Just a clarification on reading skills:
Preliminary calculations also show that, for the runway conditions and use of brakes and thrust reverser that occurred, the stopping distance without hitting obstructions would have been about 5,300 feet (the actual stopping distance was about 5,000 feet). In addition, had the airplane landing into the wind, rather than with a tail wind, the stopping distance for a landing would have been about 1,000 feet less.
The key phrase is "for the runway conditions and use of brakes and thrust reverser that occurred".
All this NTSB calculation tells us is that, given the conditions of MDW at the time, if a 737 touches down on 31C with max autobrake, then later applies full manual braking and 18 seconds into the landing roll the thrust reversers pop out, it will need 5300 feet of runway to stop.
So either A) the conditions as understood by the crew were different then those actually existing, or B) they fully understood the conditions and pursued a landing that depended upon the timely and effective operation of thrust reversers, or C) the NTSB's Preliminary Calculations are somehow flawed, and something else (such as the Global Conspiracy of Hot Dog Stand-Operators) is involved.
I'll now duck out and let you continue bickering about autobrake vs. manual braking.