Niners: Worst Team in the NFC?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 2:34 AM PDT
Email
PrintI'm sure many of you read this title and think your about to read some ridiculous journalism by some ESPN nut. I'm not a big believer in the Niners this year, but I still have to admit I was surprised by this. Football Outsiders just released their preseason DVOA predictions (which have been consistently pretty accurate) and they predict the Niners to be the 3rd worst team in the NFL and worst in the NFC, ahead of only the Broncos and Bills.
I know many of you don't like FO and I'm sure this will turn off even more NIner fans but I really think this will be a good test. If FO is right and the Niners are awful this year it will shed some light that some people here at NN and too many people here in the Bay Area are drastically overstating how talented this team is. Especially if they finish with the fewest wins in the NFC (below the Lions and Raiders!), that will truly be some humble pie. On the other hand, if the Niners are competitive this year then we can say that FO was really wrong on them and perhaps there's too many variables that they can't account for.
What I think should be clear at least is that this team is not a true contender yet. We may sneak up on people and compete in the NFC West but anyone who thinks this team is ready to compete with the big boys is just kidding themselves. There are still too many holes on both sides of the ball (or as Scott Wright of nfldraftcountdown.com says in his 2010 mock draft:)
Unfortunately for 49’ers fans their squad has as many significant needs as any team in the league and they could realistically go in a number of different directions here, including but not limited to quarterback, right tackle, safety, linebacker and nose tackle
I know this will probably upset people, especially people who are high on the team this year, but I think it's important to try to stay somewhat realistic about our team's chances in order to prevent massive disappointment. I think where FO goes wrong is in predicting that the defense will be the 2nd worst in the league. The defense was almost completely healthy last year and still couldn't defend the pass, I think that's where the prediction comes from. But I still expect the unit to be average, if certainly not "top 5" as some here have suggested.'
Anyway, just wanted to get everyone else's thoughts on this, I'm guessing many will not be too happy. For what it's worth FO thinsk the Cardinals will be bad too, ranking them only one spot ahead of the Niners. Also, while I do think the Rams are underrated, I think FO is giving them too much credit, and the writers themselves have said they don't expect the Rams to play as well as their projection indicates. One thing I do agree with it that the Seahawks are the clear favorite to win the division.
I think in light of these projections I've changed my expectations to about 6-7 wins for the Niners, with anything more being a good season. I'm not ready to throw in the towel on the season already, but I don't expect the Niners to make the playoffs. Here's their rankings for the NFC West:
Mean Wins / Offensive Ranking / Defensive Ranking / Overall Ranking:
Seahawks: 9.5 / 6th / 15th / 11th
Rams: 8.7 / 14th / 9th / 12th
Cardinals: 5.5 / 22nd / 27th / 29th
Niners: 5.4 / 24th / 31st / 30th
It will be very interesting as the season unfolds to see how accurate (or inaccurate) these predictions are.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
528 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Am I looking at these rankings correctly?
Niners, Cardinals and Falcons are the 3 worst teams in the NFC? Hilarious
Unless Gore and Willis go out for the season, we will win atleast 5 games.
Unless Gore and Willis go out for the season, we will win atleast 5 games.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 10, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Are you sure FO got it right ?
Cards 22nd in Offense ?
Rams 12th in overall ?
I may be crazy, but not crazy enough to believe that or anything Else. But I’ll wait till the end of the season to see.
The Cards offense is due for some big time regression
Warner, Fitz, and the whole offensive line were healthy for the whole season. They’ll suffer more injuries this year, and Warner is obviously the biggest risk. If he gets hurt, I could see them ranking 22nd in offense. Otherwise, no.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions
When the FO guys did a Q&A at ROTB they basically said that Warner was going to crumble during the regular season and that we’d be let with nothing but a pile of dust. They cited several QB’s who seriously regressed at his age.
Be careful....to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
They probably could have trotted out that prediction about Warner’s age the last three years. F.O. does have some issues with the Cardinals, more specifically they stepped in front of the microphone last year and guaranteed a victory for the Eagles in the NFC Championship game. It seems like every time they talk about the Cardinals they are really trying defend themselves for incorrectly calling that shot.
He's 38
Only two QB’s have ever played a full season at 38. On top of that, him staying completely healthy last year (along with the rest of the offense) was was allowed them to win the West.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Not really challenging my response
What are the stats and trends at age 37, 36, 35? I bet they are almost as bleak.
A little less bleak every year ...
But it’s a dumb team that counts on a player making history. Hey, great if it happens, but …
Wasn’t Rich Gannon still a beast at 38?
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Sep 17, 2009 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Nope.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GannRi00.htm
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 17, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Obvious that the Cards are heading down hill
but seriously. Give me one impact player on the Rams’ offense that will rank them that high. Or their defense for that matter. They have no talent on their roster! FO is just looking at the fact that they upgraded their Oline as an indication that their offense is going to be better. I’m sorry, but when you have nobody to throw, catch, or run the ball, it doesn’t matter how good your Oline is!
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
by bondslegend on Sep 13, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Steven Jackson is awesome
But yeah, I think FO is overrating them.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 14, 2009 2:28 AM PDT up reply actions
I just wanted to come in and stress that a predictive tool like this is using a number of available variables to predict the most likely outcome in a range of outcomes.
FO is not saying, the 49ers are bad and will finish last in the NFC. They are saying, “based on what we know, objectively, the 49ers are most likely to be worse than these other teams. It IS of course possible that they are the best team in the NFC, but betting odds are on this particular outcome.”
And I want to stress this because of its innate susceptibility to fluctuation. I know that people are going to want to bust nuts (that’s not the right choice of words) over something that says “49ers are the worst” but I think it’s important to keep that idea of “probably the worst” in mind. You might not agree with the methodology or the conclusion, but actually interpreting the work correctly is the first step to disagreeing intelligently.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 10, 2009 8:03 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I disagree with how they reach that conclusion
AND I think they’re full of shit. SO THERE.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
by bondslegend on Sep 13, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions
SO THERE.
Always a valid argument.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
that's scary
I want to be optimistic about this season, but the more and more I read, the more and more I’m starting to think we’re gonna be kinda lousy.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
As interesting...
… as FO and their “advanced” metrics are, I just don’t see how the 49ers finish below the Lions and Rams in the NFC. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of my favorite team, but I think it’s almost impossible that they are the worst team in the NFC.
49ers aside, I also don’t see the Cardinals and Falcons being worse than the Rams and Lions. As I mentioned in the opening, the FO stats are interesting, but it seems they missed the boat on something here.
I heard one of the guys from FO talk on the radio ...
… and his position was that the Rams were an underperforming team last year. They had key injuries. That had guys who had uncharacteristically bad years. They were really bad that year, but a set of reasonable assumptions (a normal – rather than excessive – number of injuries, other players returning to standard form) shows them making a large jump.
Whereas the Niners actually overperformed their DVOA slightly. (This is not surprising, as there is a game or two of luck involved in every season). So you’d expect the to backslide slightly.
I dunno.
No matter how you slice it, last year’s Rams defense was terrible. Bulger and the offense may have had an “uncharacteristic” year, but there’s no telling whether or not that offensive was “uncharacteristic” or indicative of future performance, either.
Even if the 49ers have to regress, I just don’t see how the Falcons AND the Cards are supposed to do worse than the Rams.
Cards and Falcons are both kind of in the same boat
Extremely healthy on offense last year, which both teams should not expect again. Key players like Warner and Ryan are expected to ave down years. Neither defense is very good.
The Rams had a ton of injuries on offense last year, and performed unsustainably bad in the end zone. I don’t really buy an 8 win mean projection, but I think they should be better at least.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
But....
… FO doesn’t factor injuries into their stats models do they? If they do, I think predicting injuries is rather adventurous.
They don't predict injuries
But when one team like the Seahawks gets incredibly unlucky with injuries, and another like the Cardinals gets pretty lucky with them, they regress both teams back to the mean. They expect each team to be around average with injuries every year. That’s mostly why the Niners defense is predicted so poorly I think, the defense was only average last year even with great health.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Stop with the great health
Why, because you don’t want to think about facts that might show the Niners in a bad light? The Niners were lucky to have so few injuries last year on defense and it was a big factor in their performance, period. I don’t need to debate you on that. If you don’t think injuries matter than I don’t know what to say. The Niners will likely have more injuries than last year, sorry.
Also the defense was 18th, not 13th. Ranking teams based on total yardage is just completely ridiculous for numerous reasons. It doesn’t take into account situations, how many plays were run, or how often each play was run. Good teams give up more pass yards than they otherwise would because they are ahead so the other team is passing like crazy to try to come back. They also boost their rushing yardage totals because they are trying to run out the clock. DVOA is much much better at showing how efficient each unit was, and the Niners defense was average at best.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions
First of all
“If you don’t think injuries matter than I don’t know what to say.” – never said that. Don’t know where you got it. My point was they did have injuries. Perhaps it only matters to you if teams are devastated by them but if every team were crippled by injuries, no one would play good defense. Also, though you can argue that a team with many is likely to be healthier (I would agree) I don’t believe the opposite can be assumed to happen. A generally healthy year does not have some assurance of health problems the following year. Secondly, we’re just different in our opinion of DVOA. I like viewing different statistical models but never treat one as some sort of sports bible. I prefer to use that collection of info, hear the opinions of people who actually play and coach, watch the games myself and come to an informed opinion. Again, I don’t dislike DVOA but I don’t treat it as gospel.
Lastly, I don’t mind facts that show the Niners in a bad light. I think the turnover stat (as mentioned below by Ronald), both the inability to force them and sloppiness in committing them shines a very negative and accurate light on why they only won 7 games and were they better improve should they want to win more.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
According to DVOA
… we weren’t 13th. We were, I think, 18th.
That all being said, the Niners were a weird team last year. Our YPA and YPA, for and against, were reasonable. We were just really bad with respect to turnovers.
This could mean there’s room for rapid improvement. On the other hand, it seems pretty optimistic to think that we could get a handle on the turnover problem without giving anything else up – eg, I can’t imagine our YPA staying as good as it was (which wasn’t that good) while our turnovers drop. I expect both numbers to go down – just hopefully, the TOs a lot more.
We were just really bad with respect to turnovers.
Yeah that could be a good thing. Turnovers a lot of times can be due to luck so there’s one area where we can be optimistic for improvement.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
On this note
I’ve read that fumble recoveries are definitely more about luck though forcing fumbles is likely a combination of luck (weather plays a part) and making it a priority. Coaches that make turnovers THE priority seem to do as well as coaches who just have superior talent. Certainly, having faster players on defense and by extension special teams allows a player to be in better position to hit an opponent right after possession is made and be in position to recover a fumble.
INTs are more about pass rush and good DBs. We all know the huge question mark about the former but I feel confident about the latter. I also believe that having the lead late in games or big leads early contributes to more turnovers as the score makes a team one dimensional and thus predictable and more having to take risks in the passing game.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Fumble recoveries are basically pure luck
Every team will recover them at about a 50% rate over time.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I beg to differ on that point
How can you disregard ball skills and awareness in EVERY fumble situation? Why do you think there’s a “hands team” for onside kicks?
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
...What?
Onside kicks are nothing like fumbles. You don’t line up expecting a fumble recovery.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
But you've got the ball bouncing around on the ground either way
I’m just making a point that a players hand-eye-coordination and ball skills play a part in the odds that he’ll recover, rather than luck only.
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
The only things that really determine who recovers a fumble...
are how close they are to the ball when it hits the turf and how long they can hold on when the pile ensues.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
+1
There’s no year to year correlation for fumble recovery rates.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 20, 2009 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I wish there was some context to F.O. injury re-adjustment. The problem is the 49ers are still incredibly young and the Seahawks key players are incredibly old. Considering neither roster was overhauled it’s reasonable to expect the same injury rates instead of a bounce back to the mean.
I know they account for age
But it’s possible they don’t account for it enough.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Hogwash people
Ok not totally.
But Reasonably why can’t we finish as good or better than last year? I think our team is better.
Hell, we came a fantom tackle away from the playoffs last year.
Statistically we may be the under-dogs. But I think this is yet another motivator for the Niners.
It’s all how you spin it. Bring on Sunday.
Why are we better?
Sing is a better motivator, I suspect we won’t come out flat in so many games.
But beyond that?
Seriously. Why are we better?
Hill over JTO? I agree it’s an improvement … but how much of one? Hill is a below-average QB, who started half the season for us last year. That’s not a lot of improvement.
Why are we better?
Hill over JTO a "small improvement"?
It was absolutely ridiculous the amount of times JTO turned the ball over last year. Fumbles, interceptions, sacks. You almost expected one of the three everytime he dropped back. If we just go down to the league-average for QB turnovers this season, I see that as a HUGE improvement.
by randolphforpresident on Sep 10, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
HALF A SEASON of Hill over JTO ...
… is a small improvement.
Hill started just under half our games last year.
I like Hill, but he’s not a league-average starting QB. (Such a claim implies that there are 14 or so teams he could start for.) Looking at last year’s starters, I think you could claim Hill would be competitive with Ryan Fitzpatrick – a backup who got a lot of starts – Jon Kitna, maybe Matt Schaub (although I doubt Hill would get two seconds in a trade) Tyler Thigpen, Jamarcus Russell … and that’s about it. Obviously, that’s last year’s starters, but basically, Hill is only beating out the guys who maybe aren’t starting themselves.
I agree cutting out turnovers is huge, and Hill is a big improvement in that area. But when you’re talking about a guy who is probably a bottom-quartile starter in the NFL, it’s hard to talk about it as an area of strenght.
I would love to be wrong about Hill, mind you. I just don’t think I am.
I thought he started 8, thus half our games?
And Steve Young would disagree with your Hill assessment. Also, part of the reason Schaub got two 2nds in a trade is beacuse he played for an injured Vick. Hill only got significant playing time last season. This year will finally prove his value, good bad or in between but for anyof us to act as though we know he’s in the 2nd or lower echelon of QBs is a bit presumptive.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I do think
that our offense is going to be able to control the ball a lot better. I think we are going to be a better rushing team, and hopefully that will open things up a little bit for Hill. Plus Hill is better at protecting the ball than JTO. I see us doing a lot better with time of possession – we might not score a ton of TDs, but I think we have a lot fewer 3 and outs. That it turn will help the defense – they get more rest, better field positions, and the other teams’ offenses are not on the field for as much time.
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
As much as I follow FO, I still have trouble swallowing that the Rams are going to be competitive.
You all know my stated opinion on how crummy I think the SF roster is, but the Rams are one of the few teams in the league who I’d say are even less talented overall. I think Spagnuolo was a fantastic hire and going to shape them up to be good in the long-run, but his schemes aren’t going to compensate for the fact their defense is crap and already injured.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
Why is everyone so convinced the Rams are awful?
Bulger is a substantially better QB than Hill.
Jackson is similar to Gore. I like Gore better, but the difference is small, and I suspect Rams fans would prefer Jackson. Our WRs are probably better, if healthy … but they’re starting a pair of young guys with potential.
Um What?
2008 Statistical comparisons.
Bulger: 2,720 Yards 57.0 Pct 11td 13int 71.4 rating
Hill: 2046 Yards, 62.8 Pct 13 td 8int 87.5 rating
Bulger last two seasons combined
574 pct 5120yards 22 td 28 int 70.9 rating
So he is subtantially better then Hill?
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Bulger WAS a substantially better QB than Hill.
I’m a big Bulger supporter but even I realize the prognosis doesn’t look to good for him, it looks like he just can’t handle not being in a Martz offense.
Their already horrible defense got even worse due to injuries and some questionable roster shake-ups.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Bulger used to be
With Martz, Bruce and Holt in a system they knew. Bulger, a slightly above average and accurate QB that did well when surrounded by outstanding skill position talent has been beaten up as he’s aged. His best days are behind him, so at this point I would disagree that he’s better than Hill.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Your analysis of Bulger is spot-on.
Unfortunately, your analysis of Hill is still off.
Even aged, deteriorated and beaten, Bulger would have still stepped into the 49ers 2009 training camp as the unquestioned starter.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Shouldn't one expect Hill's numbers to be inflated by the Martz effect ...
… just like Bulger’s were?
Of course
But you should also expect the defenses numbers to inflate now the team won’t be running a pass happy offense.
Whatever effect Martz has on the defense -
- is MUCH subtler than his effect on the offense. Certainly a lot of turnovers will help tire a defense out.
I think it’s wishful thinking to expect our defenses efficiency stats (YPA and YPR against) to improve much because our offense gets a little better.
What?
This has to be the craziest predictions i have seen so far this season. The 49ers have a better chance to win the NFC then finish as the worse team in the NFC.
First off St. Louis, Detroit and Tampa Bay are obviously the 3 worse teams in the NFL and in no way does San Francisco even belong near that list. Secondly it’s a argument that Washington and Seattle are both worse then San Francisco. How did the Rams improve that defense? Did Arizona get any better? And how is it possibly that Seattle can get any better after the losses of Walter Jones, Marcus Trufant and Julian Peterson? The first two most likely out for the season. Is Matt Hasselbeck that much better then Seneca Wallace to offseat those three losses? Arizona lost it’s offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, qb coach, two offensive linemen, starting defensive end, starting linebacker and nicke cornerback. Their offensive line is questionable at best and they have the most immobile QB in the NFL in Warner. That may spell disaster. While the 49ers didn’t lose anyone of signifigance during the off-season unless you count JT O’Sullivan or Jonas Jennings LOL. Brandon Jones is an upgrade over Bryant Johnson and if signed Crabtree is a major upgrade. Tony Pashos has been one of the better offensive linemen over the last 4 seasons so that is obviously an upgrade. Dre’ Bly replaces Donald Strickland in the nickel. And we have a health Frank Gore will get blocking by the best blocking TE in the game in Vernon Davis and also Moran Norris. The only team to improve themselves in the NFC west during the off-season is San Francisco. This not even mentioning the continued maturity, of Shaun Hill, Vernon Davis, Patrick Willis, Dashon Goldsen and Tarrell Brown oh and a healthy Shawntae Spencer.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 12:29 PM PDT reply actions
"Secondly it’s a argument that Washington and Seattle are both worse then San Francisco"
…Not, it really isn’t.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Well then
Please explain why Washington and Seattle are better. a 4 word response really doesnt do it
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Both teams are superior at almost every starting position.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know about Washington...
