By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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:

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.



Around the Network
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 . 



Chocoloco after arguing with Rol

 



                                                                                     

SEA-SF  1 BUF-JAC 1 TB-WAS  2 ATL-TEN  1
NO-IND  2 MIN-DET  1 PIT-KC  1 CLE-STL  2
HOU-MIA  2 NYJ-NE  2 OAK-SD  2 DAL-NYG  2
PHI-CAR  2 BYE   BYE   BAL-ARI 2 by 24


I have lived as a warrior. I have died as a god. Having suffered the ultimate sacrifice, I have been denied release. I...I will defeat Olympus. I will have my revenge

--Kratos

RolStoppable said:
SEA-SF 1 BUF-JAC 1
TB-WAS 2 ATL-TEN 1
NO-IND 2 MIN-DET 1 PIT-KC 1 CLE-STL 2
HOU-MIA 2 NYJ-NE 2 OAK-SD 2 DAL-NYG 1
PHI-CAR 2 BYE   BYE   BAL-ARI 2 by 14


Tough week for predictions! This will probably separate things a bit more in the league, I can only hope I'm in the top again!



NNID: Dongo8                              XBL Gamertag: Dongos Revenge

Around the Network

SEA-SF 1 BUF-JAC 1 TB-WAS 2 ATL-TEN 1
NO-IND 2 MIN-DET 2 PIT-KC 1 CLE-STL 2
HOU-MIA 2 NYJ-NE 2 OAK-SD 2 DAL-NYG 2
PHI-CAR 2 BYE   BYE   BAL-ARI ARI by 4





           Survivor Millennial vs Gen X!!

FatedReality said:

SEA-SF 2 BUF-JAC 2 TB-WAS 2 ATL-TEN 1
NO-IND 2 MIN-DET 2 PIT-KC 2 CLE-STL 2
HOU-MIA 2 NYJ-NE 1 OAK-SD 1 DAL-NYG 2
PHI-CAR 1 BYE   BYE   BAL-ARI ARI by  21







RolStoppable said:
SEA-SF 1 BUF-JAC 1 TB-WAS 1 ATL-TEN 1
NO-IND 2 MIN-DET 1 PIT-KC 1 CLE-STL 2
HOU-MIA 2 NYJ-NE 2 OAK-SD 2 DAL-NYG 1
PHI-CAR 2 BYE   BYE   BAL-ARI ARI by 10






SEA-SF 1 BUF-JAC 1
TB-WAS 2 ATL-TEN 1
NO-IND 2 MIN-DET 1 PIT-KC 1 CLE-STL 2
HOU-MIA 1 NYJ-NE 2 OAK-SD 2 DAL-NYG 1
PHI-CAR 2 BYE   BYE   BAL-ARI 2 by 10


SF seems intent on being mediocre, even in their wins.

Carolina defense seems the safer pick, especially at home.

Vikings and Lions will fight hard for that 2nd place...

SD could disappoint, as could ATL.

Giants looked just bad, not trusting that.

Ravens improving but still really bad.

Dolphins have had bad home games, and decent away games.



chocoloco said:
RolStoppable said:

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 . 

I'm pretty sure you're not responding because you lack the ability to think logically or accept any criticism. You need to work on that.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers