 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Am I a moron for betting the Dolphins today?
Jughead
Am I a moron for betting the Dolphins today?
January 04, 2009 at 08:01PM View BBCode
I had breakfast with a friend this morning, and the winner doesn't have to pay. He was convinced the Ravens were going to win, and I just can't believe it. How did the Dolphins make the playoffs?
happy
the ravens are significantly better. id say their odds of winning were 75% or higher. and now they are 99.99%.
January 04, 2009 at 08:15PM View BBCode
obnoxiously easy schedule (as in, one of the easiest in the history of the NFL) coupled with high luck in close games.the ravens are significantly better. id say their odds of winning were 75% or higher. and now they are 99.99%.
happy
January 04, 2009 at 08:19PM View BBCode
to answer your question: yes unless you took odds or some sort of spread.
sycophantman
January 05, 2009 at 01:34PM View BBCode
Schedule strength is a terribly overrated stat. If you look at it objectively, it really doesn't tell you anything at all about the teams involved.
sycophantman
You're wrong, of course, but this can be fun anyways. You want to go ahead and try and prove where strength of schedule explains anything at all? I'm interested how you can spin this one, so please try. Do you have some compelling evidence to support your claim?
January 06, 2009 at 01:23AM View BBCode
3 words say so very much, don't they?You're wrong, of course, but this can be fun anyways. You want to go ahead and try and prove where strength of schedule explains anything at all? I'm interested how you can spin this one, so please try. Do you have some compelling evidence to support your claim?
happy
however, im about to blow your mind, because despite the inherent stupidity of your argument, i can still beat it.
In the NFL, on average an easier schedule means that your team is better (because the fact that you are unable to play yourself makes it less likely that the lions have an easy schedule than the titans or whatever). Thus being given strength of schedule and nothing else will still be enough to make an educated guess on quality of teams that is at least slightly better than a random guess. (and if you are given the strength of schedule of all 32 teams, you would most likely be able to recreate the original listing of teams from simple reverse engineering).
i win. ^_^
January 06, 2009 at 01:52AM View BBCode
obviously you were making a dumb semantics argument by saying that "on its own" strength of schedule tells nothing. Using the same logic you used to come to that conclusion, you could say that about any individual stat. i mean, point differential doesnt say much without strength of schedule, nor does wins or yards or anything else.however, im about to blow your mind, because despite the inherent stupidity of your argument, i can still beat it.
In the NFL, on average an easier schedule means that your team is better (because the fact that you are unable to play yourself makes it less likely that the lions have an easy schedule than the titans or whatever). Thus being given strength of schedule and nothing else will still be enough to make an educated guess on quality of teams that is at least slightly better than a random guess. (and if you are given the strength of schedule of all 32 teams, you would most likely be able to recreate the original listing of teams from simple reverse engineering).
i win. ^_^
sycophantman
January 06, 2009 at 01:56AM View BBCode
Oh, I get it, you're just being obtuse, mostly to get a laugh for yourself I suppose. You might think it's endearing, but it isn't. In fact, it's highly annoying, so, I'm done with you.
happy
Answer this question: If player A played his entire season against Daniel Cabrera and player B plays his entire season against C.C. Sabathia, and they are equally as good in all other ways, who will have a higher on base percentage?
the Phins played a significantly easier schedule than all the other teams in the playoffs, thus their wins and their stats should be seen thru that lens. Its an easy concept, its an obvious concept, and its not one that you normally see an argument against.
January 06, 2009 at 02:03AM View BBCode
You want me to be direct? Your argument is lame and stupid. I didnt bother answering directly because your argument is so lame, id rather just respond in a way that would entertain me than in a way that would answer your question. The fact that it says nothing on its own doesnt make it terribly overrated. Everything is essentially seen thru the lens of strength of schedule. its much easier to see on a smaller scale. Lets say baseball.Answer this question: If player A played his entire season against Daniel Cabrera and player B plays his entire season against C.C. Sabathia, and they are equally as good in all other ways, who will have a higher on base percentage?
the Phins played a significantly easier schedule than all the other teams in the playoffs, thus their wins and their stats should be seen thru that lens. Its an easy concept, its an obvious concept, and its not one that you normally see an argument against.
sycophantman
Now, the concept is remarkably simple. The strength of a teams schedule, in the NFL, is really quite worthless. It is based off of the collective records of the teams you face in the upcoming season. Of course, it is based off of last years collective records, and it is quite commonplace for a team to go from 6-10 to 10-6 the next season, isn't it?