… but if you aren’t predicting injuries (because who the heck can predict injuries accurately?), Seattle is definitely better than the 49ers at most roster spots.
I'd say Washington is clearly better on both sides of the ball
Their offense is pretty decent actually, the only big question is the age of the line.
And then I don’t think I need to argue that their defense is clearly better.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't disagree.
I was just literally saying I know very little about Washington, especially their offense.
One game doesn't mean too much
For the year they were way way better than the Niners.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions
But in general
They were much better. I’ll take a whole season of data over four games. The Niners weren’t that great at the end of the season either.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
The last game of the season?
Yeah, they were better. If the Orioles beat the Yankees the last couple days of the season that doesn’t make them a better team.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Well suit yourself
The Skins were one game better in an extremely tough division. The NFC West was a joke.
And on top of that the Skins were way better on a play by play basis. 12th in DVOA versus 25th in DVOA. But if you think beating a team by a field goal in a meaningless last game of the season is more important than dominating the other team over the rest of the season then you are entitled to believe that.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Gotta be careful
When doing that whole NFC West/East comparison from last year since they actually played. Yes, the East was better. Yes, the West was bad along with its AFC brother. But it’s worth noting that both Washington & Dallas went 2-2 vs the West and Philly lost the title game to AZ. Just sayin…
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I'd take Mara easily and even Lurie
No way on JOnes or Snyder. What has Snyder won or done besides make players rich?
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
It's not even close
All four teams in the NFC East had better DVOA’s than all four teams in the NFC West. And only Washington had a worse record than the Cardinals, the team with the best record in the NFC West.
Seriously, I think all four NFC East teams would have won West the last year.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions
What's not close?
I said the East was better. I was pointing out actual game results that should give a moment of pause when claiming a division was a “joke” or that all teams would win it when two couldn’t get a winning record vs the teams in it. You know, real games not DVOA. Please Brendan, one argument with YOUR opinion not DVOA.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
It seems we differ
On the importance of induvidual games as opposed to looking at the whole season. If the Cowboys and Redskins had just won one more game against the NFC West (thereby going 3-1) that would really change your opinion much at all?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, since your argument was
That all four east teams would win the west. To do that you have to beat the west teams which those two struggled with. I understand you may have been overstating your point, as anyone with vision and understanding of football could tell you the east was better than the west. But I think actual results count when making an argument, certainly more than possibilities.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I Am Not
Predicting injuries man. Walter Jones is out for the season and reports out of Seattle are that Trufant is going to miss at the very least the first half of the season. Plus they lost Julian Peterson, not to injury but trade. These are not predictions they are fact
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions
SURPRISE AARON CURRY!
Walt is not out for the season. He might be back as soon as Week 2 so he can make a fool of Justin Smith again.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay Then Let's Look At It For A Second.
Niners-Redskins
QB- Shaun Hill Or Jason Campbell= Considering that Hill has had success when starting in the NFL i would have to go with him, Campbell had a major fall of last season. ADVANTAGE: 49ERS
RB- Frank Gore or Clinton Portis= Portis best seasons are behind him and Gore has a couple more seasons in his prime. Gore has the obvious advantage here
ADVANTAGE: 49ERS
FB- Moran Norris or Mike Sellers= I don’t know much about Sellers so i can’t really judge this. All i can say is Norris is one hell of a blocking back
ADVANTAGE: 49ERS
TE- Vernon Davis or Chris Cooley= Well i will have to go with Cooley on this although Davis is a much better blocking back and has major upside.
ADVANTAGE: REDSKINS
WR- Isaac Bruce, Josh Morgan, Arnaz Battle, Brandon Jones and Jason Hill or Santana Moss, Antwan Randel-El, Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas= Even without Crabtree the advantage needs to go to the Niners. Besides Moss Washington really has nothing on the receiving end with the exception of two raw draft picks that have not proven anything in the NFL. When Brandon Jones returns in a couple weeks it will be apparent that the Niners receiving corp is much better then the Redskins. Hopefully add Crabs to the equation and it really isn’t a comparison. Randel- El has been a major bust for the Skins too.St
ADVANTAGE: 49ERS
Tackles: Joe Staley, Adam Snyder and Tony Pashos orChris Samuels, Stephen Heyer and Mike Williams= This comparison got much close in the 49ers acquisition of Pashos but you would still have to give the advantage to the Skins because of Samuels who is a HOF OT. But they must have questions with Heyer and Williams fighting for time on the other end. ADVANTAGE: REDSKINS
Guards: David Baas and Chilo Rachel or Derek Dockery and Randy Thomas= This one is tough. You take the upside of Rachel who will be an all-pro performer and weigh that with the experience of Dockery and Thomas. I would make this too close to call considering Dockery couldn’t even stick on the Bills offensive line.
ADVANTAGE: TOO CLOSE TO CALL
Centers: Eric Heitman or Casey Rabach= Well i don’t even need to spend too much time on this. Heitman is obviously the better player
ADVANTAGE: 49ERS
Defensive Ends: Justin Smith, Isaac Sopoaga, Kentwan Balmer and Ray Mcdonald or Andre Carter, Phillip Daniels, Renaldo Wynn and Lorenzo Alexander= Closer then most people think but the advantage is with Washington on this. Carter has turned out to be a pretty darn good football player as has Justin Smith so that is a wash. But Daniels and Wynn has proven to be better then Soap and Balmer but upside remains on the 49ers side
ADVANTAGE: REDSKINS
Defensive Tackles: Franklin or Haynsworth= A glaring advantage for Washington despite Frankin’s improved play
ADVANTAGE: REDSKINS
Linebackers: Parys Harrelson, Patrick Willis, Takeo Spikes and Manny Lawson or Rocky Mcintosh, London Fletcher, Brian Orakpo and HB Blades= Obvious advantage for the 49ers here. The 49ers top 3 LB’s are better then any single Redskins LB. Fletcher is way too old to make much of a difference, Mcintosh is a solid playerand Orakpo has major upside. But Harralson, Willis and Spikes have proven they are way better and performed at that level in the NFL
ADVANTAGE: 49ERS
Cornerbacks: Nate Clements, Shawntae Spencer, Dre’ Bly And Tarell Brown or Carlos Rogers, DeAngelo Hall, Fred Smoot and Justin Tryon= Carlos Rogers is a true shutdown all pro corner and the Niners don’t have that on the roster. After that it is either a was or slightly favors the Skins soley because a shutdown corner is hard to come by in the NFL. But any of you that question Bly being the 49ers nicke corner need not look any further then the joke that is Fred Smoot. Smoot came into the NFL with high expectations and bombed in his first stint with Washington, later with Minnesota and now his second tour with the Skins. Him at nickel makes Washington’s pass defense extremely vulnerable. Still a slight edge to Washington due to Carlos Rogers. ADVANTAGE: REDSKINS
Safeties: Michael Lewis, Dashon Goldsen, Mark Roman and Reggie Smith or Chris Horton, Laron Landry, Reed Doughtry and Kareem Moore= The best of this group is obviously Laron Landry but after that the Skins has NOTHING in the safety position. The backups are poor at best and will make it hard on the Skins defense in any injuries were to occur. While the 49ers have depth at the safety positions with two solid backups as long as Roman plays in position. Michael Lewis and Dashon Goldsen are solid starting safeties. ADVANTAGE 49ERS
Special Teams: Joe Nedney, Andy Lee, Allen Rossum and Michael Spurlock or Shaun Suishem, Hunter Smith, Antwan Randel-El and Rock Cartright= Obvious 49ers advantage here as they have one of the best special teams in the NFL not even mentioning MIchael Robinson on here and other great coverage personal
To me the 49ers are better, it is close. But this breakdown shows that they are in my opinion
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow...
- Jason Campbell isn’t great, but he’s better than Shaun Hill and he’s got a ton more upside.
- Clinton Portis is beast. At the very least, he is as good as Frank Gore.
- Mike Sellers is one of the better blocking fullbacks in the league, and he’s a tremendous short yardage bruiser. He should get the nod over Moran Norris if only for his election into the 2009 Pro Bowl.
- Our WR corps is reliant completely on the fulfillment of potential and the chance that Isaac Bruce doesn’t fall apart. Santana Moss is a solid possession WR with tremendous speed who is complimented by a big playmaker in Randal-El. Devin Thomas is basically the Redskins’ equivalent to Josh Morgan – a young kid with tremendous upside who had an unfortunate injury-plauged rookie season.
- Michael Lewis and Dashon Goldson over Chris Horton and Laron Landry? Are you insane? Those are two of the best young safety prospects in the NFL, and the sky is the limit for both of them. Goldson is an unknown who has spent two years behind Mark Roman, and Michael Lewis is becoming an invisible player who has never really had any effect whatsoever in pass defense.
I understand if you just don’t watch the NFL outside of 49er games, but if that’s the case, then you really shouldn’t be making direct comparisons with other teams.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
UH
I watch a lot of football aside from the 49ers.
Campell 2008: 62.3pct-3,200 yards-13td-6int-6.4ypa- 84.3 rating
Campbell 2007: 60.0pct-2700yards-12td-11int-6.7ppa 77.6 rating
Hill 2008: 62.8pct-2046yards-13td-8int-7.1ypa 87.5 rating
Just because Goldsen is an unknown doesn’t mean he isn’t a good player. By simply calling him “an unknown” you are not proving a single thing. Regarding the skins safety i must have miss worded the statement to some extent but if i remember correctly i did say " The backups are poor at best" nothing negative towards Horton. But take that for what it’s worth i guess. Michael Lewis is becoming invisible? How many niners games have you watched over the last few season? Last time i checked a safety that had 96 tackles in a season isn’t invisible. That’s just me i guess!! And his strength has never been in the coverage game even when he was an all-pro with the Eagles.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Jason Campbell
Started in 29 games. Hill Has only started in 10. If you want to count a full season against a half of one, then you are ignorant in how to use stats. You do this every time.
Here is a lullaby to help you sleep tonight:
Math is a wonderful thing
Math is a really cool thing
So, get of your act let’s do some math
Math, math, math, math, math
Three minus four is?
negetive 1
Yep. And six times
a billion is? six billion?
nailed it.
And fifty four is forty five mor than
what is the answer nocal?
nine.
No it’s eight
No it’s nine
Your right I was testing you. It’s nine.
And that’s a magic number
Well, we're waiting....
Well
Under this theory your saying it’s fair to penalize Hill for not having as much starting experience as Campbell or any other QB in the league with the exception of Stafford and Sanchez. Look Hill has only started what 11 games in his career? I understand that completely but in no way can that be used as a determining factor in deciding who is a better QB. Hill has proven himself to be a better QB then Campbell and by employing experience as the sole opposition to this point you are proving it for me. Please explain how Campbell is a better QB without using that baseless example of experience.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm penalizing Hill..
For only starting 8 games in 2008?
The reality is, your penalizing Campbell for starting in 16.
Well, we're waiting....
+1
nocal81 says:
your saying it’s fair to penalize Hill for not having as much starting experience as Campbell …
Look Hill has only started what 11 games in his career? …
Hill has proven himself to be a better QB then Campbell
Basically, saying that it’s wrong to use small sample size as an argument against Hill, but clearly a perfectly acceptable practice to use Hill’s limited starts as a means of projecting him over Campbell
Insanity.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
That was school of ROCK
Bonus points for out-there movie quote usage
Blind devotion.
by ProfessorBigelow on Sep 11, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Argh
I should have known!! I remember that song now.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't declare Campbell as better
We haven’t seen enough of Hill to say he’s better but Washington was trying to replace Campbell at QB. He should have more upside but that’s like saying Alex Smith has more than Hill. Worthless at this point. I also think if you ask an NFL exec or coach, 8/10 would pick Gore over Portis.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Right now...
…. based on what we KNOW, Campbell should be the better option. If Hill shows more this year, I’m sure people would GLADLY change their minds.
And SF wasn't (isn't) trying to replace Hill?
And Portis is better than Gore.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 11, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes they to were looking for an upgrade
Which would make he and Campbell about the same. Which I’ve said.
As for thinking Portis is better than Gore? Foolish Frog.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Except Campbell is better in several statistical categories, and didn't pad his stats vs an absurdly easy schedule.
Longterm, I’d take Gore over Portis. But Portis may soon have Hall of Fame credentials, Gore at this moment just looks like a one-year wonder. Both are great blockers and receivers.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 11, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
We'll have to disagree on Portis re HOF
I think he’ll be in the hall of very good. Stats will be nice but never a difference maker. And when Gore’s career is done he may be the same. I subscribe to the theory that one credential for a guy to make the HOF is you can’t write the history of the game without mentioning him.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Gore
He’s the first running back in 49ers history to have 3 straight 1,000 yard seasons.
Maybe he’s not as good as that 2006 season, but he’s no one-year wonder given the numbers he’s produced behind some spectacularly bad offensive lines the last 2 years, with some pretty blah QBs
by David Fucillo on Sep 13, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions
If you think Hill is better than Cambpell it's pretty hard to take your opinion seriously
Go look at the numbers again, it’s not even close.
QB: Redskins
RB: Close, probably Niners
WR: Moss is the best of the bunch, both teams have decent depth. Close, but probably Skins again
TE: Skins easily
OL: Skins in a landslide
DL: Skins in a landslide
LB: Niners, I guess
CB: Skins
S: Apparently you don’t know who Chris Horton is, he’s really good. Horton and Landry are easily better than any safety on the Niners. Skins, and it’s not even close.
The Skins are better everywhere except a few close positions like RB, WR, and LB. Look at the teams performance last year:
Skins: 12th in DVOA, 8-8 in the best division in football
Niners: 25th in DVOA, 7-9 in the worst division in football
This is what I’m talking about as far as people overrating the Niners. I know you don’t follow the Skins much, but they are a much better team and it really isn’t even a discussion.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But you will find...
A lot of fans of the NFCE saying the 49ers would be the worst if they were in that division.
Well, we're waiting....
I'm sure..
You are trying to formulate a point. Well, maybe not. But I’m sure you think you are.
Well, we're waiting....
I don't get it
I completely disagree for one. I know a Skins fan who laughs about the Niners futility all the time, and I’d bet most of them think the Niners are not as good as the Skins. But beyond that, how are you refuting what I said?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions
The Redskins are not clearly better
Possibly slightly better or close to the same. We punched them in the face last year with Michael Robinson as our starting RB.
They were much better over the course of the season
Again, One game doesn’t mean much. We are worse on both sides of the ball.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Eagles were the best of that group
Then Panthers, then Falcons, then Cardinals.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Really isn't even a discussion?
You said look at the statistics it isn’t even close right? Well you are right
Campell 2008: 62.3pct-3,200 yards-13td-6int-6.4ypa- 84.3 rating
Campbell 2007: 60.0pct-2700yards-12td-11int-6.7ppa 77.6 rating
Hill 2008: 62.8pct-2046yards-13td-8int-7.1ypa 87.5 rating
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions
As I've said in previous threads
I adjust Hill’s stats downward heavily because of the teams he has played against. Hill’s DVOA was much lower than Campbell’s.
But even using standard stats Campbell had a higher completion percentage, lower sack rate, and less than half the interception rate that Hill had. The only thing Hill had over him was a better yards per attempt. But Campbell is two years younger than Hill and likely to be even better this year.
I’d certainly trade the two if that were possible.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, Campbell’s sack rate was higher than average no matter how many people were rushing him. Here are his sack totals and percentages as split by the number of defenders that were rushing the quarterback:
3 rushers: 1 sack /31 attempts (3.3%, league average 3.3%)
4: 23/333 (6.9%, league average 5.3%)
5: 11/140 (7.9%, league average 7.5%)
6: 3/30 (10%, league average 7.5%)
7: 0/5 (0%, league average 9.5%)
There’s no easy answer to give here like, say, “Campbell can’t handle a blitz of six men or more”. Quarterbacks tend to play slightly worse when you blitz them more, but they’re usually in worse situations, too.
Our projection system provides a very slight bump for teams that retain their offensive coordinator (or their defensive coordinator) for multiple seasons up to a certain point, as we’ve found that teams that retain their coordinators do tend to see a slight improvement over similar franchises that don’t.
There’s nothing in those numbers, though, that indicates that Campbell should take a mighty leap forward. We like Jason Campbell; Dave Lewin’s Lewin Career Forecast, which predicts the NFL performance of college QB’s, had very nice things to say about Campbell coming out of Auburn. So maybe he’ll take a step forward, and Zorn will help. But it won’t be the dominant factor.
One thing that we can say pretty much for sure; Campbell’s going to throw more interceptions. He threw picks on 1.2% of his passes last year, a remarkably low figure and one that almost always — as in, say, 39 times out of 40 — regresses back up closer to 3% or so. Last year’s example was David Garrard, who was at a ridiculous 0.9% in 2007; he threw 13 picks last year at a rate of 2.4%.
Thanks for doing the work to find an example
But I don’t really see any inconsistency there.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, so how is that inconsistent with something else they said?
They don’t think the Skins offense will be good, they predict them to rank 23rd in the NFL.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh nevermind
I thought this was a reply to the “inconsistency in FO’s writing” thread below. My bad.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions
How Does That
Correlate with who is a better QB? I just don’t get it. How many games did Ryan Leaf, Trent Dilfer, David Carr, Rick Mirer, Jeff George etc… start in the NFL. I view you as pretty knowledgable when it comes to the NFL. That is a meaningless point and you can do better then that
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Still Don't see the point.
