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

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

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

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

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

Brett Keisel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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