Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 9:18:31 GMT -5
At this point, we have all heard Parcells famous cliche a hundred times, "you are what your record says you are". However, given the recent surge of statistical analysis in evaluating football teams, there are now other things to look at than simply the W-L column. Namely, point differntial is now the hot topic of the day. I've heard many arguments that the 2013 Jets were not a .500 team, but rather a 3-13 team based on point differential and pythagoran wins. You can also look at the 2014 Jets and say that they were, in fact, a .333 team based on their roster and the nature of their wins and losses.
With that being said, is Parcells right on the money, or is there more to analyzing teams than simply their win-loss records?
|
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Dec 31, 2014 9:20:14 GMT -5
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Parcells is right and wrong at the same time. The "how" does matter.
Stop making threads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 9:21:03 GMT -5
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Parcells is right and wrong at the same time. Stop making threads. Stop trolling my threads. Better yet, you can always ignore me, since you obviously can't handle it. |
|
|
|
Post by astoria on Dec 31, 2014 9:21:08 GMT -5
Are you Seminole/FSU Jet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harrier on Dec 31, 2014 9:21:43 GMT -5
I agree and disagree with you.
Now lock her down.
|
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Dec 31, 2014 9:22:16 GMT -5
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Parcells is right and wrong at the same time. Stop making threads. Stop trolling my threads. Better yet, you can always ignore me, since you obviously can't handle it. Your name got changed for a reason. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 9:23:09 GMT -5
Stop trolling my threads. Better yet, you can always ignore me, since you obviously can't handle it. Your name got changed for a reason. Yeah for a shitty reason. Name ONE THREAD that I actually trolled. Just one. I will leave the board for a week if you do so. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Dec 31, 2014 9:25:43 GMT -5
Your name got changed for a reason. Yeah for a shitty reason. Name ONE THREAD that I actually trolled. Just one. I will leave the board for a week if you do so. You just trolled me with that response. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 9:30:26 GMT -5
Yes but only after you trolled me in retaliation to the possibility that I was trolling you to begin with. Can you say.... TROLLCEPTION?!?! Either that, or I'm just really bored here at work. I'm working a half day and can't wait to get out of here in a few hours  What do you have planned for New Years brah? Gonna get crunk with your boys at Times Square? |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Dec 31, 2014 10:18:58 GMT -5
WINS.
/thread.
and STFU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 10:30:18 GMT -5
BTW in case anyone was interested, I went ahead and ran the point differential and pythagoran calculations based on this year's team data. Assuming an exponent of 2.37 for each of the two variables in the pythagoran formula (you can go down to 1.82, but 2.37 is generally more accurate), the Jets actually underperformed their expected wins by one game this year. This translates to about 6-7 expected wins for 2015. I think it's pretty fair, and it might even be underestimating our potential.
Going by the eye test on the field, the Jets actually had some of the worst QB in the league and by far the worst secondary play in all of the NFL this season. Even moderate fixes to these two areas should yield 1-2 wins each. Throw in a decent coach that can better manage games (Rex and his poor coaching took part in at least 2-3 losses this year) and it's not unfeasible to go .500 or maybe even make a surprise push for a wildcard at 9-7.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Dec 31, 2014 10:35:36 GMT -5
BTW in case anyone was interested, I went ahead and ran the point differential and pythagoran calculations based on this year's team data. Assuming an exponent of 2.37 for each of the two variables in the pythagoran formula (you can go down to 1.82, but 2.37 is generally more accurate), the Jets actually underperformed their expected wins by one game this year. This translates to about 6-7 expected wins for 2015. I think it's pretty fair, and it might even be underestimating our potential. Going by the eye test on the field, the Jets actually had some of the worst QB in the league and by far the worst secondary play in all of the NFL this season. Even moderate fixes to these two areas should yield 1-2 wins each. Throw in a decent coach that can better manage games (Rex and his poor coaching took part in at least 2-3 losses this year) and it's not unfeasible to go .500 or maybe even make a surprise push for a wildcard at 9-7. QB and CB play and turnover differential were the 3 worst factors for the team this year. Improve at least 2 of those and we have a winning season. |
|
|
|
Post by thebigragu on Dec 31, 2014 10:36:37 GMT -5
Guys quickly becoming a valuable member of this fine community
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 11:10:06 GMT -5
BTW in case anyone was interested, I went ahead and ran the point differential and pythagoran calculations based on this year's team data. Assuming an exponent of 2.37 for each of the two variables in the pythagoran formula (you can go down to 1.82, but 2.37 is generally more accurate), the Jets actually underperformed their expected wins by one game this year. This translates to about 6-7 expected wins for 2015. I think it's pretty fair, and it might even be underestimating our potential. Going by the eye test on the field, the Jets actually had some of the worst QB in the league and by far the worst secondary play in all of the NFL this season. Even moderate fixes to these two areas should yield 1-2 wins each. Throw in a decent coach that can better manage games (Rex and his poor coaching took part in at least 2-3 losses this year) and it's not unfeasible to go .500 or maybe even make a surprise push for a wildcard at 9-7. QB and CB play and turnover differential were the 3 worst factors for the team this year. Improve at least 2 of those and we have a winning season. That's very true, I didn't even consider turnover differential. It's highly correlated with win expectancy and can be observed very easily through the eye test, whereas overall point differential can be distorted very easily through a blowout or two. You can actually take pythagoran wins one step further through adjusted expected wins, in which you average game-by-game point differential to weed out the outliers for massive blowouts. I don't think the difference is statistically significant compared to normal pythagoran wins. I know Bill James applies a slightly higher coefficient for adjusted pythagoran versus regular pythagoran when calculating n+1 wins, but not by much. |
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Dec 31, 2014 11:29:27 GMT -5
The Pythagorean model doesn't work very well in football because you don't have the number of games necessary to develop a sufficient sample size to make an accurate prediction. That's why the model, applied to the NFL, is all over the map every year in its predictions. It works better in the NBA and MLB because they play far more games in a season. The effect of outlier games is sufficiently reduced. The 2013 Jets are a good example of how the low sample size allows outliers to skew the results. In 2013 each of our wins came on a handful of points but our losses ranged from a three point loss to a forty point loss. Those three games where we were demolished skewed the results. You can also look at how much we relied on FGs to put up points on the board and how few points we scored in several games. That's why the model showed us being a 3-13 team.
The purpose of the statistical analysis is not to create a new model for looking at this year's performance but to forecast next year's performance. If this year's analysis says we are a 5-11 team then that really means the model predicts we will be a 5-11 or 6-10 team next year (where teams underperform their Pythagorean wins they usually overperform by one win the following year). This is where the model is most accurate but still the model has no function to account for a change in management, coaching, or whatever roster changes are sure to follow this offseason.
|
|
