Something we all know

[rayzor]

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.

[The_Mango55]

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.

[The_Mango55]

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.

[Marguide]

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)

Coaches don't need to hire data analysts. They already have them on staff, typically called quality control coaches, or assistants, etc. Coaches have stats on just about everything you could think of at their fingertips throughout the season.

[panthers55]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda............ Great speculation that could be true or not. Any panther fan hopes they are a talented team that just couldn't fin a way to win until recently. Until then though, they are a team playing better but the were so bad early that they have no chance for the playoffs or a winning season this year. Next year we will see. If we went off last year'stats you would have predicted success this year and we see how that worked out.

The point differential stat is only predictive if you compare them on a weekly basis not a cumulative average. Compared in isolation after each game, there is a 100% correlation between winning and losing. Like most other stats, once you start diluting it over time, it becomes less meaningful..

[The_Mango55]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda............

I don't even know who you are arguing with when you say this. I'm saying that we are a team that had the chance to win many early games but couldn't do it. Do you disagree with me or not?

The point differential stat is only predictive if you compare them on a weekly basis not a cumulative average. Compared in isolation after each game, there is a 100% correlation between winning and losing. Like most other stats, once you start diluting it over time, it becomes less meaningful..

The point differential stat you used in your previous post was a cumulative average, unless somehow the Lions scored 23.6 points one week.

Point differential on a game to game basis is useless as a predictor because it only applies to that game. It says nothing about the team other than how they performed in a single game.

[Fox007]

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

I never said stats are for losers...

It is widely believe that the "best" team doesn't always win the championship in their respective sport, but this idea is based off stats. The only thing that matters is who won...