What does that even mean?
Ok, admitted Giants' fan that listens to every podcast and reads every article possible.
THREE podcast hosts/guests I listened to this week said the Giants are "due for a regression" with no explanation. All using that exact same phrase.
The Athletic article predicting win the NFL totals had the same exact quote, again with no explanation.
Of course everyone talks tough schedule but these comments in every case were outside of the scope of the schedule.
It's like every team that is a new team on the rise has to go through a "regression" before they get good again?
Someone tell me what I am missing? What does "Due for a regression" even mean?
Let’s see how it all plays out.
Quote:
In comment 16191421 nygiantfan said:
Quote:
2022 was filled with one-score wins and they ended the season with a negative point differential. And while they did a good job taking care of the ball last year, turnovers are difficult to predict year to year.
Sure it's a fair point, if you disregard the addition of:
Waller
Okereke
Hyatt
Campbell
Nacho
A'Shawn
Simmons
JMS
Banks
Hawkins
and the likely improvement of Neal, the OL, Thibs, et al
For it to be fair, you have to assume the roster is the same as last year, but it's not even close.
No, it’s still fair if don’t disregard that. Yes the roster is implicitly better but that doesn’t it mean it will definitely translate to same or more wins, or that this year’s opponents rosters aren’t better as well.
No doubt. Nothing is definite in life, no less in NFL football which at the end of 17 games boils down to probably 300 game/team-altering plays or events in the course of a season.
The better the talent and coaching, the better the odds of those plays/events going your way and/or minimizing the impact when they don't.
I'd say there's a shit ton more ping pong balls in the drum this season pointing to progression than the opposite.
So, in order for the Giants to play in less one score games, they are going to have to score more points.
It's not unrealistic to say that the Giants are a better team than last year, but due to a harder schedule and if they don't score more points per game, they could regress.
Did everyone forget how the Giants finished the year after a 6-1 start? It's not like that 6-1 start was against a bunch of quality teams either.
I expect the Giants to be better this year but I also wouldn't be surprised if their was a regression in record. It doesn't mean the team got worse.
this backward look does not really place any significant values to factor in the steps the Giants took to improve vs what they lost from last year
this years team is going to be very different than last year. There has been a massive influx of talent at key areas and hence it will be a very different team. The only reasonable argument for a regression focuses around the the o-line, and in my opinion even the Giants Oline will show improvement from last year to this year.
But at:
TE - rocket spurt
WR - rocket spurt
Dline - rocket spurt
LBer - rocket spurt
CB - rockt spurt
I see the Oline, RB, ST, S as either a push or modest growth
Oline -- loses Feliciano, gains JMS - (Feliciano is not big loss - JMS is probably already better than him), Neal in second year, hope for modest improvement - G is a total push - but slightly better is they all stay healthy
RB - I think Gray adds power to the RB position and Barkley is a man on a mission -- a little better than push
S - I think the Giants have added enough pieces to replace Love -- Simmons and Okereke will make up for any slack there -- push
ST - we'll see -- I see push
the big thing is will DJ improve and get more explosive - which was the knock against him from last year -- the pieces are all in place for it
this could be a very surprising year (and I man that in a positive way)
I think regression is a euphemism in this case for:
1) Your point with a running quarterback
2) Lack of faith Jones will progress beyond that
That's fine. They won't mention these comments later in the year...
Oh this oughta be good. Why is that?
this backward look does not really place any significant values to factor in the steps the Giants took to improve vs what they lost from last year
this years team is going to be very different than last year. There has been a massive influx of talent at key areas and hence it will be a very different team. The only reasonable argument for a regression focuses around the the o-line, and in my opinion even the Giants Oline will show improvement from last year to this year.
