|
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Vikings and Giants both exceeded expectations in 2022. Led by first-time general managers and head coaches, both teams realized their best-case outcomes. The Vikings went 13-4 to win the NFC North, while the Giants went 9-7-1 to secure an NFC wild-card spot. The teams’ successes were largely attributable to an uncanny ability to win close games — the Vikings set an NFL record by going 11-0 in one-score games, and the Giants were 8-4-1 in one-score games. Despite their win totals, both teams had negative point differentials. Those factors have led to a perception that both teams are due for a regression this season. Fittingly, these teams met in an NFC postseason matchup in January, with the Giants earning a 31-24 upset win in Minnesota. |
I get it, but analytics often gets poo-pooed. I am just saying that only a fool does not pay attention to that stuff and if you are statistically or analytically illiterate maybe it is time to pay attention because they have an uncanny ability to be right more often than not.
You could have fooled me by reading this board. And while some people were giving lip service well our record might be worse (not a common take but it was out there) everyone thought we would be a better football team. We stink in every way imaginable and we decided to run it back off last year.
I've been thinking about putting some money on Vikings to make the playoffs after this week when they play KC. It's +390 right now on Fanatics and their remaining schedule includes CAR (0-3), CHI (0-3), ATL (very beatable 2-1), DEN (0-3), CHI (0-3), LV (1-2), CIN (1-2) and 2 vs. DET and GB.
Funny how you say this yet you go in the season prediction thread and most fans predicted above the Vegas win prediction total.
Very few here actually knew what you are now suggesting was obvious?
I've been thinking about putting some money on Vikings to make the playoffs after this week when they play KC. It's +390 right now on Fanatics and their remaining schedule includes CAR (0-3), CHI (0-3), ATL (very beatable 2-1), DEN (0-3), CHI (0-3), LV (1-2), CIN (1-2) and 2 vs. DET and GB.
Yes, I do agree if you look at the Vikings turnover luck this year, they might be a prime team to improve. Although the Vikes defense is horrendous. The NFC North is not going to be great, but I have to think the Lions will find a way to win that division. Starting 0-3 for the WC seems a bit much, but I do think there is some upside with the Vikes if you account for their turnover issues. I think the Giants stink and have played that way basically the entire season but for one half in Arizona.
Quote:
to see that the Giants were not going to improve on last year's record. It was easy to see first-hand how they overachieved last year based on a lot of lucky breaks and an easy schedule.
Funny how you say this yet you go in the season prediction thread and most fans predicted above the Vegas win prediction total.
Very few here actually knew what you are now suggesting was obvious?
I was in the camp out record would be worse, but I had no idea we would be this bad!
I didn't believe the Giants would make the playoffs again but I said they'd win 7-8 games, not make the playoffs but still "be a better team" than 2022.
That doesn't look like the case at all.
a feature of year 2 regression is almost always that there's a tougher schedule and less margin for error.
a feature of year 2 regression is almost always that there's a tougher schedule and less margin for error.
Philly is obviously a great team. I am not sure the Bucs or Chargers are going to be very good. I would even suspect that by the end of the year, the Bucs might be one of the worst teams in the leagie.
Lots of reasons why teams under perform(or over perform) in a season. Some is luck. Don't believe it? Giants should have had(could have had) 3 INTs the other night. One actually bounced out of the hands into a WRs hands, think it was 3rd and long. So no turnover and no punt....
Injuries - huge factor - maybe the biggest.
I am not sure if it is silly or not. How many 0-3 teams have ever made the playoffs. I think it is like 2 or 3. That kind of speaks to the hole the Vikings are in. The Giants are looking at 1-5 or 2-4 in the face. Is it set in stone? Of course not, but they have given us no reason to think this is going to turn around. The tackling is just the worst I have ever seen.
Quote:
feels a little like torturing the numbers. I mean, they've only played one "close game" by scoring metrics. And they won that one. Despite it actually not being a close game for much of the contest.
