Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Everything I said was true. And depending if Arizona gets Washington back, that'll see that Foote never has to cover ever again. Literally the only decline so far is Bowles leaving but I trust Arians and Keim to find a solid DC in his replacement. I mean, not gonna luck out on another Bowles but still.
I really wish you'd look at some of the articles out there discussing how the Cardinals are a regression case just waiting to happen, and how much of their success was built upon unsustainable win-loss percentages in close games. Basically, how their Pythagorean record is several games worse than their actual record, which is usually a signal that they're getting lucky. They're still a solid team with a great defense, but expecting them to be an 11+ win team isn't necessarily being in touch with reality.
Again, those starts are based on a really beat up team. And you have to think that winning a bunch of close games isn't "just luck." It has to do with the coaching and only some luck.
I really wish you'd look at some of the articles out there discussing how the Cardinals are a regression case just waiting to happen, and how much of their success was built upon unsustainable win-loss percentages in close games. Basically, how their Pythagorean record is several games worse than their actual record, which is usually a signal that they're getting lucky. They're still a solid team with a great defense, but expecting them to be an 11+ win team isn't necessarily being in touch with reality.
Again, those starts are based on a really beat up team. And you have to think that winning a bunch of close games isn't "just luck." It has to do with the coaching and only some luck.
There's a reason that pretty much every serious NFL analyst looks at a team's record in games decided by 7 points or less as the first thing they consider when discussing that team's chances for regression or improvement. If a team goes 6-1 in games decided by less than 7 points, it's generally a good sign that they'll lose a few more games the following year. I'm not saying this to put down the Cardinals, I'm just saying they've overachieved as a unit and regression is to be expected.
Again, those starts are based on a really beat up team. And you have to think that winning a bunch of close games isn't "just luck." It has to do with the coaching and only some luck.
There's a reason that pretty much every serious NFL analyst looks at a team's record in games decided by 7 points or less as the first thing they consider when discussing that team's chances for regression or improvement. If a team goes 6-1 in games decided by less than 7 points, it's generally a good sign that they'll lose a few more games the following year. I'm not saying this to put down the Cardinals, I'm just saying they've overachieved as a unit and regression is to be expected.
Given the injuries they had when they got that record, yes they were lucky at times. But I think they could get 11-5 (or 12-4) again with a healthy team with it being fully legitimate. A regression will happen in a few years, I just don't think next year.
There's a reason that pretty much every serious NFL analyst looks at a team's record in games decided by 7 points or less as the first thing they consider when discussing that team's chances for regression or improvement. If a team goes 6-1 in games decided by less than 7 points, it's generally a good sign that they'll lose a few more games the following year. I'm not saying this to put down the Cardinals, I'm just saying they've overachieved as a unit and regression is to be expected.
Given the injuries they had when they got that record, yes they were lucky at times. But I think they could get 11-5 (or 12-4) again with a healthy team with it being fully legitimate. A regression will happen in a few years, I just don't think next year.
Given the injuries they had when they got that record, yes they were lucky at times. But I think they could get 11-5 (or 12-4) again with a healthy team with it being fully legitimate. A regression will happen in a few years, I just don't think next year.
have you ever thought....now bare with me here.....they just have good coaching?
Have you ever thought . . . now bear with me here . . . that people far brighter and more educated on these things than either you or I might be responsible for the article I just posted?
I don't doubt that they have good coaching. I think Arians is great. But good coaching doesn't cause tipped balls to be intercepted, or ensure that a ball will bounce the right way on a fumble so that someone can recover it, or any of the other things that factor into these things. When analysts talk about luck factoring in to wins, these are the things they mean. It's the shit that really can't be accounted for as a pure result of skill, strategy or planning.
Last Edit: Jan 16, 2015 17:08:15 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Will someone please tell Rory that football should not be treated the same as baseball?
You cannot tell him anything, because if you did, it would be wrong...just let it go, man.
I love how I provide a cite to what is pretty much universally recognized as the premier statistical analyst's website, with an article which is directly on point, and yet somehow there's an issue here.
have you ever thought....now bare with me here.....they just have good coaching?