But at:
TE - rocket spurt
WR - rocket spurt
Dline - rocket spurt
LBer - rocket spurt
CB - rockt spurt
I see the Oline, RB, ST, S as either a push or modest growth
Oline -- loses Feliciano, gains JMS - (Feliciano is not big loss - JMS is probably already better than him), Neal in second year, hope for modest improvement - G is a total push - but slightly better is they all stay healthy
RB - I think Gray adds power to the RB position and Barkley is a man on a mission -- a little better than push
S - I think the Giants have added enough pieces to replace Love -- Simmons and Okereke will make up for any slack there -- push
ST - we'll see -- I see push
the big thing is will DJ improve and get more explosive - which was the knock against him from last year -- the pieces are all in place for it
this could be a very surprising year (and I man that in a positive way)
Yup. And BTW, the Giants ragtag offense was remarkably consistent once Bellinger returned -- they averaged 21+ PPG which is exactly the NFL average. Whereas the D worsened over the course of the year, mostly because of our NFL worst run defense. As you note, we've improved light years on the DL and LB both in starter quality and depth. In particular, after already creating what might be the deepest 3-4 front in the league, we added Simmons and Boogie both of which are credible starters that to the '23 Giants are just depth and chess pieces.
As said in Blood Simple, "fact is, nothin' comes with a guarantee. Now I don't care if you're the pope of Rome, President of the United States or Man of the Year; somethin' can all go wrong."
Even the rosiest glasses know there's no guarantees. But I can't see why you'd expect regression. It seems so obvious that a decently healthy 2023 Giants are very likely to be a damn good football team on both sides of the ball. It's less clear where that gets us.
That's fine. They won't mention these comments later in the year...
ZZ, we hope so, the "they". It's the "we" I worry about more. I think it's a given that, even on this board--especially on this board--the raised expectations for the '23 season will translate to a more demanding fanbase and falling short in whatever way, record, team performance, key individuals' performances, will not be pretty...as if ANY Game Day thread is pretty )>:
But...
What if Shep and Waller live up to their injury history and don't make the year?
What if DJ doesn't step up, but rather turns out to be another potential not realized? The jury is still out on him, regardless of his contract status.
What if Neal has already hit his ceiling?
What if the rookies shit the bed in the real games?
What if Wan'Dale's ACL hinders his ability?
What if some of the FA additions aren't as advertised?
And, I think it fair to expect some injuries. Where will they hit?
A lot of people are assuming everything is going to break our way. I hope they do, but I think the safe assumption is that not everything will. I don't think it unreasonable for a middle of the pack prediction.
Exactly. They haven’t lost any key players and added a bunch of good ones. Yes, their schedule looks bad on paper as others have mentioned. But there is really no true basis for saying they are due for regression. If anything they are a young ascending team at this stage.
I’m feeling great about Thursday but the betting odds give me pause. Are we getting over our skis?
I’m feeling great about Thursday but the betting odds give me pause. Are we getting over our skis?
It’s the schedule. We have learned how unimportant it is to focus on a schedule with the amount of injuries that occur in this league. But Vegas can’t predict which teams will be affected by the injury bug so they are going off what they have today.
I’m feeling great about Thursday but the betting odds give me pause. Are we getting over our skis?
Betting odds are designed to even out money bet on both sides; they're largely a reflection of media sentiment.
And like sentiment, week 1 odds are always largely based on prior year.
Seems that will go down causing them to not be as good on defense.
Also part of that leading the league in takeaways is the fact that they played 7 terrible qb's last year.
Last season Dallas played these qb's.
JOshua Dobbs, Justin Fields, Matt Ryan, Carson Wentz, Sam Howell, Garnder Minshew, Jeff Driskel and davis mills.
this year seems to me will be very different
Seems that will go down causing them to not be as good on defense.
Also part of that leading the league in takeaways is the fact that they played 7 terrible qb's last year.
Last season Dallas played these qb's.
JOshua Dobbs, Justin Fields, Matt Ryan, Carson Wentz, Sam Howell, Garnder Minshew, Jeff Driskel and davis mills.
this year seems to me will be very different
I know this isn’t a fantasy football thread, but your reasoning with Dallas here is spot on, but people will continue to overdraft defenses due to prior year performance. I’ve seen it with Dallas several times now this year.
Last year, at the start of the season, I labeled Jones an acsending player very early.
Jones is still ascending.
The Giants are ascending.
