I see this statistic referenced all of the time on here. "The Bengals have (X amount of games) of one score losses".

I've seen people claim Mike Brown will look at the fact that we lost however many games by a TD or less, and use that to believe we are close. I've seen many fans do they same.

People do realize most NFL games are decided by a score or less, right? That's why the overwhelming majority of spreads are 7 and under. If Vegas was setting game lines at -3 and -4 all of the time, people would figure how to explit the shit out of that system if the majority of games were decided by 9 or more. It's simple math.

Don't believe me? Take a look at these one score games from just last week:

Saints 21 - Falcons 16
Lions 34 - Bears 30
Browns 41 - Titans 35
Vikings 27 - Jags 24
Raiders 31 - Jets 28
Colts 26 - Texans 20
Giants 17 -Seahwaks 12
Chiefs 22 - Broncos 16
Washington 23 - Steelers 17

Of the 15 games played, 9 of them were decided by 6 points or less. Only one game out of the 15 actually had a lopsided difference of more than 14 points.

That's kinda how this league works. More often than not, the losing team will have lost by a score or less. And even in games that start out with bigger leads you'll often see the losing team close the gap due to run offense meant to eat time (not to score points) and a defense that gives up tons of yards underneath, allowing teams to march down the field (Eat more clock.)

Fwiw, I always wonder if we give extra credit for losing close then why don't we deduct points for winning close? I mean, it has to work both ways, right?

Has anyone ever heard someone bemoan the fact their team only won by 7? Does anyone ever reference "Yeah, I know we finished 12-4 but 9 of those wins came by a score or less? Of course they don't. A win is a win. A loss is a loss.

I'm not pointing any of this out to be negative, or to talk even more shit about this team. It just drives me nuts when I hear this thinking used. Again, losing this way is commonplace. It doesn't mean we're any closer than any other 2 or 3 or 4 win team. Cuz I guarantee you they had a lot of close losses as well.

So, JN, can we please remove this logic from our discussions? Pretty please? If we can eliminate this and "this is AFC North football" then you'll save some of us from a lot of eye rolls.

So many people seem to recall (falsely) that in the 90's we got blew out a lot. But, we didn't. Shula actually won more games than Zac, but also had a lot of close losses. The teams had talent too. For instance, the 1992 team had Pickens as ROY. Had Harold Green. A rookie QB in Klingler. (And yeah Shula won 2 road games his 1st year. Zac has yet to win 1.)

1992 - Shula's 1st Year
5 wins + 4 losses by a TD or less. Pickens Rookie of the Year. Harold Green Pro Bowl RB. Drafted a rookie QB in Klingler. Won 2 Road Games.
So yeah, you make 1 TD losses wins and he has 9. 274 points for/364 against.

1993
3 wins (3 out of last 6 games), 5 TD or less losses. 6 losses by 8 points or less. No road wins. Klingler was the starter. 187 points for/319 against

1994
3 wins, 7 TD or less losses. 8 by 8 points or less. 276 points for/406 against.

1995
7 wins, 5 TD or less losses. 349 points for/374 points against.

1996
1 win/3 TD or less losses. Coslett takes over after 7 games.

2019 - Zac
2 Wins/7 TD or less losses/8 by 8 or less. 279 points for/420 against.

Agreed! A loss is a loss and means that the team, coaches, players, etc didn't get it done.

Sure there are close losses, but look at some of the teams they've lost to this year. Many bottom feeders that under Marvin the Bengals would have turned them into road kill. Now the Bengals are a team that always seems to be a dollar short and a minute late even when there's a discount on and there was a 30 minute grace period.

Zac has rightful claim to the worst Bengals coach of all time and it's not even close.

Agree with OP.

There were certainly a couple games that we were basically blown out, but Burrow closed the lead at the end. The first Cleveland game for example.

The two games against the Ravens/Steelers were blow outs. Zac can't coach with those teams. If he can't coach within the division (1 win in 2 years, 1 win in 4 tries against cleveland), of what use is he?

Give me a coach that fits our division. Saleh or Eberflus would fit in well. Saleh's division is similar to the AFC north in terms of some of the defenses they've had there. Tough nosed football for sure.

How many close losses were simply because of poor coaching? We're in a position to win, but the defense simply can't stop the opposition. Need to put the team in a better position from a coaching perspective. Anytime we get in that late-game situation, everyone knows what's going to happen--the opposition, the fans, commentators, even the Bengals themselves. That's what needs to change more than anything.

It's also worth noting that the Bengals are playing the incredibly weak NFC East this season, a division the Bengals are winless against.

It's not like we are talking about close score against top tier teams. These are close loses to bottom feeders, which means the Bengals are sub-bottom feeders or, more precisely, bottom feeder droppings.

I think the important thing to remember is:

A normal random variable can assume fractional values, but the final margin of victory in a game must be an integer. Therefore we estimate the probability that the home team wins by between a and b points (including a and b, where a < b) is: probability(margin is between a - 0.5 and b + 0.5).

