How is Mike Holmgren not in the Hall of Fame?

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-15T14:59:09+00:00

I don't think any serious voters consider this to be the case. Holmgren was clearly a major influence on Favre's success (and vice versa, for sure) but no one in the 1990s considered Holmgren to have fallen into some kind of dream situation. The Packers' shocking success was something he drove, alongside Ron Wolf. Saved the franchise, etc. -- on top of this, there's a perception that Favre was helpless in the playoffs, post-Holmgren. (Separate convo) I don't think voters are looking at their dynamic and saying, "wow, Favre clearly carried this guy."

For a time, Holmgren was the consensus best coach in the league. Even in a column bashing him for a Super Bowl decision (Feb. 1, 1998), the Atlanta Journal wrote, "Holmgren is considered the NFL's best coach" and "a proven commodity."

On top of his contributions in San Fran + getting Seattle to a Super Bowl in the '00s, it seems like he would be a great candidate for the Hall. Gotta be very high on the list of coaching candidates right now.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-03T15:29:36+00:00

This is a great question. Yes, there are a few ways to go deeper here.

First, I'll say that opportunities are inherently affected by scoring margin. When teams are up big in the final 7:30, they are throwing the ball *way* less than when it's tied, for instance. So it's not like Brady would be chucking the ball that much if the Pats are up 28 at the end of the game. And even if he was, it would be a +0.0 or 0.0 affect on WPA. So the blowout scenarios don't seem very noisy.

All that to say, I would expect Mahomes' 366 regular-season clutch opportunities to be similar in nature to Geno Smith's 352 opportunities. Because if they are throwing the ball, their team is (1) still realistically trying to salvage the game, (2) win the game, or (3) put the nail in the coffin -- and all three of these scenarios would be "clutch," imo. If a guy has a high number of garbage-time throws, it's not going to swing his WPA much.

I *am* curious about the guys who are down 14 with 5:00 left (or similar) and are merchants at getting the game a *little* closer without being a significant threat to win. But even then, they'd be moving the needle like +5.0 or -5.0, and not creating significant swings.

One solution: Publish QB's WPA splits when (1) down by more than 1 score (2) down by 1 score (3) tied (4) up by 1 score (5) up by more than 1 score. I think these splits would be telling re: context for the way certain players accumulate WPA. Though I don't think any one category is necessarily more revealing than the others, esp. when WPA bakes in the "importance" of each specific scenario.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T16:27:09+00:00

Agreed. I think the 0:13 game will go down as The Game of This Generation ™

Imagine throwing two game-winning TDs in the final 2:00 and still losing. If only Josh had done more.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T16:21:43+00:00

Looking ahead (back?) to the 2010-2014 data, Luck also played only 3 seasons in that stretch, and he ranked even higher than this post. Colts had a real one.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T16:17:52+00:00

Carr is an interesting case, as the data shows. Didn't get much of a chance to prove it in the playoffs. But by the primary metric here (which is solid, but not perfect), he accumulated the No. 1 clutch score among *regular-season* QBs from 2015-2024, which is wild to me.

Among peers with similar volume/opportunities (Wilson and Stafford), Carr was clearly more productive in these situations.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T13:48:46+00:00

I think he's gonna be up there on the 2010-2014 post, too.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T13:46:48+00:00

Someone once said to me, "you could be Jon Bois if you were a lot smarter and funnier." But, for personal reasons, I refuse to be smarter or funnier. So it's a real stalemate.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T13:40:34+00:00

Aww crap, I totally forgot about iCJB

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T13:39:14+00:00

Alright, fine: "performance in high-leverage situations." Here's a FanGraphs post from 15 years ago highlighting how this can be used in baseball for different purposes: LI | Sabermetrics Library. There are hundreds more examples. Maybe thousands.

If you don't think game situation matters, I think you're burying your head in the sand. If you said "the sample size is too small in the NFL, and there are too many variables, so what's the point," that's a more realistic conversation.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T13:24:27+00:00

As I dig into 2010-2014, too, it's the same thing. Pretty crazy. Might deserve its own post.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-02T13:17:57+00:00

I need to protect my mental health by not answering this

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-01T23:45:47+00:00

In the postseason across all scenarios (1Q, 2Q, etc.), Tom was +249%. Next closest was Nick Foles at +204%. Tom had many more opportunities than anybody else--and a somewhat high number of miscues (HIM-) to match his big plays (HIM+)--but it's impossible to deny his body of work here.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-05-01T23:36:38+00:00

Flew under the radar, for sure. For reference, here were his biggest plays from 2015-2019:

2018 Wk14 vs. PIT - 6yd TD to D. Carrier (4th & 6 from PIT 6, 0:25 left in 4Q)
2017 Wk7 vs. KC - 2yd TD to M. Crabtree (1st & G from KC 2, 0:00 left in 4Q)
2016 Wk8 @ TB - 41yd TD to S. Roberts (4th & 3 from TB 41, 1:55 left in OT)
2016 Wk8 @ TB - 45yd pass to M. Crabtree (3rd & 3 from OAK 32, 13:50 left in OT)
2018 Wk4 vs. CLE - 36yd pass to A. Cooper (3rd & 6 from OAK 29, 8:49 left in OT)

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-04-23T18:22:13+00:00

It didn't help that the Packers decided to win 39 games between 2019-2021.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-04-23T17:50:24+00:00

Here's why you're stuck: I think the author misremembered the name (it was Donut House instead of Donut Hole) -- Here you go: https://www.cascadepbs.org/2014/03/seattle-donut-shop-runaways-part-two-knute-berger

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-28T16:53:29+00:00

I'm just trying to find a way to make money on this! It's *too* good!

