GTripp0012
07-20-2007, 01:52 AM
Doug, the editor of pro-football-reference.com, came up with a study to determine which teams in modern NFL history were most prone to beating teams that were better than them, while losing to teams worse than them.
His post can be found here (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=332).
The results are quite interesting...
jsarno
07-20-2007, 02:12 AM
Doug, the editor of pro-football-reference.com, came up with a study to determine which teams in modern NFL history were most prone to beating teams that were better than them, while losing to teams worse than them.
His post can be found here (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=332).
The results are quite interesting...
I'm failing to see the true significance in this though. I mean, I am nicknamed "statman" and I feel that is a pretty insignificant stat.
Good post though.
81forHOF
07-20-2007, 04:54 AM
Jacksonville was upset 7 times last year? Ouch! It was pretty interesting that we were at the top of both lists. Those good ole unpredictable skins.
freddyg12
07-20-2007, 09:15 AM
2006 surprises me a little, but not 2000. That year we beat the top teams in the nfl, including both super bowl teams.
2 of our 4 "WOBT" wins in 06 were over 8-8 teams.
gibbsisgod
07-20-2007, 09:22 AM
2006 surprises me a little, but not 2000. That year we beat the top teams in the nfl, including both super bowl teams.
2 of our 4 "WOBT" wins in 06 were over 8-8 teams.
You could look at it the other way and say 2 of them were against playoff teams. One of which made it the NFC title game.
Schneed10
07-20-2007, 09:32 AM
I'm failing to see the true significance in this though. I mean, I am nicknamed "statman" and I feel that is a pretty insignificant stat.
Good post though.
You are nicknamed statman?? Wow, then you must know a lot about stats!
If I send up the stat signal will you come to my rescue?
:pffff:
Schneed10
07-20-2007, 09:51 AM
Doug, the editor of pro-football-reference.com, came up with a study to determine which teams in modern NFL history were most prone to beating teams that were better than them, while losing to teams worse than them.
His post can be found here (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=332).
The results are quite interesting...
I think the 2006 results are pretty interesting because it shows that the Redskins' season really could have gone differently, especially if we had caught a few of those INTs that kept getting dropped.
The stats tell the tale of a Jekyll and Hyde team. Losing to four teams we should have beaten, and beating four teams we should have lost to, that shows the Skins had the ability to play very well (see at New Orleans Saints), but lacked the consistency.
A few more caught INTs here and there could have easily taken us to 8-8. As they say in the NFL no matter how good or bad you look in a given week, you're never as good or as bad as you seem.
mlmpetert
07-20-2007, 10:15 AM
That is pretty cool. Whats defined as a better or worse team, just over all record?
Schneed10
07-20-2007, 10:20 AM
This link (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=37) tells you all about the mathematical equation they use to determine team ratings, but in plain English:
The Colts’ rating should equal their average point margin (which was +12), plus the average of their opponents’ ratings.
Taken further:
So every team’s rating is their average point margin, adjusted up or down depending on the strength of their opponents. Thus an average team would have a rating of zero. Suppose a team plays a schedule that is, overall, exactly average. Then the sum of the terms in parentheses would be zero and the team’s rating would be its average point margin. If a team played a tougher-than-average schedule, the sum of the terms in parentheses would be positive and so a team’s rating would be bigger than its average point margin.