tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post1760208855269356574..comments2024-03-28T02:23:44.367-05:00Comments on Pacifist Viking: CausationPacifist Vikinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630996018868040440noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-20196500337384297192022-05-02T03:34:04.581-05:002022-05-02T03:34:04.581-05:00this contentthis post weblinkclick to investigat...<a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/wallets-c-157_158_201/louis-vuitton-replica-n63069-zippy-coin-purse-damier-azur-canvas-p-3553.html"" rel="nofollow">this content</a>this post <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/fr/radjah-c-157_168_186/mode-gucci-r%C3%A9pliques-537219-rajah-grand-fourretout-python-p-1213.html"" rel="nofollow">weblink</a>click to investigate <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/book-c-157_224_303/highest-product-quality-dior-book-tote-bag-blue-2022-replica-p-4705.html"" rel="nofollow">navigate here</a>go to the website mctelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02582325689287995145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-60765343291406338482021-09-20T07:04:42.321-05:002021-09-20T07:04:42.321-05:00Byrne then shows that while home-field has been an...Byrne then shows that while home-field has been an historical strong advantage, that advantage hasn't shown in three of the past four seasons. Byrne is right to note that realignment is rewarding some lesser teams with homefield advantage. <a href="https://www.kuchijewels.com/product-category/kuchi-tribal-jewellery/other-items/" rel="nofollow">evil eye necklace canada</a> , <a href="https://www.kuchijewels.com/product-category/kuchi-tribal-jewellery/other-items/" rel="nofollow">evil eye necklace australia</a> , pandora necklace wholesale ukhttps://www.kuchijewels.com/product-category/kuchi-tribal-jewellery/head-piece/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-59268738313423475392010-03-24T20:48:38.266-05:002010-03-24T20:48:38.266-05:00Cold Hard Football Facts is a crap website and Ker...Cold Hard Football Facts is a crap website and Kerry J. Byrne is a pile of garbage that should be committed!<br /><br />Good job Pacifist Viking, you did a good job ripping apart Byrne's BS. I personally like having 8 divisions. Sure it has it's flaws but the same can be said about any type of realignment and the fact that the 8 division set-up allows a team to play home and away against all (remaining) 31 teams within an 8 year span is good enough to outweigh any negatives that the set-up has.<br /><br />If they went back to six divisions, it would be a chaotic scheduling nightmare as you would have 4 five team divisions and 2 six team divisions which would horrible. All in all I'm proud of the 8 division alignment. Good work with your rant too Pacifist Viking.<br /><br />Oh and don't worry, I can guarantee you 100% that the Minnesota Vikings are NEVER gonna move. You have my full support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-56557827897521015952009-01-19T08:52:00.000-06:002009-01-19T08:52:00.000-06:00Derek, the 01 Patriots ranked 6th in points scored...Derek, the 01 Patriots ranked 6th in points scored and 6th in points allowed, but the other numbers are pretty average (19th in offensive yards, 24th in defensive yards, 24th in rush yards per attempt and 21st in rush yards per attempt allowed, 15th in net yards passing per attempt and 20th in net yards passing per attempt allowed. It's interesting comparing them to the 07 Giants, who were 14th in points scored and 17th in points allowed, but were actually a top-10 rush offense and top-10 rush defense.<BR/><BR/>One thing I think we may be seeing (with the 06 Colts and 08 Cardinals)--if you take one outstanding unit to the playoffs (in this case offense), the other unit can get hot or lucky and perform well enough for a deep playoff run. In the Colts' case, they had an elite offense, but in the first two rounds of the playoffs the defense was outstanding in leading them to wins.Pacifist Vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630996018868040440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-45797667462932299432009-01-19T01:34:00.000-06:002009-01-19T01:34:00.000-06:00It occurs to me that the 2001 Patriots were a far ...It occurs to me that the 2001 Patriots were a far bigger fluke than the 2005 Steelers, 2006 Colts, or 2007 Giants. That team was average or below average in pretty much every statistical category as I recall. At least the last three champs were known to be exceptional in at least area, and the Giants showed big improvement over the playoffs that carried into this season. As Football Outsiders pointed out, if you discount Weeks 13-16, when the division was already in hand, the Cardinals rank as the 7th best team (in DVOA of course). So even if they win the Super Bowl, I don't know how much of a fluke it'd be.<BR/><BR/>And I'm not convinced that the supposed diminishment of home-field advantage is anything but random variation. HFA is significantly smaller against division rivals, and maybe more division rivals are meeting in the first two rounds now.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17941314072950152029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-32445641861439858312009-01-16T20:38:00.000-06:002009-01-16T20:38:00.000-06:00I think you are exactly right on the interceptions...I think you are exactly right on the interceptions correlation v causation issue.<BR/><BR/>[] Logically, teams that are behind to begin with throw more often to catch up (especially as it gets late in the game), throw against Ds that are expecting it, thus throw "uphill" against aggressive pass rushes and DBs sitting on the pass ... and so throw more picks at a higher rate than teams that are winning. <BR/><BR/>[] Empirically one can see this in QB situational "splits", as NFL stats show QBs have significantly higher passing ratings when playing ahead than behind. <BR/><BR/>E.g. from my clip file for 2006...