PDA

View Full Version : Perspective


thunderkyss
01-04-2011, 08:49 PM
Texans..... 0.547...... 6..... 10
Titans....... 0.547...... 6..... 10
Cowboys. 0.543...... 6..... 10
Bengals.... 0.539...... 4..... 12
Jaguars.... 0.535...... 8..... 8
Patriots.... 0.531...... 14... 2
Giants...... 0.527...... 10... 6
Redskins.. 0.523...... 6..... 10
Eagles...... 0.520...... 10... 6
Colts....... 0.516...... 10... 6
Browns.... 0.516...... 5..... 11
Ravens..... 0.508...... 12... 4
Lions ........0.508...... 6..... 10
Bears....... 0.504...... 11... 5
Vikings..... 0.504...... 6..... 10
Jets..........0.500.......11....5
Raiders..... 0.500.......8..... 8
Dolphns.... 0.500...... 7..... 9
Bills...........0.500...... 4..... 12
Falcons.... 0.496...... 13... 3
Steelers... 0.492...... 12... 4
Chiefs...... 0.488...... 10... 6
Packers.... 0.488...... 10... 6
Broncos... 0.484...... 4..... 12
Bucs....... 0.480...... 10... 6
Panthers.. 0.477...... 2..... 14
Saints...... 0.469...... 11... 5
49ers...... 0.457...... 6..... 10
Chargers.. 0.453...... 9..... 7
Seahawks 0.453...... 7..... 9
Rams....... 0.449...... 7..... 9
Cardinals.. 0.445...... 5..... 11
===========================================

So what does this mean?

To me, this means the Patriots are either a really, really good team, or they have one hell of a coach (coaching staff)..... I'm thinking it's probably both.

The Colts, are still a pretty good team... or Manning is that good... even with their injuries, they did pretty good against a tough schedule.

I've always thought the Jags & Titans were better than we give them credit for around here. Most everyone has been telling me the Texans aren't as good as I think they are.... this kind of supports that. While I think the goal is to get where the Colts are at, I think the Titans & Jags are a respectable stop on the way. Either they are getting worse, or we're getting better. 6 in one hand.......

I can't believe we lost to a team with a losing record playing against a losing schedule... the Broncos.

I'm glad we aren't fans of one of the 6 teams with losing records against losing schedules. I'm not happy that we are 6-10..... But it's better to be 6-10 against the toughest schedule in the NFL and not 5-11 against the easiest schedule (Arizona) or 2-14 against a sub .500 schedule (the Panthers).

& while I was looking up SOS numbers, I came across an interesting tidbit.

The year the Saints went to the NFC Championship game... the first year of HC Sean Payton..... they had the toughest schedule (.581) Wow.......

HJam72
01-04-2011, 08:53 PM
It means the Panthers really suck. :)

Jackie Chiles
01-04-2011, 08:59 PM
Is this the preseason SOS? Where did you get these numbers? Right off the top of my head I know they aren't accurate because we are not picking last in the draft out of the 6-10 teams.

Found something to compare:
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Draft-Order.php

Bulluck53
01-04-2011, 08:59 PM
Might be better to look at updated S.O.S. to take into account opponents' results from this season. Good discussion though

Bulluck53
01-04-2011, 09:00 PM
Is this the preseason SOS? Where did you get these numbers? Right off the top of my head I know they aren't accurate because we are not picking last in the draft out of the 6-10 teams.

Found something to compare:
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Draft-Order.php

:bravo:

Dishman
01-04-2011, 09:06 PM
Five Texans opponents in 2010 represent the bulk of the strength of schedule:* Indianapolis twice at*14-2, San Diego (13-3), and Dallas and Philadelphia at 11-5 each bring a combined won loss record of 63-17 (.788) *to the Texans 2010 opponent's schedule.


Source: http://www.examiner.com/houston-texans-in-houston/nfl-s-toughest-schedule-looms-for-texans-2010

We should have beaten Indy both times, whooped Dallas, probably beaten a Chargers team facing a tough, early W-L record. These teams were vulnerable.