The Excel function:

NORMDIST(x,mean,sigma,True)

gives us the probability that a normal random variable with the given mean and sigma is less than or equal to x.

I will bemoan this week if we win by 1 or 50 pts.
This is too big of a game fo runs to win.

Lose out and give me th e3rd pick in the draft please.

(12-10-2020, 10:08 PM)BengalChris Wrote: It's also worth noting that the Bengals are playing the incredibly weak NFC East this season, a division the Bengals are winless against.

It's not like we are talking about close score against top tier teams. These are close loses to bottom feeders, which means the Bengals are sub-bottom feeders or, more precisely, bottom feeder droppings.

One of our wins was against a 1-11 team too.

(12-10-2020, 10:19 PM)SuperBowlBound! Wrote: I will bemoan this week if we win by 1 or 50 pts.
This is too big of a game fo runs to win.

Lose out and give me th e3rd pick in the draft please.

No wonder you like Zac!

(12-10-2020, 10:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the important thing to remember is:

A normal random variable can assume fractional values, but the final margin of victory in a game must be an integer. Therefore we estimate the probability that the home team wins by between a and b points (including a and b, where a < b) is: probability(margin is between a - 0.5 and b + 0.5).

The Excel function:

NORMDIST(x,mean,sigma,True)

gives us the probability that a normal random variable with the given mean and sigma is less than or equal to x.

If we take out ‘one score games’ win or lose we are 3-11 in the ZT era

We are 4-0 in games we've won under Zac.

(12-11-2020, 01:18 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: We are 4-0 in games we've won under Zac.

That's a stat that not enough people are talking about. Taylor has many flaws, but you can't say that he doesn't win the games that he does. I like how he appreciates the fans too. He makes sure he wins those games at home for the 9,500 faithfully gathered at PBS.

(12-11-2020, 01:16 AM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: If we take out ‘one score games’ win or lose we are 3-11 in the ZT era

You gotta admire the consistency under coach Taylor.

(12-11-2020, 01:18 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: We are 4-0 in games we've won under Zac.

If that's not impressive enough: He has won EVERY game in which a team he coached outscored the opponent. 

(12-11-2020, 12:05 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: One of our wins was against a 1-11 team too.

Yes, the Bengals are microscopically higher than the worst two teams in the league.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It's still a worthless clock. Sort of like our coaching staff.

Sadly, Mikey doesn't mind his clocks being screwy.

 

Just call him "soft" so that he can go to the 49ers and snuff us out in the Super Bowl.  Get on with it already! 

(12-10-2020, 09:25 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I see this statistic referenced all of the time on here.  "The Bengals have (X amount of games) of one score losses".

I've seen people claim Mike Brown will look at the fact that we lost however many games by a TD or less, and use that to believe we are close.  I've seen many  fans do they same.

People do realize most NFL games are decided by a score or less, right?  That's why the overwhelming majority of spreads are 7 and under.  If Vegas was setting game lines at -3 and -4 all of the time, people would figure how to explit the shit out of that system if the majority of games were decided by 9 or more.  It's simple math.

Don't believe me?  Take a look at these one score games from just last week:

Saints 21 - Falcons 16
Lions 34 - Bears 30
Browns 41 - Titans 35
Vikings 27 - Jags 24
Raiders 31 - Jets 28
Colts 26 - Texans 20
Giants 17 -Seahwaks 12
Chiefs 22 - Broncos 16
Washington 23 - Steelers 17

Of the 15 games played, 9 of them were decided by 6 points or less.  Only one game out of the 15 actually had a lopsided difference of more than 14 points.

That's kinda how this league works.  More often than not, the losing team will have lost by a score or less.  And even in games that start out with bigger leads you'll often see the losing team close the gap due to run offense meant to eat time (not to score points) and a defense that gives up tons of yards underneath, allowing teams to march down the field (Eat more clock.)

Fwiw, I always wonder if we give extra credit for losing close then why don't we deduct points for winning close?  I mean, it has to work both ways, right?  

Has anyone ever heard someone bemoan the fact their team only won by 7?  Does anyone ever reference "Yeah, I know we finished 12-4 but 9 of those wins came by a score or less?  Of course they don't.  A win is a win.  A loss is a loss.

I'm not pointing any of this out to be negative, or to talk even more shit about this team.  It just drives me nuts when I hear this thinking used.  Again, losing this way is commonplace.  It doesn't mean we're any closer than any other 2 or 3 or 4 win team.  Cuz I guarantee you they had a lot of close losses as well.

So, JN, can we please remove this logic from our discussions?  Pretty please?  If we can eliminate this and "this is AFC North football" then you'll save some of us from a lot of eye rolls.

Rep.

Hurray for us not losing terribly in every game.

That line of argument is Hobson'esque isn't it.   Right up there with we have had injuries (so does everyone else).