I am not sure if it is silly or not. How many 0-3 teams have ever made the playoffs. I think it is like 2 or 3. That kind of speaks to the hole the Vikings are in. The Giants are looking at 1-5 or 2-4 in the face. Is it set in stone? Of course not, but they have given us no reason to think this is going to turn around. The tackling is just the worst I have ever seen.
I was thinking about this recently, I think the 0-3 data is set to improve: 1. An additional game makes each game ever so slightly less important. 2. The addition of a third wild card means a lesser team gets in.
I can see the Vikings doing it--the NFC sucks.
Quote:
and lost all 3 games by 1 score.
a feature of year 2 regression is almost always that there's a tougher schedule and less margin for error.
Philly is obviously a great team. I am not sure the Bucs or Chargers are going to be very good. I would even suspect that by the end of the year, the Bucs might be one of the worst teams in the leagie.
losing to the bucs at home by 3 is a bad loss. losing to chargers/herbert isnt though, especially if the vikings cant protect cousins.
i dont know what dalvin cook has left post-shoulder surgery so it may not have mattered if they kept him but he was a 1200 yard/10 td back for them that they didnt replace.
they also lost zadarius smith who was 1 of the few good players they had on an otherwise poor defense.
2022 - Four teams made the playoffs last season after a 1-2 start (Chargers, Seahawks, Bengals, 49ers). Two teams made the playoffs after a 2-3 start (Seahawks, Bengals).
2021 - Steelers, Pats and Eagles started 1-3. FIVE TEAMS started 2-3 (Steelers, Pats, Eagles, Chiefs, 49ers). The Pats and 49ers started 2-4. The Eagles started 2-5.
2020 - Washington started 1-5
Lots of reasons why teams under perform(or over perform) in a season. Some is luck. Don't believe it? Giants should have had(could have had) 3 INTs the other night. One actually bounced out of the hands into a WRs hands, think it was 3rd and long. So no turnover and no punt....
Injuries - huge factor - maybe the biggest.
Well that's exactly it. In the close games you win, you usually get a lucky break or two. In the ones you don't, you don't. So banking on being able to repeat one seasons success in close games is basically a coin flip.
The data backs it up that record in one score games is one of the biggest swings on a season by season basis.
So the only way to outperform 'bad luck' is to try and beat teams by double digits because you can absorb bad luck and and still win. That's why this offense needs to score 30+/game.
Quote:
to see that the Giants were not going to improve on last year's record. It was easy to see first-hand how they overachieved last year based on a lot of lucky breaks and an easy schedule.
Funny how you say this yet you go in the season prediction thread and most fans predicted above the Vegas win prediction total.
Very few here actually knew what you are now suggesting was obvious?
I have consistently predicted 8-9 at best (9 wins if they could somehow steal one from Dallas or Philly) long before the season prediction thread, but with some improvement in play. I'm still sticking with that.
The O line situation against San Fran made that game unwinnable. It was possibly the least-experienced O line to ever play an NFL game (well, at least since day one of the league a hundred years ago anyway). A backup guard playing LT? A third stringer at guard? Another guard who had played one full game after missing most of both training camps (maybe 10 preseason snaps in 2 years)? Neal was the most experienced member of the line against San Fran. The 49ers knew they could ignore the run. That's why the Giants couldn't use Hyatt deep.
You saw what having a disaster of an O line can do to a good offense Sunday with Dallas and Arizona.
I never thought we could beat Dallas, but gifting them early scores on a blocked field goal and pick six made that game a disaster early and let Dallas ignore the run and just try to crush Jones, with Thomas struggling with an injury. Again, that's why the Giants never had a chance to throw deep. We'll never know what the score would have been if the kick wasn't blocked, and Barkley hangs onto the ball. A win? No. But likely not the disaster we saw.
I don't need analytics to tell me they overachieved last year because of luck and a soft schedule, and weren't as good as the results. Remember all the second half comebacks? Remember two deflected Rodgers' passes on the last two plays of the game? Remember that less than a yard in Jacksonville was the difference between making and missing the playoffs?