Texan_Bill
01-04-2011, 09:06 PM
Meh! What it means is that we suck. Our defense is G*D awfull. Garbage, really!!! Our "O", while potent at times was nothing like last season and very inconsistent. It also means our "Special Teams" were anything but "Special"...

As Bill Parcells once opined, (or at least I think it was Parcells) that said "You are what your record says you are" or something to that effect.

Dutchrudder
01-04-2011, 09:22 PM
Ok, even if those numbers are incorrect let's extend this line of thinking. During our 9-7 season we had a relatively easy schedule; should that detract the value of one win from it and make it worth 8-8? Maybe 7-9?

You can spin it any way you want to show 'perspective' but the reality is a good team will overcome A tough schedule. Because really, there is no excuse for losing the division this year, we all play nearly the same schedule and this year we had a real shot given how poorly our rivals played.

thunderkyss
01-04-2011, 09:31 PM
Is this the preseason SOS? Where did you get these numbers? Right off the top of my head I know they aren't accurate because we are not picking last in the draft out of the 6-10 teams.

Found something to compare:
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Draft-Order.php



Might be better to look at updated S.O.S. to take into account opponents' results from this season. Good discussion though

I wanted to use the S.O.S. from the beginning of the season. That's the one that had everyone going "Oh Shit!!" about.

It made sense to me, this years W/L vs last years SOS was probably more relevant.

I mean is Dallas a 6-10 team, or an 11-5 team? If they played the Cardinals schedule, would they still be 6-10?

I don't think so.

The Titans would probably 13-3 had they played the Panther's schedule.....

Bottom line.. I guess... you can't really tell a lot from SOS, or W/L percentages.

Bulluck53
01-04-2011, 09:47 PM
Gotcha, you could also compare initial SOS with actual, and go from there. It is cool to see, from JC's link, that only 3 of the twelve playoff teams faced an above-.500 updated SOS, though it makes sense as to why.

thunderkyss
01-04-2011, 10:02 PM
Ok, even if those numbers are incorrect let's extend this line of thinking. During our 9-7 season we had a relatively easy schedule; should that detract the value of one win from it and make it worth 8-8? Maybe 7-9?


Even then, our "relatively easy schedule" was still a tough schedule. Just not as tough as our 2008, or 2010 schedule. The Houston Texans have never had to play a losing schedule.

2002, .503
2003, .533
2004, .500
2005, .504
2006, .523
2007, .504
2008, .547
2009, .506
2010, .547



You can spin it any way you want to show 'perspective' but the reality is a good team will overcome A tough schedule. Because really, there is no excuse for losing the division this year, we all play nearly the same schedule and this year we had a real shot given how poorly our rivals played.

Also, I'm not using this to say, look we aren't as bad as 6-10.... I'm saying at least we didn't go 6-10 (or worse) against an easy schedule like some teams (who some here thought were good teams) did.

& yes, the good teams, The Patriots & the Colts will overcome a tough schedule....

I even mentioned as much, using the Saints 10-6 record & NFC Championship game appearance when they had the toughest schedule (.583, tougher than any schedule we've had).

thunderkyss
01-04-2011, 10:12 PM
Gotcha, you could also compare initial SOS with actual, and go from there. It is cool to see, from JC's link, that only 3 of the twelve playoff teams faced an above-.500 updated SOS, though it makes sense as to why.

So that brings us back to the discussion.

How do you know you've got a good team, like the Patriots & Colts, or if you're playing with smoke & mirrors, like the Cowboys & Cardinals?

Where are the Lions? are they any better today than they were 4 years ago? The Raiders going 8-8 against a .500 schedule Is that not impressive knowing where they were? Is it less impressive that their schedule turned out to be .469? Is that team not better than the Jamarcus Russell or even Dante Culpepper led versions?

Bulluck53
01-04-2011, 10:16 PM
Watched a segment on CNN last night with Max Kellerman and he said something I've heard before, and makes a little sense.

Something along these lines:
"Most teams in the NFL fall within 8-8; some of those teams get a little lucky and end up 10-6 and some face some adversity and finish 6-10. Then you've got a handful of teams at both ends of the spectrum (meaning teams we know will be very good or very bad)."

