Week 17 Gameday Thread (New Years Day Edition) - Green Bay Packers (7-8-0) vs Minnesota (12-3-0)

[vegas492]

3 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

Kind of expanded on these thoughts in my other post.

But it’s at least notable that you could see it going the other way, too. Kudos for that at least. But I explained that I don’t think it’s wise to look at the outcomes as random chance in my other post. Also, the NFL season is only so long. If you’re a betting person you have to make do with the trends available to you… and understand that something might be attributing to that trend other than totally random chance. There may or may not be a reason why the Vikings have been as successful as they have been in tight games. There is more to it than surface level math. 

Oh.  I get your point, totally.

And while I believe more in math.....the NFL is not totally math.  And the Vikings have some very good players who have come through in the clutch.

And we know all too well how a hot streak can end in a Super Bowl title.

But, I also believe this....the more games that are played for the Vikings, the more likely they are to regress to the mean, or average, based on their point differential.  Factor into that playing better teams in the playoffs and the picture doesn't look so rosy.

But...there's always the hot streak.  You don't mess with a hot streak.  Whatever they are doing, they need to keep doing.  Be it having intercourse, or not having intercourse (Bull Durham)...or whatever else it is.  

[NoFlyZone]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

But they are not.  You've seen the graph of 12-13 win teams and their point differential.  Minnesota is the outlier on the bad end of that graph.

The more games that they play, the more likely it is that they move back to the "norms" of winning and losing based on that point differential.

I was referring to being good in close games. We have a large body of work showcasing them playing well in tight games. Again, that doesn’t need to be attributed to totally random chance. 
 

Their point differential has been poor due to getting blown out by Philly and Dallas combined with a large amount of games that have been close. Again though, the games being close doesn’t need to lend itself to the idea that the trend of winning in that situation has been due to totally random chance with an expected regression due at some point. It may or may not actually be about the nuances of the game and the actual players involved. Again, doesn’t have to be explained by arguably misused, surface level mathematics. I see what you’re trying to get at, but think you’re misreading the context of the actual situation itself. 

[vegas492]

@NoFlyZone

Oh.  Just wanted to add this.  Ain't no one on here going to argue against Minnesota if they were even middle of the pack for point differential on that graph.  Just looking at the graph, it looks like 140 or so would be an average point differential.  

But instead, they are the outlier on the entire graph.  I can't even see what their differential was at that point and time.  Maybe it was 3?

So we talk of statistics and randomness, that is pretty much our one benchmark point that we are looking at.  Without it, there is no conversation about how good they are, or how lucky they are.

I've heard people say I'd rather be lucky than good.  Well, good tends to beat lucky in the playoffs.  And I'll say this....why not be both lucky and good?  Which clearly Minnesota can be.  They are certainly talented enough.

[Sandy]

20 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

Yes, 11 games is a large enough sample size in the NFL to get a sense of some sort of trend. By your logic we shouldn’t even evaluate any team at all, let alone look at what teams get ‘hot’ at the end of the season because it ‘could all just be totally random’. The point you’re missing is that we have a large body of work (basically a full season) showing that the Vikings are good in the situations that they are being criticized for. The point you’re missing is that the outcome of their games in tight situations might not just be totally random chance. It may or may not actually have to do with the play of some of their most impactful players in those moments. But for some reason we want to devoid the situation of all actual context and rational thinking just because it’s easier to pretend that it’s all luck/ random chance because the games have been close. It’s not a logical argument.
 

As far as the coin comparison goes… get back to me when you flip a coin 11 times and get heads 11 times in a row. Keep track of the attempts, please. That being said, the Vikings success hasn’t been due to a flip of a coin or any other comparison of random chance. There is more to it than that. One can attempt to be a math nerd and also attempt that feat in a way that actually makes rational sense. GB fans will keep waiting for the ‘regression to the mean’ for the Vikings without understanding what that even means in comparison to the specific play of the Minnesota Vikings. This of course all while ignoring the fatal flaws of their own football team.