So JP Losman is a better QB then Matt Ryan because he has started more games? If that is the sole point you are going to in response of my point then try again
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions
The NFL Hall of Fame...
according to nocal:
It isn’t about a body of work. It’s about a small sample size that works for me.
Well, we're waiting....
"The NFL Hall Of Fame"
What?? And please don’t put words into my mouth. In no way did i say that.
It seems like your sole reason for saying Campbell is a better QB then Hill is because he started more games. And that couldn’t be further from the truth. That shouldn’t even be a part of this discussion.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions
10 starts...
as opposed to 36.
Nobody risked their team giving Hill that many starts.
The only team who gives him a start?
One that believes he is a true starter. Why? Because you believe he is.
Hey, why not Andrew Walter?
Well, we're waiting....
It seems like your sole reason for saying Campbell is a better QB then Hill is because he started more games.
You’re not reading or understanding the argument. The argument isn’t that he’s started more games so he should be better. The argument is that since the stats aren’t THAT different, the guy with more games has shown a more consistent ability to stay around those stats. The guy with 10 games has a long way to go, especially considering most of those 10 games were against the teams in the bottom half of the league.
Campbell vs. Hill, Portis vs. Gore, WRs, etc
“QB- Shaun Hill Or Jason Campbell= Considering that Hill has had success when starting in the NFL i would have to go with him, Campbell had a major fall of last season. ADVANTAGE: 49ERS”
Huh? Last year Campbell was a .500 quarterback playing more games and against much better opposition than Hill did. That being said, team win-loss record is a really bad way to judge a QB.
So let’s look at the stats – last year, not career. Hill throws more than twice as many interceptions, balanced a .7 better YPA. .7 is not a trivial difference in YPA … but Campbell’s 1.2% int number is fantastic. Like all-pro good. Whereas HIll’s 2.8% int ratio is league-average starting QB-like, maybe a touch better.
Honestly, that INT number carries more weight for me than the extra YPA.
I suspect most GMs in the league would prefer Campbell. It’s a closer call than most people would guess, but it’s a real struggle to say HIll has shown more.
Portis vs Gore
Long term, no question. The players are close in ability, and Portis is older – and age matters a lot for RBs. But for one season?
Last year, their yards/carry was basically identical, and Gore fumbled twice as much. Based on their last season, that suggests Portis is a better player.
WIth WRs, I find it amusing that you discredit the SKin receivers for not having proven anything in the NFL, but you give a lot of credit to Morgan – who’s proven very little, just shown a lot of potential – and even some to Crabs, who’s shown less than that. From an outsider’s perspective, Bruce is over the Hill and Morgan hasn’t shown squat yet … not very intimidating.
With safeties I think you’re being too chartiable to out guys, too … FWIW>
the niners
were the only team to score more then 24 points against the redskins last year. I think in general their defense is better and that was without Haynesworth.
My favorite part of this....
FB- Moran Norris or Mike Sellers= I don’t know much about Sellers so i can’t really judge this. All i can say is Norris is one hell of a blocking back
ADVANTAGE: 49ERS
Breathtaking!
Never use a big word where a diminutive alternative would suffice.
This is the problem with people just using their gut to say a team is better
You say things like:
a healthy Shawntae Spencer.
But the problem is injuries are going to be a factor this year too. You can’t just add injured players from last year and not take into account that their will be injuries this year. The Niners had one of the healthiest defenses in the league last year, so injuries will likely make them significantly worse. How lucky were we that Willis, Smith, Haralson, and Clements all played full seasons last year? That is not likely to happen again. When one or two of them goes down for significant time it’s going to make a much bigger difference than adding some marginal guy like Brandon Jones or Dre Bly to the team.
This is exactly what happened to the Seahawks last year, which is why people are underrating them. They’d made the playoffs the 5 years before, it’s not like they don’t have a lot of talent. But when Hasselback, Walter Jones, Branch, Burleson, Engram, Chris Spencer, Rob Sims, Locklear, Kerney, and Leroy Hill all get hurt they look pretty bad, as with any team. I think it shoul dbe pretty clear that if each team suffers an equal amount of injuries the Seahawks are a better team.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Do these guys have injury histories?
You say “when one or two of them goes down” as though that’s automatic. Seems as silly as someone guranteeing that they won’t get injured. I don’t believe Willis has missed a game due to injury or Smith any season or significant time in his career. And didn’t Nate miss a game or two last season for the first time in his career? There’s an injury, along with Spencer missing 14 games.
Look, no one can replace a Willis if he’s hurt I don’t care what kind of depth you have. Same can be said for Ware in Dallas, Hayneworth in Washington or Reed in Baltimore. Some guys are too valuable. Not having Merriman I’m sure cost SD some wins last year which is why they were only 8-8. Bust the Niners do have depth in the secondary, avg at LB and none on the DL. At the end of the season everyone has excuses, both legit and not, about why the season didn’t go the way the hoped. You can’t control injuries but you also can’t assume who they’ll happen to. Some teams continually are healthy while others alwasy get guys hurt. Be it bad luck, karma or poor conditioning, some guys rarely is ever get injured while others can’t stay healthy.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
No they don't
But expecting all of your key players to stay healthy every year is clearly fool’s gold. I am very confident the Niners will suffer more injuries this year, and to more important players. It’s just the way it works, teams don’t beat the injury bug year after year.
The big controversy last year was when FO predicted the Cowboys to only win 8 games coming off a 13-3 season with basically the same roster. The prediction was so negative because the Cowboys had suffered the fewest injuries of any team in 2007, which is what made their team so good. And what do you know, in 2008 players like Tony Romo, Marion Barber, Terence Newman, and Kyle Kosier all had big injury problems and FO’s prediction was right on.
Injuries are mostly luck, and the Niners and Cardinals were lucky last year. The Rams and (especially) Seahawks were both very unlucky and are likely to rebound because of it.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Lofa Tatupu had started every game the previous 3 seasons,
and almost never appeared on the injury report, and in 2009 he was injured several times and missed a game.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Injury histories are overrated as a predictive tool
Age matters. Older players get hurt more.
And some injuries recur. Back stuff is pretty hard to shake. Some injuries – Alex Smith’s shoulder, Brett Farve’s arm – recurred because they never healed properly to begin with.
But one must not conclude from the fact that player A has been injured more than player B that player A is more likely to be injured again. A large percentage of the injuries in the NFL are essentially random – and random doesn’t mean even. A random distribution means one player will get injured three times while another doesn’t get hurt at all.
A player who has gone a long career without missing many games to a serious injury may well be tough, but he’s also been lucky. The toughness may continue … the luck, who knows?
Yes
A healthy Shawntae Spencer is a good starting CB in the NFL that has been proven when he did start in the past. Did i say he will stay completely healthy all season? NO!!!! But i will not assume him to have an injury and as of now he is healthy.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 10, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions
But other injuries will make up for it
He is healthy, but it’s not like other players won’t be hurt anyway.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
What Is The Point
Unexpected injuries are a part of the NFL you cannot plan for them or make predictions based on them unless they have already occurred as they have with certain players
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions
But you can say
A team had very few injuries last year so they are likely to have more this year, and vice versa.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions
If injuries are random...
you don’t even get to say that. The last result of a coin flip has no predictive power for any succeeding flip.
While that last sentence is true
You are completely misusing it in this situation. Because injuries are random, we must predict the Niners and Seahawks to have the same number of injuries. It would be foolish to do otherwise because we don’t know who will have more. We therefore assume that each team will have an average injury situation and project accordingly. If health is equal for both teams the Seahawks will likely be better, but of course if they get extremely unlucky again then that would sway things.
It is you in actuality who is predicting wrong:
The last result of a coin flip has no predictive power for any succeeding flip.
Let’s use dice instead. The Seahawks came up snake eyes last year. That absolutely doesn’t mean we should predict anything but a 7 for them (and every other team in the NFL) going forward.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 12, 2009 3:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Doh!
I remain unpersuaded by the predictive power of DVOA, though. It misses too badly too often. There’s either something wrong with the stat or how it’s being used when you see those kind of results. It didn’t do materially better for 2008 than I did flying by the seat of my pants. If it can’t improve on semi-educated guesswork, it just isn’t very useful to me. Wake me when you’ve got something that works as well as basketball’s WP48. That said, I have real doubts about the 49ers this year, given how little they’ve done to patch glaring weaknesses, and how conservative it looks like they’re going to be. You can play neolithic football if you’ve got superior talent. If you’re a young team with glaring holes, like Miami last year, or the 49ers in their first Super Bowl season, or the last several years, you’d better find a really innovative strategy that maximizes what little you have. I’m not going so far as to claim the 49ers will be worst in the NFC, but if they do any better than teams other than Detroit and the Rams, it will be a pleasant surprise. I think there are other AFC bottom-feeders that will be worse than the 49ers, too. I don’t know how anyone can claim that the Raiders will be better, for example. KC’s talent isn’t that great, and the head coach so far appears to be a loon. Tampa Bay fired it’s OC at the end of preseason, and I’m betting they’ll be in a world of hurt, too. It also seems entirely possible that having created 16 games worth of Wildcat footage for NFL DCs to study, Miami could fall back to earth this year.
DVOA vs "seat of the pants" guesswork
Actually, DVOA does a lot better than seat-of-the-pants guesswork.
King Kaufman, at Salon.com, used to do a “panel of experts” challenge, where he simply tracks various experts – including FO’s – predictions week-to-week, and seeks how well they do. And DVOA won a few years, and scored very well pretty much every other year. (To be fair, however, those are week-by-week predictions, which are easier than preseason predictions for the whole shebang).
To point to one year, or one team, where FO missed something big, or did particularly poorly, is essentially the “stopped clock is right twice a day” theory in reverse. Everybody misses games. Everybody has seasons when they do substantially worse than you would expect based on their track record. What makes predictions worthwhile is that they are consistent. That the results are, in the long run, repeatedable. But given a given margin for error, even the most consistent predictions are going to have good years and bad years.
And I’m going to choose my words carefully here, because I’m not accusing anybody of lying. That being said, when somebody says, “I do pretty much as well,” my response – and this isn’t personal – is “Really? Can you show me where you made those predictions in advance?”
And, again – “stopped clock” theory – being right once doesn’t mean much. In the years when on Kaufman’s blog when somebody beat FO, was it ever somebody who did so consistently?
And there’s a physchological principle at work here, too – selective memory. This is why I’m not accusing anybody of being intentionally dishonest, but the simple fact is that we remember our successes better than our failures. If FO picks, say, an unlikely division winner and you do, too – kudos to you for that, by the way – you are likely to remember that. You’re not likely to remember the division winner picks you made who came in second. Or you didn’t pick a team before the season, but saw something you liked early on, predicted that they’d play well for 10 games, were right … and forget that they weren’t your preseason pick. And you are very likely to forget the team you thought was going to run away with it all which collapsed early in the season, and thus was something you put out of mind early and forgot about for the season.
Having only the 2008 FO predictions in front of me...
and not even being able to remember what I thought about 2007, I just have to point out that I was within a game of FO’s best guess for every team for that year. Where they whiffed, I whiffed. I’m not claiming to have done any better than they did. Based on that, and some big misses, DVOA-based predictions don’t impress me terribly. If it were really the best thing since sliced bread, DVOA would be 90%, like WP48. It isn’t. It’s not arguable. That’s all. To win the debate about personal seat of the pants vs FO, or concede your point, I’d have to keep records for several years and get back to you. In all honesty, I probably don’t care enough to go to that much trouble. Since I do have some differences with this year’s predictions, although I haven’t broken it down into actual numbers of wins, feel free to do a virtual point-and-laugh in 16 weeks if I’m still posting here, should FO be more right than I am about the Raiders or KC or whoever having more wins than SF.
"KC’s talent isn’t that great, and the head coach so far appears to be a loon."
Sounds more or less like SF if you ask me…
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 12, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Singletary seems like a loon?
I definitely wouldn’t go that far. Intense? Yes. Different than most? Yes. But not a loon.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 12, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Yet...
the 49ers have an OC whose last good offense comes from KC.
Before he bounced around since.
You do realize the 49ers will be only as good as their offense?
Well, we're waiting....
Debatable
And yet I would agree. Veteran coordinators do not worry me. Raye won’t be a game changer ala Holmgren or Shanahan, nor a guy who brings something new to the league like Walsh in ‘79, Coryell, Gibbs in ’81 or Martz in ’99. But he knows his strengths, the strengths of the team and can get the most out of what he has. He’s in the same cup as Earhard or Hennings. That he is cut from the same system concepts and terminology as Norv and Martz means the transition for current players will be easier and his evaluation of prior film can be better utilized.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Not true, asleep
If a team had fewer-than-average injuries, and injuries are random, you would expect them to have more injuries next year. Not “more than average” injuries, but “more than they had last year.”
The appropriate coin-flip analogy is this:
Let’s say you flip ten coins, and get only three heads. Now you flip ten more coins. How many heads do you expect in this second round of flips?
The correct answer is 5. I do not believe Brendan implies that the correct answer was 7 – to which your response would be appropriate.
we are better
the Niners last year were lost, this year we have a strong coach leading these men in the same direction, our roster didnt get much better but it surely got no worse.. if we went 7-9 last year as a disjointed squad i think we have a better shot this year playing as one..
J GO
Didn't F.O. make this same prediction about the 49ers last year
Sorta like giving Michael Silver credit for picking the Cardinals to win the division . . . he had done it the previous 3 years.
I really don't care about this
And instead focus on people who continually give reasoned thought to predictions. I especially think of those who have been accurately and intelligently critical of SF the past few years as they turned out right for the correct reasons. Even those folks see improvement. Mike Silver picked SF as a Wild Card who will compete for the West.
Yesterday, Steve Young’s weekly on local radio knbr (every year his weekly football observations are the most intelligent and reasoned with actual depth instead of yelling or rhetoric) stated positive things about Hill as a QB. He said would not be the reason the Niners don’t succeed and compared him to a bigger Ty Detmer, a smart QB who will not lose the game for you.
Leadership is a difficult measurable, but SF now has that at HC, OC and QB. If leadership is worth about 2 games per year then we have a winning season. You also have to account for young players improving (Morgan, Rachal, Goldson Balmer, even Haralson and Willis getting better). It’s funny how when making predictions we hear about all the potential young guys on other teams have, even if they’ve shown little or are rookies, but no one assumes anything good about our young guys. Again, I think this mindset happens after too many losing seasons. Experts ignore you and fans suffer from battered fan syndrome.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Leadership, worth 2 games per year?
One could make the argument that leadership is worthless, especially w/o talent.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
leadership
I think even without a lot of talent leadership isn’t worthless. I certainly won’t argue it’s worth 2 games a year. It’s an intangible you can’t measure that affects different teams in different ways.
by David Fucillo on Sep 10, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Leadership on the football field = Clutch hitting
It’s fun to talk about, but it’s all fairy tales and myth.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Florida Danny might have a bone to pick with you about that, since he makes his living studying this stuff. He’s written a few times about how things like clutch do exist and are, in fact, measurable (to an extent). Of course, he also says that any sports psychologist worth his weight would be pretty psychotic to say that these things play a significant role at the highest levels of competition.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 10, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Leadership in leading positions
If you don’t like or trust your HC or coordinators, even talented players don’t go that extra step. If you don’t trust your QB, once you’re down two scores you believe the game is over. Not everything receives a numerical value. Just like some guys have stronger arms but aren’t better QBs. Or have slower 40yd times but never get caught from behind. I think you are undervaluing something that matters when you get a large group of men with variou stalents and egos an are asking them to commit to crashing into other people 16 times a year plus practices.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Which team had the most leadership last year?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions
In no particular order
Pittsburgh, New England, Miami, Baltimore and Philadelphia.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
How do you know they had leadership?
Just based on who had the grittiest players and best defense? Why didn’t the Seahawks have good leadership, isn’t Holmgren a good leader? There’s no way to judge this objectively, your mostly just picking the best teams.
Furthermore, how do we know the Niners have “good leadership”? Just because Sing is an intense former player doesn’t mean he’ll be a good coach.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions
So because a broadcaster said it
That means it’s true. I hope that’s not the logic your using.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions
It was a joke about the Steelers/Titans game
To shlecko’s point below of a doomsday scenario killing leader . . . . a team with leadership pushes through the set backs. Teams without leadership fall apart and turn in a Lion effort.
So basically
Whichever team is better has more leadership.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
The Lions spiraled out of control because a lack of leadership. The 49ers rebounded from bad 1st half and turned in a decent 2nd half the season. Why, Singletary provided some leadership.
Disagree
The Lions spiraled out of control because their team was absolutely awful. The least talented team in football. The bad coaching was just gravy.
And the Niners weren’t better in the second half, their DVOA was actually lower. They just played weak teams.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I would argue
That an awful team will lose regardless of their opponents DVOA. That said, meaning no insult but the constant harping of DVOA is plain odd to me. Do you have a monetary investment in this? It’s not the end all be all. Humor me: how does your system that declares “weak teams” account for SF beating Washington who just beat Philly who ended up in the NFC title game? Or that SFs last eight games included both NFC championship game teams plus the winner of the AFC East ?
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
The true burden..
Of proof is on the people who argue against it.
You need a little more than “intangibles, leadership, potential, yadda freakin yadda”.
Well, we're waiting....
You must've missed a previous post
I enjoy reading many different stat models and experts along with watching games myself, looking at the history of the game and using common sense. My predictions are as accurate as the experts if not more so in some years. I still wouldn’t suggest that someone treat my predictions as gospel nor do I for any one person or model, including DVOA. I find it odd that when making an argument a person would only use DVOA and act as though it came from Nostradamus. It’s one model.
