Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Something we all know


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#31 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,644 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:50 AM

teams that can win find a way to do it.

this team cant do it until the end of the season when all they are playing for is "pride" and a rallying for the coach.

this is a talented losing team. that's this teams identity.

#32 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,638 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:50 AM

As you refuse the consider the arguments people put here let me give it to you in a simple way:

Denver is 11-3, now Manning and Von Miller get hurt in practice and placed on IR. With your, and Maddens, logic they are still just as good as they are still a 11-3 team.

The world is never black and white, regardless of what John Madden says.


I consider other arguments but most of the time people are arguing different issues. For example your example is that if a few stars get hurt then the team is not as good as they were when they went 11-3. If that is the case then they will lose their next 2 games and not make the playoffs, So they finish 11-5. Their record reflected that they were very good through most of the season and not very good at the end. The wins and losses and when they got them did reflect the strength of the team through the year.

If a team makes it into the playoffs at 10-6 and then wins the Superbowl they end up either 13-6 or 14-6 depending on whether they were a wildcard or not. Their record reflects they were decent through the year and peaked at the end which is what you want. Because they won in the playoffs they were a better team than the 11-5 team who caved at the end. So if you look at the overall record of wins and losses and how far they went based on wins and losses irregardless of the stats you get a clear idea of how good they were. If they won just one playoff game and then lost the next, they would end up 11-7. If you argue that the 11-5 team is better than the 11-7 who won a playoff game simple because of overall record then who is being black and white. I said wins and losses tell the tale. I didn't say that overall number was the only factor simply that if you are what your record reflects which includes overall record, how you started and finished, whether you made the playoff or not, etc. That is still part of the record and the wins and losses.

What you and others seem to get hung up on is whether a team with a good record will beat a team with a worse record on any given Sunday and the answer is usually but not always. Plus saying that a 1-14 should lose to a 3-12 team on the last game of the year just because of the record ignores that they both suck. A difference of 1 or 2 games doesn't really matter but a difference of 6 or 7 usually does. Will that predict who wins? Of course not, but you are again comparing apples to oranges.

When you look at how the Panthers did in 1996 what do you look at??? Individual stats or their overall record and the fact they went to the Championship Game and lost to Green Bay. That is wins and losses and record.

Nitpick all you want, I don't care but the saying that stats are for losers came about for a reason.

#33 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,638 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:56 AM

teams that can win find a way to do it.

this team cant do it until the end of the season when all they are playing for is "pride" and a rallying for the coach.

this is a talented losing team. that's this teams identity.


And that is the point. You can say that we should have won more based on talent but the fact we didn't, which is reflected in our record. We underachieved which makes us a losing team. If someone wants to say we sucked early but found our groove late then that is reflected in our overall record as well as an accounting of when we won or lost.

Until we can win early and often and make the playoffs we are not a good team.

#34 The_Mango55

The_Mango55

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:11 AM

The reason the saying "stats are for losers" came about is because some people are too dumb or shortsighted to understand or appreciate stats.

"Stats are for losers" is what people were telling Nate Silver before his stats picked every single state right.

Nobody here is arguing that they would rather be really high in advanced stats than to have a bunch of wins, wins are ultimately the most important thing.

But the fact is that often stats are better than past wins at predicting future wins, and occasionally are are better at predicting which team is better (not who had the better season). Stats and wins generally correlate pretty strongly though.

#35 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,644 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:29 AM

sounds like a whole lot of spinning and justifying to me.

#36 The_Mango55

The_Mango55

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:57 PM

Sounds like you don't have an answer fo the argument so you resort to cliche and one liners to me.

#37 Fox007

Fox007

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,281 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:28 PM

But the fact is that often stats are better than past wins at predicting future wins, and occasionally are are better at predicting which team is better (not who had the better season). Stats and wins generally correlate pretty strongly though.



Isn't who had the better season all that matters?
What is the goal of most pro athletes?


Again, W-L column is all that matters in pro sports, you don't get championships by playing the "we are better than you even though we have a worse record" game.

You play the games you play and try to make it to the end as the champion. The rest is just for discussion.
I doubt the Giants care if you told them the Patriots were the better team last year. Probably would respond with a "yea uh huh...and?" then go shine their hardware.