Of course, the teams you face might have an injury problem, or they might be coming off of a tough game only a few days prior. None of this is reflected in the SoS stat (That's Strength of Schedule, I don't know if there is a proper abbreviation, but there you go.) So what does it really mean if you beat a team that last year was 11-5, but this year had a starting quarterback out from injury and they lost in a very close game? What if there was terrible weather that night? According to the SoS, you just beat a playoff team, but they hardly looked like one that night, so what does it really mean?
Besides that, in the parity of the NFL, it is kind of myopic to ferret out a fractional difference in schedule strength when on the whole it all balances out to being fairly similar.
I never said 'on its own' in any way, so if you want to bash me with a childish, embarrassing glee, perhaps you should start with using my own words against me, instead of simply conjuring up the words you want to type. I said objectively the stat means next to nothing, and this is simply the truth of it. It is based off the records of last season, and the teams can change a lot in one season. Anyone that watches the NFL sees it happen every season.
Yes, that was quite pointless, wasn't it? What are you trying to say? "If Team A entered the video game realm and played only the All-Madden team, and Team B played Snoop Doggs Pop Warner team, who do you think would have the better record?!"
Um, yeah, ok.
I guess I'll go ahead and cede to you the point, there, master debatesman of mastery. I'm trapped in your flawless web of logic. If the Browns did end up playing all 16 games against the Patriots one season, and then the Bengals for 16 games the next season, they would probably have a better record the first time out. I just can't find any flaws in the crystalline surface of your flawless argument. Nope.
Of course, if you could somehow create a stat that based OBP on how well the pitchers fared against batters last season, well damn, then you would really have something there. The true nature of Reality would bloom open before us and the true face of God would, at last, be exposed to us all. The hosannas would rain down upon us all like a mist of honey! Oh! Such glory!
This is really the most embarrassing part of all. Not only are you still defending this stat as somehow revealing, but you are just showing how ill informed you really are. The San Diego Chargers had the second easiest SoS of anyone in the NFL, with the Patriots (!) having the very easiest of them all. The Dolphins? 10th easiest SoS. Hell, even the Falcons had an 'easier' SoS than then Dolphins. It's even more interesting when you look at the top 5 teams in terms of SoS this season.
Pittsburgh Steelers 153-103 (.598)
Indianapolis Colts 152-104 (.594)
Jacksonville Jaguars 143-113 (.559)
Baltimore Ravens 141-115 (.551)
Minnesota Vikings 141-115 (.551)
So yeah, I see 4 playoff teams there. Do you see four playoff teams there? Yes, definitely four teams, yeap.
I guess the most galling part is how you don't even base your defense in fact, easily confirmed fact. So, yeah, grow up and stop being such a punk happy. It is tiresome.
January 06, 2009 at 01:57PM View BBCode
Alright, happy, I'll take the bait and respond. First, though, let me say that your small-minded and pissy attitude is genuinely disappointing. Perhaps, if you want me to respond to you ever again, seriously, you might want to think about dropping it. How old are you again? It really is time for you to start acting your age.Now, the concept is remarkably simple. The strength of a teams schedule, in the NFL, is really quite worthless. It is based off of the collective records of the teams you face in the upcoming season. Of course, it is based off of last years collective records, and it is quite commonplace for a team to go from 6-10 to 10-6 the next season, isn't it?
Of course, the teams you face might have an injury problem, or they might be coming off of a tough game only a few days prior. None of this is reflected in the SoS stat (That's Strength of Schedule, I don't know if there is a proper abbreviation, but there you go.) So what does it really mean if you beat a team that last year was 11-5, but this year had a starting quarterback out from injury and they lost in a very close game? What if there was terrible weather that night? According to the SoS, you just beat a playoff team, but they hardly looked like one that night, so what does it really mean?