I think the real problem is the newness of this. Had this been around since the mid-90’s we could see more flaws. What would they have said heading into the years everyone was surprised by certain teams in the SB.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
They're not trying to pick who makes the Superbowl
They predict how each team does in the regular season.
I don’t only use DVOA but I think it’s the best measure available. Is there something else you recommend?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Gil Brandt..
Has used advanced statistical analysis in the early 70’s. This isn’t new.
Well, we're waiting....
No investment of any kind
I just think it’s the best measure out there.
Washington completely collapsed in the second half of the season. It was a meaningless game and the Niners barely won, honestly to me that game has pretty much zero relevance to the discussion.
Awful teams usually lose, except when they are playing teams that are even worse.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, DVOA has some real problems, but I think it’s pretty clearly the best statistically based evaluative tool that we have for the NFL right now.
Assuming an adequate sample, that is.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Humor me: how does your system that declares "weak teams" account for SF beating Washington who just beat Philly who ended up in the NFC title game? Or that SFs last eight games included both NFC championship game teams plus the winner of the AFC East ?
It’s not an accounting system, though. It’s an evaluative system. I think you’re looking at DVOA with the wrong approach. DVOA does NOT say “they played worse, so it doesn’t make any sense how they won… paradox… < explode >.” It says, “They won despite playing poorly. If they play poorly like this again in a similar situation, you can expect them to lose. Of course, they might win, like they did this, but it would probably be really smart to bet on the loss.”
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
DVOA is a great tool because it has proven predictive value ...
Look, there’s a random factor in football games – “on any given sunday” and all that, even not accounting for flukey weeks like the last week of the season where a lot of teams mail it in.
The problem with “We beat Washington who beat Philly” is that you quickly get into infinite loops. Philly clobbered us, who beat Washinton, who beat Philly … cleaerly, trying to make sense of things just from head-to-head results gets nonsensical quickly. (And if you want to dismiss our result against Philly because it was under Nolan, then fine: Philly demolished Dallas, who demolished us, who beat Washington, who beat Philly.
I mean, somebody concluding from those circles that the Niners are good is really, quite frankly, absurd.
But the simple truth is that DVOA seems to be the best predictive tool available. No predictive tool is perfect, but analyses based on DVOA have pretty consistently been better than other statistical analyses and, quite frankly, better with more consistency than most expert’s subjective opinions.
If you want to argue that, for some specific reason, DVOA is inaccurate with respect to the Niners this year, I think you’ll find an audience here willing to engage with you. But when you have one really good statistic with a proven track record, and you dismiss it in favor of statistics with a worse track record – or, worse, subjective opinions – it’s hard to take you too seriously.
I like Steven Young and I like his analysis, but remember he’s a homer. It is, ultimately, his job to try to find silver linings for the Niners.
Homer?
You obviously don’t listen to Young. He’s been no homer, one of the reasons his Niner and NFL analysis is so strong. He’s been critical of them throughout the past handful of years but his reasons for why they would or were struggling had much more depth than “Yorks are awful” and he proposed solutions for how to get better. An actaul vision to what wins in the NFL, then provide examples from the present and past, as opposed to just stats or rhetoric. I advise you listen to him first.
My reason for using the “we beat Washington who just beat Philly” was in reponse tho the idea that all the teams we beat sucked and were playing poorly. How poorly could Washington be if the week prior they beat a playoff team that needed the win and ended up in the conf title game? It’s more of a response to those who think all Niner wins are devalued but losses tell the whole story. It’s a 16 game season the analysis needs to fair and full.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
And yet you keep ignoring ...
… that not only is it a 16-week season, but that win was in week 16.
And they mailed it in.
Look, at the time, everybody recognized that it wasn’t a very meaningful win. It was still nicer to win than to lose, but I feel like you’re forgetting the obvious context at the time.
We just disagree on this
I don’t think Washington or SF mailed it in. Redskins wanted a winning record. Had they mailed it in they wouldn’t have fought to come back and tie the game. Or fought to win the previous week.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Even if they didn't
As you just said the Skins had beaten Philly the previou week. Did that make them a better team than the Eagles?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 12, 2009 3:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Philly had a better record
Made the playoffs and nearly went to the Superbowl, and were much better on a play-by-play basis (#1 in DVOA). I’d say it’s clear Philly was better, but maybe the Skins were not a good natchup for them.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 12, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I've not argued that
I’m aware that one team’s 10-6 can be superior to another’s 11-5. BUt my understanding of Brendan in this long post is otherwise.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I included reord
Because it certainly counts for something, and I know you value it highly.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 13, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
There is no doubt Sing is an excellent leader
As for how good of a HC he’ll be, only time will tell. I don’t pretend to know but for a guy with nine games under his belt, the sky is currently the limit. That’s part of the pleasure of a coaching change.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
What you're talking about is not "leadership"
If you don’t like or trust your HC or coordinators, even talented players don’t go that extra step. If you don’t trust your QB, once you’re down two scores you believe the game is over.
This is simply competence vs. incompetence. The only reason to not “trust” a coordinator is if he sucks or has sucked in the past. Likewise, the only reason you wouldn’t “trust” your QB is if you’ve got no faith in his abilities. This has absolutely nothing to do with being a rah-rah, upbeat field general.
In fact, one could make a case that the only way that people become “leaders” is by performing well. No one follows a loser, no matter how good they may sound on the sideline or in the huddle. Mike Nolan only lost the team because they had several losing seasons – just like JTO (who was praised for his confidence and inspired play early in the 2008 season) lost the huddle last year because he sucked for 8 straight games.
Hill may have won the starting job because of his on the field presence, but you can damn well expect the team to stop following him if we start the year 2-7 and he performs poorly. In the same way, we can expect the players to stop “responding” to Singletary if his tough-guy, hard-nosed style of coaching doesn’t translate into wins.
It’s all about ability and level of skill. “Leadership” is just the result of your talent playing out on the field.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I would argue that part of what makes some people great is their leadership
And that comes before the talent. Obviously there are guys with talent who no matter how well they play (calling Owens and Crabtree) are not leaders and people will not follow them. No matter how many plays they make. I think your QB has to be your leader whether he has Brady’s talent, Brees’ stats or Ben’s rings. I also think the HC has to be the leader of the whole team. Yes, ability plays a huge part but if they don’t trust you and won’t follow you your coaching talent will never be realized. Shanahan had/has a brilliant offensive mind but when coaching the Raiders, they wouldn’t follow him because the owner was the leader.
With certain things, yes, it’s more competence to do the job vs incompetence (Hostler).
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Now you're just going in circles.
Yes, ability plays a huge part but if they don’t trust you and won’t follow you your coaching talent will never be realized.
As mentioned before, the only real way to lose the “trust” of your players is to perform poorly. If you’re a jackass to everyone, you can’t finish a sentence without muttering at least three "umm"s, you disregard the opinion of anyone and everyone that disagrees with you, but you’re still a master playcaller and you’ve had a winning record for years…then the players are going to trust you.
Likewise, if you’re a square-jawed, piercing eyed, comfortably confident, well-spoken crafty veteran coach with a booming voice who boasts a career record of 13-46 and a 38% career third down conversion rate, then the players will always doubt you.
Leadership has absolutely nothing to do with it.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I'm focused on the HC and QB
Or even other players like Ray Lewis, not the OC. With play callers I was actually trying to agree with your point not go in circle. Perhaps we’re misunderstanding each other.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I shouldn't have to draw up individual examples of how the reverence of leadership is completely bunk.
It’s the exact same for QBs and head coaches:
-If the offense is ineffective with Hill at the helm, then you won’t hear any more stories about how good of a leader he is.
-If the 49ers don’t win games, then we’re going to hear rumblings from the locker room about how the players are overworked by a demanding rookie coach who doesn’t know how to run a franchise.
The only defense of Hill so far, and the only hope coming out of Singletary’s corner at the moment is about winning football games. If that doesn’t happen, then all this fiery leadership hooplah won’t mean an F’ing thing.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I don't believe that's shlecko's point...
And I don’t think I need to reiterate it.
Well, we're waiting....
Basically
Leadership is mostly made up, just a tag put on good players. Big Ben is known as a leader, just because he’s been on great teams that have won 2 Superbowls. If he was on the Lions and was the exact same player but had never been to the playoffs no one would call him a leader. It’s a pretty meaningless tag.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Rumblings from the media
Who’ve already written the narrative. They were mentioning this when camp started and were surprised that players were ok with the tough camp.
BTW It’s you that’s focused on the “fiery” leadership. I don’t give it the qualifier cause the fire makes no difference whether it’s there or not.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Maybe
The Niners came out really flat in a several games last year. It wasn’t a problem that stopped cold when Singletary took over, but it became a lot less common.
There is some reason to hope that Singletary can make a difference, but when your primary hope for improvement is “intangibles,” well … that’s a little tenuous, no?
Yes, admittedly
But I also expect some of the younger players to improve by being in their 2nd year (Morgan, Rachal, Balmer) and the entire offense to be better used according to its strengths. Intangibles might make them overall more competitive but only add 1 win at best to the standings. But improved play from younger guys takes it the next step and that adds 1-3 wins. Being that I expect 9-7 or 10-6, I’m only envisioning an improvement of 2-3 wins.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Look At The Steelers
I am not comparing the two teams that would be foolhardy but Big Ben comes out in many games flat. It happens in the NFL and it isn’t a point of leadership or abilities it just takes certain players longer to get into the action and be more comfortable on the field. And a lot of the times the first 15 plays are scripted making it look more like a dress rehearsal for a play then an actual NFL game. Those are two major reasons for teams coming out flat, not the lack of leadership.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Check out leaderless teams
They under-perform regardless of talent level. Great leadership can get other teams to over-perform. Again, I’ll listen to guys that have played. Leadership is important, obviously more so when there is talent. And the Niners have talent. So what’s your issue?
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Just...
… because teams full of talent but no leader fail to succeed, it does not make the converse to be true. The 49ers defense has a lot of POTENTIAL, but is pretty short on actual/predictable talent. Everything is projections:
“Maybe Haralson will get double digit sacks this year.”
“Maybe Manny Lawson will finally put it together.”
“Maybe Dashon Goldson will be a better FS than Roman.”
“Maybe Aubrayo Franklin can improve on his second half from last season.”
It’s all projections where the only person that’s pretty much guaranteed to produce is Patrick Willis.
It doesn't take into acount
A change in head coach.
Calulate the DVOA from Nolan to Sing and lets see what the #’s look like. I for one would like to see if it made any differences
by LASVEGASNINER on Sep 11, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
iirc, the 49ers' DVOA was actually slightly lower during the second half of last season.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
The Niners DVOA was lower under Singletary
But I’m pretty sure they do calculate head coaching changes into the formula. At least they factor in what a coaching change usually means for a team.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Correlation =/= Causation.
And the Niners have talent.
The 49ers have 2 elite players, a couple of above average starters, and several people reeking of mediocrity that likely would not start on more than 3 or 4 teams in the NFL.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
We have two elite players?
We have Willis.
I’m guessing you think Gore is the other one, but Gore has really only had one elite season … maybe two if you stretch it. And neither of his last two seasons have been elite.
Obviously, we all want to see him dominate. But I think Niner fans overrate Gore – who’s a solidly above average NFL RB, but probably a longshot for the all-pro team this year.
The Niners
Have two elite players in that you are correct. They have multiple solid players in Eric Heitman, Justin Smith, Arubulo Franklin, Takeo Spikes, Parys Harrelson and Nate Clements. Also they have multiple up and coming players in Vernon Davis, Josh Morgan, Joe Staley, Chilo Rachel, Tarell Brown and Dashon Goldsen. All of whom should improve in 2009. Making the team just that much better.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions
My statistics say the 9ers win the division at 9-7.
I was excruciatingly rigorous in my analytical methodology – I flipped a coin. Heads for Seattle winning the division and tails for the 9ers. See, statistics work every single time.
But really, these kinds of predictions based on statistical analysis of a limited number of factors that don’t include a lot of intangibles are pretty much worthless except as a general guide, which you can find anywhere disguised as “Power Rankings”. No reason to get excited.
My prediction:
Seahawks 10-6 if W. Jones returns & Hasselbeck is healthy
49ers 9-7 if the team finds a pass rush
Cards 7-9 the D sucks & the O-line is iffy
Rams 3-13 no defense & only Jackson on offense
And my lucky quarter never lies.
Partly they factor in statistical trends they discovered analyzing football stats and records over the years. The other half is how they personally feel about the team, they’ve been consistently hating on the 49ers all off season.
That is just not true
It’s a statistical formula, not the opinions of the writers.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Bill Barnwell, FO’s writer who explained why he thinks the 49ers would basically be the Lions had they placed in a different division, is a 49ers fan.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions
BS
They’ve identified a large number of statistical trends. They than decide which trend they want imply on a team. It’s as much personal judgment as it is statistical analysis. Just read through their entire marathon of team analysis they did with SB Nation over a month ago.
Wrong
They have a set formula, that doesn’t change for each team. Please show examples of where they’ve been inconsistent.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I saw that
I don’t see anything inconsistent in what they wrote. Like I said, at least give an example.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Just pick one
You can’t even point out one instance where they were inconsistent and biased?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope
They play chicken and the egg a lot with the QB/WR situation but there answer depends on the angle in the question. Sometimes they will point to the QB, sometimes the problem is the WR but not enough to pin them for blatant double talk.
Sadly, their biggest predictor is the health of the offensive line for most teams. Yet, the make the no distinction in analysis losing a starter like Walter Jones compared to Adam Synder.
Some of their guys don’t even understand their own model. Twice an editor said they simulated 10,000 seasons and once an editor said he had heard of such a system from a competitor but it’s not what they do.
They don’t go to far out on a limb at times. They give teams like the Bengals and Jags a bump because in their words they have no place to go but up.
Regression to the mean is a solid statistical principle
The biggest problem with DVOA is that it can’t really account for how much success come from which players. We can talk about Shaun Hill’s DVOA, but really what we’re talking about is Hill’s DVOA behind the Niner offensive line throwing to Niner receivers.
That’s why they can’t break out distinctions between which starter a team loses.
No he's not
I’ve heard you say that one other time, but your wrong on this on Frog. Barnwell is a Giants fan.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm almost positive he's a Giants fan
I couldn’t find anything on FO but here’s a chat at BP from a couple years ago:
OK, I’ve gotta go grab some breakfast before I start just typing random foodstuffs into the chat window. Thanks for all the questions, and although I’m generally unbiased, go Giants!
I’’ve heard many times that he’s a Giants fan. He did live in San Francisco though so perhaps he likes the Niners a bit too.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions
San Francisco Giants…?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 10, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions
No
That quote was referring to the Giants-Packers NFC Championship game the year the Giants won the Superbowl. I know Bill said he thought the Giants would pick in the top 5 the year they won it all and he was so stoked and surprised to be wrong. I’m about 95% sure he’s a New York Giants fan but I’ll try to see if i can find any more evidence.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh. Well, I really don’t know, and New York Giants really is the most likely.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 10, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
The difference is
Your “quarter predictions” are no more accurate than picking names out of a hat but their DVOA projections are strongly correlate with actual wins after the season.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
"Limited"
Talking about DVOA as being about “a limited number of factors” is a pretty huge stretch.
Complex stats in football are hard. That being said, intangibles have proven to be pretty unneccesary to make accurate predictions based on stats in the NBA (where something like 90% of a team’s record can be explained by the numbers in the box score) so when somebody starts saying it’s all about the intangibles … well, I’m skeptical.
That being said, if statistics can explain 90% of a team’s results in the NFL that still leaves a wiggle room of about a game and a half a season. If you’re talking about intangibles making up that big a difference, I can believe it. But people predicting 10-win seasons for the Niners are clearly giving them credit for more than that.
You are giving F.O. too much credit
They aren’t predicting anything correctly at a rate anywhere close to 90%. So far they just deliver a few gem predictions each season.
They predict a lot better
Then really any other predictions you’ll find.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I said "if" ...
… but it’s not about “gem” predictions.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. There are guys on this board who have been saying that this is the Niners year since Mooch left, and sooner or later, when the Niners are good again, they’ll say, “See, I was right!”
The value of DVOA is it’s consistency. It’s very solid, and does consistently well, year after year. When it fails badly, you can usually see why: injuries, for example, or losing a tremendous number of fumbles (which are basically luck). And sometimes, like in the Pats-Giants super bowl, it’s just dead wrong … like any other prediction.
How does DVOA work? Feel free to post a link… Likewise, how do they predict the value provided by the more unknown quantities like Goldson and Haralson?
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
http://footballoutsiders.com/info/methods
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
did your same "statistical" analysis have the cards making the superbowl last year and being the nfc champion..
i didn’t think so..if you want to fantasize about football over a computer…be my guest…of course if your seriously thinking the niners are this bad maybe you should become a raider’s fan…put lots of money on your “predictions” and get ready to collect alot of money…or NOT.
Way to demonstrate that you don't understand statistics ...
Playoffs are very unpredictable by their very nature. The lucky bounces which tend to even out over the course of a season don’t even out over the course of the playoffs. DVOA was very accurate in predicting last year’s regular season. It has a history of being very good at predicting that. When its wrong, there are usually clearly-identifiable reasons: a player had a breakout year, a team had unusually few/many injuries, etc.
Furthermore, you seem to be confusing two very different concepts. One is being a “fan” of a team. The other is thinking that team going to win this year. You do understand that one of these does not require the other, right?
I happen to think the Giants – one of my least favorite teams in the league – are going to be very, very good this year. Does this mean I should start rooting for them?
What you mention is exactly why I feel DVOA doesn't work for predictions
I agree it is a great way of asessing how a team did against the average of the NFL for games already played. But that is last years average, last years players. There will always be breakout players or players who unexpectedly flop or injuries that will happen.