To an extent, I agree with him, the way the schedule is structured undoubtedly has an effect. It is a crapshoot for a handful of teams each year.
--------------

To answer your question, I don't think it's smart to look at SOS as the end all, be all for success; especially comparing different years. A semi-educated football fan, as I'd label most people on internet message boards, can judge for themselves if those teams have improved. The record is one part of that evaluation.

GNTLEWOLF
01-04-2011, 10:21 PM
PERSPECTIVE!!!---- I don't give a rip what our strength of schedule was or is. I don't care what any other team has or has not accomplished. All I know is that under Klue-lessbiak this team has sucked and finished this season having regressed. I'm not sure why we don't do what Cincinatti did with Lewis and give Loserbiak another extension.

thunderkyss
01-04-2011, 10:30 PM
PERSPECTIVE!!!---- I don't give a rip what our strength of schedule was or is. I don't care what any other team has or has not accomplished. All I know is that under Klue-lessbiak this team has sucked and finished this season having regressed. I'm not sure why we don't do what Cincinatti did with Lewis and give Loserbiak another extension.

Plenty of other piss on Kubiak threads around here if that's the discussion you wish to have. This isn't about "how good we are, let's keep Gary" this is about SOS, how all the teams have done versus their SOS, and what we can decipher from that.

If that's all you get after looking at the data (or contributing your own data) fine....... but don't start off "I don't give a rip..... "

Lucky
01-04-2011, 10:31 PM
So what does this mean?

It means the Texans are the best 6-10 team in the NFL!!! :)

Is this the preseason SOS? Where did you get these numbers? Right off the top of my head I know they aren't accurate because we are not picking last in the draft out of the 6-10 teams.
Oh no! The Texans aren't the best 6-10 team in the NFL. :(

Please stop trying to make a Cadillac out of a Pinto. The 2010 Texans sucked. Period. Many will get an undeserved opportunity for redemption in 2011. Hip-hip-hooray!

How's that for some perspective.

JB
01-04-2011, 10:42 PM
It means the Texans are the best 6-10 team in the NFL!!! :)


Oh no! The Texans aren't the best 6-10 team in the NFL. :(

Please stop trying to make a Cadillac out of a Pinto. The 2010 Texans sucked. Period. Many will get an undeserved opportunity for redemption in 2011. Hip-hip-hooray!

How's that for some perspective.



Pretty spot on actually.

thunderkyss
01-04-2011, 10:57 PM
It's a shame the only one that wants to talk football on the Texanstalk.com forum is a feak'n Tack (no offense Bullock53).

Lucky
01-04-2011, 11:06 PM
It's a shame the only one that wants to talk football on the Texanstalk.com forum is a feak'n Tack (no offense Bullock53).
You misrepresented statistics to make a bogus point. How is that football related? That the Texans sucked on the football field is related to football.

Because you start a thread, doesn't mean you own it. The topic was perspective. Your post lacked perspective because it contained erroneous information. Others helped put that in perspective. Cry all you want about what happened to the thread, but as they say, "garbage in, garbage out".

thunderkyss
01-04-2011, 11:12 PM
You misrepresented statistics to make a bogus point. How is that football related? That the Texans sucked on the football field is related to football.

Because you start a thread, doesn't mean you own it. The topic was perspective. Your post lacked perspective because it contained erroneous information. Others helped put that in perspective. Cry all you want about what happened to the thread, but as they say, "garbage in, garbage out".

The Stats weren't misrepresented or erroneous.

I wasn't trying to make any point, much less a bogus point....

MojoX
01-04-2011, 11:33 PM
Watched a segment on CNN last night with Max Kellerman and he said something I've heard before, and makes a little sense.

Something along these lines:
"Most teams in the NFL fall within 8-8; some of those teams get a little lucky and end up 10-6 and some face some adversity and finish 6-10. Then you've got a handful of teams at both ends of the spectrum (meaning teams we know will be very good or very bad)."