Personally I rank the Vikings behind Dallas, Philly, and San Fran… but the desperate hoops GB fans will jump through to dismiss them as an ‘average’ team at 12-3 is genuinely amusing. 

 

For the last time, the question isn't, how many wins does it take to measure a great team, the question is, are wins a good metric for determining if teams are actually good or not.

And our answer is no, wins alone are a poor metric to measure how good a team is.

[NoFlyZone]

9 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Oh.  I get your point, totally.

And while I believe more in math.....the NFL is not totally math.  And the Vikings have some very good players who have come through in the clutch.

And we know all too well how a hot streak can end in a Super Bowl title.

But, I also believe this....the more games that are played for the Vikings, the more likely they are to regress to the mean, or average, based on their point differential.  Factor into that playing better teams in the playoffs and the picture doesn't look so rosy.

But...there's always the hot streak.  You don't mess with a hot streak.  Whatever they are doing, they need to keep doing.  Be it having intercourse, or not having intercourse (Bull Durham)...or whatever else it is.  

We honestly agree for the most part. I just don’t see the likelihood of regression vs how they have trended in general. Unless of course we’re talking about them ultimately falling short vs a team such as Philly, Dallas, San Fran. Currently I see that happening.

[NoFlyZone]

3 minutes ago, Sandy said:

For the last time, the question isn't, how many wins does it take to measure a great team, the question is, are wins a good metric for determining if teams are actually good or not.

And our answer is no, wins alone are a poor metric to measure how good a team is.

I literally never said any of this. You missed the point. Of course there is more to looking at how good a team is than just looking at their overall record. I never said otherwise.

Edited December 29, 2022 by NoFlyZone

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

I was referring to being good in close games. We have a large body of work showcasing them playing well in tight games. Again, that doesn’t need to be attributed to totally random chance. 
 

Their point differential has been poor due to getting blown out by Philly and Dallas combined with a large amount of games that have been close. Again though, the games being close doesn’t need to lend itself to the idea that the trend of winning in that situation has been due to totally random chance with an expected regression due at some point. It may or may not actually be about the nuances of the game and the actual players involved. Again, doesn’t have to be explained by arguably misused, surface level mathematics. I see what you’re trying to get at, but think you’re misreading the context of the actual situation itself. 

An NFL schedule is not a long enough period of time to determine much.  Too random.

That graph has a ton of data within it.  And it is within the same context, or games played.

I see two clear outliers on each end of the graph.

And since I understand randomness, I know that the more games the Vikings play, the more likely they are to regress to their mean and point differential.  Which is not good for them.

Those other teams were good enough to not be in as many close games, or on the wrong end of blowouts.  And that is kind of the point of the graph.

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, NoFlyZone said:

We honestly agree for the most part. I just don’t see the likelihood of regression vs how they have trended in general. Unless of course we’re talking about them ultimately falling short vs a team such as Philly, Dallas, San Fran. Currently I see that happening.

Yeah.  I see it that way, too.  Sooner or later they will face off with a strong team, again.  And they flat out need to play better to be in that game.  

But let's see what happens this week, first.  

[Sandy]

24 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

I literally never said any of this. You missed the point. Of course there is more to looking at how good a team is than just looking at their overall record. I never said otherwise.

Your point is obvious. And mayyybe there's some merit to it. For example, what if they run an extremely effective 4-minute offense that can wind down clock and get to field goal range with incredible consistency?

That could explain it..but doesn't justify the perfect 11-0 record that implies they haven't faced another team that has a similar ability. And with this weak Vikings defense, one could assume they've really been more lucky to have the ball last than actually good.

The Vikings do have a top offense that could be SB caliber if paired with the right defense. They don't have that defense. If they have to win 3 games against top teams just to get to the SB, then I don't see it happening. Whether in a one-score game or not.