#38 The_Mango55

The_Mango55

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:15 PM

Isn't who had the better season all that matters?
What is the goal of most pro athletes?


When you get right down to it, isn't passing on your genes before you die all that really matters?


Again, W-L column is all that matters in pro sports, you don't get championships by playing the "we are better than you even though we have a worse record" game.


I'm not playing "that game" I'm just saying that there are better stats than W-L to tell you how good your team is and what your team does well and poorly, and how you might expect to do in the future. And yes, that is important when building a team to know how good your team is rather than just how good your season was.

You play the games you play and try to make it to the end as the champion. The rest is just for discussion.


What the hell do you think this forum is all about?

I mean what do you want? "well we lost this week, so fire everyone"

I doubt the Giants care if you told them the Patriots were the better team last year. Probably would respond with a "yea uh huh...and?" then go shine their hardware.


It's like some people don't even read the posts they are replying to.

Nobody here is arguing that they would rather be really high in advanced stats than to have a bunch of wins, wins are ultimately the most important thing.



#39 ThunderKatt

ThunderKatt

    Hello to All my Haters

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts
  • LocationIn yo moma

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

Our season proves that the NFC is stronger than the AFC and Chud running an AFC offense shows that they came to a conference thinking that they could own. Take Nnamdi for example was a beast in Oakland and over here is getting owned. Just to think about.

#40 Fox007

Fox007

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,281 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:02 PM

When you get right down to it, isn't passing on your genes before you die all that really matters?


No, not everyone has kids.

I'm not playing "that game" I'm just saying that there are better stats than W-L to tell you how good your team is and what your team does well and poorly, and how you might expect to do in the future. And yes, that is important when building a team to know how good your team is rather than just how good your season was.


Once again, you can say your team is whatever you feel like saying it is based on any number of things, and the only important factor for the current season is....you guessed it.

You act like coaches hire data analysts to come in and tell them poo they already know...
(most coaches already know where their team is weak and don't need any complex statistics to come to their conclusions)

Hint: Real players and coaches look at tape more than numbers.

What the hell do you think this forum is all about?


We are discussing it... we have 0 problem telling you your stats don't matter.

I mean what do you want? "well we lost this week, so fire everyone"


Huh?

#41 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,638 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

The reason the saying "stats are for losers" came about is because some people are too dumb or shortsighted to understand or appreciate stats.

"Stats are for losers" is what people were telling Nate Silver before his stats picked every single state right.

Nobody here is arguing that they would rather be really high in advanced stats than to have a bunch of wins, wins are ultimately the most important thing.

But the fact is that often stats are better than past wins at predicting future wins, and occasionally are are better at predicting which team is better (not who had the better season). Stats and wins generally correlate pretty strongly though.


No it came about because the team that wins says look at the score and the team that loses makes up excuses by saying but we beat you in total yards or we would have outscored you if the referee didn't call that big run back and so on. What you stat mongers want to do is use numbers to justify your position. Here is another saying for you. Stats can prove any point you want to make. You just have to find the right stat.

As for stats and wins correlating, depends on the stats. Detroit has the number 2 offense and the number 12 defense. Their record is 4-10 which is at the bottom of the league. Great correlation there. Now if you take my favorite stats related to wins and losses which is points for versus points against you get 14th in points for (23.6) and 28th in points against (28.1) and you get a great correlation.
That is all that matters really.

#42 Thorrez

Thorrez

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:56 PM

I consider other arguments but most of the time people are arguing different issues. For example your example is that if a few stars get hurt then the team is not as good as they were when they went 11-3. If that is the case then they will lose their next 2 games and not make the playoffs, So they finish 11-5. Their record reflected that they were very good through most of the season and not very good at the end. The wins and losses and when they got them did reflect the strength of the team through the year.

If a team makes it into the playoffs at 10-6 and then wins the Superbowl they end up either 13-6 or 14-6 depending on whether they were a wildcard or not. Their record reflects they were decent through the year and peaked at the end which is what you want. Because they won in the playoffs they were a better team than the 11-5 team who caved at the end. So if you look at the overall record of wins and losses and how far they went based on wins and losses irregardless of the stats you get a clear idea of how good they were. If they won just one playoff game and then lost the next, they would end up 11-7. If you argue that the 11-5 team is better than the 11-7 who won a playoff game simple because of overall record then who is being black and white. I said wins and losses tell the tale. I didn't say that overall number was the only factor simply that if you are what your record reflects which includes overall record, how you started and finished, whether you made the playoff or not, etc. That is still part of the record and the wins and losses.