To point to these as understandable that the prediction is wrong is looking at it wrong. The point is the prediction is wrong, period.
Not to mention the NFL averages would also change, will this be a season where offenses are the spotlight and there are a lot of big plays, or will this be a defensive year?
I guess I just have a problem with predictions based on past statistics. If the NFL always played out due to past statistics there would be no point in watching as each team would finish exactly the same each and every year.
by snowweasel30 on Sep 10, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure ... teams change, players change ...
But my point is, if you’re going to deviate from the expected, logical predictions (that is to say, DVOA or something better that comes along) have a reason.
For example, say the Niners traded a draft pick for Merriman. Clearly, we would expect our DVOA to improve – our results this year would be better than our last year’s DVOA would suggest. And unfortunately DVOA isn’t, say, WP in the NBA, where you can transfer one player’s numbers with him when he’s traded.
The issue with the anti-DVOA people on this board is that they claim that for some reason it’s not going to be accurate for us this year, without giving any reason why. We haven’t, after all, traded for Shawn Merriman. Shaun Hill, who is a known quantity and unlikely to get lots better, is still our starting QB.
If somebody was going to write a thoughtful post on why he thought the Niners would be better than expected, that’d be great. I’d love to read it. I’d love reasons to be optimistic going into this season. But instead we get tripe like “Well, we beat Washington who beat Philly, so we’re secretly good!”
If you think DVOA is going to be wrong for us this season, great. Just tell us why …
But don’t just wave your hands and tell us that DVOA sucks as a predictive tool, because it’s actually very very good as one.
I think your'e talking about me with
"Well, we beat Washington who beat Philly, so we’re secretly good!" – at least get the quote and context correct. I’d like to read a thoughtful post that isn’t making an argument with incorrect hyperbole.
I would also argue that Hill is not a known quantity. No one can truly say with fact that he’ll throw 20+ TDs or 16+ INTs. We don’t even know if he can stay healthy for a full season; not that he has an injury history but he’s never been asked to start 16 games. That provides both reason for optimism and a huge question mark, thus making him very unknown.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
The thing with Hill ...
… is that he didn’t make a lot of rookie mistakes. In fact, he seems to have the mental part of the game down pat.
On one hand, that’s what we like about him. On the other hand, it means he’s not likely to get much better.
Expecting Hill to improve dramatically strikes me as highly, highly optimistic. He already does the things well that you expect to see inexperienced guys do badly. The stuff he doesn’t do well isn’t usually the stuff guys figure out later in their careers.
No argument
We still don’t know how much room for improvement though. It may be very little. I’d be happy if it’s some of the smaller mental things. I read today that he wishes he had spiked the ball last season @ AZ on that Robinson run play but didn’t feel comfortable going against a Martz play. That kind of comfort playing the position and being the on field captain could save a game. My understanding is that the person you want as your best decision maker at the end of the game is your QB. He needs to know what to do without receiving instruction from coaches but only gets there by playing.
My hopeful and I think realisitic stats for a Hill that starts 16 games: 20-22 TD passes, 1 TD run, less than 15 INT. I imagine we’ll run for more TDs than last season but many of Hill’s TDs may be short passes near the goal line.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Here's the problem
You say:
When its wrong, there are usually clearly-identifiable reasons: a player had a breakout year, a team had unusually few/many injuries, etc.
Last years Cardinals:
Breakout players:
Warner (started all 16 games for the first time in long time and played great).
Larry Fitzgerald: Nuff said.
Virtually NO injuries.
I guess NOT know those three things BEFORE last season started really skewed things for the Cardinals and against the teams they played.
Yeah
They got lucky and had their whole offense (minus Boldin for a few games) healthy the whole year. They still weren’t very good during the season. How is that a mistake by the predictions?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, let's look a little closer.
After they won the division, they literally shut it down for a couple of weeks, losing big to Minnesota and New England.
In fact Kurt Warner was talking about just that today on the radio. I’m not saying that they would’ve won if they hadn’t clinched early, but the fact of the matter is this: After they clinched, they took a few weeks off.
Maybe, if they hadn’t the Vikings DON’T make the playoffs last year.
Any of these predictions (FO or otherwise) are kinda stupid.
There are just way too many variables involved. It’s pretty much just guesswork.
Your right that in general predictions are mostly wrong
I’m not trying to say that this means the Niners season is over or anything. It’s just another predictive tool, but it isn’t a good sign.
However, I the Cardinals ever played all that well. They were 3-7 outside the NFC West. They got blown out by the Jets and Eagles on top of the Vikings and Patriots, who you mentioned. In the playoffs they played great, but that doesn’t change the fact that in the regular season they weren’t very good.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, lets look at that a little
We have a team that swept a division that saw two HC’s fired and one with ‘lame duck’ status.
They played three good games at home against ‘playoff type teams’ (Buffalo, Dallas and Miami) and lost big to those teams you mentioned (Jets, Eagles, Vikes, Pats).
And they, all things considered, wetre the best team in the playoffs.
Same players. They didn’t import different players for the playoffs.
Here’s my take:
1. Division games are usually difficult. The Vikings went to the playoffs in 2008. The Lions were the worst team in NFL history. The Vikings beat Detroit twice last season, by a total of SIX points (by two in Minnesota and by four in Detroit).
2. Historically, the Cardinals are a terrible road team. Doubly so on the East coast. A few years back, they lost something like 21 out of 23 road games.
They were terrible on the road in 2008.
3. A couple of losses after they clinched (as mentioned).
4. The Playoffs. Do you know who gets the biggest credit for their playof run? Cris Collingsworth. That’s right Collinsworth. He’s the one that started all the “The Cards might be the worst playoff team in NFL history.” And the rest of the national media followed suit.
The national press cmpletely disrespected that team, and the playoffs completeely fed off of it. Living in Phoenix I can give you many examples to back up my claim. It would take too long to do so here, but if pressed, I will.
And there you have it. How basically the same set of players, could look, at differeing times, like an OK team, a horrible team, and a team that upset three playoff teams and came within 2:37 of upsetting the fourth to stun the world.
No doubt they played great in the playoffs
I just don’t think they can repeat that performance. They weren’t very good in the regular season, even when they were still playing for the division. But I don’t think they will be as bad as FO predicts them to be.
If I were to actaully predict what I though the record of each team in the NFC West would be, it would look something like this:
Seattle: 10-6
Cardinals: 7-9
Niners: 6-10
Rams: 5-11
Of course, this is the mean prediction and I honestly think any team could win the division.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree (not this good this year, not as bad a FO)
But you know what? Who the F++K knows.?
Look at the NFC North.
You can make a case for GB, the Bears or Minnesota to win that division. You cannot, however, make a case for Detroit.
Ok, so I pick the Bears. You (Brenden) pick GB. Fooch picks Minnesota. ONE of us is going to be correct. One of us HAS to be right. Big deal.
Who cares? Not me. Even if I was correct I would attribute it to blind luck.
I could sit here and give you a long reason why the Bears will win the North. I could then sit down and wacth TV for a little bit, come back and give you a long reason why GB will win the North. I can then grab something to eat, come back and give you a long reason why the Vikings will win the North.
Hell, if I knew WHO was going to win the North I’d sell everything i own and make a wager on that team.
It’s all guesswork. I’m not calling people that make predicitons stupid. They’re not. I’m not saying that FO doesn’t have some value. They do.
I just think that it’s mostly guesswork, once you get past certain things (like Detroit, Cleveland, KC etc are almost certailnly going to be closer to the bottom than the top). Or, likewise, that NE, Pittsburgh, Baltimore are almost certainly going to be closer to the top than the bottom.
But who’s going to win the NFC North?
Even if you told me that all three of those teams would have NO injuries and that all of their players would play like they usually do, I’d still have no idea.
That’s why they play (and I watch) the games.
Well said
And very much true. I think we (and by “we” I certainly include myself) take predictions too seriously many times. Still, I was very surprised to see the Niners predicted as the worst team in the NFC and this only increases my worries that this season won’t turn out so well. I think there are some things that could make the Niners play worse this year (more injuries to the defense, for one) I think they should be at least be able to maintain their level of play from last year, which admittedly wasn’t very good.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Last year, we had the Lions pegged for 4.3 wins, the third-worst total in the league, so we weren’t THAT far off. The only teams we had below them were the Raiders (not bad) and the Falcons (can’t win ’em all).
See, to me, that proof of this nonsense
In 2007 the Lions were 7-9. You had them around four in 2008. They ended up at zero.
You say that ‘we weren’t THAT far off.’ OK. I guess.
The ONLY thing you had correct was the direction. That’s all. You had them worse in 2008 than 2007. Congratulations. But you were off by FOUR games.
That’s 25% of the season.
There are 162 baseball games. 16 football. Basically every football game is worth 10 baseball games.
In 2008 the Cubs won 97 and the Dodgers 85. Rounded up, that’s like the Cubs going 10-6 and the Dodgers going 9-7.
Being off by four games with the Lions is like being off by 40 baseball games.
I’m not trying to make an exact comparison between the two sports. But still.
Few misses as opposed...
To being near accurate most of the time? Should we debunk you when you are wrong?
Well, we're waiting....
OK Drummer, tell you what
Give me YOUR prediction for the NFC West and the NFC North.
That’s eight teams. I want to see it, and then print it, and look at it after the season is over.
Are you gonna start this again?..
Your issue is with FO. You need to show what your issue is by knowing what it’s about.
If you want to start up again with me, this isn’t the place to do it.
I know my team. You don’t.
Well, we're waiting....
NO. Not at all.
Tell me what your predictions are for those eight teams.
Or tell me what someone at FO’s predictions are.
Tell me something specific.
Eight teams. Eight ‘predicted’ records. That’s all. I really want to see it and copy it and look at it after the season is over.
But four games is a LOT of games.
I mean, if someone predicts the 49ers at, say at 7-9 and they end up 11-5 (or 3-13), well, that’s not even close.
You might ‘know your team’ but you don’t have a clue as to how well they are going to do, beyound what I said earlier (they’ll win more than 4 and less than 13).
The link to FO's predictions are in the fanpost
And you can find previous season’s predictions on FO itself. They are pretty accurate.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions
What’s the big prediction this year that will blow me away?
They missed on Atlanta and Miami last year. Did they predict the Jags collapse? Predicting the Raiders and Lions to be bad wasn’t exactly earth shattering. Nor suggesting that the Cowboys had a bit of a favorable schedule in 2007 and would probably drop a few games in 2008. Saying Green Bay and Cleveland would come back down isn’t exactly stepping out on a limb either in 2008.
Than you have 16 teams who are around the middle of pack with a few perennial contenders that everyone can name. If F.O. is given a 4 game cushion than I have to agree GeoMak about where is the magic?
The real question is...
Do you really need FO to tell you that this is a 7 win team?
I don’t. Why? Because I know what this team is capable of.
Well, we're waiting....
I would be on that boat. But F.O. is predicting closer to a 3 win team than 7 win team.
BTW, Brendan’s link to the predictions does not work.
I don't see why..
49er fans, who has seen how haphazard of an organization the past few
years, has built a contender. They haven’t. Why?
Because they haven’t built a true defense, and they aren’t the Steelers.
Another why? Because they have put a lot of eggs into the Alex Smith basket.
Well, we're waiting....
Which link?
Just let me know, I’ll fix it.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
FO Predicting
That the 49ers will be close to 3 wins then 7 is absolutely absurd. The fact is that they don’t take into account the statistical improvement of up and coming players such as Vernon Davis and Josh Morgan. They don’t take into account the continue maturity of Chilo Rachel and Joe Staley. Or the addition of Tony Pashos and Moran Norris to aide in the blocking for a healthy Frank Gore. They don’t take into account the scheme our defense will play in terms of mixing up blitzes in order to improve our pass rush. And if they actually do take these statistical improvements into the determination of allocating the niners closer to 3 wins then 7 well then they are more amateur then most of us on here
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes
He has been a stable offensive linemen for a few seasons now and that addition will make a big difference in the pass protection for the 49ers. It’s an acquisition that fell under the radar but will pay dividends in the coming weeks
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions
What
Are you seriously comparing the 4?? Pashos has never had a major injury and while playing RT for the Jaguars he game up a mere 4.5 sacks last season, and 3 in 2007. 2.5 in 2006. But hey you draw the comparisons huh?
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Pashos is a castoff..
Nobody gives up an O-lineman that is worth a shite.
You know this.
Well, we're waiting....
He
wouldn’t take a paycut and they had two rookies and are rebuilding. These are the sole reasons for him being released
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:46 AM PDT up reply actions
What?
That he wouldn’t take a paycut? Absolutely not!!! He was one of their best offensive linemen, no reason to take a paycut under that situation
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Pashos is a penalty machine.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 11, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes
What in Heck does that mean? You gave me absolutely nothing of substance in your opposition of my point regarding Pashos. Except for foolishly comparing him to Smith and Sims as well as calling him a “castoff” without any basis
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Did you get this? ..
“Nobody gives up an O-lineman that is worth a shite.”
You know O-lineman are at premium prices now, don’t you?
Well, we're waiting....
Yes I Do
But as the NFL network said on Sunday. Some teams are foolish with their releases as the Jaguars were. If Pashos was on the open market this offseason he would have been one of the best offensive linemen in the free agent market.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:53 AM PDT up reply actions
why?
HE WAS RELEASED BECAUSE HE DIDNT TAKE A PAYCUT. What is your basis for that statement?
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:58 AM PDT up reply actions
When Pashos
Hit the free agent market in 2007 he was the 2nd best offensive linemen on the market behind Lenord Davis and ahead of Sean Locklear and Max Starks. Doesn’t that say something?
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, Davis, Locklear, and Starks were
all considered subpar and not worth large contracts.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 11, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Not sure if this is what you were saying
But Davis at least got a HUGE contract in the offseason, $49 million IIRC.
I still agree Pashos isn’t that good though. Just ask Jags fans.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions
They actually had 5.4 wins as the mean projection
So that is closer to 7 than 3.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Here's the projections from last year:
They certainly missed on some teams, but overall I think they were pretty good with their projections.
I think it would be interesting for us to rank each team and then see how accurate we are compared to FO at the end of the season. But we’d have to use DVOA, and it seems like you don’t like DVOA much.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I do like it
I just don’t think it’s a conclusive indicator. It should be weighed with other analysis, but I’d probably give it 30% weight.
That's fair
And actually looking at the rankings from last year, there were some teams they missed big time on, which is obviously good news for us.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not trashing FO
but come on. They had NE at 12 wins.
I wonder what they would’ve had if you told them that Brady would go out in game 31 and that Matt Cassell would start the entire season.
Look for everyone they had ‘right’ they had another ‘wrong.’
Those guys ,might be the smartest guys in the world.
Nobody, however, can come anywhere close to accurate predictions, unless you give them a four cushion spread.
That's pretty good..
Because FO looks at the overall, not just predicated on one player.
Well, we're waiting....
No it's not
Are they predicting 12 wins with Brady?
Or 12 wins with Cassell?
Or 12 with any QB?
It makes a difference, at least with the QB.
If the starting QB is the most important position in the NFL, then that kind of thing matters.
We’re not talking about playing the back-up RG.
I’m pretty sure that #12 was with Brady in mind, just as I’m pretty sure that if you had told them Cassell, they would’ve dropped that number.
The flaw in your argument is that it’s hard to look at the ‘overall’ without factoring in:
A) Do I have Brady, one of the all time greats?
or
B) Cassell, a guy who hasn’t started a game since HS.
They Predicted 12
Wins with Brady starting right? Well Cassell started 15 games and they won 11 games. So either they are only giving Brady a +1 win value over Cassell or they are missing the entire point. Am i wrong in this assumption?
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions
You are in fact wrong
The system predicts and average injury situation for each team.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions
LOOK, here's what they did
They have 18 teams between 7-9 wins. (more accurately, above 6 wins and below 10 wins).
Big F’ing Deal!
Over half of the league that have hovering around 500.
So what?
If you have HALF the teams hovering around 500, you’re going to get a LOT of hits (especially if you give yourself a few games margin for error).
They missed badly with 5 out of the 7 bottom teams (KC, Mia, Det, Rams, Atl).
They were off around 4 games on those 5 teams.
They missed badly on 3 out of the top 6 (GB, Ind, Sea).
This is a joke!
Wake up PEOPLE!
And yet, they manage to do well when predicting which teams will be close to 500, which teams will be worse, and which will be better ...
Interesting that, isn’t it.
You seem to be implying, Geomack, that they should predict that more teams will be further from .500.
And yet … about half the league usually ends up in that range. So you seem to be saying that their predictions would be better if they were less likely to match the league’s actual results.
Thats a joke
What is the average injury situation? Isn’t that a little bit of a broad example to use when determining a teams success? What is the average injury situation?
Tom Brady going down in week1?
Frank Gore playing injured pretty much all season?
The Chargers with Merrimen for the entire season while playing with an injured Gates and Tomlinson?
Or
The cardinals maintaining relative health during the entire season?
Using “average injury situation” is absolutely foolhardy in its premise
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:43 AM PDT up reply actions
They have a team..
that is loaded, with the best HC in the game today.
11-5 without Brady? Tell me, what did you predict when Brady went down?
Well, we're waiting....
ME?
I predicted probably 8-8 or 9-7. There was no reason to believe that Cassell would lead that team to the record he did. Even with an elite coach and extremely talented team
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok. I'll give you this ..
Off of the top of my head on the NFCN:
Now, this is without looking at scheds:
I see either the Bears or GB at around 12-4, 11-5. Why? Because they have QB’s.
That means a lot. I see GB at a disadvantage due to Rodgers ability to stay healthy.
Either way, one of those teams win at least 11 games, maybe 12. The other, 1-2 games below.
