Quantcast
The NFL Thread 2015: Denver Broncos win Super Bowl 50

Forums - Sports Discussion - The NFL Thread 2015: Denver Broncos win Super Bowl 50

Who will win Super Bowl 50?

Patriots 116 25.00%
 
Seahawks 41 8.84%
 
Colts 7 1.51%
 
Packers 42 9.05%
 
Broncos 85 18.32%
 
Ravens 8 1.72%
 
Cowboys 18 3.88%
 
Panthers 56 12.07%
 
Other 74 15.95%
 
Scoreboard 17 3.66%
 
Total:464
chocoloco said:
RolStoppable said:

People shouldn't put too much stock in those strength of schedule stats. Teams that win a lot will automatically move closer to the bottom, because handing out a loss to another team means that their schedule got easier due to that other team now having a worse record than before. Essentially, teams get punished for winning games.

The same thing applies vice versa, so you can't really say that the teams who lost a lot of games did so because they faced such good opponents, because there's also the possibility that such loser teams are plain and simply bad. In other words, they would lose a lot of games regardless of their schedule.

I don't consider these strength of schedule rankings useful at all.

I think you are butthurt because your team has an easy schedule every year. Lions suck. Vikings suck and the bears suck almost every year.

Yeah... you aren't just bad at spelling, but also logical thinking. Any team with a positive record will have a hard time to finish in the top 10 of strength of schedule.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
chocoloco said:

I think you are butthurt because your team has an easy schedule every year. Lions suck. Vikings suck and the bears suck almost every year.

Yeah... you aren't just bad at spelling, but also logical thinking. Any team with a positive record will have a hard time to finish in the top 10 of strength of schedule.

Stats exist to attempt to reveal truths. You're no statician. All science including stats will admit it is not flawless. I know your life education comes from vgc, so you might not undersytand that.



OfficerRaichu15 said:
Chris Hu said:
The only reason the Colts versus Patriots game was even somewhat close is because of Brady's pick six otherwise it would have been close to a blowout. Also as I said last week the Panthers are legit, they might not have receiving core but they have the second best tight end in the league in Greg Olson and the defense is pretty good the only team in the NFC that is better right now are the Packers.

Tyler Eifert would like to have a word with you.


Before this weeks games Eifert had a slightly better season but Olson pulled ahead this week and when you look at both of their entire careers Olson is miles ahead.



chocoloco said:
RolStoppable said:

Yeah... you aren't just bad at spelling, but also logical thinking. Any team with a positive record will have a hard time to finish in the top 10 of strength of schedule.

Stats exist to attempt to reveal truths. You're no statician. All science including stats will admit it is not flawless. I know your life education comes from vgc, so you might not undersytand that.

Have you ever heard the saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.", and do you know what it means?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
chocoloco said:

Stats exist to attempt to reveal truths. You're no statician. All science including stats will admit it is not flawless. I know your life education comes from vgc, so you might not undersytand that.

Have you ever heard the saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.", and do you know what it means?

I do not care. Why should I? Even if it is qoute from a statician This convesation will go nowhere because I think you like to troll and you will convince me of nothing. Vgc is a site all about stats.



Around the Network

Oh sweet, I moved up a good amount of spots this week.



My first #1 week, only because everyone else did poorly lol. Goldenboy got lucky with me too.



chocoloco said:
RolStoppable said:

Have you ever heard the saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.", and do you know what it means?

I do not care. Why should I? Even if it is qoute from a statician This convesation will go nowhere because I think you like to troll and you will convince me of nothing. Vgc is a site all about stats.

Good Lord, man. Spelling. It helps.

Anyway, Rol's point is that good teams always wind up lower on the strength of schedule chart because the teams they play (and beat) inevitably end up with more losses, and therefore look like worse opponents. Worst teams wind up contributing to the other teams' win totals more, and thus, appear like they play "tougher" games.

He's certainly a troll, but the argument is at least a consistent one here.



chocoloco said:
RolStoppable said:

Have you ever heard the saying "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.", and do you know what it means?

