Posted:
#101
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Claw you’re an educated individual but you get bogged down with your stats and the in the aggregate, you make a sweeping generalizations that make you look foolish.
Claw you’re an educated individual but you get bogged down with your stats and the in the aggregate, you make a sweeping generalizations that make you look foolish.
If you want to go game by game about how Dallas and Seattle won their games (2 at the gun wins vs the Cards, dumbas* McCarthy punting on 4th and 2, and the Carolina game) we can:
So let’s look at the Carolina game:
4th and 3, Carolina up 7, Wilson throws a 35 yard bomb for a TD 27-27.
Carolina gets the ball back and drives downfield and misses a game winner. Seattle gets the ball with 1:30 after the miss and drives and kicks the game winner.
Then the Cards in the third game: Miss a game winner. Switch fields and Seattle hits a game winner.
Then the Packers with a 4th and 2 taking the ball out of Rodgers hands.
THese are not coin flips. In live betting Carolina was as high as a -600 favorite up 7. Then a heavy favorite driving for the win.
Same with the Cards.-300 driving for the game winner.
You want stats? Translate those ML’s into percentages if you want stats and tell me those are coin flip wins.
Compare this to Dallas’ win over the mighty Saints up 13-0 ending 13-10. Was that a “coin flip” for Dallas where they lead pillar to post?
I can play the numbers game too. Except I WATCH the games and know what went down at the final gun. BANG! I don’t have an excel spreadsheet spitting out gobbledegook to bolster a point of mine.
Come out of the computing clouds and put away the pocket protector crap away and exchange it for REAL capping. And tail this if you want a winner. Nuff said.
Your bringing up Seattle's close wins but not all their close losses, you need to look at both.
Sure Seattle had close wins, every team does, but they also had 6 close losses that count as well, they could have lost those games you mentioned but won the same number or more of the close losses .
Not many know or understand regression, not even some of the best most popular and famous web sites, I see this year after year after year that people are fooled by regression and they try to use a deep in regression loss by a team as a basis for a future game
The Saints were very, very deep into regression coming off a series of unsustainable level of play.
They were more then ready to regress as a team and as an offense which I called at the time.
History supports Saints regressing VS Dallas not nessacarily because Dallas played well. Dallas was more lucky to catch the best team they played in the best of spots.
I see guys talking the same thing on other regression losses in this years playoffs.
0
It might even save you a few bucks! 
Hot Forum Topics
