MVP Race

[Raves]

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

You misread, homie. I said the Rams scored TDs in 38.5% of their drives (minus the two drives to end each half). I didn’t say that was the scoring probability. It’s the TD rate.

If they were scoring TDs at a 38.5% clip, then out of 5, that’s about 2 TDs.

Even if you wanted to use it the other way, then it doesn't work because you would only look at the 2 turnovers that were automatically turned into a touchdown and then use that % to decide how many TDs they score, you wouldn't use all 5 when you were already using 3 of them in the original count.

[jrry32]

9 minutes ago, Raves said:

Even if you wanted to use it the other way, then it doesn't work because you would only look at the 2 turnovers that were automatically turned into a touchdown and then use that % to decide how many TDs they score, you wouldn't use all 5 when you were already using 3 of them in the original count.

Okay, remove the TO TDs and the drives that followed TOs for the Rams. The Rams scored TDs on 4 out of 11 drives and scored FGs on 2 out of 11. That means that they had a 36.4% chance of scoring a TD, a 18.2% chance of scoring a FG, and a 54.6% chance of scoring, period. Now, give them 5 additional drives. That's about 17 points.

[Raves]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Okay, remove the TO TDs and the drives that followed TOs for the Rams. The Rams scored TDs on 4 out of 10 drives and scored FGs on 2 out of 10. That means that they had a 40% chance of scoring a TD, a 20% chance of scoring a FG, and a 60% chance of scoring. Now, give them 5 additional drives. That's 17 points.

But those drives happened, there is no theoretical different outcome that could be discussed as their result is a known quantity.  Even if you make it 3 drives due to the fact that the last interception had the Rams just end the game, which isn't that one of the drives that were removed, that still wouldn't account for 14 points, maybe 10 though.

[jrry32]

11 minutes ago, Raves said:

But those drives happened, there is no theoretical different outcome that could be discussed as their result is a known quantity.  Even if you make it 3 drives due to the fact that the last interception had the Rams just end the game, which isn't that one of the drives that were removed, that still wouldn't account for 14 points, maybe 10 though.

Okay, but you're counting a drive where the Rams went three-and-out because they were trying to run the clock out.

[Raves]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Okay, but you're counting a drive where the Rams went three-and-out because they were trying to run the clock out.

Which is why I said you can add the 3rd drive based on the last interception as they would've been down, but it still wouldn't hit 14 points through those 3 drives.

[jrry32]

Just now, Raves said:

Which is why I said you can add the 3rd drive based on the last interception as they would've been down, but it still wouldn't hit 14 points through those 3 drives.

The expected points would be 10. But the Rams could very easily have scored 14 or 21 points. It's not like they were struggling to score when it was needed.

[Raves]

2 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

The expected points would be 10. But the Rams could very easily have scored 14 or 21 points. It's not like they were struggling to score when it was needed.

But we only have their pace at which they were, so you have to use them.  That's only 10 points, which means the Rams lose the game and the Chiefs win.  I mean I could make the argument that without those 5 turnovers those drives would've resulted in 35 points for the Chiefs, it's not liek they were struggling to score.

[Soko]

28 minutes ago, Raves said:

Even if you wanted to use it the other way, then it doesn't work because you would only look at the 2 turnovers that were automatically turned into a touchdown and then use that % to decide how many TDs they score, you wouldn't use all 5 when you were already using 3 of them in the original count.

That’s true. 

You’re right with the math portion. I’d still maintain that LAR really had no issues scoring the football. 

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Raves said:

But we only have their pace at which they were, so you have to use them.  That's only 10 points, which means the Rams lose the game and the Chiefs win.  I mean I could make the argument that without those 5 turnovers those drives would've resorted in 35 points for the Chiefs, it's not liek they were struggling to score.

And I could make the argument that the Rams would have just countered with 35 points of their own. Fact is that the Rams won. Fact is that Mahomes kept the Chiefs in the game despite the terrible defense. If Saints fans want to blame him for the loss, go for it. You'll notice that it's non-Chiefs fans who are calling out that atrocious logic.

 

[Raves]

5 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

That’s true. 

You’re right with the math portion. I’d still maintain that LAR really had no issues scoring the football. 

Which is fair and liek I said depending on where they get the ball on the field, it increases or decreases their chances at a TD.  The fact is that although Mahomes was the reason they were in the game, he was also the reason that they lost due to poor ball safety.

4 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

And I could make the argument that the Rams would have just countered with 35 points of their own. Fact is that the Rams won. Fact is that Mahomes kept the Chiefs in the game despite the terrible defense. If Saints fans want to blame him for the loss, go for it. You'll notice that it's non-Chiefs fans who are calling out that atrocious logic.

 

You're right, they agree with us.  The defense didn't help and Mahomes scores kept them in it, but his turnovers is what made sure they lost.

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Raves said:

Which is fair and liek I said depending on where they get the ball on the field, it increases or decreases their chances at a TD.  The fact is that although Mahomes was the reason they were in the game, he was also the reason that they lost due to poor ball safety.

You're right, they agree with us.  The defense didn't help and Mahomes scores kept them in it, but his turnovers is what made sure they lost.

Just like LeBron cost the Cavs this game:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201706070CLE.html

His turnovers made sure they lost.

[Soko]

3 minutes ago, Raves said:

Which is fair and liek I said depending on where they get the ball on the field, it increases or decreases their chances at a TD.  The fact is that although Mahomes was the reason they were in the game, he was also the reason that they lost due to poor ball safety.

We were almost there, lol. 

Even if you want to say he gave up 14 (which I disagree with, especially the first of the two), the defense gave up 40. Maybe it’s semantics, but he’s not the reason KC lost. The defense was the predominant cause of that L on KC’s end (the Rams in their own right get a ton of credit).

[Raves]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Just like LeBron cost the Cavs this game:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201706070CLE.html

His turnovers made sure they lost.

Considering the NBA has many more possessions then no, also you could look at the fact that Kevin Love played horrible, really anyone outside of LeBron and Irving played horrible in that game.  Really not comparable.

[Raves]

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

We were almost there, lol. 

Even if you want to say he gave up 14 (which I disagree with, especially the first of the two), the defense gave up 40. Maybe it’s semantics, but he’s not the reason KC lost. The defense was the predominant cause of that L on KC’s end (the Rams in their own right get a ton of credit).

What was the percentage of their drives that turned into TDs or FGs that game?  Even if you keep the 14 points for the Rams on the 2, but instead used the other 3 drives, you still have the Chiefs coming up ahead.

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Raves said:

Considering the NBA has many more possessions then no, also you could look at the fact that Kevin Love played horrible, really anyone outside of LeBron and Irving played horrible in that game.  Really not comparable.

Nope. LeBron had 5 TOs in a game they lost by 5 points. He caused them to lose.