore the fact that in his worst games on this list Romo had to overcome these kinds of factors. Is a QB with over 60% completions and more TDs than INTs really choking in those games? Sure, this small sample size averages out below Romo's career averages, but is it proof Romo will not be able to win when it matters? The Cowboys only won one of these games. Can you count more games where Romo's performance was certainly good enough to lead his team to victory?

Now, let's have some fun with numbers and show why this small sample set is ridiculous. I am going to add some games and rename this the stat for "Playoff Hunt Games." We will still include all the elimination games, but also add games that clinched a playoff spot or won the division crown. Let's see what happens...

PLAYOFF HUNT GAMESCmpAttCmp%TDINT
Elimination Games15024860.5%87
2006 Clinch Wk15 vs ATL222975.9%21
2007 Clinch WK13 vs GB193063.3%41
2009 Clinch WK16 vs WAS253865.8%21
2009 WinDiv Wk17 vs PHI243470.6%21
Totals24037963.3%1811
As you can clearly see, when the Dallas Cowboys are playing games to clinch a playoff spot, win a division title, or progress into the playoffs, Tony Romo is phenomenal with a 63.3 completion % throwing 18 TD vs. 11 INT. See how fun it is to play with numbers and small sample sizes for statistical proof? Can you imagine what would happen if we started including all the must-win games where Romo led the Cowboys to victory so that those Week 17 elimination games even mattered?

If anyone thinks the Cowboys can't make it to or win in the playoffs because of Romo, then they simply haven't seen enough of his games to know better. So whenever someone tells you Romo is a choke artist when it matters, you now have even more statistical proof to let them now they are wrong... Romo's Playoff Hunt Games stat.

 

[KJJ]

I know you listed "some" games. Whether it was 15 or 20, or even 30, it's not enough to prove what you're saying. That's a miniscule sample size.

None of the stats any of us are posting are going to prove that one stat correlates to winning more than the another. It all comes down to ones opinion many of us see the game differently. A QB's TD to turnover ratio and their passer rating go hand in hand because if the QB's TD to turnover ratio isn't good it's going to greatly affect their passer rating. I put the most weight on a QB's TD to turnover ratio because It's not influenced by a QB's completion percentage. Another flaw with a QB's passer rating stat is that it's not affected by a lost fumble and Romo has committed a number of those. A lost fumble goes down as part of a QB's TD to turnover ratio. We've seen first hand with Romo what just one turnover at the worst possible moment can do regardless of his passer rating. A passer rating stat isn't affected by how many sacks a QB takes some sacks are on the QB.

On opening day vs the Jets in 2011 the Cowboys lost that game despite Romo having a 101.9 passer rating which was a higher passer rating than Mark Sanchez had. It was the one int at the worst possible moment that helped cost the Cowboys that game. I know that's another cherry picked game but it was a nationally televised game on the 10th anniversary of 911. It was one of those spotlighted games I mention that FANS have a problem with here. In the loss to Seattle in the playoffs in 06 Romo had a much higher passer rating than Hasselbeck but the Cowboys still lost the game with the help of a huge mistake by Romo as a holder.

Romo is going to win a lot of passer rating battles vs the opposing QB's but the Cowboys aren't going to win big games regardless of his passer ratings until he knocks off the mistakes. In the most critical games his turnovers increase and his TD's decrease. The only playoff game he won his TD to turnover ratio was 2-0 vs Philly compared to Donovan McNabb's who's ratio was 1-2. If we're going to focus on Romo we have to focus on a stat that puts a big emphasis on the amount of TD's he throws vs the turnovers he has and isn't influenced by his completion percentage.

 

[KJJ]

just thought I would throw some more sand in the eyes of the haters like KJJ


Source: SB Nation
Time: Jul 10 4:00 PM ET



Myths about Tony Romo being a choke artist get debunked routinely, so someone created the "elimination games" stat. Here is a closer look at that "statistical proof" and a new stat for "playoff hunt" games.

I always laugh at the "statistical proof" used to define Tony Romo's ability in big games...excuse me, elimination games. When an undrafted rookie rises to the helm of the Dallas Cowboys and becomes one of the top 10 quarterbacks in the league, you have a cornucopia of factors that are sure to create drama and inspire the anti-Cowboys nation. At every turn, memes and myths would pop up taking shots at Romo's abilities, and BTB (and other media sources) would often disprove those fallacies in short order. First, it was claimed that Romo's statistical superiority didn't matter because he couldn't get it done in the fourth-quarter. Then it became about Romo not being able to play well in the important games late in the season. But the truth shall set you free...

Romo ranks sixth among active QBs for the most fourth-quarter comebacks - playing fewer games than anyone ahead of him on that list and those below him on the Top 10 list
Romo ranks ninth among active QBs for the most game winning drives - again, playing fewer games than those above him on the list
Romo has had phenomenal fourth-quarter QB ratings. This 2012 article states his 102.1 QB rating in the fourth-quarter is the best in the league, considerably surpassing the elite QBs like Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady. His 2012 rating (101.2) and 2013 rating (105.6) means he is likely still the best in the league in the fourth-quarter.
In games in Dec. and Jan. Romo has 63.3 completion % and 50 TD vs. 29 INT
So after all these previous myths were debunked, the national media create a new statistic to show viewers why they had been badmouthing Tony Romo...the elimination game stat. This is a collection of data from seven games in Romo's 100+ game starts. It includes four playoff games and three Week 17 matchups that determined whether the Cowboys would make it to or progress in the playoffs.

What it does not include are games like the Week 17 domination over the Eagles in '09 because the Cowboys 11-5 record didn't demand a victory to make the playoffs. A game, where coincidentally, Romo had a great performance does not get included because despite it being the final week of the season against a division rival that you would see again in the wild card playoff round, and despite the fact it determined who would become the NFC East champ...a loss would not have eliminated the Cowboys from the playoffs, so it is apparently unimportant.