And I don't need analytics to tell me this extremely young team is not as bad as they have looked in the first three games this year. Three games that made up a brutal stretch that would have been incredibly difficult for most NFL teams. Three games that are part of one of the worst 6-game starts to a schedule ever in the NFL.
Quote:
data? What is their bias? What data points are they using?
Lots of reasons why teams under perform(or over perform) in a season. Some is luck. Don't believe it? Giants should have had(could have had) 3 INTs the other night. One actually bounced out of the hands into a WRs hands, think it was 3rd and long. So no turnover and no punt....
Injuries - huge factor - maybe the biggest.
Well that's exactly it. In the close games you win, you usually get a lucky break or two. In the ones you don't, you don't. So banking on being able to repeat one seasons success in close games is basically a coin flip.
The data backs it up that record in one score games is one of the biggest swings on a season by season basis.
So the only way to outperform 'bad luck' is to try and beat teams by double digits because you can absorb bad luck and and still win. That's why this offense needs to score 30+/game.
So you are saying being lucky to win 1 score games is a scientific data point? There are few factors in those wins that may be more than luck, i.e., tough defense(both for and against), weather conditions, in game injuries. Maybe two good offenses going back and forth?
Yes, the Vikings winning 13 one score games is a bit of a fluke. But how many of their games were high scoring?
What wins most games is good coaching with superior talented players at vital positions.
Quote:
on December 1.
I get it, but analytics often gets poo-pooed. I am just saying that only a fool does not pay attention to that stuff and if you are statistically or analytically illiterate maybe it is time to pay attention because they have an uncanny ability to be right more often than not.
This didn't even require a particularly sophisticated analysis. If a team has a winning record but a negative point differential, there's a very good chance that their W/L record may be inflated.
That's not always the way that a team arrives at a winning record with a negative point differential, but those outliers don't inform the most likely scenarios, which is that a team fitting those conditions may be worse than their prior year record suggests.
They are 3 games in to the season. They have already played two teams who are arguably in the top 5 in the league. They have another game coming up against another top 5 team (Miami) and another who aint far behind (Buffalo).
Heres the news: The Giants aint nowhere close to being a top 5 team. So they are probably gonna get our butts kicked by those teams as well. Dont need analytics for that either.
They are 3 games in to the season. They have already played two teams who are arguably in the top 5 in the league. They have another game coming up against another top 5 team (Miami) and another who aint far behind (Buffalo).
Heres the news: The Giants aint nowhere close to being a top 5 team. So they are probably gonna get our butts kicked by those teams as well. Dont need analytics for that either.
Well, it may be fair to say that you would not need analytics to say the Giants would lose those games. Analytics, though, would make the results of the games outscored 70-12 less surprising than most on here thought.
Quote:
In comment 16221699 k2tampa said:
Quote:
to see that the Giants were not going to improve on last year's record. It was easy to see first-hand how they overachieved last year based on a lot of lucky breaks and an easy schedule.
Funny how you say this yet you go in the season prediction thread and most fans predicted above the Vegas win prediction total.
Very few here actually knew what you are now suggesting was obvious?
I have consistently predicted 8-9 at best (9 wins if they could somehow steal one from Dallas or Philly) long before the season prediction thread, but with some improvement in play. I'm still sticking with that.
The O line situation against San Fran made that game unwinnable. It was possibly the least-experienced O line to ever play an NFL game (well, at least since day one of the league a hundred years ago anyway). A backup guard playing LT? A third stringer at guard? Another guard who had played one full game after missing most of both training camps (maybe 10 preseason snaps in 2 years)? Neal was the most experienced member of the line against San Fran. The 49ers knew they could ignore the run. That's why the Giants couldn't use Hyatt deep.
You saw what having a disaster of an O line can do to a good offense Sunday with Dallas and Arizona.
