A "stat" I want to ignore / continuing to break trends

[Carolina Cajun]

Random stats I just ran through, Teams that have finished +3 games better than their opponents in the regular season during the 16 game era are 6-3 in the super bowl.  The only problem is that those 2 of those 3 losses have come in the last decade, but coincidentally both came from the same matchup in the super bowl (Giants vs Patriots), the other one was the 01 Patriots who shut down the GSoT.  1 last good thing to consider, no team that has gone 15-1 in the regular season has lost in the super bowl, the 2 teams to have made it with that record (84 9ers, and 85 Bears) both won their super bowls quite decisively.

[KB_fan]

2 hours ago, toldozer said:

17-1 teams are 2-0 in the super bowl, Ron Rivera is undefeated as a man entering a super bowl with 1 loss.  Cam is undefeated as a starting qb with a major championship on the line.

Yes.  THESE stats DO mean something.  Not as predictors, but because our coach and QB know what this pressure is like.  They know how to win when it matters.

 

2 hours ago, wud35 said:

Just remember. Stats are pretty and fun to play with but they have never won a game. 

Exactly!  Don't worry, I never forget this.  I don't rely on stats as predictors, just enjoy the added understanding of the game they give.

Agree with all those who have focused on the differences between Cam and the other QBs who scored 50 TDs.  Our offense is dangerous in both running & passing.  And yes, we also have a dominant defense.

I'm not worried.  Of course Denver's D is good.  I'm not overlooking them.  But I have tons of reasons to believe we SHOULD and WILL win..

[wud35]

5 minutes ago, KB_fan said:

Yes.  THESE stats DO mean something.  Not as predictors, but because our coach and QB know what this pressure is like.  They know how to win when it matters.

 

Exactly!  Don't worry, I never forget this.  I don't rely on stats as predictors, just enjoy the added understanding of the game they give.

Agree with all those who have focused on the differences between Cam and the other QBs who scored 50 TDs.  Our offense is dangerous in both running & passing.  And yes, we also have a dominant defense.

I'm not worried.  Of course Denver's D is good.  I'm not overlooking them.  But I have tons of reasons to believe we SHOULD and WILL win..

On a side note. I do appreciate and enjoy all the hard work you do researching and compiling you numbers and stats. 

[KB_fan]

Just now, wud35 said:

On a side note. I do appreciate and enjoy all the hard work you do researching and compiling you numbers and stats. 

Thanks.

I'm sitting here with my gamebook data spreadsheet open, finally starting to put in the data from our playoff wins...  LOL.  My travel in the last 2 weeks of January made it impossible to get to sooner.

Depending on how far I get with the data entry, I may do a quick post about any interesting trends or observations I see.  But that would likely be tomorrow morning....

 

[CPantherKing]

3 hours ago, KB_fan said:

UGH.  Saw this posted at ESPN by David Newton..  A "stat" I want to ignore.

But of course, it's not a meaningful "stat" - just a trend.  It's past history.  Other teams.  So, I'm choosing to believe this means nothing.

David Newton needs to brush up on his probabilistic and bayesian analytics.

I am sure he is just pushing out an article. Any serious in depth analysis would point to the correlation of patterns or lack thereof. His article does not hold any truth to the way he frames his use of analytics.

2 hours ago, wud35 said:

Just remember. Stats are pretty and fun to play with but they have never won a game. 

Stats always win a game. The combination and patterns of the stats in question is the key. Also, finding the limits of any action to reduce variables will detail the efficacy of an analytical model.

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

I suspect those teams were loaded on the offensive side of the ball but didn't have great defenses. How many of those teams had top five offenses and defenses. I doubt any

Two of those QBs lacked a defense, and all 3 lacked a running game. Dan Marino had 9 attempts for 25 yards. Peyton Manning had 14 attempts for 27 yards. Tom Brady had 16 attempts for 45 yards.

If you told me Cam Newton would have a running game that produced less than 50 yards while only running the ball on less than 25% of their plays, then I would also believe the Panthers would lose the game.

 

[wud35]

8 minutes ago, CPantherKing said:

David Newton needs to brush up on his probabilistic and bayesian analytics.

I am sure he is just pushing out an article. Any serious in depth analysis would point to the correlation of patterns or lack thereof. His article does not hold any truth to the way he frames his use of analytics.

Stats always win a game. The combination and patterns of the stats in question is the key. Also, finding the limits of any action to reduce variables will detail the efficacy of an analytical model.

Two of those QBs lacked a defense, and all 3 lacked a running game. Dan Marino had 9 attempts for 25 yards. Peyton Manning had 14 attempts for 27 yards. Tom Brady had 16 attempts for 45 yards.

If you told me Cam Newton would have a running game that produced less than 50 yards while only running the ball on less than 25% of their plays, then I would also believe the Panthers would lose the game.

 

 

[wud35]

You can push numbers all you want but stats only show history and can be used to show a probably of a future. Only players and plays win games. 

[tondi]

The main thing that proves is that even historically great passing teams who can't run the ball can struggle when facing a good team.

[thefuzz]

6 minutes ago, tondi said:

The main thing that proves is that even historically great passing teams who can't run the ball can struggle when facing a good team.

This is true, especially in the playoffs....when refs bite the whistle a bit, and teams come at you a little harder.

Passing gets you in the playoffs, running and defense wins you a championship.

We pass, and run better than the Broncos, and we are only slightly worse than them on defense.  However, we produce turnovers, and score off of them...that is more important than yards per game, or points per game, if it's close.