or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NFL 2016-17 Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NFL 2016-17 Thread - Page 271

post #4051 of 4994

You guys are wasting a lot of words arguing about this. 

The Giants are the greatest dynasty since the Steelers and Eli Manning is the greatest quarterback of the last 20 years.

 

It's simple. 

post #4052 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

1. You guys are wasting a lot of words arguing about this. 


2. greatest dynasty since the Steelers

1. Welcome to the interwebz.

2. The only important part of your post.
post #4053 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibaldleach View Post

Also, FWIW as a Patriots fan, I don't think that the "best team" won the Superbowl in 2001. I was delighted as a fan to see them pull off the upset, but remember, it was an upset. The Rams were supposed to walk out as champions (14 point favorites).

Assume the best team in football wins about 13.5 games in a given season (giving them a probability of winning the average game of around 85%). Also assume they get a bye week in the playoffs at 13-3 or 14-2. Well, competition is at a higher level in the playoffs. This same team that you'd expect to win about 85% of the time in the regular season might win 70% of the time or less in the playoffs. The odds of three consecutive victories with a 70% chance of winning each game is 34%. So 66% of the time, a team other than the best one out there is going to win the Superbowl. That's just how it works in a sport where a single game determines who advances to the next round. Being the best team is no guarantee of a championship nor is a championship evidence that you were the best team that year. They still matter, though, because running the gauntlet and rattling off 3-4 wins against quality opponents when a single misstep can send you home is an accomplishment worthy of respect. Being the "best team," even if we agree on metrics for determining this, is as I previously said, a Pyrrhic victory. It's nice, sort of, but not nearly as nice as winning. I'd take winning a game my team has no business winning over being the best team that season and losing a game my team has no business losing any day of the week.

Eh. Nothing you're saying is unreasonable, of course, and there's no "right" or "wrong" here. That said, what is "best" in this context? Do you measure that by some sort of power ranking driven by fantasy-type valuations of their rosters at the beginning of the season, adjusted or not for injuries? Or by some sort of strength-of-schedule weighted number crunching of their wins and losses and margins of victory and defeat over the course of the season? Some of it comes down to how we each watch sports and root for our teams, obviously. If my team is the odds-on favorite to win it all and fucks the duck, I'm not going to be happy. If they have a huge upside surprise, I will. And one could argue that running the table when everyone thinks you're an "inferior" team should count heavily in the "best" analysis, at least assuming you value whatever "intangibles" enable a team to do that.
post #4054 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Eh. Nothing you're saying is unreasonable, of course, and there's no "right" or "wrong" here. That said, what is "best" in this context? Do you measure that by some sort of power ranking driven by fantasy-type valuations of their rosters at the beginning of the season, adjusted or not for injuries? Or by some sort of strength-of-schedule weighted number crunching of their wins and losses and margins of victory and defeat over the course of the season? Some of it comes down to how we each watch sports and root for our teams, obviously. If my team is the odds-on favorite to win it all and fucks the duck, I'm not going to be happy. If they have a huge upside surprise, I will. And one could argue that running the table when everyone thinks you're an "inferior" team should count heavily in the "best" analysis, at least assuming you value whatever "intangibles" enable a team to do that.

I generally look at a mix of record and margin of victory. A few websites have ratings that track along those lines. Things like strength of schedule matter a bit in close cases and head to head can have a bit of value. I'll admit it's an inexact science, at least the way I look at it (I tend to use record / margin of victory) but might make an adjustment for weak SoS. Postseason matters to an extent (as any additional game provides new information), but I don't weight it more heavily than regular season. I tend to think there are great teams that underperform in the playoffs and lesser teams that can sometimes outperform.

I'd also rather have upside surprise than see my team lay an egg as a heavy favorite. I think as fans we get more satisfaction from winning, but when you like to play with numbers and analyze things, the "best team" question becomes a pretty interesting one.
post #4055 of 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Eh. Nothing you're saying is unreasonable, of course, and there's no "right" or "wrong" here. .

The fuck you talking about? Ed is wrong, anyone else could be right.
post #4056 of 4994
Let's get things back to reality

post #4057 of 4994
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/brennan/2016/01/06/st-louis-rams-los-angeles-nfl-relocation/78355204/

This is going to be awkward if he doesn't get approved to move to LA. I hope the league rejects him just to see the hilarity that will ensue.
post #4058 of 4994
^ Damn. Not the smartest move. I like how the article references the fact that the Rams haven't made the playoffs in 11 years (perhaps that has something to do with the attendance figures the owner complains about?).
post #4059 of 4994

Maybe it is smart. If you cause such a fuss to make your situation in St. Louis untenable, you have to move.

post #4060 of 4994

Jadeveon Clowney stormed out of the locker room after he was deactivated by the team.

post #4061 of 4994
I've got Chiefs and Steelers tonight, Vikings and Redskins tomorrow.
post #4062 of 4994
I got Texans (for obvious reasons) and Bengals for today.
post #4063 of 4994
Well fuck. That's not a good start for the Texans.
post #4064 of 4994
Nice start for the Chiefs.
post #4065 of 4994
Not anymore lol
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NFL 2016-17 Thread