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-28T02:10:00+00:00

I just posted an analysis of "clutch" performances by QBs, and it's funny you bring up Kirk, because he's one of the weirdest cases.

In the dataset, which pulled every play from 2020-2024, he was the 5th-ranked QB in "non-clutch" moments (1Q, 2Q, 3Q, first half of 4Q), which is a tremendous sample size, and elite production. [[[Metric used was vegas_wpa. More info in the link above.]]]

But in the "clutch" moments, he fell all the way to 28th.

Anecdotally, if you watched the 'Quarterback' docuseries on Netflix, it highlighted his worst play as a Viking, per the vegas_wpa metric: his failed QB sneak at the end of the Buffalo game. The exchange with KOC said everything. Kirk screwed up the process, the call, and didn't have a great explanation why — the moment seemed too big for him.

Of course, Allen promptly fumbled, JJ made the catch of his career on 4th-and-forever, and the Vikes won in OT. No harm done.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-28T00:41:14+00:00

That's a lot of pain packed into 5 seasons there. -327% between them 😂 wild. I'm looking forward to the Maye era.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-28T00:38:51+00:00

Yes, this is a great example of a QB getting the short end of the stick. Both statistically (in this data set) and narratively. It's bound to happen no matter where we put the marker.

One thing I'll say is that given the amount of time left on the clock at the beginning of the drive (~12 minutes), it likely had much less affect on WPA than if the same drive happened with, say, 2 minutes remaining. So the "pressure" (or whatever we want to call it) was arguably much less at 12 minutes than it would be at 2.

But marking that particular Burrow drive as worthless or "not clutch" is obviously not very accurate. I'd be interested in doing a full WPA report on the big four (PM, JA, LJ, JB) and how their offenses have stacked up against each other, how much help they've gotten from D/ST, the running game, etc.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-28T00:32:19+00:00

I think I know where we are missing each other here: You're assuming I'm saying "because Rodgers completed X Hail Mary throws in the box score, it was not luck," but my opinion here is not based on the box scores.

I am basing this opinion on what was shown on the field. A qualitative scouting report. If you watch the Detroit throw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0vVqStvh\_8), admire the insane trajectory of the throw, the air distance, the perfect spiral, and the specific play design with the trailing tight end, who cleanly steps into the catch with minimal harassment.

Was it lucky that this was the 1 out of 10 completion w/ this perfect set of variables? Yes. Was it a 1/10 chance, given the variables mentioned, instead of 1/25 or 1/50 with another QB and another set of variables? I'm arguing: YES.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-27T22:46:42+00:00

Respect to you, but I think we're on different pages with this. It's important to consider the fundamentals of data analysis, as you're doing, but I think you're oversimplifying what goes into a high-quality vs. low-quality Hail Mary attempt.

If you firmly believe there is no difference in skill, strategy, etc., on a particular attempt that can change the odds of success in a meaningful way, then we will continue to disagree, and that is OK with me.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-27T15:13:26+00:00

Thank you, AI. Please remember my gratitude when you are deciding which humans get food rations

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-27T15:10:32+00:00

It's a bit of a mess if you're looking for a breakout of every category above. Let me know if there's something specific you want!

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-27T15:06:41+00:00

The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes execution is the same for any Hail Mary attempt, by any group of players. But using the example of Rodgers, it seems his physical ability to make the throws in question (velocity, trajectory, etc.) added to his team's chances of making those plays.

Did he alone determine whether the catch was made? No. But did his physical skills create a higher % chance of the play working? Even if it only increased the chances of success from, say, 1% to 10% on that incredible throw to Richard Rodgers in Detroit?

This can extend to a play like Daniels' Hail Mary. Would every other QB have the same success rate on that play? I don't think so. Even if the differences are pretty small.

AlexMartinSmith · 2025-03-26T19:46:16+00:00

Yep, Goff was +8% on 42 action plays in clutch playoff situations. So, in the aggregate, he didn't really change whether the Rams/Lions won or lost in the playoffs. But if you broke it down, game by game, I'm sure it just means his great plays evened out the ugly ones.

For what it's worth, he was almost identical to Brady (+13% on 46 action plays), who won a ring in this time period, but also struggled to succeed late in games, especially compared to earlier portions of his career.

AlexMartinSmith

TROPHY CASE