Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
^ is that for all teams? So under 50% win when the other team scores more than 17 points?

To calculate WOA, we first need a baseline to determine what 'NFL average performance' looks like. For our purposes here we'll use the league average winning percentage in regular season games between 2008 and 2012. In the table below I've crunched the numbers for all 2,560 NFL regular season games for the last five seasons, and I've formed five clusters by points allowed for which I've calculated the winning percentages for the offenses.

Originally posted by cciowa:
alex did good which is no surprise because he did prove in a niner uniform he can compete when the game is a shootout.. but i am wondering what happened the famed d of the chiefs? the chargers are really a hard team to figure. they can really stink it up( always thought it was norvs fault) and then they play lights out like they did yesterday against maybe the best defense in the nfl.

Combo of things:

Philip Rivers is a very good QB in a system that works. (Norv's has always been over-rated. Aikman and Irvin made Turner, not the other way around, IMO.)

Keenan Allen is the real deal. He is disproving the myth that rookie wide outs need time to develop. 9 games/50 rec/14.7 ave

Antonio Gates is fully healthy.

Bob Sutton came out with a very conservative defensive game plan that put no pressure on Rivers. Then Hali and Houston were injured.

Question ... does this thread even matter anymore now that we know we are getting a 2nd rounder? Or is the continued interest more of a "How is Alex Smith doing" sort of thing? Are we supposed to care about the KC Chiefs?

Question ... does this thread even matter anymore now that we know we are getting a 2nd rounder? Or is the continued interest more of a "How is Alex Smith doing" sort of thing? Are we supposed to care about the KC Chiefs?

Originally posted by midrdan:
Question ... does this thread even matter anymore now that we know we are getting a 2nd rounder? Or is the continued interest more of a "How is Alex Smith doing" sort of thing? Are we supposed to care about the KC Chiefs?

you don't need to click it.

But I did, as I was interested to see where this thread was going. I will leave the Chiefs discussion thread alone. My apologies for the interruption.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
^ is that for all teams? So under 50% win when the other team scores more than 17 points?

To calculate WOA, we first need a baseline to determine what 'NFL average performance' looks like. For our purposes here we'll use the league average winning percentage in regular season games between 2008 and 2012. In the table below I've crunched the numbers for all 2,560 NFL regular season games for the last five seasons, and I've formed five clusters by points allowed for which I've calculated the winning percentages for the offenses.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
^ is that for all teams? So under 50% win when the other team scores more than 17 points?

To calculate WOA, we first need a baseline to determine what 'NFL average performance' looks like. For our purposes here we'll use the league average winning percentage in regular season games between 2008 and 2012. In the table below I've crunched the numbers for all 2,560 NFL regular season games for the last five seasons, and I've formed five clusters by points allowed for which I've calculated the winning percentages for the offenses.

My point exactly. Once the opponent score 25+ points overall NFL winning percentage is .204 (160/785) 2008-2012. Just look at Romo's % - a QB that often puts up a lot of points. He was 7-25.

Originally posted by Wodwo:
This is another example of a bad attempt to use "advanced" statistics in evaluating NFL players.

Defense and special teams also score points. They also effect field position. I wonder how many games are actually won by special teams.

It's just way more complicated than that. Plus, it just sounds stupid to say that winning a game 20-17 is somehow better than 49-0.

Sorry, this stuff just bugs me sometimes. It's not directed at you.

LOL...harsh but true! Whenever I crunch numbers for negotiations or any other purpose I find it necessary to set a limit of how many variables considered (and hours doing so). They can go on forever! If you out variable the opponent you generally win. Over time the variables can be weeded out as extraneous, but judging a QB or offense you have twenty two moving pieces with unlimited individual and team variables. But it's much easier to say one player failed! So much easier to understand!

Originally posted by Wodwo:
This is another example of a bad attempt to use "advanced" statistics in evaluating NFL players.

Defense and special teams also score points. They also effect field position. I wonder how many games are actually won by special teams.

It's just way more complicated than that. Plus, it just sounds stupid to say that winning a game 20-17 is somehow better than 49-0.

Sorry, this stuff just bugs me sometimes. It's not directed at you.

LOL...harsh but true! Whenever I crunch numbers for negotiations or any other purpose I find it necessary to set a limit of how many variables considered (and hours doing so). They can go on forever! If you out variable the opponent you generally win. Over time the variables can be weeded out as extraneous, but judging a QB or offense you have twenty two moving pieces with unlimited individual and team variables. But it's much easier to say one player failed! So much easier to understand!

It's pretty simple math really and straight to the point. You score more points your going to win, you give up more points your going to lose. That's why I posted that, it proves just how simple it actually is. It's not rocket science.

What annoys me is this 2-25 idea. That's when all the complicated variables and "twenty two moving pieces" stuff comes in. Your using games from 2005 and 2006 when our defense sucked, and Alex was still 21 years old playing crappy football. That accounts for half of those losses people talk about. Those losses have no bearing on how Alex is playing today, nor does it take into account that our defense didn't even have Patrick Willis yet and VD was a rookie. Using games from 2006 when we got blown out by the Chiefs 41-0 and San Diego 48-19. So those games are all on one player? Has nothing to do with this entire team kind of sucking at the time?

So the stat we are discussing in the first place is the flawed logic with infinite variables. My point was that it's pretty simple that if TEAMS put up 24 pts, they are more than likely to win. Now I could make that "advanced" and prove that it's right, but again, it's pretty straight forward.