To an extent, I agree with him, the way the schedule is structured undoubtedly has an effect. It is a crapshoot for a handful of teams each year.
--------------

I think the Kellerman point pretty much sums up thunderkyss' observation. Statistically, NFL teams are .500 and my guess is that the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 is luck and injury.

Here is coverage of Football Outsiders bit on injuries:

Applying the H.G.L. accrued by each team to the performance of the league’s teams over the past eight years reveals many nuggets of information, some particularly counterintuitive.

1. Injuries, or their absence, have a drastic effect on a team’s success.

Huge shifts in a team’s won-lost record are almost always supported by a similar shift in their health. The formula suggests that 26 percent of a team’s change in wins from year to year can be attributed to the change in its rate of injury.

Injuries played a huge role in determining success in 2008. Of the 10 healthiest teams in the league by H.G.L., seven made the playoffs, including the surprising seasons enjoyed by Atlanta (second-healthiest team in the league), Carolina (third), Miami (fourth), Tennessee (sixth) and Arizona (eighth). Meanwhile, only 2 of the 10 most-injured teams in the league made the playoffs: Indianapolis (sixth-most-injured team in the N.F.L.) and Baltimore (seventh).

It can be argued that the American Football Conference East was won by injuries. The New England Patriots’ fall was driven by the season-ending injury to quarterback Tom Brady in Week 1. And the Dolphins, who won the division in the final week, received 16-game seasons from Pennington, who had played only one other full season in his nine-year career, and Brown, who played his first in four seasons.

2. A superstar is worth about six to seven times as much as a reserve.

When calculating the different weights for scaling each player’s H.G.L., the ratio that yielded the best relationship with wins was about 6.75 to 1 for a missed game by a star player as opposed to a reserve. In reality, stars receive far more than 6.75 times the salary of reserves.

Take quarterback Tony Romo, whose broken finger halted the dynamic Dallas Cowboys offense in midseason. During his three games on the sideline, the Dallas offense averaged 232 yards a game, down from 371 before he was hurt, and a loss to the lowly St. Louis Rams ended up costing them a playoff spot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/sports/football/13injuries.html
Of course the easy statement is "So what? Don't hide behind numbers." But the interesting thing about the analysis is, just as with Freakonomics, they challenge our assumptions about the game. In this case, I think it asks us to consider the effect the impact of the injuries to Ryans (!!), Johnson, and Williams.

Compare that to what Football Outsiders predicted for this season:

Steph: Last year, Football Outsider projections had a grim assessment of the Texans wins for 2009, projecting 6.9 wins. (In 2008, it projected 8.9 wins) In 2010, the projection is even grimmer, with 5.6 wins projected (a 51% projection of being 4-6, 19% projecting 7-8, 7% projecting 9-10 and 4% at being a 11 plus win team).

Could you explain why the projection keeps getting grimmer even though it looks like the Texans should be better with more returning starters and more of the young players getting familiar with each other than the scheme they play in?

Bill: I think those factors you mentioned are positives, but they're outweighed by the negative factors. They have a tough schedule, one we expect to be ninth in the league. The Texans had the league's fifth-easiest schedule a year ago. Although I certainly believe that Houston has a lot of young talent on defense, the parts haven't added up to anything valuable yet -- even with the eighth-healthiest unit in football last year, the Texans' defense was 18th in the league in DVOA. They're going to suffer more injuries this year (even without including the Cushing suspension), and our projection system thinks the increase in injuries will be more important than the growth of Houston's young players.

http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2010/07/football_outsiders_texans_2010.html
The Texans aren't on either end of the bell curve (being either really bad or really good). But they are in that tip-zone where, due to coaching, personnel, or both, they cannot overcome bad luck. Bottom line: this is a mediocre team.

And thanks thuderkyss for the attempt at analytical discussion. Reminds me a bit of the effect Daryl Morey has had on basketball discussion at Clutchfans (amongst some posters).

Numerical analysis, done well, doesn't obfuscate or reveal truth. It just helps us think in different perspectives about a problem. Of course, this is little solace in the face of herd mentality and sloganeering.

