Packers Cards Live game thread

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There is no correlation between winning in the preseason and regular season.
...
Preseason games in regards to winning mean nothing.

Actually, there is a strong correlation between winning in the preseason and winning in the regular season - notwithstanding the anomoly of last year's Lions.
http://www.twominutewarning.com/doespreseasonmatter.htm

Did you actually read what you posted. Using the term strong. LOL

...

They have data for 11 years...that is a pretty small subset.

Even for that the spread on avg is 1.7 wins.

This data set for 11 years is for 1408 preseason wins and losses, and 5632 regular season wins and losses. Hardly a small subset. Your 4 year pull is obviously much smaller, yet you use that in an attempt to make a point and then say the larger data set is too small?

With a large data set, where 1 team wins and 1 loses as in this case, the tendency when averaging statistics is for the averages to normalize around the .500 mark. A difference of 2 games in this pool and under this criteria is a significant difference. That's 125 percentage points better in a season in which only 16 game are played. That'd be 20 games over the course of a baseball season, often the difference between first and last place. Over this data range of 11 years, it's 702 more wins for the 4-0 preseason teams. It's significant. Casino owners and oddsmakers make billions on people's lack of understanding of statistical correlations far, far less significant than that.

Teams that win more in the preseason clearly do better in the regular season. That is undeniable. And even if you wnat to debate the subjective term "strong," there is no debating what you meant when you stated matter of factly that there is "no correlation." That is quite simply wrong.

While saying "means nothing" might be strong, i think you get the point. and, i won't back down. It means nothing significant.

again, you miss the fact that they look at things blind.They make no distinction for easier schedule, etc.

To look at the preseason and try and figure out it's correlation to the regular season is stupid. For example, last year the lions beat the giants...yet the giants didn't play many starters. Last night the pack beat the cards, the cards clearly didn't game plan. Preseason is a joke for analysis.

11 years is 11 years...why not go back and look at 40 years?

There is a .7 difference between 2 wins and 4 wins in the preseason. That is hardly something.

Why would we look at the whole when we can look at specifics like i pointed out? Clearly they see the use of it...and when we look at 10 win teams...voila, more wins are accrued by 2 win teams than any other. Why? Who knows, but we know that good teams don't care about the preseason..they use it to evaluate talent.

Quite simply, good teams are good teams, but teams are bad teams. However, good teams that lose doesn't mean they will lose in the regular season.

There are way to many variables to even try to pretend that the preseason means anything. At best you can try and talk about subsets.

As my mom said, the proof is in the pudding. Look at what they wrote: Looking good: Detroit, TB, Washington.

In trouble: Chicago and Minn.

Could the results speak any more poorly for the analysis?

This reminds me of baseball math...and when the #s say one thing, but the player doesn't perform....it is luck...it is always luck when the #s don't work.