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

[DWhitehurst]

I don't see how the betting line favors the Packers. I mean, if Watson and Nixon can't go, gonna be so much more difficult.

[Brat&Beer]

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, DWhitehurst said:

I don't see how the betting line favors the Packers. I mean, if Watson and Nixon can't go, gonna be so much more difficult.

It's because records are misleading. GB is like 11th in DVOA and MIN is 25th.

We're actually a better team than they are. 

[NoFlyZone]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

It's because records are misleading. GB is like 11th in DVOA and MIN is 25th.

We're actually a better team than they are. 

Which is why they have the far better record, right? Come on. The game isn’t just played on a stat sheet. The only real thing thing holding that Vikings team back is a very hit or miss defense. You don’t end up with the success/ record they have based on pure luck.

[incognito_man]

5 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

You don’t end up with the success/ record they have based on pure luck

Actually very literally the opposite. Like, every read person understands the randomness of close games and regression to the mean due to literally luck.

[coachbuns]

4 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

Which is why they have the far better record, right? Come on. The game isn’t just played on a stat sheet. The only real thing thing holding that Vikings team back is a very hit or miss defense. You don’t end up with the success/ record they have based on pure luck.

Ah, yes you can .. see last year.  They were unlucky in many games just as they've been luckier than heck this year.  Also, when you've won 12 games and have only outscored your opponents by just 5 points ... you've been lucky.  They are a decent team but 12-3 is not a real indication of being a superior team.

[NoFlyZone]

34 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Actually very literally the opposite. Like, every read person understands the randomness of close games and regression to the mean due to literally luck.

Then when does regression to the mean occur? We’re at the end of the regular season here.. why hasn’t it happened yet? The sample size is clearly large enough to dispute the claim of luck. Maybe they win close games because they’re good at winning close games? If we were talking about someone like Brady we’d be talking about how clutch it is… but since Cousins is helming the team it’s just “luck”. They have the star power and grit to battle harder than most. The thing that has led to a lot of close games for them is the fact that their defense has been quite suspect at times. Which is why they’re behind teams such as Dallas, Philly, San Fran, etc… but to put them as a bottom half team because of one random stat is just silly.

Not sure you can say you understand the “randomness” of close games and also acknowledge the record of the Minnesota Vikings. Randomness doesn’t get you 11 wins and a 90%+ success rate in those situations — basic odds should tell you that. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by NoFlyZone

[NoFlyZone]

35 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Ah, yes you can .. see last year.  They were unlucky in many games just as they've been luckier than heck this year.  Also, when you've won 12 games and have only outscored your opponents by just 5 points ... you've been lucky.  They are a decent team but 12-3 is not a real indication of being a superior team.

Basic odds should tell you otherwise. It doesn’t make any sense to attribute it to luck when they’ve had a 90%+ success rate in those situations with a large sample size spanning the entire regular season. Calling it luck isn’t rational. Maybe they’re simply good at winning close games. Many of those games being close is attributed to their defense, which is certainly a weakness for them at times… but they have the star power and grit on offense to get it done… clearly. Kirk is a big part of that, too. With some of their weaknesses as an overall team they’re probably behind teams such as Dallas, Philly, San Fran… but they’re certainly still a good, dangerous football team. 

[Packerraymond]

15 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

Basic odds should tell you otherwise. It doesn’t make any sense to attribute it to luck when they’ve had a 90%+ success rate in those situations with a large sample size spanning the entire regular season. Calling it luck isn’t rational. Maybe they’re simply good at winning close games. Many of those games being close is attributed to their defense, which is certainly a weakness for them at times… but they have the star power and grit on offense to get it done… clearly. Kirk is a big part of that, too. With some of their weaknesses as an overall team they’re probably behind teams such as Dallas, Philly, San Fran… but they’re certainly still a good, dangerous football team. 

