DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

Administrators
  • Content count

    17,669
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry last won the day on June 8 2016

DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry had the most liked content!

About DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

  • Rank
    Pro Bowler

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

12,493 profile views
  1. nope.
  2. What people seem to struggle with is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Do you NEED a high quality QB to win a Super Bowl? No. But clearly having a high quality QB is highly correlated with winning...a Super Bowl or just general competitiveness. Having a high quality QB is not, on its own, sufficient to win a Super Bowl. You'll always need more than just a high quality QB. But your chances of winning, again both a SB and in a general competitiveness sense, are much much higher with a high quality QB than just a guy. Its not really all that difficult an idea to grasp. But because we just a relative outlier results, people are going to start advocating for that being "the model." This is how people feel when they hit 00 on the roulette wheel. Nevermind that they're losing in the long term, they won that last time so clearly they'll keep winning that way.
  3. I have it on good authority that "The Market" will figure out whats best. Seriously though, thanks for the news. This is very cool.
  4. Weird OP. I guess climate change. But the two "concerns" are vastly different in scope and quality. Not really sure why we're comparing the two...
  5. But no one is doing that. yet thats constantly whats alleged. As though the quality analytics folks are just plucking numbers out of the sky. Hell, Football Outsiders' most visible metric (DVOA) is literally built on the specifics of each situation. All those things that people claim are relevant (down and distance, opponent, game situation, etc.) are factored in. And we still see the same sort numberphobia. Its like a weird straw man that people attack rather than actually deal with the data and evaluate it on its own merits.
  6. He'll never get the credit he deserves for his durability. There have been a number of occasions where Matt has taken nasty shots to the lower body which looked like they were going to take him out of action for an extended time. Yet every time, he's right back in there on the next series. Remarkably tough dude. Maybe a bit fortunate he hasnt been badly hurt before but still. Remarkably tough.
  7. Hmm. So we beat the Eagles and then travel to Minnesota to play the Vikings. I'd guess that would have been a ~50/50 game more or less. We had already played them to a near draw and had since gotten a bit better on defense. I think that game would have been a toss up, with the Vikings probably favored by 4.5 or 5. So ~50% to win that game. The Pats? IDK....they dominated us early in the season but I still think we were at least 50/50 to beat them had we played in the SB. So I'd guess in the neighborhood of 3 to 1 or ~25% to win the Super Bowl with a victory over the Eagles. But counterfactuals are silly so nevermind.
  8. Lets take it easy there, brosef. We must forgive Brother Jones for his Falcons beef. It comes from the right place and is a sort of emotional callous. You can be darn sure that dude was hurting at the end of that Super Bowl. He'll never admit it....but he was.
  9. OP's point is a good one. Unfortunately, many people arent all that likely to be rational or evidence-based when talking about football. In situations following losses, they just want to be angry and will say all sorts of stuff, regardless of truth.
  10. Please see my response to KOG. Being frustrated by how some people use numbers poorly is not grounds for throwing numbers out, altogether.
  11. It really isnt though. Can "statistics" be used to deceive? Sure. Of course. But the notion that you can "prove anything with numbers" isnt true. I could give you a list of all sorts of things that simply aren't provable no matter how many numbers you have because they simply arent true. I can't "crunch numbers" in a way that proves that the worse you are at throwing the ball, the better your team will be. I can't crunch numbers in a way that supports the idea that the worse you are on defense, the more likely you are to win. I can't crunch numbers in a way that can prove that having a negative turnover differential makes it more likely your team will be successful. We need to be able to separate the idea that analytics are valuable from the idea (which I'd suggest isnt an idea that anyone really advocates for) that they are a substitute or totally sufficient on their own.
  12. Which is exactly what the Eagles are and do.........better than most OLs in the league, actually. I dont know where this idea that the Eagles are some throwback OL that just beats people up came from but its not really whats happening. At least not in any meaningfully different way than our OL.
  13. lol sure do love that recency bias.
  14. This sounds like a terrific idea. Wish I could join you.