For the sake of time, let's breeze past my adamant objections to terms like "big games" and "chokes when it matters" being used based off of this ‘elimination game data set.' Because every game in a 16-game schedule holds important playoff ramifications, and matchups against division rivals are "big games," and nationally televised games are "big games," and week 15 and 16 games that must be won to keep your team in the playoff hunt are "big games," and matchups to clinch a playoff spot are "big games," and week 17 matchups for the division crown are "big games." So, let's just ignore the problem with this definition of important elimination games, which boils down to a limited data set used as empirical evidence to one of the greatest intangibles in sports.

Let's just concentrate on the limited scope of this great derogatory myth, because even that makes me laugh.

Used "properly," this data set will show you that Romo in big games - sorry, did it again, elimination games - just can't win and is a choke artist. You can point to seven interceptions in those seven "most important games," top it off by including a few sack fumbles, wrap it in a bow highlighting the 1-6 W/L record...and there you go!

"Statistical proof" that Romo just can't win the games that matter most:

ELIMINATION GAMESCmpAttCmp%TDINT
2006 Playoffs vs SEA17 29 58.6% 1 0
2007 Playoffs vs NYG18 36 50.0% 1 1
2008 WK17 vs PHI21 39 53.9% 0 1
2009 Playoffs vs PHI23 35 65.7% 2 0
2009 Playoffs vs MIN22 35 62.9% 0 1
2011 WK17 vs NYG29 37 78.4% 2 1
2012 WK17 vs WAS20 37 54.1% 2 3
Totals15024860.5%87
There are many reasons a QB can struggle in a game, including bad weather, an old offensive-line breaking down and getting abused by the defense, and wide-receivers dropping wide open passes that could lead to TDs and wins. But let's ignore the fact that in his worst games on this list Romo had to overcome these kinds of factors. Is a QB with over 60% completions and more TDs than INTs really choking in those games? Sure, this small sample size averages out below Romo's career averages, but is it proof Romo will not be able to win when it matters? The Cowboys only won one of these games. Can you count more games where Romo's performance was certainly good enough to lead his team to victory?

Now, let's have some fun with numbers and show why this small sample set is ridiculous. I am going to add some games and rename this the stat for "Playoff Hunt Games." We will still include all the elimination games, but also add games that clinched a playoff spot or won the division crown. Let's see what happens...

PLAYOFF HUNT GAMESCmpAttCmp%TDINT
Elimination Games15024860.5%87
2006 Clinch Wk15 vs ATL222975.9%21
2007 Clinch WK13 vs GB193063.3%41
2009 Clinch WK16 vs WAS253865.8%21
2009 WinDiv Wk17 vs PHI243470.6%21
Totals24037963.3%1811
As you can clearly see, when the Dallas Cowboys are playing games to clinch a playoff spot, win a division title, or progress into the playoffs, Tony Romo is phenomenal with a 63.3 completion % throwing 18 TD vs. 11 INT. See how fun it is to play with numbers and small sample sizes for statistical proof? Can you imagine what would happen if we started including all the must-win games where Romo led the Cowboys to victory so that those Week 17 elimination games even mattered?

If anyone thinks the Cowboys can't make it to or win in the playoffs because of Romo, then they simply haven't seen enough of his games to know better. So whenever someone tells you Romo is a choke artist when it matters, you now have even more statistical proof to let them now they are wrong... Romo's Playoff Hunt Games stat.

There's only a few games that have given Romo a reputation as a choke artist just like there were only a few games that gave Roger Staubach and Joe Montana the reputation for being clutch. It comes down how big were the games that a QB choked in and how big were the games they were clutch in. The bigger the game the bigger the impact on a QB's reputation.

 

[cml750]

Seriously???? People are still debating this? I guess the anti-Romo crowd will learn how fortunate we have been to have Romo when we go back into QB purgatory in a few years.

 

[KJJ]

Seriously???? People are still debating this? I guess the anti-Romo crowd will learn how fortunate we have been to have Romo when we go back into QB purgatory in a few years.

Being critical of his big game performances doesn't mean someone is anti-Romo. Most of us realize the Cowboys would go back to QB purgatory without him.

 

[TheDude]

The whole point of correlation is that you show how often the stat you've presented results in a win. It can't be flawed as long as the math is done correctly. So if out of 16 games, there are 3 where the "hypothesis" fails, then that's a winning correlation of 13 out of 16 times, or 81.25%.... The correlation tells you how often there is an exception. If you did the research and showed us how often there was an exception to your rule, then you could begin making your case, but you won't do it.

I want no part of the back and forth, but being a stat guy, correlation does not imply causation. The honey bee population decline and the 10 yr US Treasury are highly correlated in math. For a stat to truly be linked to causation, there need to be pvalue, t stat, f tests, etc.

The winning % is not correlation. The correlation formula has to do with 2 data sets and deviation around a mean.

Don't mean to be a jerk, it is just sore spot when correlation is used as not intended

 

[Cebrin]

 

[DallasEast]

The negative reaction to any mention of Tony Romo is not unlike that of a neighbor's dog, sensing a stray cat crossing its yard. The barking starts and you wonder when it'll ever stop. You hear your neighbor scream, "Shaddup Fido! It's just a CAT for Pete's sakes!" Fido stops barking for a few seconds, remembers the cat, and you dig your head further into your pillow. The barking stops two hours later. You breathe a sigh of relief and thank the stars that cat finally left to taunt another dog on another street, hopefully in a whole different neighborhood. Of course, the barking resumes at 2 am when another cat broaches The Forbidden Zone.

Then again, it could have been a skunk instead. Romo stinks SO bad to some. lol.