Oh, and, as always, given the nature of this attempted discussion, thanks TexansChick for the outstanding work you've been doing!

Bulluck53
01-04-2011, 11:38 PM
You misrepresented statistics to make a bogus point. How is that football related? That the Texans sucked on the football field is related to football.

Because you start a thread, doesn't mean you own it. The topic was perspective. Your post lacked perspective because it contained erroneous information. Others helped put that in perspective. Cry all you want about what happened to the thread, but as they say, "garbage in, garbage out".

That's not at all what I took from it. He posted this as a general discussion about the NFL and how teams actually perform versus their projected strength of schedule. Jackie and myself came in thinking Thunderkyss needed to look at updated S.O.S. to further validate his point, but that wasn't the case. He wanted to point out that expectations based on S.O.S. *before the season,* which most fans look at and believe to be a large factor in how their team will perform the next season, seems to have no bearing on which team is successful or not since win/loss records are dispersed pretty evenly throughout those S.O.S. rankings Thunderkyss gave.

If this were in NFL Talk you probably wouldn't have jumped all over him.

Lucky
01-04-2011, 11:51 PM
That's not at all what I took from it. He posted this as a general discussion about the NFL and how teams actually perform versus their projected strength of schedule.
"Projected" was never stated nor implied in the opening post.

"The Colts, are still a pretty good team... or Manning is that good... even with their injuries, they did pretty good against a tough schedule." Tough schedule??? The Colts opponents had a 47.3 winning %.

"I can't believe we lost to a team with a losing record playing against a losing schedule... the Broncos." The Broncos opponents had a 51.6 winning %.

If you want to turn the thread into something of value, that's great. But, I know what he was doing.

thunderkyss
01-04-2011, 11:56 PM
If this were in NFL Talk you probably wouldn't have jumped all over him.

I did think about putting it in the general NFL Forum.....


I don't think it would have been received any differently.

Bulluck53
01-05-2011, 12:01 AM
Excellent post Mojo, the injury statistics you posted were very enlightening. We all hate to hear the injury excuse but it is sometimes a valid point to make, as it undoubtedly plays a part in the success, or lack thereof, of a given team in a given year. To see it in numbers like that is telling. Makes me wish I had Peyton on my team.

Your second quote is exactly the point Thunderkyss is trying to get across, and I imagine that's why you posted it. There are many other things to consider going into the season than projected strength of schedule.

thunderkyss
01-05-2011, 12:01 AM
"Projected" was never stated nor implied in the opening post.

"The Colts, are still a pretty good team... or Manning is that good... even with their injuries, they did pretty good against a tough schedule." Tough schedule??? The Colts opponents had a 47.3 winning %.

"I can't believe we lost to a team with a losing record playing against a losing schedule... the Broncos." The Broncos opponents had a 51.6 winning %.

If you want to turn the thread into something of value, that's great. But, I know what he was doing.

Please Lucky, tell me what I'm doing. LIke I said, there was no point. I just threw a bunch of information out there, then summarized what the info told me.

There's several things in that post that reflect what others have stated as well..... "most teams are around 8-8...... few extremes either way, bell curves........" "Arizona, Carolina, Texans, Titans, Jags, Colts, Patriots"

I then asked what others got out of the information. Though I did not state it those are the w/l percentages (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/21479/2010-strength-of-schedule) we all looked at when we talked about how tough our schedule was before the season started...... It didn't dawn on me that anyone would be looking at 2010 final SOS. (for draft position tiebreakers) already.

Bulluck53
01-05-2011, 12:05 AM
"Projected" was never stated nor implied in the opening post.

"The Colts, are still a pretty good team... or Manning is that good... even with their injuries, they did pretty good against a tough schedule." Tough schedule??? The Colts opponents had a 47.3 winning %.

"I can't believe we lost to a team with a losing record playing against a losing schedule... the Broncos." The Broncos opponents had a 51.6 winning %.

If you want to turn the thread into something of value, that's great. But, I know what he was doing.

I guess you missed this one...

Bottom line.. I guess... you can't really tell a lot from SOS, or W/L percentages.