Jump to content

2020 Divisional: #6 Cleveland Browns vs. #1 KC Chiefs


Who will win?  

106 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?



Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

To end the regular season the Browns were just behind the 4-12 Falcons: Maybe it was just a crazy year and the metric is usually a better indicator but sometimes you just have to look at something and say this isn't quite right.

17 ATL -4.2% 15 17 -0.6% 17 4-12 -3.1% 21 -0.1% 14 -1.2% 21
18 CLE -5.6% 24 21 -0.7% 18 11-5 5.4% 9 7.4% 25 -3.6% 27

this is a good illustration of the heart of DVOA: adjusted for schedule and close games

Atlanta played the most difficult schedule (NO x 2, TB x 2, KC) = so they played 5 games against top 4 teams. Cleveland faced the 30th ranked schedule.

If Atlanta had gone 50/50 in their "close games" (which are historically a coin flip), their record would have been 8-8. If Cleveland had gone 50/50 in their "close games" their record would have been 8-8 as well.

This is the concept behind DVOA, and it shows up perfectly here. Cleveland eeked out a LOT of close games against a worse schedule (7-2 in close games: CINx2, HOU, PHI, JAX, TEN, BAL, NYJ, PIT) while Atlanta barely came up short in a LOT of close games against the most difficult schedule (1-8 in close games: DAL, CHI, CAR, DET, DEN, NO, LAC, TB, KC). Close games have a significant tendency to regress toward the mean. So them being closely ranked makes a lot of sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

(7-2 in close games: CINx2, HOU, PHI, JAX, TEN, BAL, NYJ, PIT)

Having Tennessee and the first Cincinnati in the "close game" category is a fallacy of DVOA to be fair. That's box score scouting. The same with Houston, considering Chubb refused to score so that they could run out the clock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Having Tennessee and the first Cincinnati in the "close game" category is a fallacy of DVOA to be fair. That's box score scouting. The same with Houston, considering Chubb refused to score so that they could run out the clock.

That's not a fallacy of DVOA. I defined "close games" quickly by looking at the final score. DVOA has no such definition. Very likely there were "closer" games (from an expected win curve) on some games that finished outside of 7 points, but this was a quick and dirty check I performed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

this is a good illustration of the heart of DVOA: adjusted for schedule and close games

Atlanta played the most difficult schedule (NO x 2, TB x 2, KC) = so they played 5 games against top 4 teams. Cleveland faced the 30th ranked schedule.

If Atlanta had gone 50/50 in their "close games" (which are historically a coin flip), their record would have been 8-8. If Cleveland had gone 50/50 in their "close games" their record would have been 8-8 as well.

This is the concept behind DVOA, and it shows up perfectly here. Cleveland eeked out a LOT of close games against a worse schedule (7-2 in close games: CINx2, HOU, PHI, JAX, TEN, BAL, NYJ, PIT) while Atlanta barely came up short in a LOT of close games against the most difficult schedule (1-8 in close games: DAL, CHI, CAR, DET, DEN, NO, LAC, TB, KC). Close games have a significant tendency to regress toward the mean. So them being closely ranked makes a lot of sense.

I guess it depends on what "close" is. We took a knee at the 1 in the Houston game or it wouldn't have been close. Bengals were down 12 with less than a minute to play, that wasn't close. Eagles were down 12 with 30 seconds left in the game. Up 13 on the Titans with less than a minute and a half to play.

Are these really close games? Not really. They certainly aren't the 50/50 games you are talking about.

Yeah the Browns gave up a bunch of garbage time scores and drained the clock instead of scoring at the end of games but the games I listed weren't really any closer than the Steelers playoff game or the Cowboys game.

The Browns close games in reality were the 2nd Bengals game, The Raiders game, The Jags game (even though we were up 8 with 2 minutes to go that is a single score (with the 2 point conversion), the 2nd Ravens game, The Jets game and the 2nd Steelers game (again we were up 15 in the 4th but they could have tied it up with a 2 point conversion so it ended up close).

So the Browns were 3-3 in actual close games. Don't let the final score decide what is a close game, I'd certainly hope DVOA wouldn't do that.Then again, math can only determine math.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

I guess it depends on what "close" is. We took a knee at the 1 in the Houston game or it wouldn't have been close. Bengals were down 12 with less than a minute to play, that wasn't close. Eagles were down 12 with 30 seconds left in the game. Up 13 on the Titans with less than a minute and a half to play.

Are these really close games? Not really. They certainly aren't the 50/50 games you are talking about.

Yeah the Browns gave up a bunch of garbage time scores and drained the clock instead of scoring at the end of games but the games I listed weren't really any closer than the Steelers playoff game or the Cowboys game.

The Browns close games in reality were the 2nd Bengals game, The Raiders game, The Jags game (even though we were up 8 with 2 minutes to go that is a single score (with the 2 point conversion), the 2nd Ravens game, The Jets game and the 2nd Steelers game (again we were up 15 in the 4th but they could have tied it up with a 2 point conversion so it ended up close).

So the Browns were 3-3 in actual close games. Don't let the final score decide what is a close game, I'd certainly hope DVOA wouldn't do that.Then again, math can only determine math.

I'm not about to get into a debate about what was and wasn't a close game. The final score is a rough enough estimate to showcase the point that Cleveland's final record and Atlanta's final record are at opposite ends of the spectrum of expected wins. DVOA (I'm confident) isn't the only advanced metric that will point to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

That's not a fallacy of DVOA. I defined "close games" quickly by looking at the final score. DVOA has no such definition. Very likely there were "closer" games (from an expected win curve) on some games that finished outside of 7 points, but this was a quick and dirty check I performed.

Ah, ok. Well then, it's a fallacy of YOU. :) 

Those weren't close games at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mizter_Clean10 said:

I bet you all are fun at parties.

Why would you go to a party? Are you some kind of maniac who enjoys super-spreading? ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

Why would you go to a party? Are you some kind of maniac who enjoys super-spreading? ;) 

As someone who had only light COVID symptoms I can confirm is was far less excruciating than listening to this DVOA argument 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mizter_Clean10 said:

As someone who had only light COVID symptoms I can confirm is was far less excruciating than listening to this DVOA argument 

I've also had Covid.

And I also agree.

But, imagine going to a party and listening to DVOA while then contracting Covid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I've also had Covid.

And I also agree.

But, imagine going to a party and listening to DVOA while then contracting Covid.

I wish DVOA caught Covid and went into isolation....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I'm not about to get into a debate about what was and wasn't a close game. The final score is a rough enough estimate to showcase the point that Cleveland's final record and Atlanta's final record are at opposite ends of the spectrum of expected wins. DVOA (I'm confident) isn't the only advanced metric that will point to this.

I don't think there would be any actual debating. Just look at the last minute score by the other team and realize they had to recover an onside kick with between 30 and 83 seconds remaining and then score another TD. Could it happen, sure. but less than a 1% chance in all likelihood. Onside kicks just aren't recovered with the new rule so who cares if we give up a TD with 30 seconds left when we were up by 12 or 13, it still wasn't a game that could have realistically went either way. No one would ever say those are 50/50 games.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...