<BR/><BR/>Tom Brady's passing rating when: <BR/>Ahead by 9-16 .... 136 <BR/>Ahead ............. 99 <BR/>Behind............. 67 <BR/>Behind by 9-16 .... 57 <BR/><BR/>Drew Brees, MVP runner-up: <BR/><BR/>Ahead .............. 106 <BR/>Behind .............. 87 <BR/><BR/>Tony Romo: <BR/><BR/>Ahead .............. 121 <BR/>Behind .............. 87, etc.<BR/><BR/>So the quality of a team's defense can materially affect the quality of its QB's play and his rating, another example of the QB getting both excessive credit and blame in a team game ... but I digress.<BR/><BR/>[] Anecdotally, I have the misfortune to be a long-time Jets fan, and Pennington 2007-2008 is a great example of all of the above.<BR/><BR/>2007: The Jets had a dreadful awful D during the first half of the season while CP was starting. Time and again he had the lead for most of the game but after the D collapsed in the second half, he spent the last minutes chucking uphill to try to come from behind. Time and again the game ended a loss after he threw a bad-looking pick.<BR/><BR/>Jets fans' reaction: "Killer pick after killer pick! Popgun with his noodle arm can never carry this team to a big win, especially from behind when you really need it". <BR/><BR/>So the guy was benched and run out of town and replaced with Favre, though career-wise CP had one the lowest pick rates in NFL history ... and replacing him, or <EM>anyone</EM> with Favre to reduce bad picks ... hey! ... but I digress again. <BR/><BR/>2008: Penny returns to near league-best pick rate with 7 in 16 games. <BR/><BR/>Then, in the playoffs against a much superior Ravens team, playing almost all the way from behind, he throws 4 in one game.<BR/><BR/>The Jets fans who had wanted to get rid of him say, "See, we were right! Popgun and his noodle arm can never beat a good team -- he lost that game by throwing 4 picks! How could they win when he did that?"<BR/><BR/>CHFF would probably agree. But I'd suspect the causation was probably the other way around. And that not recognizing the distinction between correlation and causation can lead teams to make bonehead personnel decisions such as may leave them without a decent QB for years to come ... but, oh, enough digressing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-82632733893864042752009-01-16T18:32:00.000-06:002009-01-16T18:32:00.000-06:00I'll go ahead and further express my doubts about ...I'll go ahead and further express my doubts about those "anomalous" champions, as well as a general point.<BR/><BR/>--I think you could probably look at a lot of individual champs and call them anomalous, maybe the majority. The 80 Raiders were the first Wild Card Super Bowl champ. The 92 Cowboys were the first Super Bowl champ with a rushing leader. The 93 Cowboys were the first team to start 0-2 and win the Super Bowl. A lot of Super Bowl champs are anomalous in some meaningful way.<BR/><BR/>--The 06 Colts are held to be anomalous in part because of their poor run defense. But CHFF themselves repeatedly point out that run defense doesn't correlate to winning (and at any rate, if they were poor at run defense, they were obviously excellent enough in other facets to go 12-4).<BR/><BR/>--Obviously, the more teams that make the playoffs, the greater the chance that the best regular season team won't win the Super Bowl. And obviously, the more teams you allow into the playoffs, the more teams have a chance to win the Super Bowl (including teams that were weaker in the regular season, that wouldn't have made the playoffs at all decades ago--when they are let into the "playoff," they have a chance). So when Byrne calls these teams "an anomaly by historical standards," that standard really goes back to 1990, when the NFL expanded playoffs to 12 teams, not back to '66 when the Super Bowl started. That's not quite so impressive an anomaly.<BR/><BR/>I think that a lot of four year stretches lead people to think there's some massive change going on. From 99-01, out-of-nowhere teams won the Super Bowl, and so a lot of people cried "parity!" In reality, this was a period of transition as some of the 90s powers diminished (another time of transition was 80-82, when some of the 70s powers diminished and three relatively upstart teams won the Super Bowl). A wider perspective, I think, won't make the last four seasons that anomalous.Pacifist Vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630996018868040440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-61405039922321710612009-01-16T17:19:00.000-06:002009-01-16T17:19:00.000-06:00I realized a deeper problem. Not only does Byrne ...I realized a deeper problem. Not only does Byrne provide no evidence that four-division realignment causes playoff upsets/diminished home-field advantage, Byrne doesn't even offer a THEORY on HOW four-division realignment created playoff upsets/diminished home-field advantage.<BR/><BR/>I don't even require evidence here; I'd just like a theory on how having four divisions causes playoff upsets/diminished home-field advantage. No such theory is provided. It seems to be a pretty blatant Post Hoc fallacy (B follows A, therefore, A caused B).Pacifist Vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630996018868040440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23140411.post-70667558679870076432009-01-16T15:22:00.000-06:002009-01-16T15:22:00.000-06:00Byrne is not happy his Patriots didn't make the pl...Byrne is not happy his Patriots didn't make the playoffs.Brian Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.com