THROWING GAMES TO REST STARTERS--AGREE or DISAGREE

[pbmax]

There is nothing more comical than fans watching on TV making judgments about how "fired up" a team is (of course, the fired up team surprisingly is winning) or claiming body language is affecting the rest of the team.

Then to claim that fans know where players are "psychologically" just takes it to a whole new level of ridiculousness.

None of you would claim to know the exact medical nature of a players injury from just watching on the field. Then to take a far more complex organ (the brain) and make judgments about both the individual AND the collective group is breathtakingly naive.

I'll bet no one appreciates that fans long ago developed "virtual" medicine. Well before the Internet too!

Read the Game Day threads (including the Seahawks thread) and watch as the twitchy, nervous nellies proclaim that McCarthy is clearly an inferior coach because the other coach has the opposition "prepared" and "fired up". These comments follow whenever two events or plays fail to go the Packers way, or heaven forfend, they are behind.

I can't wait for the companion thread to this in the Romper Room that tells me its lightning outside because God is throwing lightning bolts of fury at the earth.

Now try on this for size: One of the best predictors of records can be found in a team's Points For and Against totals. This makes sense as the net difference should tell you how badly they are beating teams. If you compare how you EXPECT a team to perform based on its point totals (called a Pythagorean Win Projection) to how they are actually doing, you can often ferret out overachieving/underachieving teams. Guess what happens to overachieving teams in the playoff? If the numbers are bad enough, they lose quite often.

Consider:
2004 Steelers (15-1, luck: .220) lost in the AFC Championship to the defending champion Patriots
1976 Raiders (13-1, luck: .213) won the Super Bowl
1999 Titans (13-3, luck: .201) lost in the Super Bowl to the dominating 1999 Rams
1999 Colts (13-3, luck: .174) lost to that same Titans team in the divisional round
1991 Lions (12-4, luck: .168) lost in the NFC Championship to the 1991 Redskins, one of the best teams of all-time
1985 Raiders (12-4, luck: .168) lost to New England in the divisional round
2003 Patriots (14-2, luck: .164) won the Super Bowl
1990 49ers (14-2, luck: .159) won the Super Bowl
2006 Colts (12-4, luck: .150) won the Super Bowl

The luck factor here is the difference between the expected Win and Loss percentage (calculated by the point totals) and actual W/L percentage. For Pythagorean "Luck" over .164, no one has won a Super Bowl except the 1976 Oakland Raiders.

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

[Smidgeon]

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

What's GB's?

[imscott72]

In week 17 Packers must play to avoid going to Philly for wild card PO game.

Why be afraid to go to Philly? I'd rather play the Eagles and atone for 4th and 26 versus going to Zona.

[mngolf19]

Not a single game, every single game. And yes if you are not playing your best available every game, then you are laying down. Nothing says they are now going to win the SB either. I guess I have a different expectation out of my team than some of you. That's fine. This isn't a "I'm sitting so and so because he's hurt", it's pulling your best players when they aren't hurt.

Then you must really be pissed about the preseason games. Those games count just as much as the Colts last two games.

Well you already know how fans feel about paying for those games.

[pbmax]

In both these posts of mine, I am relying on material and context taken from Football Outsiders. Here is another reason to be nervous if you are a Colts fan and it has nothing to do with the ethics of withholding starters from games that have no effect on the post-season.

The Colts have now tied an NFL record by winning seven games by four points or less in one season. The other teams that went to the playoffs based on so many close wins eventually discovered that clutch wins are a cruel mistress. It's sort of ironic how many of them eventually lost by a close score.

The 2003 Panthers got hot in the playoffs and made it to the Super Bowl, which they lost by three points.

The 1993 Raiders lost in the playoffs by six points.

The 1990 49ers are probably the closest comparison to the Colts, because they were an excellent team even when they weren't winning close, and finished the regular season 14-2. They lost the NFC Championship game to New York by two points.

The 1986 Browns lost in the playoffs by three points.

The 1998 Cardinals lost in the playoffs by a larger score, 20 points.

The 1989 Packers missed the playoffs by tiebreaker despite going 10-6.

[sheepshead]

So are the fans REALLY pissed off, or is the press workin' 'em into a tizzy?

[pbmax]

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

What's GB's?

Here we go=

PF^2.37
---------------------- = Expected record
PF^2.37 + PA^2.37

PF=428, PA=290

Expected Win Percentage = .716

Actual Win Percentage = .667

[mngolf19]

So are the fans REALLY pissed off, or is the press workin' 'em into a tizzy?

They work hand in hand. Find some that are pissed, run with the story and create more pissed.

[Smidgeon]

New Orleans 2009 Pythagorean luck: .209
Indianapolis 2009 Pythag. luck: .235

Neither of these teams is as good as their record would seen to indicate. And it was likely they would be defeated in the playoffs, if not sooner. I take this as an argument that if they can rest their players and keep them healthy, then they should do so because they will need all the help they can get to advance far into the playoffs.

What's GB's?

Here we go=

PF^2.37
---------------------- = Expected record
PF^2.37 + PA^2.37

PF=428, PA=290

Expected Win Percentage = .716

Actual Win Percentage = .667

"So you're saying there's a chance?"

What this statistic is basically saying is that GB is underperforming. Did you find the statistical records for underperforming teams in the postseason?

[MadtownPacker]

I gotta agree with this guy...



Bottom line, the Colts have been going 13-3 or better all the time it seems. The have ended several seasons with first round losses. Why not go for history if you have the chance. I dont blame Manning or the fans for being pissed. Even as someone who is not a Colts fan I felt cheated they woudl not have the chance to run the table. Worst part is they might have actually been able to do it this season with a less then mighty AFC.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Talking about the colt's past while discussing this year's team is ridiculous.

Different coach, different players, different strategies, different scenario (no coach's son suicide), etc.

[Bretsky]

Actually some of the coaches and some of the players are the same

[sharpe1027]

Talking about the colt's past while discussing this year's team is ridiculous.

Different coach, different players, different strategies, different scenario (no coach's son suicide), etc.

IDK, talking about it seems perfectly normal. Assuming that the Colts past and the current Packers are identical and that none of use realize that fact is ridiculous...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Actually some of the coaches and some of the players are the same

Different HC. First year for DC. New coach for ST. New QB coach. New roles for other coaches. Different RBs. Different WRs. Different defensive players and schemes. More mature players that are still there, etc.

You might actually wanna take a look at the roster sometime, as the colts have TONS of young players. Only 3 players start on defense that were there for 5 years. Take out their OL, peyton and kickers..and they are a pretty darn young team.

Talking about this year's team to the team from 03 is stupid.

But, i guess today's version of you should be talked about in the same manner as when you were 18.

[Bretsky]

Actually some of the coaches and some of the players are the same

Different HC. First year for DC. New coach for ST. New QB coach. New roles for other coaches. Different RBs. Different WRs. Different defensive players and schemes. More mature players that are still there, etc.

You might actually wanna take a look at the roster sometime, as the colts have TONS of young players. Only 3 players start on defense that were there for 5 years. Take out their OL, peyton and kickers..and they are a pretty darn young team.

Talking about this year's team to the team from 03 is stupid.

But, i guess today's version of you should be talked about in the same manner as when you were 18.

Actually you might want to take a look at the roster some time and than you can admit my above statement is true