I never thought we could beat Dallas, but gifting them early scores on a blocked field goal and pick six made that game a disaster early and let Dallas ignore the run and just try to crush Jones, with Thomas struggling with an injury. Again, that's why the Giants never had a chance to throw deep. We'll never know what the score would have been if the kick wasn't blocked, and Barkley hangs onto the ball. A win? No. But likely not the disaster we saw.
I don't need analytics to tell me they overachieved last year because of luck and a soft schedule, and weren't as good as the results. Remember all the second half comebacks? Remember two deflected Rodgers' passes on the last two plays of the game? Remember that less than a yard in Jacksonville was the difference between making and missing the playoffs?
And I don't need analytics to tell me this extremely young team is not as bad as they have looked in the first three games this year. Three games that made up a brutal stretch that would have been incredibly difficult for most NFL teams. Three games that are part of one of the worst 6-game starts to a schedule ever in the NFL.
It seems like you do "need" analytics that is a whole lot of your own personal opinions you are stating as if they are facts.
The people most threatened by analytics are often those who struggle to make convince people of ideas not supported by conventional wisdom or struggle in general to have their own ideas.
Analytics in a broad form is the business of using data to make points or support your points. The people most bothered by them seem to be those that preferred a time when you could just make a bunch of claims like you just did without "analytics" getting in the way of their personal opinions.
For example conventional wisdom here seems to be that Jones has the impossible task of "dealing with our OL." And completely ignore the fact that Jones tendency back through college to hold the ball too long and bouts of terrible decision making / bad throws / poor pocket presence make him easier to defend and put more pressure on the players surrounding him.
Now I can make that argument and say neither side can really prove who is more at fault with data. The it isn't Jones fault side seem to want to declare victory for their side without good supporting data.
Do you have any supporting evidence like this? - ( New Window )
Yes the 70-12 we were outscored by contending teams really is indicative of a team that is one game off the pace.
i get the gist but this is a statistically and analytically illiterate comment lol.
Also, close victories aren't created equal. If your offense isn't great, you can only win by so much. When the Ravens last won the SB I believe 2/3s of their wins were one score.
Not too hard to assume a regression...but games are played on the field not on a laptop.
Not too hard to assume a regression...but games are played on the field not on a laptop.
Oh, he's producing tears alright.
Quote:
In comment 16221710 NoGainDayne said:
Quote:
In comment 16221699 k2tampa said:
Quote:
to see that the Giants were not going to improve on last year's record. It was easy to see first-hand how they overachieved last year based on a lot of lucky breaks and an easy schedule.
Funny how you say this yet you go in the season prediction thread and most fans predicted above the Vegas win prediction total.
Very few here actually knew what you are now suggesting was obvious?
It seems like you do "need" analytics that is a whole lot of your own personal opinions you are stating as if they are facts.
The people most threatened by analytics are often those who struggle to make convince people of ideas not supported by conventional wisdom or struggle in general to have their own ideas.
Analytics in a broad form is the business of using data to make points or support your points. The people most bothered by them seem to be those that preferred a time when you could just make a bunch of claims like you just did without "analytics" getting in the way of their personal opinions.
For example conventional wisdom here seems to be that Jones has the impossible task of "dealing with our OL." And completely ignore the fact that Jones tendency back through college to hold the ball too long and bouts of terrible decision making / bad throws / poor pocket presence make him easier to defend and put more pressure on the players surrounding him.
Now I can make that argument and say neither side can really prove who is more at fault with data. The it isn't Jones fault side seem to want to declare victory for their side without good supporting data. Do you have any supporting evidence like this? - ( New Window )
The people who rely on analytics believe that numbers are the key to everything. But you can get four or five outcomes using the same set of stats.
The Yankees reliance on the three outcome approach is great in the regular season against bad teams. How does it do against the sports' best teams in the playoffs.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I stated what I see with my own eyes. Where, by the way, did I make any excuses for Jones? But as for your so called evidence in the link. 'Pocket time.' Here's the flaw. What if one team's plays are designed to take 2.2 seconds and the QB has 2.3 seconds on every play. His job is easy. But the second team's plays are designed to take 2.6 seconds but the rush gets there in 2.4. See the problem? Yet people like you only look at the time.