Have you ever though . . . now bear with me here . . . that people far brighter and more educated on these things than either you or I might be responsible for the article I just posted?
I don't doubt that they have good coaching. I think Arians is great. But good coaching doesn't cause tipped balls to be intercepted, or ensure that a ball will bounce the right way on a fumble so that someone can recover it, or any of the other things that factor into these things. When analysts talk about luck factoring in to wins, these are the things they mean. It's the shit that really can't be accounted for as a pure result of skill, strategy or planning.
Stats. Can. Not. Explain. Everything.
They are numbers. You can draw up as many stats and formulas as you please and they may show trends in how teams win. HOWEVER, you can not say that a lot of the wins were SOLELY based on luck.
A.) Arizona would've had to been in the game until those "lucky moments" happened anyway. B.) Things like tipped balls being intercepted are a result of awareness of the defense a lot of the time. Because there would've had to have been defender to tip the ball in the first place (which is a result of skill and coaching) and then someone else on the defense would've had to have seen that and been AWARE to make the catch. As well as the fact, that the QB would've had to have thrown the ball very low over a defenders head.
Have you ever though . . . now bear with me here . . . that people far brighter and more educated on these things than either you or I might be responsible for the article I just posted?
I don't doubt that they have good coaching. I think Arians is great. But good coaching doesn't cause tipped balls to be intercepted, or ensure that a ball will bounce the right way on a fumble so that someone can recover it, or any of the other things that factor into these things. When analysts talk about luck factoring in to wins, these are the things they mean. It's the shit that really can't be accounted for as a pure result of skill, strategy or planning.
Stats. Can. Not. Explain. Everything.
They are numbers. You can draw up as many stats and formulas as you please and they may show trends in how teams win. HOWEVER, you can not say that a lot of the wins were SOLELY based on luck.
A.) Arizona would've had to been in the game until those "lucky moments" happened anyway. B.) Things like tipped balls being intercepted are a result of awareness of the defense a lot of the time. Because there would've had to have been defender to tip the ball in the first place (which is a result of skill and coaching) and then someone else on the defense would've had to have seen that and been AWARE to make the catch. As well as the fact, that the QB would've had to have thrown the ball very low over a defenders head.
I never said they were based solely on luck. What I've been saying is that they were a massive beneficiary of good luck, and when that changes (as it always does, because it's not constant) it will have a regressive effect. And you seem to misunderstand - I'm not saying stats can explain everything. I'm simply saying that the advanced stats show that Arizona had a record better than their actual performance, and that it's reasonable to expect regression.
With respect to your "A" and "B," you're partially correct. A recovered fumble on a bounce that goes a team's way doesn't matter when that team is down by 4 touchdowns. So yes, for Arizona to directly translate that luck into winshares also requires some success in other phases of the game. But if that success stays the same, yet the luck regresses to the norm, they're going to lose more games unless they show a proportional increase across other phases where they are lacking, such as offense. I haven't once said that they're solely a product of lucky bounces - I don't harbor any illusions that their fumble recovery rate will regress to the mean and they'll suddenly be a 4 win team.
As far as coaching, skill, gameplan being a factor, again, you're partially correct. Good defenders tend to be in better position, good gameplans help get them there, good coaches teach linemen to get their hands up, etc. But it comes down to a game of millimeters - if that throw by Drew Brees was a half-inch higher, it doesn't glance off someone's helmet and into a defender's arms. If that lineman's hand is one inch to the right, the pass gets through. These are the variables which factor into "luck," and there's really nothing anyone can do about them. Similarly, fumble recoveries are near-universally understood to be random acts. Some of it does come from defenders being in proper position, but most of it comes from which part of the ball hits which part of the ground, whether it glances off any body part, etc. Russell Wilson has fumbled five times this year - and lost none of them. While some of this is probably due to awareness and whatever, most of it is due to him being lucky as fuck that the ball happened to fall where he could get to it. Odds are, if he fumbles five times next year, he's not going to have a 100% recovery rate. So when a team like Arizona posts the league's best fumble recovery rate, you expect that it will regress at some point, because of the randomness of the action. When you're a team that doesn't tend to outscore its opponents by much, little things like that can swing games. Hence, while Arizona's Pythagorean win total was about 4 games lower than their actual record, they made up those games because they got some lucky bounces. And yes, they had some skilled players and coaches, which helped get them there. But it's absurd to just be like "they have good coaches and good players, so we'll ignore the unsustainable rate at which they performed and just say they'll be just as good again."
