RaiderPride
14 years ago
This was the weakest ass post to explain his two year long ignorance. A elementary explanation for being a less than true packer fan.

I do not give a hill of beans what Gavedigga posts. It is like reading the inside door in a truck stop bathroom shitter 80% of the time. A statement that has a stream of venom in it, no matter how suttle, almost always.

I have seen some real Jack Ass Ignorant posters on Packer Forums over the years, but I have never had zero respect for one of them. Not one. Until Garvedigga.

I have zero respect for him, simply because he flaunts it. His Avatar, his posts about how he will be happy when Brett beats the Packers.

It is OK to point out ones concerns, bitch about MM, call for a firing.. But Gravediggga actually flaunted the fact he wanted the Packers to lose to The Vikes. He got a kick out of it.

I will take his advice and ignore him.

All I hope is that his Turncoat ass is not in Game day Chat during the playoffs. It is impossible to ignore a misdirected personality in the rapid fire Game day Chat.
""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."
HoustonMatt
14 years ago

It really does amaze me that this team was literally 3 seconds away from going 12-4. 12-4 does sound so much better than 11-5.

But I'll take 11-5 over, well, almost anything else any day.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



It's worth noting that the Vikings were just as few seconds away from being 11-5.

I know what people will say. "You are what your record is" and all that bullshit coach-speak, but it's simply not true. Luck plays a huge role in sports, as it does in life. That's why the Packers were 6-10 last year despite outscoring opponents by 39 points (if I remember correctly).

I know I'm getting somewhat off topic, but I don't know that this thread has had a consistent topic for the last 4 pages anyhow.

However, it's interesting to note that this Packer team actually leads the league in Pythagorean Wins. (Uh-oh...stat nerd alert!)

http://www.imarc.net/writable/archives/pythagorean_wins/ 

For those who don't know what Pythag Wins are, they derived from a formula based on points scored and points allowed to arrive at the number of games a team should have "expected" to win based on those point totals. With larger sample sizes (such as in baseball) they're remarkably accurate.

What's even more interesting is that Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders said that 16 of the last 20 Super Bowl winners were the team with the highest Pythag Win total.

http://www.imarc.net/communique/21-pythagorean_wins_for_the_nfl 

It's unclear to me whether or not that means the team with the most Pythag Wins for the regular season has won the Super Bowl 80% of the time or if it simply means that once the two Super Bowl teams are decided, of those two teams, the better Pythag record has won the game 80% of the time. Regardless, nobody should be surprised if this Packer team makes a deep run.

Just some food for thought.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
Welcome back to the board, HoustonMatt; I've missed your incisive, fact-based analyses.

This concept of Pythagorean wins is interesting. How is the factor derived? Empirically?

A couple of comments. First, the "16 of the last 20 Super Bowls" statistic dates to 2005. I wonder how well it's held up in the subsequent few Super Bowls? Second, I note that of the 6 teams who gave up fewer points than the Packers, none of them scored as many points as the Packers; Green Bay actually scored the third most points in the league this year. Fourth, this quote (from the 2005 article) is rather mind boggling:

Green Bay's winning percent is 55.2% - based on the number of points they've scored and allowed. (201^2.37 / (201^2.37 + 184^2.37)). They should win more than half the games they play. Yet at week 10 in the season, the Packers are 2-7. New England has a winning percentage of 41.2% - they should be a sub-.500 team, yet they're currently leading the AFC East at 5-4.


UserPostedImage
HoustonMatt
14 years ago

Welcome back to the board, HoustonMatt; I've missed your incisive, fact-based analyses.

This concept of Pythagorean wins is interesting. How is the factor derived? Empirically?

A couple of comments. First, the "16 of the last 20 Super Bowls" statistic dates to 2005. I wonder how well it's held up in the subsequent few Super Bowls? Second, I note that of the 6 teams who gave up fewer points than the Packers, none of them scored as many points as the Packers; Green Bay actually scored the third most points in the league this year. Fourth, this quote (from the 2005 article) is rather mind boggling:

Green Bay's winning percent is 55.2% - based on the number of points they've scored and allowed. (201^2.37 / (201^2.37 + 184^2.37)). They should win more than half the games they play. Yet at week 10 in the season, the Packers are 2-7. New England has a winning percentage of 41.2% - they should be a sub-.500 team, yet they're currently leading the AFC East at 5-4.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



To be honest, Im not sure exactly how the formula for football (PF^2.37/PF^2.37 + PA^2.37) was derived, but I assume it was done in the same way as Bill James created the original formula for baseball. Its simply a matter of trial and error. All he did was use runs scored and runs allowed and tinkered with the exponent. With each different exponent, he simply went back through baseball history and tested it. Eventually he found one (1.82) that accurately predicted a teams record. For the outliers who were more than a standard deviation away from their expected win-loss total, you can take it one step further and look at the following season. If your formula is worth a damn, a team that underperformed its expected victory total should improve the following year (as did the Packers from 08 to 09) and vice versa (see this years Miami Dolphins and Carolina Panthers).

As for the Super Bowl winners from 06 to current, I calculated their Pythag wins to see if the pattern held steady. This is incomplete as I didnt do the whole league to see if the Super Bowl winner led the league in Pythag wins, but it should give us some idea.

09 Pittsburgh 11.84 Pythag Wins
08 NY Giants 8.57 Pythag Wins
07 Indianapolis 9.59 Pythag Wins
06 Pittsburgh 11.61 Pythag Wins

Without knowing the other teams Pythag wins, Id assume Pittsburgh in 06 and 09 were among the top 3 at least. The Giants in 08 were predictably an outlier, though NE finished the season a remarkable +315 in point differential, so only a David Tyree catch prevented the Pythag Wins leader from winning the Super Bowl that year. In 07, Id estimate Indy was in the 5-6 range for Pythag Win total, but their opponent, the Bears, look to be either one or two (Baltimore had a very strong Pythag win total that year as well).

So did the pattern hold? Well, kind of.
blank
earthquake
14 years ago



i'd take rodgers 5 td runs over that 7 days in a week. and you, for sure, too :cyclopsani: i don't have to miss the ironic sign :bigsmurf:

"GermanGilbert" wrote:



Lol, you would take 5 qb sneaks over an extra 3td's? Cool, good for you. QB sneaks are all skill

"Gravedigga" wrote:



how many tds from brett? 33. how many tds from aaron? 35. be quite, subborn.

"GermanGilbert" wrote:



5 Sneaks? Right, all Rodgers does is score rushing TDs on sneaks, my grandma could do that. I guess that is why he lead all QBs in rushing yards.

4
12
1
14
1

Distance for Rodger's rushing TDs.
35 TDs no matter how you look at it

The funny thing is that it is somehow assumed that QB sneak TD's are the easiest thing in the world, if this were the case every QB in the league would have about 5 rushing TDs every year, but most teams prefer to use a large running back or fullback in these situations, telling isnt it?

Also, you would rather have 3 TDs than 5 TDs, what is this, GOLF?
blank
Dulak
14 years ago
rodgers has the most rushing yards out of any QB I thought also ...
bozz_2006
14 years ago
true
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
14 years ago
I don't really care what Peter King, or any other talking head says. But it DOES show that others outside of the Packer fan base are seeing what we are seeing. That Ted Thompson is doing a pretty darn good job.
I always stated that i would wait to judge Ted Thompson based on the outcome. It's a shame that some can't "force" themselves to do the same.
"DON'T BOTHER ME WITH THE FACTS.....MY MIND IS MADE UP!!!" seems to be the cry of a few.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (8h) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (12h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (21h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
10h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.