I do not care. Why should I? Even if it is qoute from a statician This convesation will go nowhere because I think you like to troll and you will convince me of nothing. Vgc is a site all about stats.

You should care because it reveals the truth about statistics. If you choose the right metrics, you can suit pretty much any agenda. You said that stats exist to reveal truths, but stats can be used to show the exact opposite.

This doesn't mean that statistics are useless, but rather that it's important to question the methodology. In the case of strength of schedule, we can take it to the extreme by compiling a chart after week 1 of the season. All teams that are 1-0 will have had an easy schedule and be ranked in the bottom half because they played against teams that haven't won a single game. Now suppose the Buccaneers played against the Super Bowl winner Patriots in week 1 and won. The strength of schedule chart will show that the Bucs had an easy schedule, but if you actually look at who they played against, then you would know that they faced a top shelf opponent.

The big flaw of the strength of schedule rankings is that teams who win a lot make in turn their opponents worse, because they add a loss to their respective records. On the other hand, teams who lose a lot add a win to the respective records of their opponents, making those other teams appear stronger. When you look at the chart you posted, only two of the teams with a positive record after week 6 are ranked in the top half while the other eight teams with a positive record find themselves in the bottom half. But that isn't surprising, because the teams who win a lot of games have an easier schedule by virtue of winning a lot of games.

Or let's take some other stats that are present in this thread. By looking at your record and win percentage (.110) in the prediction league, we can conclude that you really suck at picking games. But the obvious caveat is that you have abstained in most weeks, so the vast majority of your losses are not due to incompetence. Well, actually you were incompetent by not making picks in the first place. But anyway, the point is that while my chart accurately reflects your achievements in the 2015 season, it isn't truly representative of your ability to make correct picks for NFL games. Therefore statistics can be very misleading, hence why they can be considered worse than lies or even damned lies. They present data that is true at face value, but the metrics used can be chosen and bent to suit the result someone wants to arrive at.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
chocoloco said:

I do not care. Why should I? Even if it is qoute from a statician This convesation will go nowhere because I think you like to troll and you will convince me of nothing. Vgc is a site all about stats.

You should care because it reveals the truth about statistics. If you choose the right metrics, you can suit pretty much any agenda. You said that stats exist to reveal truths, but stats can be used to show the exact opposite.

This doesn't mean that statistics are useless, but rather that it's important to question the methodology. In the case of strength of schedule, we can take it to the extreme by compiling a chart after week 1 of the season. All teams that are 1-0 will have had an easy schedule and be ranked in the bottom half because they played against teams that haven't won a single game. Now suppose the Buccaneers played against the Super Bowl winner Patriots in week 1 and won. The strength of schedule chart will show that the Bucs had an easy schedule, but if you actually look at who they played against, then you would know that they faced a top shelf opponent.

The big flaw of the strength of schedule rankings is that teams who win a lot make in turn their opponents worse, because they add a loss to their respective records. On the other hand, teams who lose a lot add a win to the respective records of their opponents, making those other teams appear stronger. When you look at the chart you posted, only two of the teams with a positive record after week 6 are ranked in the top half while the other eight teams with a positive record find themselves in the bottom half. But that isn't surprising, because the teams who win a lot of games have an easier schedule by virtue of winning a lot of games.

Or let's take some other stats that are present in this thread. By looking at your record and win percentage (.110) in the prediction league, we can conclude that you really suck at picking games. But the obvious caveat is that you have abstained in most weeks, so the vast majority of your losses are not due to incompetence. Well, actually you were incompetent by not making picks in the first place. But anyway, the point is that while my chart accurately reflects your achievements in the 2015 season, it isn't truly representative of your ability to make correct picks for NFL games. Therefore statistics can be very misleading, hence why they can be considered worse than lies or even damned lies. They present data that is true at face value, but the metrics used can be chosen and bent to suit the result someone wants to arrive at.

Rol, I am not going to read your essay. You treat posting here like it is your job. I suppose it is time for me to leave to gaf again because of the less serious posting style of the site. The style amuses me far more. Peace out .