Numbers tell a story when you use then in the right context. Pocket time only works as a metric if each team runs the same offensive plays against the same defensive sets. Yet the metric people think it is rock solid evidence.
I'm not some analytics nerd. I've been trained by some of the best in both quantitative and qualitative analysis. I lean more towards numbers here because as angry as numbers make people at least I can lean on them during the "agenda" witch hunts. Mostly consisting of me saying things Giants fans would prefer not to hear because it affects their delicate optimistic sensibilities.
I'm not sure I'll bother with much qualitative analysis here anymore, just the existing ones that people want to bring up an inordinate number of times. Honestly, it would be a waste of my time. I only talk about numbers that connect to theories that make logical sense. Honestly the Yankees and their launch angle idiocy and lack of any comprehension of the scientific method is not the brush to paint anyone that uses numbers to support their arguments with.
There are a ton of examples of not using any analytics, but just spouting off really terrible opinions.
There are a ton of examples of not using any analytics, but just spouting off really terrible opinions.
Exactly.
I'm sure you're very smart, but you come across as someone pushing an agenda. Specifically, you seem like you are trying to convince BBIers to let you invest their money. Like you are the guy in the bad commercial, not DJ.
Not too hard to assume a regression...but games are played on the field not on a laptop.
I didn't see anything especially positive on the Bears other than fantasy football rags hyping up Fields as a FANTASY FOOTBALL QB.
I may have missed all the analytics hype on the Bears though - could you share any of those articles?
The very best example of someone not using any analytics but just spouting off really terrible opinions is, of course, your beloved hero:
Quote:
In comment 16221748 section125 said:
Quote:
data? What is their bias? What data points are they using?
Lots of reasons why teams under perform(or over perform) in a season. Some is luck. Don't believe it? Giants should have had(could have had) 3 INTs the other night. One actually bounced out of the hands into a WRs hands, think it was 3rd and long. So no turnover and no punt....
Injuries - huge factor - maybe the biggest.
Well that's exactly it. In the close games you win, you usually get a lucky break or two. In the ones you don't, you don't. So banking on being able to repeat one seasons success in close games is basically a coin flip.
The data backs it up that record in one score games is one of the biggest swings on a season by season basis.
So the only way to outperform 'bad luck' is to try and beat teams by double digits because you can absorb bad luck and and still win. That's why this offense needs to score 30+/game.
So you are saying being lucky to win 1 score games is a scientific data point? There are few factors in those wins that may be more than luck, i.e., tough defense(both for and against), weather conditions, in game injuries. Maybe two good offenses going back and forth?
Yes, the Vikings winning 13 one score games is a bit of a fluke. But how many of their games were high scoring?
What wins most games is good coaching with superior talented players at vital positions.
Statistically, a one score game is a coin flip. That is, over a substantial number of games all teams eventually even out to a 50/50 win loss rate in one score games. This makes intuitive sense -- if you are evenly matched against another team (demonstrated by playing them close) then you have an equal chance of winning or losing. If the things you mentioned didn't equal out, you wouldn't be winning or losing by one score.
Since winning a one score game is basically a coin flip, winning 13 of them in one season is improbable. Which means that the Vikings are unlikely to repeat their record in one score games. That would mean a worse record, if they play the same number of close games.
Their record wasn’t as crazy as Minnesota but they played 13 one score games last year and went 8-4-1, which is two games better than you’d expect. Even losing one of these would have kept them out of the playoffs obviously.
Also, margin of victory has no bearing other than better is more. But it factors heavily into strategy late in one score games. It's self reinforcing.
And...a coin flip? Besides being silly, quantitatively, money lines would then be even on any one score spread.
Not sure why the number of one score games changes the odds of winning, which remain 50/50. The really good teams at the top tend to win by more than one score and the really bad teams at the bottom tend to lose by more then one score but everyone else plays a lot of close games. And these will even out given enough games.