This is an interesting discussion. I do wonder what metrics are used to determine luckiness. For example, Green Bay has 6 Touchdowns on D (most in the league) and the league average is 1.4. These 4 and half TDs above the average equals about 32 points. GB is also barely ahead of the curve in ST TDs, so there's a couple more points in our favor, which could also explain our perceived unluckiness in scoring differential above.

The point is, in games like baseball that truly only require 1 player at any moment in time to execute perfectly it is probably easier to apply a statistical model to predict success. In football there are 11 players at any moment in time that must execute, which makes the statistics much fuzzier. They don't record failures to execute (errors) in football (at least not on the scoreboard for all to see).

I've always liked the saying "luck is when preparation meets opportunity," and unfortunately I think our offseason preparation has yielded the unluckiness we are experiencing in our opportunities. Does anyone still believe that Corey Williams wasn't worth a little more money (please no snide comments about his perceived lesser production in Cleveland since he only has .5 sacks in a vastly different D scheme - he was an outstanding player in GBs scheme)?

---

I like that. +1

I see what you're trying to say, but I think it's irrelevant, unless defensive points didn't matter towards determining which team won or lost a game.

---

I think someplace in there you have to factor margin of victory into this "luck" equation.. take the Bears game in which we win by hmmm 35 coupled with a 23 point victory over the pathetic Lions and normalize the margin.. because that this is an anomaly all by itself..

---

I think the Lions win and Saints loss can cancel each other out, but the Bears win is a pesky one.

---

REALLY hard to determine, but you make a good point about why this statistic is at the very least troublesome. There are also games where we may have had a big lead and loosened up on defense, allowing some points. Or games where our offense went into a different mode based on the score, scoring less.

---

I tend to agree with this statement and it's one of the reason why Pythagorean Records works so well in baseball, but has yet to be applied to football. Simply put - sample size. Pythagorean Record is based on the premise that run distribution should even out around the mean over the course of the season. Sound premise in a 162 games season where on 22-3 victory is blip on the total radar. However, a large margin of victory or loss over the course of a 16 game season holds a lot more weight.

BUT, not necessarily in the Packers case. You could just as easily use the Saints loss to "cancel out" the Bears win and still get a fairly normal distribution. That's kind of pointless though as I'm not suggesting we use the data I originally posted as an end all be all statistic. It simply points to a larger trend that many people on this board and around football have noticed - that the Packers ARE a better team than their record would show and that all other things being equal, the Packers should have a much improved record next year.

As for dhazer's question about whether or not this meant the Packers were lucky last year.....yes, it does. The article states that using the same formula for last year's numbers showed the Packers as being the luckiest team in football.

It's also great to see some other statistically-inclined board members here. I forget who posted the chart, but thanks for running that regression model.

---

This is just a fantastic chart. Of the teams with positive point differentials, only 2 have losing records. Of the teams with negative point differentials, only one has a winning record. If you'd like to ignore point differentials, do so at your own peril. But the evidence exists that win-loss record and point differential have about as strong of a correlation as one could find.

Looking at this, you have to ask two questions: Why do San Diego and Green Bay have such poor records and why does Denver have a good record? Those are the only three anomalies. The Denver/San Diego question can partially be answered by Ed Hochuli. Without that clearly blown call gifting Denver a win, those two teams sit at 7-7.

So what about Green Bay?

I think the crux of the debate lies in the usage of the word "luck". It has a certain negative connotation to some people and I think it gets misconstrued a bit.

Luck, in this sense, isn't the same as luck in the sense of flipping a coin or pulling an inside straight. Those are event which are purely random an of which an individual has zero control.

Luck in the sense that we're using the term is a little different. It's tough to explain, so if anyone else can do it better than I, please do so. I'll try to do it with a few recent examples.

1. The Steve Smith catch
2. The Edwards fumble returned by the Jets for a TD
3. The Eagles ST fumble last year against us that gave us the go ahead score
4. Sage Rosenfels' meltdown against the Colts in the final 5 minutes
5. Mario Williams' sack on third down to knock us out of FG range

None of these events were purely random or individually strange. You'd expect all of them to happen in one form or another over the course of the season. What's significant is not that these things happen, but in what scenario they occur and how many times you're on the losing end. Even though Steve Smith is expected to make that catch from time to time, more often than not, he won't. The fact that he made it against us and with very little time remaining in the game could be considered a bit "unlucky." Mario Williams should be expected to get about one sack vs Rodgers, but he can't control when he gets that sack any more than our line can control when we give it up. If that were the case, then we would obviously try to give up our Mario Williams sack very early in the game, while he would try to save it for the most crucial point (even though he can't possibly know that until after the fact) of every game. So you could say that we got a bit "unlucky" that his sack occurred on the down it did, where on the field it did, and at what point of the game it did.

Basically, in all sports (and life) positive and negative things happen and you can't really control when they occur. You just hope they the bad comes at the most preferable time. Sometimes all the bad comes at reasonably acceptable times. Sometimes it comes at the worst time possible. That is kind of what we mean by "luck."

Hopefully that makes sense. If not, I'm happy to try to explain further.

EDIT: Moving the concept outside of the realm of sports might help. Take this example. You're in between jobs and have no extra money lying around because you've exhausted your savings while looking for work. Then you get in a little fender bender that you caused. The fender bender was completely your fault and you were in control of every action that led up to it. But you certainly didn't plan for it to happen while you were broke. You say, "it's just my luck that this would happen now." It's not that the fender bender was completely beyond your control, but the timing of it kind of was. Of course you'd be expected to get in a fender bender at some point in your life, but if you could control when it happened, you'd take your fender bender right after you received your tax refund and had some extra money around. But you can't control it, so in a sense, you got a little "unlucky."

---

Some favorite quotes:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli (no, not Mark Twain)

"42.7% of statistics are made up on the spot"
Anonymous

"90% of statistics can be made to say anything."
"Anything?"
"50% of the time..."
Direct TV commercial

"Good Christ, I hate statistics!"
Since69

---

Statistics are a tool, not Scripture. People who understand statistics understand the limitations, and the value.
-Me, just now.

---