They are numbers. You can draw up as many stats and formulas as you please and they may show trends in how teams win. HOWEVER, you can not say that a lot of the wins were SOLELY based on luck.
A.) Arizona would've had to been in the game until those "lucky moments" happened anyway. B.) Things like tipped balls being intercepted are a result of awareness of the defense a lot of the time. Because there would've had to have been defender to tip the ball in the first place (which is a result of skill and coaching) and then someone else on the defense would've had to have seen that and been AWARE to make the catch. As well as the fact, that the QB would've had to have thrown the ball very low over a defenders head.
I never said they were based solely on luck. What I've been saying is that they were a massive beneficiary of good luck, and when that changes (as it always does, because it's not constant) it will have a regressive effect. And you seem to misunderstand - I'm not saying stats can explain everything. I'm simply saying that the advanced stats show that Arizona had a record better than their actual performance, and that it's reasonable to expect regression.
With respect to your "A" and "B," you're partially correct. A recovered fumble on a bounce that goes a team's way doesn't matter when that team is down by 4 touchdowns. So yes, for Arizona to directly translate that luck into winshares also requires some success in other phases of the game. But if that success stays the same, yet the luck regresses to the norm, they're going to lose more games unless they show a proportional increase across other phases where they are lacking, such as offense. I haven't once said that they're solely a product of lucky bounces - I don't harbor any illusions that their fumble recovery rate will regress to the mean and they'll suddenly be a 4 win team.
As far as coaching, skill, gameplan being a factor, again, you're partially correct. Good defenders tend to be in better position, good gameplans help get them there, good coaches teach linemen to get their hands up, etc. But it comes down to a game of millimeters - if that throw by Drew Brees was a half-inch higher, it doesn't glance off someone's helmet and into a defender's arms. If that lineman's hand is one inch to the right, the pass gets through. These are the variables which factor into "luck," and there's really nothing anyone can do about them. Similarly, fumble recoveries are near-universally understood to be random acts. Some of it does come from defenders being in proper position, but most of it comes from which part of the ball hits which part of the ground, whether it glances off any body part, etc. Russell Wilson has fumbled five times this year - and lost none of them. While some of this is probably due to awareness and whatever, most of it is due to him being lucky as fuck that the ball happened to fall where he could get to it. Odds are, if he fumbles five times next year, he's not going to have a 100% recovery rate. So when a team like Arizona posts the league's best fumble recovery rate, you expect that it will regress at some point, because of the randomness of the action. When you're a team that doesn't tend to outscore its opponents by much, little things like that can swing games. Hence, while Arizona's Pythagorean win total was about 4 games lower than their actual record, they made up those games because they got some lucky bounces. And yes, they had some skilled players and coaches, which helped get them there. But it's absurd to just be like "they have good coaches and good players, so we'll ignore the unsustainable rate at which they performed and just say they'll be just as good again."
but those millimeters is what makes the game so fun to watch.
And if we're talking luck, they're the unluckiest team at the same time with those injuries
Their guess may be more informed but it is just a guess. No issue here.
You know what, you're right. I don't believe in global warming. I think it's bullshit. It doesn't matter that pretty much every top scientific mind says otherwise, because they're just guessing, just like me. We're all equals here, and we should in no way defer to those who have specialized knowledge and a lifetime of studying shit we only partially understand.
When you go to your doctor, and he's like "well, based on the evidence, I think you have pneumonia," are you like "thanks doc, but I'm pretty sure it's just a cold. No meds for me thanks, chicken soup should do it," or do you say to yourself "gee, this guy has special training, maybe he knows more than I do and is looking at things I can't even possibly notice," and take his advice?
Their guess may be more informed but it is just a guess. No issue here.