Even with a pessimistic estimate, I think 10 wins is very achievable -
Beat Arizona, Seattle, Miami, Washington (twice), Jets, Raiders,Pats, Packers, Saints
Lose twice to Dallas. Lose to 49ers, Lose to the Bills, Lose twice to the Eagles, Lose to the Rams
There are concrete reasons to be optimistic -
(1) They've made significant moves to stop the hemorrhaging on run defense
(2) Ojulari is healthy, Simmons will help a lot on pass defense, Hawk & Banks are better than what they had last year,
this help will make Jackson even better
(3) Receivers will terrorize the NFL
So no, I don't think they'll regress
Seems that will go down causing them to not be as good on defense.
Also part of that leading the league in takeaways is the fact that they played 7 terrible qb's last year.
Last season Dallas played these qb's.
JOshua Dobbs, Justin Fields, Matt Ryan, Carson Wentz, Sam Howell, Garnder Minshew, Jeff Driskel and davis mills.
this year seems to me will be very different
It's an interesting point. Maybe not, because the numbers behind Dallas's TO differential are strong: very high hurry and sack percentage. high interception percentage and only an expected percentage of FF recoveries.
I don't see any reason they'll have much worse numbers - they're a talented, well coached and disruptive defense. I do expect our takeaways to improve significantly with our massive talent upgrades.
It's not personal or "anti-giant bias". No one is being persecuted. The main stream media isn't out to get you. And Giants fans aren't victims.
Here's what it does mean:
As others have said, Giants eked out some wins. When a team wins by 20, clearly, if a few things went differently, they still would have LIKELY won. If you win games riding a razor's edge, you just as easily could have lost. Let's pretend there's a team that went 17-0, but won each game by 1 point. In all likelihood, if you could replay that season with the same teams, that would not happen again.
Remember, each game involves a whoooole bunch of dice being rolled. Typically, a more talented team like, for example, the Cowboys, will beat a team like the Giants. Let's say that a bunch of their dice have extra 5s and 6s in place of 1s and 2s. The Giants, however, had more 1s and 2s, than 5s and 6s. So can the Giants win? Sure! That's why you play the game. That's coaching. That's clutch plays. That's smart football, etc. But a team like the Giants of last year had way less margin for error, so a lot of those dice rolls had to go the Giants' way.
This is the same argument that gets old about people getting cranky because the media prefers the cowboys or eagles in previous years and then say "the media was wrong". Saying a team is more likely to win based on their talent (more dice with 5s and 6s), doesn't mean they will win. But if you were betting your life, you'd probably want that set of dice. Gun to your head, most people would wisely have bet the patriots over the giants in their "perfect season". That's the right bet. But then the game happens....
While this isn't exactly regressing to the mean, in theory, the Giants could (and did) get better, but they might actually lose more games, because they don't have necessarily enough talent to have a bad game and still win, whereas a more talented team can roll some low numbers and still have a higher total when the dice stop rolling.
Also, why do people care or even take the time to read what these outlets have to say about your team? Really talented scouts, or people setting lines, tend to not write articles. These are now basically celebrity talking heads or someone who played football just giving an opinion. That's it. You know what is amazing? There are books out there that explore the phenomenon that most people, including experts themselves, are the worst predictors. We're talking literally no better than monkeys throwing things at a wall. Literally. They usually over-index on their own experience and get shit wrong. In fact, people's predictions will change literally based on the weather that day. Literally.
AMEN! LFG Giants
Fortunately for everyone, it seems the plan is still to play the season and the Giants record will be based on actual on-field results.
It's not personal or "anti-giant bias". No one is being persecuted. The main stream media isn't out to get you. And Giants fans aren't victims.
Here's what it does mean:
As others have said, Giants eked out some wins. When a team wins by 20, clearly, if a few things went differently, they still would have LIKELY won. If you win games riding a razor's edge, you just as easily could have lost. Let's pretend there's a team that went 17-0, but won each game by 1 point. In all likelihood, if you could replay that season with the same teams, that would not happen again.
Remember, each game involves a whoooole bunch of dice being rolled. Typically, a more talented team like, for example, the Cowboys, will beat a team like the Giants. Let's say that a bunch of their dice have extra 5s and 6s in place of 1s and 2s. The Giants, however, had more 1s and 2s, than 5s and 6s. So can the Giants win? Sure! That's why you play the game. That's coaching. That's clutch plays. That's smart football, etc. But a team like the Giants of last year had way less margin for error, so a lot of those dice rolls had to go the Giants' way.
