06-17-2015, 08:21 PM
(06-17-2015, 02:42 PM)djs 7685 Wrote: 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'.
(06-17-2015, 05:15 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The reason I don't like using their record when they play is that they could have just had a bunch of close / hard games in a row, and using the whole season shows what they generally play like.
As djs 7685 pointed out It is just much harder to collect the data if you are using the record of the teams at that exact point. So the easy thing to do is take the end of year record. There are too many reasons to point out why it is more telling to use records of when the game was played and why this makes sense.
I will try to make it simple...in your methodology KC (who destroyed) the Pat's last year on MNF should feel that are a better team than the Super Bowl champs. News flash KC was not even in the Playoff's. They can lie to themselves and say "we can beat them on most Sunday's" and they would be doing just that...lying to themselves. The Pat's team that got smoked on MNF was not the same team that made a run to the Superbowl and won it. The team mindset changed, or they were sprinkled with pixie dust, ot they deflated balls, hell I don't know but I do know that they were not the same caliber team.
Point being teams change, the method I use is beneficial on both ends of the argument (making it fair). The flip side of the example above is say your team beats a 5-0 team in week six. The QB goes out in week 7 and they end up 7-9. Should your team not be credited with betting and undefeated winning team? You know how the Pro- Andy crowd would side if that were the case with him.
To the point about not using the tie as a win. I specifically said WON the game. I already build in fluff for the Pro-Andy argument by saying teams 500 and above. That means the shitty Browns team that we opened up with was credited as beating a team with a 500 or better record. You want to stack the deck so badly it has to be embarrassing to even the most fanatic Dalton fan.
