Really Strange Seasons

[GTripp0012]

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.

The results are quite interesting...

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[wilsowilso]

Championship.

[81forHOF]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

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]

Originally Posted by jsarno

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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]

That is pretty cool. Whats defined as a better or worse team, just over all record?

[Schneed10]

This link 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.

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

other way around would suck though. winning 2 or 3 games. But you are right and these stats are interesting. The season last year was wierd.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

other way around would suck though. winning 2 or 3 games. But you are right and these stats are interesting. The season last year was wierd.

I kind of think that given our level of talent, it would have been a near statistical impossibility for the team to go 2-14 or 3-13 last season.

Given that our offensive line is a major strength, with Portis and Betts both healthy going into the season, and given that this is the 2nd season for the offense in Saunders' system; I can't possibly see the offense doing worse than last season. The only way the offense could be worse is if Campbell turns it over a lot, but based on his 5 starts from last year, I don't see that happening.

Even if the offense does turn it over, the defense can't be any worse this year at taking the ball away. I think we'll catch more of those INTs this year.

This is all to say that I can't see us getting worse than last year. Absolute worst case scenario for the 'Skins in '07 is 6-10; and that's if everything goes to hell. I see us getting better, with 8-8 or higher a significant probability.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This link tells you all about the mathematical equation they use to determine team ratings, but in plain English:



Taken further:

Pretty cool stuff. I had never heard of pro football reference before,

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

Or you could say that we played fairly consistent, but the teams that were better than us that we beat, didn't play very well that day.

Any given Sunday.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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?

And you know me how? I have purposely stayed away from you because of your idiotic nature, and here you go again...so what was the point of your post?
Just because you disagree with me about roulette doesn't require this kind of slam.
FYI- I am nicknamed statman because of my nature to always back my points up with stats, and find flaws in people's games with statistics. Including doing a 10,000 roll study on roulette that you ignored.
So maybe it would be more appropriate to call you jackassman from now on. Well, that might be inappropriate...JAM. There you go.
Sad thing is, JAM, you can provide decent substinance to a post, but you choose too often to try to attack someone. Does it make you feel better to say things like that over a post on the internet?