You know what, you're right. I don't believe in global warming. I think it's bullshit. It doesn't matter that pretty much every top scientific mind says otherwise, because they're just guessing, just like me. We're all equals here, and we should in no way defer to those who have specialized knowledge and a lifetime of studying shit we only partially understand.
When you go to your doctor, and he's like "well, based on the evidence, I think you have pneumonia," are you like "thanks doc, but I'm pretty sure it's just a cold. No meds for me thanks, chicken soup should do it," or do you say to yourself "gee, this guy has special training, maybe he knows more than I do and is looking at things I can't even possibly notice," and take his advice?
You know what, you're right. I don't believe in global warming. I think it's bullshit. It doesn't matter that pretty much every top scientific mind says otherwise, because they're just guessing, just like me. We're all equals here, and we should in no way defer to those who have specialized knowledge and a lifetime of studying shit we only partially understand.
When you go to your doctor, and he's like "well, based on the evidence, I think you have pneumonia," are you like "thanks doc, but I'm pretty sure it's just a cold. No meds for me thanks, chicken soup should do it," or do you say to yourself "gee, this guy has special training, maybe he knows more than I do and is looking at things I can't even possibly notice," and take his advice?
*sigh* You are adorable.
Top-notch rebuttal! A rock-solid argument that even Johnnie Cochran himself could not dispute.
I'd be willing to bet Thomas is saying that because he's trying to fully immerse himself in the idea that Rodgers is 100% healthy so that it doesn't fuck with his gameplanning and he prepares/plays as if Rodgers will have his full mobility.
Or he actually believes it. He seems pretty out there and his coach is a 9/11 truther.
Rodgers still made enough scintillating plays in the final quarter and a half to convince Seahawks defenders that he will be at the peak of his powers when the NFC's two best teams clash.
All-Pro safety Earl Thomas said, via NFL Media's Steve Wyche, he's not "buying into" the idea of Rodgers as limited by the injury.
"I saw him scramble close to the goal line on the Cowboys," Thomas said, "so he's not fooling me with that."
To be clear, Thomas is not accusing Rodgers of faking the injury. He's simply resisting the temptation to underestimate his competition in the biggest game of the season.
"I just respect him as a football player in general," Thomas added, via the Seattle Post Intelligencer. "You can tell that he knows the game. He has a lot of confidence back there. You don't really see a lot of quarterbacks of his skin color with soul like that, and I like it."
I'd be willing to bet Thomas is saying that because he's trying to fully immerse himself in the idea that Rodgers is 100% healthy so that it doesn't fuck with his gameplanning and he prepares/plays as if Rodgers will have his full mobility.
Or he actually believes it. He seems pretty out there and his coach is a 9/11 truther.
Rodgers still made enough scintillating plays in the final quarter and a half to convince Seahawks defenders that he will be at the peak of his powers when the NFC's two best teams clash.
All-Pro safety Earl Thomas said, via NFL Media's Steve Wyche, he's not "buying into" the idea of Rodgers as limited by the injury.
"I saw him scramble close to the goal line on the Cowboys," Thomas said, "so he's not fooling me with that."
To be clear, Thomas is not accusing Rodgers of faking the injury. He's simply resisting the temptation to underestimate his competition in the biggest game of the season.
"I just respect him as a football player in general," Thomas added, via the Seattle Post Intelligencer. "You can tell that he knows the game. He has a lot of confidence back there. You don't really see a lot of quarterbacks of his skin color with soul like that, and I like it."
Rodgers still made enough scintillating plays in the final quarter and a half to convince Seahawks defenders that he will be at the peak of his powers when the NFC's two best teams clash.
All-Pro safety Earl Thomas said, via NFL Media's Steve Wyche, he's not "buying into" the idea of Rodgers as limited by the injury.
"I saw him scramble close to the goal line on the Cowboys," Thomas said, "so he's not fooling me with that."
To be clear, Thomas is not accusing Rodgers of faking the injury. He's simply resisting the temptation to underestimate his competition in the biggest game of the season.
"I just respect him as a football player in general," Thomas added, via the Seattle Post Intelligencer. "You can tell that he knows the game. He has a lot of confidence back there. You don't really see a lot of quarterbacks of his skin color with soul like that, and I like it."