Originally Posted by DRM08:
DVOA is stupid. The 2023 Ravens are evidence of that. Supposedly an all-time great team according to DVOA, but not even capable of winning a conference title with home field advantage.
Originally Posted by Basileus777:
Math doesn't even make any sense, teams locked into having to win 4 playoff games like the Ravens should not mathematically have better odds.
NFL just has too many numbers with no predictive ability behind them, DVOA does not tell you who is more likely to win playoff matchups.
Until they come out with a formula that describes exactly how much Lamar sucks as the pressure of each game goes up it's only valuable until we reach the playoffs.
Call it the Manning formula or the Lamar formula... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Basileus777:
Math doesn't even make any sense, teams locked into having to win 4 playoff games like the Ravens should not mathematically have better odds.
NFL just has too many numbers with no predictive ability behind them, DVOA does not tell you who is more likely to win playoff matchups.
I absolutely love advanced analytics. We have access to more information than ever and it's great.
That being said, the sheer volume of it has kind of made us forget that there are intangibles that numbers can't measure, like heart, will, and momentum. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I absolutely love advanced analytics. We have access to more information than ever and it's great.
That being said, the sheer volume of it has kind of made us forget that there are intangibles that numbers can't measure, like heart, will, and momentum.
Originally Posted by Rausch:
Until they come out with a formula that describes exactly how much Lamar sucks as the pressure of each game goes up it's only valuable until we reach the playoffs.
Call it the Manning formula or the Lamar formula...
Originally Posted by Basileus777:
Math doesn't even make any sense, teams locked into having to win 4 playoff games like the Ravens should not mathematically have better odds.
That's exactly what you're seeing in the CCG appearance though... Chiefs and Lions have a higher chance at appearing in that game since they have the first round bye.
Originally Posted by Basileus777:
NFL just has too many numbers with no predictive ability behind them, DVOA does not tell you who is more likely to win playoff matchups.
It predicts it to the extent of historical DVOA numbers, and given 4 teams are all within 2.4% of each other, yeah it's not a crazy strong predictor.
The Ravens' H I S T O R I C DVOA last season probably fucked up the numbers ever so slightly by not even making it to the Super Bowl. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Momentum isn’t a real thing it’s fairy dust
Don’t argue this I’ll fight you
Yeah, I think it's crazy overstated, like saying the Bills' running up scores on last place teams in December give them all the momentums for playing real teams in January. And it's easy to find teams that play like shit in December and then win the Super Bowl.
I think more commonly it's confidence and things that happen within a game to create momentum one way or another.... one good thing that gets the rest of the team focused and in the groove, or one bad thing that snowballs into a choke job.
I've never really felt like momentum game-to-game is really a thing, but I'm also not a professional athlete... at that point I think you've simply made the adjustments or whatever to be playing better. [Reply]
So let me get this straight: if Sneed hadn't punched the ball out from Flowers at the goal line and we lost, then DVOA would be a success? But because we won the game, it's a failure?
These are predictive statistics that are a single metric by which to judge like anything else. I think some of you don't understand that if a team has a 60% chance to win, that team still loses 40% of the time. And in a sample size of 1, anything can happen, and it does nothing to necessarily invalidate the model.
DVOA attempts to level the playing field. Would it be better to just simply look at wins and losses? Of course not. And that's why we care about strength of schedule. But are wins and losses combined with strength of schedule the best predictor? Not necessarily, because you may have played a team at the beginning of the season and beaten them when they were playing poorly versus later when they're on a 6-game winning streak. DVOA accounts for that and goes deeper based on how both sides of the ball are playing.
That Ravens team last year was phenomenal. Just because the buzzsaw of Mahomes and Spags won out doesn't mean these don't add something important to the discourse. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
So let me get this straight: if Sneed hadn't punched the ball out from Flowers at the goal line and we lost, then DVOA would be a success? But because we won the game, it's a failure?
These are predictive statistics that are a single metric by which to judge like anything else. I think some of you don't understand that if a team has a 60% chance to win, that team still loses 40% of the time. And in a sample size of 1, anything can happen, and it does nothing to necessarily invalidate the model.
DVOA attempts to level the playing field. Would it be better to just simply look at wins and losses? Of course not. And that's why we care about strength of schedule. But are wins and losses combined with strength of schedule the best predictor? Not necessarily, because you may have played a team at the beginning of the season and beaten them when they were playing poorly versus later when they're on a 6-game winning streak. DVOA accounts for that and goes deeper based on how both sides of the ball are playing.
That Ravens team last year was phenomenal. Just because the buzzsaw of Mahomes and Spags won out doesn't mean these don't add something important to the discourse.
Yep, and I misstated "not a crazy strong predictor"... it's probably a very strong predictor in terms of being in the top 5 of DVOA and making it far in the playoffs, versus being ranked 20th and making the SB.
However, the difference between being 1st and 2nd in DVOA isn't some huge difference and the numbers are saying exactly that... literally a 2% difference in the chance to make or win these games.
And people can talk other variables... injuries and so forth, but given the predictions are literally just looking at past results, all of that's already baked in.
The Ravens losing doesn't make it a failure, it just ever so slightly moves the needle for future predictions. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Yeah, I think it's crazy overstated, like saying the Bills' running up scores on last place teams in December give them all the momentums for playing real teams in January. And it's easy to find teams that play like shit in December and then win the Super Bowl.
I think more commonly it's confidence and things that happen within a game to create momentum one way or another.... one good thing that gets the rest of the team focused and in the groove, or one bad thing that snowballs into a choke job.
I've never really felt like momentum game-to-game is really a thing, but I'm also not a professional athlete... at that point I think you've simply made the adjustments or whatever to be playing better.
Yeah, I'm not talking about momentum as a game to game thing, it's not like that. But it absolutely happens within a single a game. [Reply]