The entire NFL season is about 20% of an NBA or NHL season or 10% of a MLB season. 1 season is not a large sample size, it's rather quite small. The 2022 Vikings are a lot like the 2019 Packers. We all saw what happened when those Packers played the 49ers in the regular season, and then it happened again in the playoffs. The Vikings have been outscored 64-10 by the Cowboys and Eagles this year, odds say they'll be easily disposed of come playoff time by one of them, or San Fran.

[squire12]

23 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

Then when does regression to the mean occur? We’re at the end of the regular season here.. why hasn’t it happened yet? The sample size is clearly large enough to dispute the claim of luck. Maybe they win close games because they’re good at winning close games? If we were talking about someone like Brady we’d be talking about how clutch it is… but since Cousins is helming the team it’s just “luck”. They have the star power and grit to battle harder than most. The thing that has led to a lot of close games for them is the fact that their defense has been quite suspect at times. Which is why they’re behind teams such as Dallas, Philly, San Fran, etc… but to put them as a bottom half team because of one random stat is just silly.

Not sure you can say you understand the “randomness” of close games and also acknowledge the record of the Minnesota Vikings. Randomness doesn’t get you 11 wins and a 90%+ success rate in those situations — basic odds should tell you that. 

How are you measuring/ assessing " grit to battle harder than most"?

Seems like that is a nice yet subtle way of saying they aren't very good relative to their record, but I don't want to say they are lucky, so I'll make up some other unmeasurable mysterious quality

[HokieHigh]

a sample size of 15 is clearly enough 🙃

[Isherwood]

49 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

If we were talking about someone like Brady we’d be talking about how clutch it is…

Nope. Brady's "intangibles" narrative needs to end as well.

[squire12]

9 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said:

 

[NoFlyZone]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

How are you measuring/ assessing " grit to battle harder than most"?

Seems like that is a nice yet subtle way of saying they aren't very good relative to their record, but I don't want to say they are lucky, so I'll make up some other unmeasurable mysterious quality

Well, that's just a misunderstanding then... because that is certainly not what I said at all. Not sure why you got hung up on one word. The point is that it's silly to say it's just luck when we're talking about a team that has produced a large sample size of being consistently victorious in those situations. If it was just a matter of luck, roll of the dice, etc... you would see the wins and losses in that situation even out a little. Clearly that hasn't happened, though. When I say "grit" I was talking about the performance of their players where there was pressure on the line. Do I have to go find how their superstars/ game changing players have played in those moments? Or do we all kind of understand already that they have performed very well in those situations? Seems like it's sort of a commonly known thing.

Point is that attributing it to luck doesn't actually make any logical sense... because it ignores the skill of their players, how they've performed in tight situations, and it ignores the fact that there must be some attributing factor as to why they have been able to win those games. Throwing the word "luck" around is just lazy and used more in a wishful thinking sort of way.

[NoFlyZone]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

The entire NFL season is about 20% of an NBA or NHL season or 10% of a MLB season. 1 season is not a large sample size, it's rather quite small. The 2022 Vikings are a lot like the 2019 Packers. We all saw what happened when those Packers played the 49ers in the regular season, and then it happened again in the playoffs. The Vikings have been outscored 64-10 by the Cowboys and Eagles this year, odds say they'll be easily disposed of come playoff time by one of them, or San Fran.

Not sure why we have to compare across sports... not really apples to apples. Regardless, my point stands. If it was just a matter of pure luck, roll of the dice, etc... you'd see the wins and losses even out a little. Saying it's just luck ignores literally everything that transpired in the actual win. It's just sort of a lazy take. Saying it's just luck ignores the skill and grit of the players involved when it mattered the most.. it ignores the idea that perhaps there is a reason why the team has been able to perform well in those situations. If anything the rational take is that the Vikings have shown an ability to succeed in that area... vs it just being some sort of dumb luck.. which isn't really based on anything at all.

But I do agree that the Vikings are a step below the top three teams in the NFC (though my overall point here was that they're simply a good team). That defense of theirs holds them back at times... though maybe it's starting to improve a little? Aside from that their o-line has been a joke, which clearly was a problem against Philly and Dallas this season. Cousins has been an absolute warrior behind that line, though. It'll be interesting to see how they fare come playoff time.