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Sandy

[vegas492]

38 minutes ago, Sandy said:

Your point is obvious. And mayyybe there's some merit to it. For example, what if they run an extremely effective 4-minute offense that can wind down clock and get to field goal range with incredible consistency?

That could explain it..but doesn't justify the perfect 11-0 record that implies they haven't faced another team that has a similar ability. And with this weak Vikings defense, one could assume they've really been more lucky to have the ball last than actually good.

The Vikings do have a top offense that could be SB caliber if paired with the right defense. They don't have that defense. If they have to win 3 games against top teams just to get to the SB, then I don't see it happening. Whether in a one-score game or not.

 

Honestly...I cannot remember this...but didn't the Vikings beat the Bills, on an end of game kind of thing?

I think they did, but I don't know it is was in Buffalo or not.  Do you remember at all?

[Striker]

33 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Honestly...I cannot remember this...but didn't the Vikings beat the Bills, on an end of game kind of thing?

I think they did, but I don't know it is was in Buffalo or not.  Do you remember at all?

Vikings at Buffalo - Allen fumbles on their own 1 with :49 left and the Vikings having only one TO remaining. Vikings recover for a go ahead TD but Allen, being Allen, gets the Bills within FG range to tie. Vikings kick a FG in OT. Josh Allen then drives the Bills well within FG range but, being Josh Allen, he then forces a throw into triple coverage and got picked off.

The Vikings have been absolute sun running this season in close spots when it comes to juuuuuuust the exact right thing happening.

As we saw with the 2020 Packers, it is not at all sustainable.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Striker

[vegas492]

19 minutes ago, Striker said:

Vikings at Buffalo - Allen fumbles on their own 1 with :49 left and the Vikings having only one TO remaining. Vikings recover for a go ahead TD but Allen, being Allen, gets the Bills within FG range to tie. Vikings kick a FG in OT. Josh Allen then drives the Bills well within FG range but, being Josh Allen, he then forces a throw into triple coverage and got picked off.

The Vikings have been absolute sun running this season in close spots when it comes to juuuuuuust the exact right thing happening.

As we saw with the 2020 Packers, it is not at all sustainable.

Was that the game when Jefferson made the best catch in like forever on 4'th down?

[Ham Sammich]

Funny this article was just posted to APC:

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/by-the-numbers/2022/12/29/23531273/yes-the-minnesota-vikings-are-frauds-but-what-exactly-does-that-mean

 

"The Vikings are frauds because their record is much better than their underlying numbers, but what exactly are “underlying numbers” and why do we care? While old school analysts are keen to quote Bill Parcells’ famous “you are what your record says you are,” that’s not really true, especially in a small sample size season like the NFL’s. This concept, as it relates to sports, goes back to baseball, Voros McCracken, and Defense-Independent Pitching (DIPs) theory."

[KFP7]

2 hours ago, NoFlyZone said:

We honestly agree for the most part. I just don’t see the likelihood of regression vs how they have trended in general. Unless of course we’re talking about them ultimately falling short vs a team such as Philly, Dallas, San Fran. Currently I see that happening.

I'm pretty sure this is exactly what all of us are saying.  The Vikings are not on the same level as those 3 teams, despite the possibility of ending with the 1-seed.  Doesn't mean they won't make it through the NFC, as that's the beauty of the NFL.  

And its not about regression.  If you played the Colts again, you'd probably win by more than 3.  After the first round you'll be playing the Cowboys/Eagles/49ers.  Trend for that on the year is for the Vikings to get smoked.

[incognito_man]

Dang, some people will just absolutely cling to their hopes and dreams even when reality smacks them in the face.

"My team has many regular season wins therefore that is my preferred measurement of success. The clearly better options are less good because they make my favorite team appear less good."

As if that empty appearance has any tangible benefit besides misleading yourself so you can enjoy some transient, but untethered joy.