This is the same argument that gets old about people getting cranky because the media prefers the cowboys or eagles in previous years and then say "the media was wrong". Saying a team is more likely to win based on their talent (more dice with 5s and 6s), doesn't mean they will win. But if you were betting your life, you'd probably want that set of dice. Gun to your head, most people would wisely have bet the patriots over the giants in their "perfect season". That's the right bet. But then the game happens....
While this isn't exactly regressing to the mean, in theory, the Giants could (and did) get better, but they might actually lose more games, because they don't have necessarily enough talent to have a bad game and still win, whereas a more talented team can roll some low numbers and still have a higher total when the dice stop rolling.
Also, why do people care or even take the time to read what these outlets have to say about your team? Really talented scouts, or people setting lines, tend to not write articles. These are now basically celebrity talking heads or someone who played football just giving an opinion. That's it. You know what is amazing? There are books out there that explore the phenomenon that most people, including experts themselves, are the worst predictors. We're talking literally no better than monkeys throwing things at a wall. Literally. They usually over-index on their own experience and get shit wrong. In fact, people's predictions will change literally based on
In referencing last year s team and season, you make the same mistake as the pundits: you overlook the fact that the 2022 and 2023 Giants, are not the same team
That is all.
From my POV "regression to the mean" seems like a phrase that gets thrown out by media to justify a negative prediction based on past results applied to future events, but is likely misapplied b/c they don't actually understand the underlying data analysis or how to evaluate trends. They just like certain teams, coaches, or players more than others.
For example good teams with a winning record tend to have a positive point differential. If this is true then a team with a negative point differential should have a losing record. In a purely randomized model, there should be 50/50 split between negative/positive point differential, but what they don't explain is that in 2022 only 12 teams had positive point differential and 20 NFL teams had negative point differential (https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-scoring-margin?date=2021-02-08). Any media talking head can point out that the Giants had a negative point differential for the past 3 years, therefore their winning record in 2022 is an aberration and the Giants will go back to losing b/c they have mostly the same players. But the Giants point differential improved in 2022 (-1.6) over 2021 (-9.3) and 2022 (-4.9), so one could argue that the 2022 Giants were actually regressing towards the mean in a positive direction. I don't think that this type of data is actually predictive of future results, but it can be used to show the bias in the media analysis as they tend to overlook the positive trend when predicting the Giants future performance.
If anything points toward regression to the mean this year, I would argue it should be injuries.
Website currently down but here is a link - ( New Window )
From my POV "regression to the mean" seems like a phrase that gets thrown out by media to justify a negative prediction based on past results applied to future events, but is likely misapplied b/c they don't actually understand the underlying data analysis or how to evaluate trends. They just like certain teams, coaches, or players more than others.
For example good teams with a winning record tend to have a positive point differential. If this is true then a team with a negative point differential should have a losing record. In a purely randomized model, there should be 50/50 split between negative/positive point differential, but what they don't explain is that in 2022 only 12 teams had positive point differential and 20 NFL teams had negative point differential (https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-scoring-margin?date=2021-02-08). Any media talking head can point out that the Giants had a negative point differential for the past 3 years, therefore their winning record in 2022 is an aberration and the Giants will go back to losing b/c they have mostly the same players. But the Giants point differential improved in 2022 (-1.6) over 2021 (-9.3) and 2022 (-4.9), so one could argue that the 2022 Giants were actually regressing towards the mean in a positive direction. I don't think that this type of data is actually predictive of future results, but it can be used to show the bias in the media analysis as they tend to overlook the positive trend when predicting the Giants future performance.
Excellent post.
Further, the 2022 Giants played close games by design, unlike say the Vikings. By necessity, Daboll's strategy was to play to win in the 4th. We'll see whether it still is, but last season's close wins were an artifact of Daboll's design (whether Daboll even had a realistic alternative is moot).
Not a team that’s been good for 1 year in a row like the Giants
I checked on the historical results of his model. 50% accurate straight up - same as a coin flip but worse than say, using your brain.
The Athletic's power rankings come from an Eagles fan who said "The talent on defense is not enough for the Giants to be good, per se, but defensive coordinator Wink Martindale is able to cook up enough special game plans to keep offenses on their toes...." Really? I mean really?
