Something You'll Never See In Cincinnati...EVER!

[*Go Cards*]

(02-03-2016, 12:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Listen Leonard, it is one thing to call me stupid.  It another thing altogether to call an entire field of mathematics stupid.

You just don't understand it.  If a team, even the Patriots, has a really extraordinary year then the odds are they will not be as good next year.  The Pats have made it to the Super Bowl six times under Belichick and Brady, and 5 of the 6 years they were not as successful the next year.  They have only won fewer than 12 games six times in that same time, and 5 of the 6 years they were more successful the next year. Same for any team that has a really bad year.  This is not a silly Fredtoast theory.  This is a proven mathematical probability. I just made a post that contained three different stories about it from educated mathematicians.  Since it usually takes an extraordinary bad season to get a coach there is a good chance that the team will be more successful the next year.


So did mike Zimmer really turn around a bad Vikings team, or did a lot of bad luck get Frazier fired?  in 2 seasons Zimmer has 18 wins and a playoff loss.  But in Fraziers last two seasons the Vikings won 15 games and also lost a playoff game.

Same with Gruden and the Redskins.  In 2 seasons he has 13 wins and a playoff loss.  In Shanahans last two seasons the Redskins had 13 wins and a playoff loss.

Believe Zimmer would have more than just 3 extra wins if AP did not have to sit out first season. 

But 3 extra wins is still good. Took a team that averaged 7.5 wins previous 2 years and upped it to 9 while replacing QB with rookie and having the franchise RB suspended for 50% of this litmus test.  

Know this detoured the argument momentarily, but had to take up for Zimmer. Also Gruden replaced franchise QB as well now that I think of it. 

If both were known up front ? Rookie QB and no AP for a year, or Cousins for RGIII everybody would have said both teams would most likely regress.