Besides that, in the parity of the NFL, it is kind of myopic to ferret out a fractional difference in schedule strength when on the whole it all balances out to being fairly similar.
Originally posted by happy
obviously you were making a dumb semantics argument by saying that "on its own" strength of schedule tells nothing. Using the same logic you used to come to that conclusion, you could say that about any individual stat. i mean, point differential doesnt say much without strength of schedule, nor does wins or yards or anything else.
I never said 'on its own' in any way, so if you want to bash me with a childish, embarrassing glee, perhaps you should start with using my own words against me, instead of simply conjuring up the words you want to type. I said objectively the stat means next to nothing, and this is simply the truth of it. It is based off the records of last season, and the teams can change a lot in one season. Anyone that watches the NFL sees it happen every season.
Originally posted by happy
Answer this question: If player A played his entire season against Daniel Cabrera and player B plays his entire season against C.C. Sabathia, and they are equally as good in all other ways, who will have a higher on base percentage?
Yes, that was quite pointless, wasn't it? What are you trying to say? "If Team A entered the video game realm and played only the All-Madden team, and Team B played Snoop Doggs Pop Warner team, who do you think would have the better record?!"
Um, yeah, ok.
I guess I'll go ahead and cede to you the point, there, master debatesman of mastery. I'm trapped in your flawless web of logic. If the Browns did end up playing all 16 games against the Patriots one season, and then the Bengals for 16 games the next season, they would probably have a better record the first time out. I just can't find any flaws in the crystalline surface of your flawless argument. Nope.
Of course, if you could somehow create a stat that based OBP on how well the pitchers fared against batters last season, well damn, then you would really have something there. The true nature of Reality would bloom open before us and the true face of God would, at last, be exposed to us all. The hosannas would rain down upon us all like a mist of honey! Oh! Such glory!
Originally posted by happy
the Phins played a significantly easier schedule than all the other teams in the playoffs, thus their wins and their stats should be seen thru that lens. Its an easy concept, its an obvious concept, and its not one that you normally see an argument against.
This is really the most embarrassing part of all. Not only are you still defending this stat as somehow revealing, but you are just showing how ill informed you really are. The San Diego Chargers had the second easiest SoS of anyone in the NFL, with the Patriots (!) having the very easiest of them all. The Dolphins? 10th easiest SoS. Hell, even the Falcons had an 'easier' SoS than then Dolphins. It's even more interesting when you look at the top 5 teams in terms of SoS this season.
Pittsburgh Steelers 153-103 (.598)
Indianapolis Colts 152-104 (.594)
Jacksonville Jaguars 143-113 (.559)
Baltimore Ravens 141-115 (.551)
Minnesota Vikings 141-115 (.551)
So yeah, I see 4 playoff teams there. Do you see four playoff teams there? Yes, definitely four teams, yeap.
I guess the most galling part is how you don't even base your defense in fact, easily confirmed fact. So, yeah, grow up and stop being such a punk happy. It is tiresome.
dirtdevil
(well said, by the way. not that it will matter.)
January 06, 2009 at 02:56PM View BBCode
syco, in times like this we are all brothers.(well said, by the way. not that it will matter.)
FuriousGiorge
January 06, 2009 at 03:07PM View BBCode
Maybe he's talking about opponents records this year.
Jughead
January 06, 2009 at 03:11PM View BBCode
I was wondering how a team facing a 16-0 team twice could have the lowest strength of schedule. Now I see that they didn't.
happy
Strength of schedule is not a metric, its a concept. Using the previous year's win/loss percentage would be one way of attempting to numerically define this concept, although it would be an incredibly weak way of doing so.
From football outsiders DVOA (a metric that i think is actually good, unlike the stupid QB thing), the average opponent faced had a -7.2% DVOA, which would be the equivalent of playing Houston or jacksonville for the entire season. Again, its just a metric to try to define the concept, but its a metric that would be much stronger than prior year's win/loss percentage.
i may respond to the rest later, but i need to leave for work...
January 06, 2009 at 03:35PM View BBCode
Jesus.Strength of schedule is not a metric, its a concept. Using the previous year's win/loss percentage would be one way of attempting to numerically define this concept, although it would be an incredibly weak way of doing so.