Minny will be @ .500. Favre has bicep issues, and will prove old.
DET: Jeebus, 5-11 is good.
This is without FO, sched , etc. I see Lovie with a great QB, and I see GB a balanced team all around.
That;s what I see.’
Well, we're waiting....
Me Too
I like the Bears challenging for the NFC Championship this season. Maybe it’s the addition of Cutler to go a long with Forte
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions
OK
I respect you for making a statement.
And you also just proved a point that I said earlier (with regards to injuries an ’breakout ’seasons).
You talked about Favre & Rodgers and injuries. Perfectly acceptable.
If someone told me that Cutler, Favre and Rodgers would stay healthy and that nobody on any of those teams would have a ‘breakout’ season like, say Hester had in 2006, I personally still wouldn’t hazard a guess.
But if Rodgers goes down? Cutler? Actually I think Minnesota is in the best shape.
If Favre goes down the Vikings can put in Jackson, who helped them make the playoffs last season.
I don’t even know who the back-up QB is in GB. I know who it is in Chicago (and I think you and I have thrown as many regular season passes as him).
To me, too many variables (injuries, players playing better (or worse) than usual, and so on and so forth.
wat too much for me to figure out.
Right here, specifically, you’re really missing the point of these predictive tools. It’s not about getting it RIGHT. It’s about being able to contextualize what does end up happening by having an educated framework for what you expected to happen.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions
So say you predict the Bears to finish 14-2. I’ll give you two scenarios where you make this prediction.
Scenario 1: You write 17 numbers down (0 through 16), put them in a hat, shake it up, and pull one out. It has 14 on it. Based on that, you predice that the Bears will win 14 games.
Scenario 2: You spend a long time evaluating the Bears based on their roster, their system, their past stats, their probability to sustain injuries… and after all that you come to the conclusion that this is darn good football team and should be able to win 14 games (this is basically what DVOA is doing, in a general sense). So based on this you predict that they win 14 games.
The season plays out and the Bears win 10 games.
The way that you’re talking about it, you had to guess in both scenario 1 and scenario 2, and they were both wrong. Wrong by a lot. By 4 whole games. By 25% of a season! So what’s the point?
The way I’m talking about it is different.
In scenario 1, if you look at it and say, “I predicted they would win 14 games, but they only won 10… why did they underperform my prediction?” the only answer you can give yourself is, “heck if I know, that stupid hat lied to me.”
In scenario 2, if you ask yourself the same question you can look back on the season and say things like, “based on Cutler’s past performances, I thought that he was going to have a better season. The fact that he underperformed his track record definitely contributed to the team underperforming as a whole. And at worst I had figured that the team would suffer a few injuries on both sides of the ball. I had no idea they would essentially lose 1/4 of the whole defense for half the year. Not having those players really made a difference here. On the other hand, it was really great to get such an unexpected performance out of Matt Forte, who basically carried the team down the stretch. If not for him, they might have even done worse than the 10 wins they did get!”
I hope that makes it clear what I’m trying to get across: By considering more things and garnering a better understanding of how things should play out, you can look back at what actually does play out with a much more reasoned, intelligent and – quite frankly – interesting understanding of the season you watched. But by dismissing predictions regardless of their preparation because they’re bound to be inaccurate is missing the point, in my opinion. The inaccuracies make the predictions interesting – but ONLY as long as the predictions are based on more than simple, stupid guesswork (by which I mean, sophisticated, researched guesswork).
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Right, except for this
There are WAY too many variables.
Albert Einstein variables.
Cutler?
Past performance based on what? Marshall, Royal, Sheffler, Shanahan etc.
Those guys are ALL gone now.
People try to make this into baseball and it’s not.
It’s light years away from that.
Baseball is simply this: Pitcher vs. Hitter.
And even if a guy changes leagues and is now facing mostly different pitchers, you know his strengths (hitting the fastball) and his weakness (the curveball).
Football is almost COMPLETELY different.
Yes, there are a lot of variables, but quite frankly it is dumb to dismiss trying to use as many of them as possible simple because there are way more than you have the tools to use right now.
Accounting for MORE things is ALWAYS BETTER. I don’t know why you insist on trying to dismiss the attempt by others to actually know more.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions
ALL I am saying is that using thier
‘tools’ to predict the final resules is FOOLISH.
That’s all. In the context of ‘predicting’
Incase you missed it, I will repeat my post from above:
Look, here is what they did.
They have 18 teams between 7-9 wins. (more accurately, above 6 wins and below 10 wins).
Big F’ing Deal!
Over half of the league that have hovering around 500.
So what?
If you have HALF the teams hovering around 500, you’re going to get a LOT of hits (especially if you give yourself a few games margin for error).
They missed badly with 5 out of the 7 bottom teams (KC, Mia, Det, Rams, Atl).
They were off around 4 games on those 5 teams.
They missed badly on 3 out of the top 6 (GB, Ind, Sea).
This is a joke!
Wake up PEOPLE!
Doing what
Don’t tell me about all their reams of statistical data.
If they are using that to predict the upcoming season, they need to STOP. Right now.
Actually, if you really look at it, their 2008 predictions were pathetic.
Really.
By “doing it again” he meant “missing the point completely.”
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions
“Forget it, he’s rolling.”
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 1:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay, so you’re just not understanding me. You continue to insist that this about the prediction being RIGHT. It’s not. Prediction are innately innacurate. No matter what. Even in baseball.
These prediction are not trying to get “hits” like you keep saying over and over and over again. This is NOT what they are trying to do.
They are trying to give you a place where you can start to look at what actually ends up happening in an intelligent, critical and well-reasoned way.
I cannot put it more simply than this: accounting for more things is better than accounting for fewer things. You understand real life results better when you have thought about the variables beforehand. Again: More = Better. Fewer = Worse.
I won’t keep repeating this.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions
If it's not about the prediction being 'right'
then what’s it about?
Being close?
Or having a reason why their prediction is so wrong?
All I know is that if FO is going to PROJECT a teams wins, with ALL of their MOUNTAINS of data, they should be able to do much better than they did, at least in 2008.
What good is all that info if it ends up projecting junk like they did?
And no. That’s actually a problem in sports today. Norman Chad wrote a good column on it a little while ago.
There are a Billion stats. It’s kind of absurd.
There is such a thing as TOO MUCH INFORMATION.
Really.
The Bears defense was on the field over 100 plays MORE than any other team.
And yet, I think that they were in the top 5 in 3rd down conversions.
Go figure.
This attempt to explain away evey single thing is kind of ridiculous.
Look, if you're gonna RANK teams
then you gotta be more accurate than this.
The Titans won the most games with 13. They had them ranked 21st.
The four teams with 12 wins (Indy, Pit, NYG and Car) they had ranked 6th, 11th, 12th and 14th.
Two teams that won 11 (Miami, ATL0 they had ranked 27th and dead last.
You can’t win this kind of debate. Why rank teams if you aren’t even close?
Makes NO sense.
Then what is it about?
I said what it is about. Multiple times. Like, 5 or 6 times. In very plain terms. I won’t say it again. Just read what I wrote. It’s there.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Hysterical
A) Compnay ‘X’ PUBLISHES a ranking and projected wins of all 32 NFL teams.
B) AFTER the season, a cursory look shows that their ‘rankings’ and/or ‘projected wins’ are LAUGHABLY incorrect.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
The only thing that gives the appearance of ‘bing close’ is taking over half the teams and PROJECTING them to be around 500.
C) When called out on this NONSENSE, say things like:
You continue to insist that this about the prediction being RIGHT. It’s not. Prediction are innately innacurate. No matter what. Even in baseball.
These prediction are not trying to get "hits" like you keep saying over and over and over again. This is NOT what they are trying to do.
Got it! (LOLOLOLOL) Predictions are innately inaccurate and we’re not trying to get ‘hits’ . . . .so WTF bother.
I mean, WTF is the point then?
So then we get this from HTS:
They are trying to give you a place where you can start to look at what actually ends up happening in an intelligent, critical and well-reasoned way.
Got it again! (LOLOLOLOL).
We’re going to give you intelligent, critical and well resoned explanations as to why our PREDICTIONS aren’t even CLOSE to being accurate.
Say What??
Nope. Fundamentally missing the key concepts. Sorry. Can’t help you.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep
I nailed it. You just can’t deal with it.
You CANNOT print a listed of projected wins and then, when it’s a disaster, say that ’it’s hard to do.’
You just can’t deal with the fact what you say here:
Accounting for MORE things is ALWAYS BETTER. I don’t know why you insist on trying to dismiss the attempt by others to actually know more.
Not when it comes to PREDICTIONS.
See you miss MY fundamental point, which is this:
I have NO problem with FO and the like . . .except for this (Try, HTS, to UNDERSTAND what I am going to say here):
When it comes to PREDICTING the upcoming season, MORE and MORE and NORE and MORE not only ’isn’t always better’ but really doesn’t matter.
All the STATS in the world aren’t going to help when it comes to predicitons.
How do I know?
Simple. Look at FO for last year.
They have a million ‘stats’ and produced NONSENSE.
Get it? You don’t like to face the reality of it, but all of their stats produced nothing that I couldn’t have come up with in about an hours time with NO stats. NONE!
There are 512 games played every season
There WILL be 256 wins and 256 losses.
See that column on the right, ‘projected wins?’
Those should add up to 256.
All they are doing (with their vast quantities of stats and formulas) is to list, from top to bottom, who will have them most wins and who will have the least.
That’s all. They (obviously) have the better teams at the top and the crappier teams at the bottom . . . WITH THE MAJORITY falling into the 7-9, 8-8, 97 catagories.
That’s it.
And the fact remains that virtually EVERY team was off by three, four sometimes more victories.
They had NONE of the crappy teams (ATL, MIA) going ‘high.’
They had none of the better teams (GB, SEA) going low.
Not very difficult.
Really.
Think about it.
I think maybe
what we’re seeing here is that DVOA correlates pretty strongly with our own perceptions of which teams are good and which are not, based on previous record, what the “experts” say, and the like. S it might be fairly easy to make predictions based on perception that end up being pretty close to what DVOA predicts.
I can’t keep my thoughts straight since I can only see half of what I’ve written.
Fooch, get the techies on this, stat!
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
My point wjack
is that any one of us can list all 32 teams from top to bottom (like FOs) did and then assign each team a number of ‘projected wins’ (like they did)
And most people will have a list of teams after the 2009 season that will be somewhat similar to theirs.
That’s all.
Here’s what WOULD impress me.
Tell me what ‘bottom feeders’ (like Atl & Mia) are going to win 10+ games this year?
Tell me what ‘better teams’ will end up only winning 3,4 or 5 games.
Someone tell me that stuff.
But to make a list like they did and miss badly throughout?
Sorry. Not impressed.
When it comes to PREDICTING the upcoming season, MORE and MORE and NORE and MORE not only ’isn’t always better’ but really doesn’t matter.
Geo, aside from simply not communicating very well, this is where we differ: More context is good. Less context is bad. If you’re willing to be reductive, then you’re willing to be wrong.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
More context is good.
Hey, we at FO had the 2008 team with the MOST wins (Tennessee with 13) predicted to be the 21st winningest team with only seven wins.
We weren’t even close there, but we can give you MORE context as to why we missed so badly.
Sheesh! That’s comical.
Here's how close they were in 2008
They gave every team a ‘projected number of wins’ which used fractions (like 10.7).
I will round up and down accordingly and give you how close they were for every team, top to bottom:
NE: They were off by 1
PHI: 2
GB: 4
SD: 3
MIN: Dead on
IND: 3
SEA: 6
TB: 1
JAC: 4
DAL: Dead on
PIT: 4
NYG: 4
BAL: 3
CAR: 4
HOU: Dead on
DEN: Dead on
NO: Dead on
ARI: 1
CHI: 2
CIN: 3
TEN: 6
NYJ: 1
WAS: 1
CLE: 2
BUF: Dead on
KC: 4
MIA: 5
DET: 5
OAK: 1
STL: 4
SF: 2
ATL: 6
Big deal.
You gave it your best.
Dude is just totally lost, and that’s not your fault.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Funny thing is ...
A few years back, people were saying that “Basketball isn’t baseblal” and making all the same arguments you’re making about it being a team game.
And then people developed better metrics.
I don’t think DVOA is – yet – of the same quality as WP48 in the NBA. But it’s catching up. And Wins Produced accurately predictsa bout 90% of the results of a basketball season.
Ronaldinho
Get a grip. Please.
Baseball and football are LIGHT years apart when it comes to stats.
Derek Jeter steps up to the plate.
Josh Beckett is pitching.
Essentially, that’s it. A confrontation between the two.
Jeter is, in NO way dependant on any of his teaammates now. he will either hit the ball, strike out or whatever ON HIS OWN.
Football? Completely different.
For the most part ALL ELEVEN players are needed to execute an NFL play.
For example, Joe Montana NEVER threw a TD pass to HIMSELF.
Never. There was always somebody on the other end of the pass.
Not only that, but there were always at least five players blocking for him as well as other players doing their assignments correctly to make the play work.
Football is the ultimate team game.
Baseball (at least ‘stat wise’) is an individual sport played in a team setting.
No comparison between th two, at least when it comes to stats.
Did you even read my post?
It doesn’t seem like it, since I was making a point about basketball … and you seem to want to talk about baseball.
There is no comparing basketball and baseball. Baseball is played between two players only with a stick and a little ball. Basketball is played between at least three or four players, with a big bouncy ball and passing and timed periods and things. No comparison. Michael Jordan never made an assist to himself!
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Michael Jordan never made an assist to himself!
Though, if anyone in basketball history could have done this, I’m sure Jordan would be it!
assist to self
This was getting a rebound, but still similar idea….Remember Ricky Davis trying to get a rebound for a triple double by shooting at his own basket?
by David Fucillo on Sep 11, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Again, missing my point ...
The simple fact is that basketball has proven HIGHLY predictable by looking at individual statistics. Something like 90% of the results of a season can be predicted from looking at box scores. (see Berri, “The Wages of Wins” or talk to JAE who’s one of the guys running the board at Golden State of Mind).
All the stuff you write is true, but … strangely … doesn’t actually seem to have much impact on our ability to make highly accurate predictions in basketball based on individual statistics.
DVOA is not Wins Produced (the most useful aggregate stat is basketball). It’s not achieving an R^2 of .9.
On the other hand, as a former professional statistician, let me tell you – a tool doesn’t have to have an R^2 of .9 to be incredibly useful.
What basketball and WP shows us is that the logic inherent in one of the major DVOA arguments (“football is a team game. You can’t explain it with statistics”) is bunk as a matter of principle. Now, that doesn’t meant that DVOA is the be-all, end-all tool – although nobody’s done better to date – but it does mean that, as a matter of principle, you there’s nothing inherent in the nature of football which makes statistics a bad analytic tool.
The “it’s a team game” argument just doesn’t hold any water at all.
All it means is that the statistics are more complicated. Compared to Wins Produced, DVOA is incredibly complex, and it doesn’t do as good a job. Football is a more complicated game. DVOA is an imperfect tool.
But in this case, it’s an imperfect tool that happens to be better than any of the alternatives.
Ha! Did you really think I was GeoMak?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Dude
Don’t feel bad because I schooled you regarding FO and their ‘predictions.’
All their DVOA’s are pretty useless when it comes to PREDICTING (operative word is ‘predicting’ here) how well teams are going to do next year.
Unless, of course, you want to give them a + or – 4 games.
Don’t believe? Look at their 2008 totals.
Now, do this:
Call you buddies up at FO and have them use all of thier great knowledge to tell me this:
What ’bottom feeders are going to win 9, 10 11 games.
What ‘better teams’ are going to fall to, say, 4 or 5 wins.
Something meaningful.
Something besides a crappy llist like their 2008 predictions (with all of their, ahem, context).
You KILL me
That’s funny.
That DVOA might be the greatest invention known to mankind. Just tell them to stop using it to project the records for NFL teams.
Why? Cause it doesn’t work. At all.
Their projections were no better than anyone else’s.
It’s too bad you can’t see that.
You say “no better” but you have absolutely nothing to back it up with. Please, give me a list of other projection systems, describe a system for ranking them in terms of success, and then use that system to prove yorur point. UnUnless you do that, you’re just kind of spewing anytime you try o make that point.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
He's getting close..
To another “Superior Knowledge” Meltdown.
He is just waiting on an e-mail from Montana
Well, we're waiting....
You're right.
I missed that.
That said, there’s no comparison between football and the other sports.
MJ could grab a defensive rebound and go the length of the court and dunk, without any hrelp from a teammate.
In theory he could do that all game.
The NFL is truly a team game. The closest you’ll find to an individual taking over, would maybe be a KR TD.
A guy like Hester can do a lot on his own, but he still needs a certain amount of blocking help on the play.
What does that have to do with predicting a teams record?
And furthermore, you say their predictions are only good if you give them a 4 game cushion. That’s the Lions they were off by 4 games on, not every team.
If you truly think you can predict every teams record then why don’t you and I (and anyone else who wants to give it a go) predict how many games each team will win and then at the end of the season we’ll see who’s closer, any of us or FO?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions
That baseball comparison is bad
The difference between the best and worst baseball games in your comparison is only 3 football games in that scenario.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions
You lost me there.
he had the Lions at 4. They won zero. if you use the baseball analogy, that’s 40 games.
But you can't use the baseball analogy
Because it’s an awful analogy. A 100 win team in baseball has a .600 winning percentage and a 70 win team has a .400 winning percentage. In football a .600 winning percentage gives you a 10-6 record and a .400 winning percentage gives you a 7-9 team.
There’s a lot bigger disparity in records in football. The worst team in baseball has a .400 winning percentage and the best has a .600 winning percentage. In football a 13-3 team has a .812 winning percentage and a 2-14 team has a .125 winning percentage.
