Something we all know

[Anybodyhome]

Thread re-title: "How to convince yourself the Panthers are a playoff-caliber team at 5-9."

Here's my idea that will revolutionize the NFL: Tear down all the scoreboards across the country and after every game we'll let the fans cast their ballot for whichever team they think played better as they leave the stadium... not based on score, mind you, because we'll stop keeping score.

Apparently the score only determining the outcome of the game and therefore deciding who the better team was during a 4-hour stretch is no longer a valid indication of a good team. Please..... the Panthers are a below average team (which their record indicates) and they have been for the last 4 seasons... deal with it.

This post filled with complete and utter sarcasm only because it's too early in the morning to start digging my eyeballs out with a wooden spoon after reading some of this tripe.

[jarhead]

First of all you want their starters not castoffs. Secondly Philly has demonstrated that some great individual players don't guarantee that you will play well as a team or win. But if Rivera is still here, how well he can mold the players in a cohesive unit that has good chemistry and plays well together will determine how long he stays here. If isn't who has the best individual players but who plays best as a team. A great team is when the overall success of the team is better than would be predicted based on the sum of the individual parts.

Well said! We have a franchise qb so lets feed the fire is the only thing I would suggest.

[rayzor]

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.

[panthers55]

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.

[panthers55]

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.

[The_Mango55]

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.

[rayzor]

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

[The_Mango55]

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

[Fox007]

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.

[The_Mango55]

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.

[ThunderKatt]

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.

[Fox007]

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?

[panthers55]

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.

[Thorrez]

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.