From football outsiders DVOA (a metric that i think is actually good, unlike the stupid QB thing), the average opponent faced had a -7.2% DVOA, which would be the equivalent of playing Houston or jacksonville for the entire season. Again, its just a metric to try to define the concept, but its a metric that would be much stronger than prior year's win/loss percentage.
i may respond to the rest later, but i need to leave for work...
dirtdevil
he may well be, but it's still an unreliable metric. strength of schedule is determined by opponent's record, which is in turn affected by their own 'strength of schedule', which is also affected by the strength of their opponents opponents and so on. in effect, every time a team wins, it makes it's own in-season strength of schedule worse. this makes for an unreliable arbiter of team skill.
take the dolphins. they went 11-5 against opponents with a combined record of 132-138, or .489. but if they go 5-11 instead, their opponents now have a record of 138-132, or .511. so by winning more games, the dolphins have actually made their own strength of schedule worse. their own success actually makes their team look inferior based on SoS. i find it difficult to assign a lot of worth to a stat that actually promotes losing games.
January 06, 2009 at 04:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Maybe he's talking about opponents records this year.
he may well be, but it's still an unreliable metric. strength of schedule is determined by opponent's record, which is in turn affected by their own 'strength of schedule', which is also affected by the strength of their opponents opponents and so on. in effect, every time a team wins, it makes it's own in-season strength of schedule worse. this makes for an unreliable arbiter of team skill.
take the dolphins. they went 11-5 against opponents with a combined record of 132-138, or .489. but if they go 5-11 instead, their opponents now have a record of 138-132, or .511. so by winning more games, the dolphins have actually made their own strength of schedule worse. their own success actually makes their team look inferior based on SoS. i find it difficult to assign a lot of worth to a stat that actually promotes losing games.
sycophantman
January 06, 2009 at 05:51PM View BBCode
Rate stats are just a way to guess as to what is most likely to occur, that's all. You just can't look at SoS and make any kind of rational argument about who will win. It's easy to slip into this cocoon of self-regard and fool yourself into thinking the stat means something and you have something interesting to say by using it, but you simply don't.
happy
the fact that strength of schedule is a hard metric to implement only makes it less valuable because the metrics used to determine it are generally less reliable. However throwing the whole thing out is just as silly as throwing out any other stat.
this argument is stupid, i cant believe that I am not on the "popular" side of this argument.
January 06, 2009 at 06:22PM View BBCode
again, strength of schedule is not a metric, it is a concept. the concept that the strength of your opposition directly affects your stats is a very very basic one. The fact that playing well against an opponent makes them appear to be of a lower quality is part of what makes judging strength of schedule a little harder. but strength of schedule being hard to judge also makes other things (such as passing skill or rushing skill) hard to judge.the fact that strength of schedule is a hard metric to implement only makes it less valuable because the metrics used to determine it are generally less reliable. However throwing the whole thing out is just as silly as throwing out any other stat.
this argument is stupid, i cant believe that I am not on the "popular" side of this argument.
dirtdevil
as silly as basing an evaluation of the poor quality of a team (say miami) almost solely on it?
January 06, 2009 at 06:29PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
the fact that strength of schedule is a hard metric to implement only makes it less valuable because the metrics used to determine it are generally less reliable. However throwing the whole thing out is just as silly as throwing out any other stat.
as silly as basing an evaluation of the poor quality of a team (say miami) almost solely on it?
tm4559
is it a metric or a concept?
January 06, 2009 at 06:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
again, strength of schedule is not a metric, it is a concept.
the fact that strength of schedule is a hard metric to implement
is it a metric or a concept?
dirtdevil
it's a metric concept. happy has once again invented the necessary terminology to fit his worldview.
[Edited on 1-6-2009 by dirtdevil]
January 06, 2009 at 06:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
Originally posted by happy
again, strength of schedule is not a metric, it is a concept.
the fact that strength of schedule is a hard metric to implement
is it a metric or a concept?
it's a metric concept. happy has once again invented the necessary terminology to fit his worldview.
[Edited on 1-6-2009 by dirtdevil]
Pages: 1 2