In other words, being off by 4 games in a football prediction is nowhere near as bad as being off by 40 games in baseball. It’s actually almost impossible to be off by 40 games when predicting a baseball team’s record.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions
You're right
and it certainly was designed to be an exact comparison, like I said.
To me, I use it more for baseball.
IMO, the 2008 Cubs were overconfident going into the playoffs against the Dodgers, in large part because they won 97 and LA 85.
That’s like a 10-6 football team being overconfident over a 9-7 team. Ain’t gonna happen.
That’s basically the best way I use that.
It’s not strictly guesswork. It’s educated guesswork. And some systems allow for a greater level of education to be applied to that guesswork. DVOA happens to be one of the best at that.
You’re ABSOLUTELY right that there is no way to know who will win any given division. I’d even argue you when you say that we know Detroit won’t. Detroit could magically put it all together this year while Favre and Cutler throw a million interceptions between them and Green Bay falls prey to 15 key injuries that cripple their chances.
But knowing the future is not the point of these predictive tools. The point is to know more about the likelihood of things happening. To be able to contextualize failing teams and marvel at the Cinderellas.
I mean, I can throw darts at a list of NFL teams and use that as a method to guess what teams will make the playoffs. That’s probably the least educated way to prepare yourself for an NFL season, though. When you do that, you can’t possibly be surprised when that team you have winning the Super Bowl loses or marvel at the success of the team you picked last in the central. It takes the fun out of watching things play out.
When you know MORE, when you have a more educated framework for these guesses – a framework like DVOA – I would say that it makes it FAR more entertaining to watch things play out. You can look at a team you expected to be good collapse under injuries, pressure, or whatever. You can root wildly for the team you thought had NO chance as they climb the ladder unexpectedly and against all odds! You can look at your friends and say, “I told you so” when your Cinderella pick goes all the way.
It’s not about knowing for sure. It’s just about about knowing more.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
It's educated guesswork
which means . . . it’s still guesswork.
And I’m not at all impressed with their 2008 predictions.
Basically, all they really had were the usual suspects near the bottom and the usual suspects near the top.
BIG DEAL.
And of course, they missed, in a big way, teams like ATL & MIA.
And a lot of teams like GB (they had 10-6, they ended up 6-10).
Noot impressed AT all. That’s like someone telling you about all the winners they had at the racetrack. OK.
Now tell me about all the LOSERS too.
Well I never said that DVOA was without it’s problems. I have said many times, in fact, that it has some real problems that it does need to deal with. But it is one of the more intelligent (and objective) systems out there. And, as such, it’s not to be dismissed out of hand.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Statistical models are judged by their effectiveness not the work they put into them. If throwing darts on the wall is a better predictor of future events than it’s simply the better predictor, more efficient too.
True enough, to a point… in a somewhat limited way… since the accuracy of throwing darts would be completely non-replicable… but it has no evaluative value whatsoever.
I get what you’re saying, though. I’m not sure how it’s applicable to the point I was making. If there is a consistently better predictive tool than DVOA that happens to use less information or require less work, it’s likely because the information used is simply more valuable than that used by DVOA (to crutch on baseball at the risk of getting flamed by someone special, I’ll give an example: it’s a better system to predict a player’s value by using his career or season OPS+ than by combining a lot of useless stats like BA, RBI, R, etc. There, you’ve used less information and done less work, but the information that you have used is more intellectually valuable). And in the end, that extra value will give you more perspective on the actual results, which – outside of gambling and punditry – is the real reason to put all the work into making predictions.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
But throwing darts at the wall isn't more effective
And neither is any other method currently available, that’s why I like DVOA.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Well said.
I wish we could sticky posts like this to the front page.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Here's why this stuff is kinda dumb
The offensive line has long been a weakness in Phoenix. In 2007 one of the better O-Line coaches in the NFL (Russ Grimm) came to Arizona with new HC Ken Whisenhunt.
Last season the same five O-lineman played in all twenty games (regular and postseason). That’s unheard of for the Cardinals.
O-line continuity is huge in the NFL (especially with a old QB). The O-line is really the one complete and true ‘unit’ in the NFL, with the best lines having the same five guys working together in tandem.
It’s really kind of hard to make a prediction without knowing whether or not those gys are going to be around all season.
They were around all last season though
And they will probably be injured more this season. For the record, the FO guys just came out with their staff predictions and a few of them picked the Cards as the team most likely to outperform their projection.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions
It is football over a computer
There are few things to learn from such a process but every prediction shouldn’t be taken for the Gospel.
Actually..
It research done by several people. including people who are in football.
Try to keep it real.
Well, we're waiting....
It's both
It’s still people setting up and plugging in their own statistical model and identified trends. But thanks for taking my quip so literally.
You put that out there..
I just responded to it. It’s not as simple as people think, and it’s more relevant than irrelevant. I just take what FO puts out there, and combine that with a lot of other factors, as well as analysis and opinions form other outlets.
Thing is, they do have a point.
Well, we're waiting....
There are few things to learn from such a process but every prediction shouldn’t be taken for the Gospel.
Well, that’s why it’s called a prediction.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 10, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Well part of that
Is incorporating FO"s stats int oyour own opinion. As you’ve said above FO’s stats aren’t everything.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions
No one thinks its gospel
But it’s certainly not a good sign.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
I think some people have a superiority complex because they have too much time on their hands..If you want to call yourself a fan and believe statisitcs that say your team is going to suck that doesn’t make much sense to me..why not just sit around a room and flail yourself..or become a Raiders fan..
Some of us
Like to look at teams realistically. We could always be like the Raider fans who say, “ZOMG RUSSELL TO DHB ALL DAY SUPER BOWLZ BOUUND!”, but we like to take a more objective look at things.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
and some of us like to look at our team
optomistically instead of negatively..afterall statistics can be misleading…(mean, median, mode all mean average but can be in actuality highly different) and more importantly they can CHANGE…that being said if being a fan means going Yeah niners make it to 3 Wins! gets your rocks off…go right ahead! I prefer to believe being a fan means thinking my team will get bet better…of course we can each have our opinions on what that means..
Of course we all want the team to be better
It’s just a question of whether they actually are better. For example, wouldn’t it be foolish of Broncos fans to think their team got better this offseason?
There’s nothing wrong with being a homer, but I don’t think it’s fair to criticize people who like to look at things more realistically either.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 10, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I was reading Mile High Report
the other day. I’ve done that before. Those people hate the MSM (mainstream media) because of the whole Cutler/McDaniels/Marshall thing.
Here is what someone said in his post (BTW: Your post was well written here, even though I disagree with some of it).
He was saying that the MSM constantly trashes the Broncos and if they spent less time doing that and more time ‘analyzing’ things they might have more accurate predictons.
I’m thinking to myself (These writers can analyze things 24/7. It’s still pretty much just a guess, IMO).
That’s like saying that if Fooch and Matt Maiocco and Kevin Lynch all locked themselves in a room for a solid week analyzing their brains out, that one or all of them would figure out how many games the 49ers would win.
It’s laughable. They are almost certainly going to win more than 4 and less than 13.
That’s all I got.
Football is the only real sport that doesn't use a round ball
Funny bounces.
Look at last years SB. Santonio Holmes, at the end of the game, drops a ‘not too difficult’ catch in the endzone.
One the very next play, he makes a catch to win the SB. In today’s USA Today, Cris Carter said of the game winning catch: “You could play for 100 years and never make a better play than that.”
That’s pretty high praise coming from Carter.
If that pass by Ben Roethlisberger is one or two inches higher, maybe Holmes doesn’t make that catch.
If the Steelers had lost, Holmes, instead of being the hero, probably would’ve been the goat, for dropping the pass in the endzone on the play before.
There is a real fine line between success and failure in the NFL.
That was brought up today on the radio, when the host said to Kurt Warner: "If the 49ers punch that ball into the endzone to win that MNF game in Phoenix, maybe they make the playoffs/SB and the Cardinals instead sit home.
Brendan has another...
Fanpost that will go over 300 replies, that has substance. We all should Rec his effort.
Modern football isn’t as simple as it was when I was growing up. There was no Salary cap or Collective Bargaining. Hell, the NFL still is reluctant to honor it’s foundation regarding old players who have sacrificed themselves to make it what it really is today: a Corporate Entity. The corporate influence is what will determine the future of the NFL, and FO helps provide a model in which value on a player is determined by analysis that is beyond the Good Old Boy network of old.
I mean, why isn’t Crabtree signed? It’s about $$$. right? It’s about determining his value. Eddie would have given him a gift basket with a European vacation along with a big contract. Now, it’s about slotting. What people don’t get is that FO’s impact isn’t on how we bet or build our FF teams. The NFL itself takes them seriously.
What they do has an impact on the NFL. If the NFL considers them legitimate, then they are.
Well, we're waiting....
Does the NFL consider them useful?
Jim Schwartz, HC of the Lions is the one guy known for working with F.O.
Yet, he drafted the QB their statistical models predict as a failure.
Don't Sign Crabs
Trade him to Dallas or another team in March for multiple draft picks. I am fed up. Another story for another time i guess LOL
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:31 AM PDT reply actions
Already a thread for him
My biggest anger with Crabtree? That his holdout sucks up energy and oxygen better spent analyzing the upcoming season.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I Know
Just had to post a little rant about him on here. My bad!!!
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 1:39 AM PDT up reply actions
No prob
I wasn’t complaining. Just another way of pointing out that Crabtree takes up so much attention and not only is he not in uniform but we never actually here him speak. That’s certainly one difference with him and T.O.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I Seriously Cannot Stop Laughing
ROTFL someone in my fantasy draft that i am doing right now drafted Crabtree in the 6th round LMFAO. Either he must be the dumbest individual around or a memeber of the Crabtree camp that knows something we don’t?
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 11, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
May be some money to be made...
Some things to think about… Warner’s too old to last the season??? Hasselbeck’s 33 with a back and body pushing 45! Bulgers’ middle name is “Injured” !!! The 9ers need help @ linebacker? … and the patriots need help @ QB !!! The fact is the 9ers can and will get stronger @ most positions in the next 2 years and I’m disappointed we didn’t work harder to fix our pass rush & O-line, but we’re still not that bad. Football is hugely a mental game. Correcting mistakes like turnovers and penalties, educating and teaching discipline to the players and having the correct winning attitude are intangibles that give any team a better opportunity for success. The 9ers are moving in the right direction in these areas thanks to Sing and an adjustment or two in the franchises’ hierarchy. FO can FO as far as I’m concerned. The 9ers have a fairly tough schedule and I’m still thinking .500 is achievable this year. The real test of the franchise will show up next year. Don’t forget how quickly teams go from good to bad and vise versa these days in the NFL. It all starts at the top of the organization and works down. I’m optimistic. I remember the 70s into the 80s. One last thought for Sing … these days, MANY games are won by a teams’ ability to score quickly at the end of the game … usually through the air.
wow
where was I when this turned from 30 comments to 300?
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
Sorry
groug would be ashamed of me for my actions here.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
which actions
the “making well-articulated arguments based on good reason and facts” actions?
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
Not quite.
More of the “continuing to try to convince somebody of something that seems fairly plainly obvious” action.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
and of course the dreaded “trying to change someone’s mind once it’s made up” action
Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis
seriously
I got home late last night and saw it had jumped a couple hundred. Amazing.
by David Fucillo on Sep 11, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
DVOA is TOTALLY overrated, especially predictions
How in the hell could the Lions, Rams, and Buccaneers be ahead of us. Let me put DVOA statistics to rest. Ben Roethlisberger was one of the worst QB’s last season with reference to DVOA. Yeah his team may have had better numbers on defense, but they won the damn SUPERBOWL. DVOA doesn’t mean didly squat in a league like the NFL. If a team gets hot at the right time they can emerge as a OCnference Champion from nowhere (Cardinals, right?) So this DVOA nonsense is crap to me, it doesn’t prove anything about players or teams, it is only a numbers analysis, not performance analysis. It still can’t decifer wins and losses, so a DVOA prediction is absurd
AKA.............Optimist Prime
Banned in 13 comments from the Gulls and I am proud!!
But it does decipher wins and losses. It can tell you which team should win, theoretically, and then after the fact it can give you a pretty good idea of why a team did or didn’t win. And it’s even better when you’re looking at it over the course of multiple games. Check out some of Florida Danny’s work with DVOA during the season last year. It’s extremely illuminating.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 11, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
This FanPost will be interesting to re-visit after Sunday.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
The Cardinals are projected to be bad.
If the 49ers are going to even remotely resemble a competitive team this season, they need to keep this game close.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 11, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah I see what your saying now
I still think the Cards could easily beat their projection. Plus, much of their predicted downfall is based on having more injuries, but they’ll be completely healthy in week 1. I still think the Hawks will be a better test.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 12, 2009 3:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Not really
Since the Cards are projected to be so bad too. It’ll be interesting once we play the ’Hawks.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions
well it's sunday evening
It was Johnny Hopkins, and Sloan Kettering, and they were blazin that s*** up everyday.
definitely an interesting revisit
AKA.............Optimist Prime
Banned in 13 comments from the Gulls and I am proud!!
Even Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect
I just watched ( part of ) a show called ‘Playbook NFC’ with Sterling Sharpe and two other dudes and they had a 5 minute segment on our game this weekend. They spent 45 seconds ( maybe ) saying Gore is good, should get 1000 yards this season and spent the rest of the segment exclusively on the Cards, their receivers and backs, and Weisenhut being a trickster.
Unimaginitive lemming swines.
Ooooooooooooooooh I’d like a victory in Glendale, yes indeed.
The future ain't what it used to be. Go Niners!
So...
You’re surprised, for some reason, that a nationally televised program would spend more time talking about an offensive juggernaut in the defending conference champions in their season opener than a relatively boring team that remains pretty much unchanged coming off of their 6th straight losing season?
If you want the 49ers to get some respect, you’d better believe that we’re going to have to earn it first.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Forget respect, I want these guys to do their job and show some depth of knowledge
Detroit deserves the least amount of “respect” but if I’m watching that show and they preview this Sunday’s game, I want them to tell me some items about Detroit that I don’t know. Why might they win? When will they finally win a game? Where have they gotten better? What’s Schwartz’s scheme and philosophy? If NO ekes out a win it would be easy to say “Saints suck” cause it was close. Or perhaps Detroit has improved. I expect these paid experts to prepare me with info so I may not be surprised when the score roles in.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I actually saw the program he was talking about last night...
And his description of the coverage was a bit off. They did, indeed, spend the first portion of the segment talking about how beast Frank Gore is. They didn’t go straight to talking about ARI and their receivers, though – at least not entirely. They moved on to talk about how San Francisco’s secondary has matched up against the Cardinals in recent years. There was plenty of footage of our defensive backfield allowing Larry Fitzgerald to catch the underneath stuff, while cutting off the passes over the top. They analyzed how we had been very good at shutting down Fitz, but in doing so, we allowed big games from both Boldin and Breaston.
Again, this was all specific to how they matched up against us. Riderless is crazy – the coverage was not nearly as biased as he would have you think.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
This goes to my point of lazy journalism
Yes, when you have not had recent success you should not expect people to spend most of their time on your team. But the point of a show such as this is to inform viewers about all teams since most of us only hear about the team(s) in our area and top 5 squads that get lots of air time and primetime games. These guys should actually spend equivalent time on both opponents of game to discuss what may happen but I believe if they tired we’d find they don’t know anything about most teams. On a show titled “Playbook NFC” that’s pretty pathetic. They’re paid pretty well to give viewers more than “Gore is good.”
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
No I'm not particularly surprised
But the show should cater to all NFL fans or they’ll end up in the trash heap. I won’t watch it anymore except to see them eat crow and then I’ll switch the channel.
Every season is a new season. Dis’ing one team over another ( gee NOTHING has changed, NOTHING about the 2009 9ers desrves 30 seconds of air time deserves ) is BORING and lazy.
The future ain't what it used to be. Go Niners!
No sports shows cater to all the fans
How many nationally televised games will the Rams have this year? Zero, because nobody wants to see them. Sports on TV is all about who is popular, they never talk/show the lousy teams.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 11, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Nobody wants to see them..
..cause they’re the Rams. I’m with Roger Craig on this, just because they moved from LA doesn’t mean I stopped hating them. Add into it that most real Angelenos are still Ram fans and they will always be my least favorite football team.
A few thoughts..
…I didn’t read all the posts, but here goes.
I love Football Outsiders and think they do some of the best analysis on the net. But even they will probably tell you you shouldn’t take their predictions as gospel. Are they better than anybody else’s football projections? Probably, but they still missed a whole ton of projections in 2008. There’s a ton of reasons for that. Injuries, unexpectedly good performances by players, unexpectedly bad performances by other players and just plain ol’ missing the boat. They aren’t perfect.
Unlike baseball statistical analysis, which has figured out an incredibly broad array of things in the last 20 years, football analysis is still in its infancy and is limited to only a few websites. Plus analyzing football is just so damn hard with the number of working parts that make up just one play and the lack of good available statistics for things like line play.
Now, I’m definitely a glass half-empty guy when it comes to the 2009 Niners, but I wouldn’t freak out by saying FO sucks or freak out by saying the 49ers suck because of their projections.
It's amazing how confused
some so-called writers actually are. This article would do well in a 7th grade journalism class.
Kezarvet
What constitutes a good set of predictions in football?
So in my last post I mentioned how King Kaufman used to do a “panel of experts” every year, week-by-week, where he charted a bunch of experts (including, at least once, Footballoutsiders) picks.
These are week-by-week picks, which means they should be easier than preseason picks.
And the winner, in the last several years, typically got around 67% of the games right. Only once in the last several years did the winner hit 70%. The worst champion in recent years got under 63% right. Last year he including his three-year-old daughter, who took all favorites of (I think) 7 points and flipped a coin for everyone else. That strategy got an about-what-you’d-think 56% of the games right.