What you and others seem to get hung up on is whether a team with a good record will beat a team with a worse record on any given Sunday and the answer is usually but not always. Plus saying that a 1-14 should lose to a 3-12 team on the last game of the year just because of the record ignores that they both suck. A difference of 1 or 2 games doesn't really matter but a difference of 6 or 7 usually does. Will that predict who wins? Of course not, but you are again comparing apples to oranges.

When you look at how the Panthers did in 1996 what do you look at??? Individual stats or their overall record and the fact they went to the Championship Game and lost to Green Bay. That is wins and losses and record.

Nitpick all you want, I don't care but the saying that stats are for losers came about for a reason.


My take from all that text is that we agree with each other?

Granted I have had one to many beers so I could be wrong.

#43 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,644 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:43 PM

Sounds like you don't have an answer fo the argument so you resort to cliche and one liners to me.

been answered.

teams that can win find a way to do it.

teams that are good at losing find a way to do it.

the talent is there. the winning isn't. talent means nothing without wins.

#44 The_Mango55

The_Mango55

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:34 PM

No, not everyone has kids.


Then you have failed from a pure biological perspective. Note that I don't actually believe this but breaking down how good a team is based on whether they win or lose is pretty much the same thing. Additionally, you asked what professional athletes play for. I assume you were asking a rhetorical question with the 'answer' being wins, but the answer is actually money.



Once again, you can say your team is whatever you feel like saying it is based on any number of things, and the only important factor for the current season is....you guessed it.


Well no, that's not the only important factor for the current season for all teams. There are the playoffs as well. And the teams that are better in those other stats are more likely to win than the ones that are poor in the other stats, even if they have the same record.

You act like coaches hire data analysts to come in and tell them poo they already know...
(most coaches already know where their team is weak and don't need any complex statistics to come to their conclusions)

Hint: Real players and coaches look at tape more than numbers.


And when they watch and break down film and present them to their players in the film sessions they are creating STATS! For example if they watch film and notice that player X bites on a play action Y% of the time. Granted these stats are specific to single teams and single matchups created to help exploit weaknesses, whereas the advanced stats mentioned are more concerned with prediction and general analysis. But the fact remains that they are both the same basic principle.


Huh?


That's the ultimate end result when you toss out all stats and analysis and take an "only wins and losses matter" approach. When you do that then any loss is the worst thing that can happen to a team, no loss is worse than any other, and you might as well clean house because there is nothing that went right in that game since you got the L. When you win you should give everyone a contract extension immediately because there is literally nothing that can possibly be improved upon, we won and no win is better than any other.

Before you accuse me of being hyperbolic, remember that you said "Stats are for losers" just a few posts ago.

#45 The_Mango55

The_Mango55

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,237 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:12 PM

No it came about because the team that wins says look at the score and the team that loses makes up excuses by saying but we beat you in total yards or we would have outscored you if the referee didn't call that big run back and so on. What you stat mongers want to do is use numbers to justify your position. Here is another saying for you. Stats can prove any point you want to make. You just have to find the right stat.

As for stats and wins correlating, depends on the stats. Detroit has the number 2 offense and the number 12 defense. Their record is 4-10 which is at the bottom of the league. Great correlation there. Now if you take my favorite stats related to wins and losses which is points for versus points against you get 14th in points for (23.6) and 28th in points against (28.1) and you get a great correlation.
That is all that matters really.


I think you are misunderstanding people's intentions here. I don't believe anyone here is saying "Hey maybe we missed the playoffs but at least we are better than the Colts!"

Basically what these stats are saying that we could have been a winning team that choked away wins we could and should have had. Does that make me feel better? Well it makes me feel better about the future, but it actually makes me feel WORSE about the current season.

And yes, point differential is a pretty good stat. I don't like it as much as some of the more advanced stats but you're right it's better than total yardage, and I never argued it wasn't. The Panthers are -1.6 in point differential per game and are 5-9. The Indianapolis Colts have a -3.5 average point differential and and 9-5.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com