06-17-2015, 02:42 PM
(06-17-2015, 12:52 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: When has it ever been the standard to look at what the teams record was when we played them, and not at the end of the year? Why wouldn't you add in the tie (which he did, but he only added it to his losses) to both the win, and the loss? I'm the one trying to be fair, and I'm letting him know that most QBs have losing records vs .500 or better teams. So how have my facts been twisted? How am I manipulating anything? All I'm doing is showing the whole picture, and not a small portion like he's trying to do.
Most people go with their record at the end of the year for the simple fact that it's easier to compile data that way. People are lazy and don't want to do a ton of work, so finding out what each team's record was at the time of playing them would take much more time than simply looking at the end of year standings on 1 page and seeing if the team had a winning/losing record.
Whether it makes Andy better or worse, I see zero "manipulation" from looking at the team's record at the time of playing them. It does make sense. If the Browns were 0-4 when we beat them, that probably means they were playing like shit at the time, so if they end the year 9-7, they would have been added as a team above .500 when in reality they were probably not playing like a .500 team at the time. That makes a lot of sense, I'd say.
I didn't read through the whole thing, but I didn't see him only add in the ties to the losses. If that's the case, then yeah you should probably add them in properly unless his claim is that "The Bengals only WON X games against .500 teams" because at that point a tie would be the equivalent to a loss. If you're just doing overall record (like I believe you guys are), then you're correct with the whole tie situation.
I wouldn't say he's trying to only look at a small portion or that he's twisting anything, he's just presenting the data in a slightly different manner than you are (minus the whole tie fiasco). Again, I don't see anything wrong with looking at the team's record at the time of playing them and I have no idea how you can argue against that unless you're just mad that it doesn't make Andy look better his way. It could actually be argued that he's looking at it a "better" way than you since his numbers reflect approximately how the teams were playing at the time of the Bengals meeting them, and not letting any crazy turnarounds skew the data by only looking at end of the year records. Just sayin'.