I think that’s worth thinking about, because it gives us some context for evaluating FO’s work. If, week-by-week, getting 67% of the games right is incredible, then one would have to assume that even getting 60% right in the preseason is pretty impressive.
I’m somewhat relieved by this finding. It’s some useful context by which to ignore predictions that I don’t happen to like. I’d love to see the r-squares on their playoff odds predictions, though.
But it’s also a reminder that “they got this wrong” doesn’t mean “they suck.” The very best predictors, going week to week, get a third of their games wrong. So pointing out errors doesn’t mean they’re bad at predicting any more that pointing out that a baseball player creates an out 65% of the time he comes to the plate means he’s a bad hitter.
That being said, I still think we’re in for a long season. Sure hope I’m wrong, though.
I had an insight, I guess...
I managed to watch a bit of the end of the Denver-Cinci game. Maybe DVOA is as good as it gets. There’s too much truly random, weird stuff happening in football games. There’s no possible way you could project that outcome in advance. Asking for something of equal predictive power to WP48 is probably setting the bar just a tiny bit too high. For one thing, in basketball, teams might score as many as 50 goals each. No one team ever crosses the goal line even 10 times in a football game. Basketball goes 82 games. Football, 16. Football is automatically giving you a sample size problem when trying to project scoring or outcomes for any given game. If the FO system’s the best possible, and I had to try to figure out how to bet on a large number of football games, I’d probably become an enthusiastic user. Some tool, however blunt, is better than none at all. As it is, I never bet on anything unless I see a line that doesn’t seem to make any sense, given what I know about the teams involved. This happens at most maybe 3 times a year, and for my lifetime, I’m ahead of the bookmakers, but not by all that much. It might be simple randomness, rather than due to any skill of my own.
In response to the topic's title
Not today we weren’t!
And the Rams looked dreadful in today’s loss to the Seahawks.
While the 49ers certainly need improving, it feels good with a division win after week 1. Hopefully Raye can get a little more creative with the run plays in the coming weeks, after all, Gore isn’t going to trot to 100 yards with dive plays all day, is he?
by Andrew Davidson on Sep 13, 2009 5:36 PM PDT reply actions
Broncos: 1-0
Niners: 1-0, beat last year’s division champs.
Sorry, but the FO guys are so full of themselves it’s really hard for me to take them seriously. Them thinking the ST LOUIS EFFING RAMS are going to be better than the 49ers completely destroys their credibility. The Rams have 0 players on their roster than can really make a difference in a game, yet according to FO they’re a “sleeper” to win the division. This is a 3, maybe 4 win team that they’re picking TO WIN THE DIVISION. They are a joke.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
I mean COME ON!
Did you watch the Rams play today? Have you watched the Rams play the last 3 years? They are TERRRRRRIBLE and have done nothing to become better. Bulger is a joke, they have NO WRs, and Jackson is always hurt. Also, their defense sucks.
We have Morgan, Gore, Davis, Willis, Haralson, Smith, Clements. Any system that has us below St louis, detroit, and tampa bay is a complete joke.
Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley, deserved all-star and hacker extraordinaire
Thanks to roger
I've never been happier to have Crabs
by bondslegend on Sep 13, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Let's just watch the season
Talking about players like Morgan and Davis like they’re impact players is pretty silly. Our receiving core is pretty marginal too.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 14, 2009 2:33 AM PDT up reply actions
How can you mathematically figure the niners to be worst than those teams?
What in the hell is in that math? Whatever it is I hope it’s not in any school system bcuz those will be some dumb ass kids. Frankly the ass whoopin today should justify that DVOA as BS, especially predictions!!
AKA.............Optimist Prime
Banned in 13 comments from the Gulls and I am proud!!
The "ass whoopin?
Did we watch the same game? The Niners barely won, and were hanging on for dear life for nearly the whole second half. That game was a lot of things, but surely not an “ass whoopin”. And saying it makes DVOA BS is complete nonsense, FO had the Cards ranked as low as the Niners.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 14, 2009 2:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes Ass whoopin'
The defense whooped on the Cards ass
AKA.............Optimist Prime
Banned in 13 comments from the Gulls and I am proud!!
Okay.
This thread is so big that I’m sure I’ve missed language elsewhere in here, and that word’s not really an awful one, so I’m not going to go on a power-hungry mod comment deletion spree, but you’re not even trying to think of a better way to say it right now. Just, restraint please.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 14, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
FO
part of the reason FO has integrity is that when their system spews out ‘crazy’ results like Arizona falling to earth or St. Louis winning 6 games THEY PUBLISH THE RESULT anyway.
If you read their prediction articles they say all predictions are bogus, but they do it because if they don’t no one will take them seriously.
The Niners had ~worst offense in the league last year, and improved it not at all (minus JTO). Even if they had the best defense in the league (hint: they don’t) that likely puts them at no better than 8 wins. FO for whatever reason (did anyone buy the book and read what they thought?) that the Niners defense is going to be much worse… hence a bad team. I watched that team try to rush the passer in the preseason and I basically wrote the team off. But they had a nice game on Sunday (on defense) and so maybe they can scratch and crawl there way to 7 or 8 wins again.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
The Niners
The Niners aint no punk! I won my office pool this week. And why? Because I picked the Niners. Everyone else picked the Cards.
I’m willing to bet that those who picked the Cards to win probably looked at DVOA and other reports. Too bad for them. Emperical data can be amazingly misleading. Go Niners.
It's been mentioned several times before...
but DVOA ratings on the Cardinals weren’t much higher than our own. The only people that had Arizona as the clear favorites were the so-called prediction “experts” that went into the season investing heavily in “defending conference champion” stock.
The fact that Arizona shot themselves in the foot time and time again with penalties and turnovers to narrowly allow an ugly SF team to beat them does not discredit DVOA in any way. You won your office pool out of sheer blind luck.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I saw most experts saying Seattle was the team
And often sighting the SB loser jink as one reason AZ would not duplicate their 2008 season. But then there are how many “experts” now with all the channels and sites? I’m sure plenty took both teams.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
But the FO projections show Arizona as one of the worst teams in the NFL
None of the talking heads said anything like that.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 14, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I won because
I have incredible insight. And I also have optimism.
In addition, I have much experience playing the game of football as well as studying the game. Football and I share a common bond, a great friendship.
Right. Okay.
So you’re a football genius who shares a mystical bond with the game. You’re also the only person here who has ever played football at any level. Additionally, it seems optimism is a reliable tool when predicting outcomes over long periods of time.
Awesome.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Aplogies in advance if you were being sarcastic.
It’s getting more and more difficult to differentiate the jokers from the idiots on this site.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Jk
This stuff ain’t fun without pushin some buttons.
You get to know people on here by what they write. And you are a little bit pessimistic. Let’s say.
I was joking with you. I have no majic ball. I did just get lucky in my office betting.
I picked the Niners primarily because I have a hard time betting against them.
So I will pick them again vs Seatle.
At times I stray from stats and things such as DVOA because they get me in trouble.
I like FO
And I hope FO is completely wrong.
"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
I looked
as I expected from following DVOA (and Niners games mostly), the Cards had a better (slightly) DVOA game, but lost. Both teams are credited with have great defense and terrible offense… although those are typically inversely related. It’s very hard to tell much from these stats in the early going because they adjust heavily for strength of opposition.
For example, if the Niners go out and have an average offensive day against Seattle, then AZ’s defensive rating will improve. I don’t think they toss in these effects until week 4. Similarly, if “all of a sudden” the Niners pass rush evaporates, then their defensive rating will go down (and AZ’s offense will be ranked even worse!)
One thing I think that might have put some “downward” pressure on the Niners ratings is that they were very highly rated in special teams (7th or something) – and while that is basically “All Andy Lee” it’s possible that FO regresses special teams heavily to the mean.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
Actually, the 49ers special teams rating has been very high for a couple years now.
As you mentioned, a big part of that is Andy Lee and his spectacular punting average, but the coverage on punts has been pretty good, too – resulting in an even more remarkable net average. Kickoff coverage has been equally impressive, and our own return production was above league average when Rossum was healthy last year. With Joe Nedney’s reliability rounding off the bit, I wouldn’t expect too much of a change in our special teams DVOA. In fact, I would be surprised to see us ranked any lower than 12th in that category all year.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
well
My premise was wrong anyway. The niners are projected to have the 3rd best special teams in the NFL, after Chicago (Hester) and Cleveland.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
Yep
Seemed pretty fair to me. If we beat Seattle the numbers will likely start to look a lot better.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 20, 2009 2:58 AM PDT up reply actions
hey brendan scolari
how are you dvoa numbers treating you these days? Still believe the niners will be 3rd worst in the nfl? :)
They might conceivably never win another game.
It’s still early in the season, and it’s not like they’ve handed out a genuine 1984 ‘Niners-style 45-3 evisceration in either of the 2 games they’ve played. I don’t think they will actually lose the rest of their games, but it’s still within the realm of possibility. Besides, DVOA predictions are going to miss fairly often. That isn’t really news or a big deal. It’s in the nature of what they’re trying to measure, and what they’re trying to extrapolate from. If the projections consistently go better than 50% accuracy, though, they reflect some sort of underlying reality, and they’re still worthwhile tools. I’ve been guilty of dumping the baby with the bathwater on this one, just because the prediction method probably erred in a way that I found annoying.
are u serious..?
starting a post like that discredits all the possibly valid things you say after that.
IT’s Concievable the patriots could never win another game. Ever. Its conceivable the raiders and lions could win out and be in the superbowl. Its also concivable monkeys could fly out of your butt. lol.
Conceivablity (fantasy) and reality are two different things, my friend.
To me its really stupid to talk about projections based on what other people say. Some have claimed these sources as being superior and parrotted them in arguments. Use your own brain. Use your own eyes. Form your own opinion and stick by it.
The standings I’m reading are 2-0. Division leaders. It’s only two games, but all the pundits and naysayers didn’t have THIS projected. My belief is that the niners are going to be a better team than last year’s 7-9..and with the right factors playing out..make the playoffs..
Let's throw a scenario out there...
Frank Gore blows out a knee in the first quarter next week. If that happened, they’d likely be done. Coffee hasn’t shown up too much so far. That right there shows it’s conceivable. Did I say I expected anything like that? No. I actually expect 8 wins right now. Before these last 2 games, I thought it would be 6. This was based on what I’d seen, the minimal roster changes, ongoing lack of pass rush, lackluster QB play, and a run game continually facing 8 or even 9 man fronts because the pass was so unlikely to burn the opponents. I was ignoring Football Outsiders, because anything that says the Raiders will be better than the 49ers this year, given that their starting QB looks even worse than Alex Smith, playing behind a line at least as suspect as SF’s, or that the Rams will magically right their ship, or Detroit, given the total absence of talent and that the team is now run by Millen’s understudies… DVOA has got to be misleading in this case.
hey brendan scolari
LoL i think by now he feels a lil stupid, What an dork
by Da-Hawn-49er on Sep 21, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think he does at all. It might be worthwhile to revisit the point of the thread to understand why he doesn’t feel stupid at all.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 21, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
No I really don't
Please point out the things that I said that I should now feel stupid about. I don’t see anything I said that looks ridiculous.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I never thought they would be the third worst in the NFL
Please at least read the post before flaming me. I said I expected 6-7 wins, which besides still being a fairly realistic number, is not even close to one of the 3 worst teams in the NFL. FO’s projections predicted them to be in the bottom 3, that doesn’t mean I believe that. It’s still a long season, we’ll see how it plays out. No reason to jump to conclusions after 2 games.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
ROTFL
At this thread. It appears that some on here are going to be eating their words, if they aren’t already.
Seattle looked awesome against the 49ers right?
And ROTFL what about the Skins 9-7 win over St. Louis, what an epic performance right?
Let me change it around a bit. My NFC Rankings following week 2
1. New York 2-0
2. New Orleans 2-0
3. Atlanta 2-0
4. Minnesota 2-0
5. Philadelphia 1-1
6.. San Francisco 2-0
7. Dallas 1-1
8. Green Bay 1-1
9. Chicago 1-1
10. Arizona 1-1
11. Seattle. 1-1
12. Washington 1-1
13. Carolina 0-2
14. Tampa Bay 0-2
15. Detroit 0-2
16. St. Louis 0-2
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 21, 2009 2:00 AM PDT reply actions
Personally
I stand by every single word I said.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Sep 21, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions
LOL...
You don’t even know how to use stats, and when you do, it makes your posts look worse.
Well, we're waiting....
the problem is..
when people twist stats to fuel their parrotted arguments and then call you a homer for your arguments regardless of your stats, observations or background..
its at best double standard idiocy..
Dude
I believe it’s time for me to stop responding to your pathetic and ignorant posts. You absolutely stun me with you inability to even carry on a proper debate
You don’t even know how to use stats, and when you do, it makes your posts look worse.
I think that says enough!!!!!!
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 21, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I've never read..
A argument that’s confused, trying to explain a point that is pretty obvious while using stats that eventually work against the argument, rendering it gibberish.
That is, until I read nocal’s posts.
Well, we're waiting....
Of Course
Because you don’t see the obvious, you don’t see anything but what your ignorant mind allows you. This of course disables and reason you may have
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 21, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Funny Litttle Boy
You are!!! Just remember to show up for your 5th grade play this year. They can’t do it without the drummer boy.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 21, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Now, this is readable...
It’s horrid playground stuff, but it’s the most coherent nocal post yet.
Well, we're waiting....
UMM
I wouldn’t claim someone else to be childish if i were you. I attempt to keep it civilized but time after time you bring the intelligence of every single thread you comment on down to the 3rd grade level
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 21, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions
"People in this thread"...
stand by their words with a reason why.
People who throw “their rankings” in a thread that they have no comprehension of (you) in order to bash them?
Very mature indeed.
Well, we're waiting....
Excuse Me
My ranking were thrown in this thread with absolutely no intention of bashing anyone.
My post in it’s entirety was to examine exactly how “wrong” some of you were regarding the 49ers. Get your facts straight before throwing out falsehoods against me.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 21, 2009 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Well..
Go back and read this thread again (The Redskin part of it), and you’ll see my reason why I say that.
Really, you’re posting “after the fact” here with your “rankings”, and “examine”? Bwah!!
LOL, unbelievable.
Well, we're waiting....
I Posted
The rankings to show that the entire premise of the thread was false. They were not targeted at one person or one point but at the thread as a whole. And it is pretty obvious that i was right regarding the Redskins right? So i find it hard to believe that you would want to bring that up again.
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 21, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Besides
One thing that is starting to become a routine with you is to get offensive when you have been proven wrong without a doubt. Instead or debating the issues you resort to childish appends and utilize absolutely nothing worthwhile in terms of making your point
by nocal81(Vincent) on Sep 21, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions
This is your problem...
“Small sample size”. You can’t compare data with a small sample size.
The mere fact that it has to be repeated endlessly with you shows you are stubborn. That’s fine.
But you can’t present that in a thread like this without you having to answer for it.
The problem is, you obfuscate your own data by either brushing it off because you can’t qualify it…
Or you totally missed whatever you’re going after by a mile.
Look, even if FO comes into question here, you’re not bringing anything to counter it.
Therefore, you have nothing but a small sample size.
Well, we're waiting....
I don't know if you do this for fun or if you actually expect to change nocal81's mind.
He’s clearly going to disagree with everything you say, and vice versa. Trolling can be fun, but if I were you, I just wouldn’t waste my time.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I'm not trying to change his mind...
My responses to him maybe stemming from an unconscious reflex.
Like “Please, make it stop”.
Well, we're waiting....
How were we wrong?
It’s been 2 games!!!! You can’t judge hardly anything yet, other than that the Niners have looked good so far.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
The defense has looked good...
The offense has looked, well…
The offense is still teetering on the edge. I can’t say in confidence that this offense can carry a lesser defense.
I can’t. The defense has played great in the first 2 games. But it’s early into the season, and the dogfights for playoff postion haven’t really started yet. Midseason is where we will really see how this all shakes out, and the 49ers have a tough mis
Well, we're waiting....
Oops...
Firefox in OS X really sucks with this site.
Anyway, the 49ers have a tough midseason coming up. If the offense sputters, I don’t know how the defense can hold up. We’ve seen that in 2007. A mid tier defense could have withstood the paucity of offense then, but only for so long. The depth on offense is suspect, and despite the strong showing of the defense early, one or two key elements missing on offense renders the defense back into the lower tier. That’s how flawed this team is, right now, and thus the reason why Singletary’s approach is working at this moment, because he knows the teams limitations, as opposed to Nolan’s misguided expectations.
That’s it. It all comes into the perspective of:
Are the 49ers overachieving?
Or:
Do they really have the talent on both sides of the ball that make them a true playoff team, not one that has the benefit of a weak division?.
Well, we're waiting....
Well said drummer
No, I still don’t think the offense is very good. I’m coming around on the defense though, it looks like it should be fairly strong. This week will be a good test.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah ok that much better, Keep up the good work,
by Da-Hawn-49er on Sep 21, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
It's been 2 games
There’s a reason they play 16. I stand by what I said, but I’d still like to know which bits I should be “eating my words” about.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
The Rams are the worst NFC team.. they have scored 7 points and allowed 37.
Joe and Steve were under the same system for years... don't expect Smith to be super so soon.
Nuh uhh..
We’re the worst cuz the outsiderz said so! So there!
by mr. instigator on Sep 23, 2009 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions
This post is getting older
So. The Niners were obviously closer to the worst at the begining of the season than now.
In fact we’ve seen some bandwagon folks start to pop out
i.e. the power rankings.
I think the consensus here is that the “worst team” prediction was absolute stupidity. Even though it was based on somewhat credible factors.
A win this week and we are power ranking gods….grain of salt.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