When crap like this enters the social media echo chamber it starts to become accepted fact.
The model that is as effective as a coin toss - ( New Window )
Not a team that’s been good for 1 year in a row like the Giants
Dallas has been consistent for a while. The times the team has underperformed has been because of injury to the QB. If the QB stays healthy one could say with recent history Dallas will be good.
The doubt about NY comes from, it's only one year. They need to do it again. I see many doubt Jalen Hurts because the same reason. It was only one year, do it again.
While it is true that DC will benefit tremendously from the change in ownership, I think this may be going a little too far. Writer has them going 10-7.
Has Eagles going 10-7 but not repeating as champs citing SB hangover.
I don't disagree with this. Has Dallas going 9-8.
Has Giants brining up the rear with a 8-9 record noting that the receiving corps is suspect as ever. Also brings up Jones being turnover prone (um, not so much last season) and having a rookie center. I don't believe the Giants will be last in the division.
WTOP NFC East Preview - ( New Window )
Quote:
Basically, Washington already won its Super Bowl by getting new, nontoxic ownership.
While it is true that DC will benefit tremendously from the change in ownership, I think this may be going a little too far. Writer has them going 10-7.
Has Eagles going 10-7 but not repeating as champs citing SB hangover.
Quote:
Another year, another talented team in Dallas underachieves.
I don't disagree with this. Has Dallas going 9-8.
Has Giants brining up the rear with a 8-9 record noting that the receiving corps is suspect as ever. Also brings up Jones being turnover prone (um, not so much last season) and having a rookie center. I don't believe the Giants will be last in the division. WTOP NFC East Preview - ( New Window )
What an idiot. Not just for thinking that about DJ but putting it in print. DJ literally had the lowest turnover percentage (fumbles and int) of any starting QB. And JMS specifically didn't insist on dead ball snapping - just the opposite. He left it up to Jones.
Sports journalism is truly dead when that kind of crap makes it into one of the top national papers.
But then the Giants improved themselves in the offseason. The roster is better. This is why I think they really could be a 10-7,9-8 team.
I guess adding Darren Waller, Parris Campbell & Jalin Hyatt + getting Shepard back is still suspect as ever.....
What a terrible summation, even by today's standards.
1) the Giants having a negative point differential last year - this does often suggest a correction is coming
2) uninformed talking heads who repeat the insights of those who use previous year point differential along with YOY SOS delta as their primary data points
That said, those aren't the only lazy takes. So too are those who argue against those takes by pointing out the Giants' roster improvements vs. 2022 and take no time to consider whether and how the Giants' 2023 opponents have also improved their rosters.
Either way, consistency is important. If you want to point out all the ways that the Giants have improved since 2022 (and that would be valid, IMO), it's meaningless if you don't also look at the ways in which opponents have improved their teams for 2023 (assuming they have, but I think most fanbases have a bias that assumes YOY change equals improvement). And if you don't have the time or capacity to give thoughtful consideration to the roster moves of all 14 opponents, then be careful not to overweigh the improvements that the Giants made.
What I see a lot of fans doing (evident on this thread, clearly) is pointing out the ways in which the Giants have gotten better since last season as a way to counterbalance the schedule appearing to be more difficult, but their reference point for the teams on the schedule is the 2022 iteration of those teams (which is what also gets baked into the baseline strength-of-schedule).
More than anything, though, why do so many of you get your diapers in a twist when any member of the media has doubts about the Giants? You may not agree with them, and you may dislike the negative predictions, but those media members have plenty of company with Vegas oddsmakers agreeing that the Giants are likely to take a step back this season.
Neither the media nor the oddsmakers are foolproof, and the true outcome will be decided on the field. All I see here are a bunch of people crowding the gate to get in line for another round of victory laps, and all of the "negativity" that the prognosticators are using to inform their forecast will just be repurposed as excuses to explain away a YOY correction, if it does come.
And to spare anyone the trouble of casting me in with the supposedly Giants-hating media, I'm predicting a 10-7 record for the Giants this year, so I see a slightly better record for what I narrowly view as a much improved roster. But I do recognize that I don't have nearly enough information about our opponents to form anything other than a hopeful opinion as a fan.