The 49ers ... actually better than GB?

nice.

very interesting stat.

I'll take it!

In actuality, GB is ONLY better than us in passing the ball. That's it.

yea im gonna call poop.. No way we go 9-6 this season :P and also ive watched the packers games besides the near miss by the giants there hasnt been any luck involved in these packers wins sadly MYTH BUSTED

Originally posted by Joecool:
I'll take it!

In actuality, GB is ONLY better than us in passing the ball. That's it.

100% true. Unfortunately that's the most important thing in today's NFL.

Originally posted by Fricker:
yea im gonna call poop.. No way we go 9-6 this season :P and also ive watched the packers games besides the near miss by the giants there hasnt been any luck involved in these packers wins sadly MYTH BUSTED

9.6 wins through 12 games dude. Not through a full season.

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:
Some of you guys might be familiar with the so-called Pythagorean projection in sports. In a nutshell, it says if you plug a team's points scored and points conceded into a simple equation, you can predict a team's future won-loss record better than just about any other way, including the team's current record)

(Example: a team goes 8-8 but significantly outscores its opponents. Next year, you'd do better predicting their record based upon the point differential, instead of the 8-8 record, or their offensive/defensive rankings, strength of schedule, etc.)

Another way of thinking of it is that the Pythagorean projection identifies how lucky/unlucky teams were to get to their record.

So, plugging the numbers for this year in...it turns out that the 49ers have the best "expected" record in the league: 9.6 wins. Green Bay only has 9.0 wins, suggesting that the Packers have been significantly lucky to get to 12-0. Green Bay isn't even in 2nd place - Houston has 9.2 expected wins, although with their QB situation that's probably not going to last for long.

This stat isn't the gospel or anything. Green Bay may well be getting under-appreciated a bit. But also reflects how a more-rounded team like SF might actually be playing better overall than a team that does one thing extraordinarily well but really struggles elsewhere (e.g., the Packers having 47 rushing yards on 24 carries against a bad, banged up NYG rush D - truly pathetic numbers when you have a Rodgers passing attack)

If anything, it bodes very well for our future staying power as a NFC powerhouse.

equation please

Originally posted by TX9R:

Originally posted by Joecool:
I'll take it!

In actuality, GB is ONLY better than us in passing the ball. That's it.

100% true. Unfortunately that's the most important thing in today's NFL.

Not when they play us. They better be able to do more than just pass.

link?

Originally posted by Shorteous:
equation please

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=337

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:
Some of you guys might be familiar with the so-called Pythagorean projection in sports. In a nutshell, it says if you plug a team's points scored and points conceded into a simple equation, you can predict a team's future won-loss record better than just about any other way, including the team's current record)

(Example: a team goes 8-8 but significantly outscores its opponents. Next year, you'd do better predicting their record based upon the point differential, instead of the 8-8 record, or their offensive/defensive rankings, strength of schedule, etc.)

Another way of thinking of it is that the Pythagorean projection identifies how lucky/unlucky teams were to get to their record.

So, plugging the numbers for this year in...it turns out that the 49ers have the best "expected" record in the league: 9.6 wins. Green Bay only has 9.0 wins, suggesting that the Packers have been significantly lucky to get to 12-0. Green Bay isn't even in 2nd place - Houston has 9.2 expected wins, although with their QB situation that's probably not going to last for long.

This stat isn't the gospel or anything. Green Bay may well be getting under-appreciated a bit. But also reflects how a more-rounded team like SF might actually be playing better overall than a team that does one thing extraordinarily well but really struggles elsewhere (e.g., the Packers having 47 rushing yards on 24 carries against a bad, banged up NYG rush D - truly pathetic numbers when you have a Rodgers passing attack)

If anything, it bodes very well for our future staying power as a NFC powerhouse.

equation please

win percent = (points scored)^2.37/((points scored)^2.37 + (points allowed)^2.37)

There's nothing magical about 2.37 - it's just the variable that the regression analysis produces

Multiply win percent by game played to get expected wins.

Originally posted by TX9R:

Originally posted by Joecool:
I'll take it!

In actuality, GB is ONLY better than us in passing the ball. That's it.

100% true. Unfortunately that's the most important thing in today's NFL.

Point differential is the most important thing. They rely on getting up early, forcing teams pass the ball and creating turnovers off of predictable plays. The Packers don't have the roster talent to dictate anything against the Niners.

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:
Some of you guys might be familiar with the so-called Pythagorean projection in sports. In a nutshell, it says if you plug a team's points scored and points conceded into a simple equation, you can predict a team's future won-loss record better than just about any other way, including the team's current record)

(Example: a team goes 8-8 but significantly outscores its opponents. Next year, you'd do better predicting their record based upon the point differential, instead of the 8-8 record, or their offensive/defensive rankings, strength of schedule, etc.)

Another way of thinking of it is that the Pythagorean projection identifies how lucky/unlucky teams were to get to their record.

So, plugging the numbers for this year in...it turns out that the 49ers have the best "expected" record in the league: 9.6 wins. Green Bay only has 9.0 wins, suggesting that the Packers have been significantly lucky to get to 12-0. Green Bay isn't even in 2nd place - Houston has 9.2 expected wins, although with their QB situation that's probably not going to last for long.

This stat isn't the gospel or anything. Green Bay may well be getting under-appreciated a bit. But also reflects how a more-rounded team like SF might actually be playing better overall than a team that does one thing extraordinarily well but really struggles elsewhere (e.g., the Packers having 47 rushing yards on 24 carries against a bad, banged up NYG rush D - truly pathetic numbers when you have a Rodgers passing attack)

If anything, it bodes very well for our future staying power as a NFC powerhouse.

This stat isn't the gospel or anything. Green Bay may well be getting under-appreciated a bit. But also reflects how a more-rounded team like SF might actually be playing better overall than a team that does one thing extraordinarily well but really struggles elsewhere (e.g., the Packers having 47 rushing yards on 24 carries against a bad, banged up NYG rush D - truly pathetic numbers when you have a Rodgers passing attack)QUOTE. LOL


hey Einstein. Let me ask you something. If a team does something really well. I mean exeptionally well and the opposing team knows it and prepares for it yet cant stop it then please explain why you need to even run it. THey run just enuf to keep the teams honest. Rodgers is lights out. Thow all your harvard regresion analysis and your multiplication win percentage. It means squat. THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE 12-0 FOR A REASON. THEY PASS THE BALL AND HAVE AN ELITE QB. A more rounded team is great for soup talk but the bottom line is that they along with new orleans are huge hurdles to overcome playoff time. Hurdles that they will not overcome. Hows that for quantitative analysis.

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by TX9R:

Originally posted by Joecool:
I'll take it!

In actuality, GB is ONLY better than us in passing the ball. That's it.

100% true. Unfortunately that's the most important thing in today's NFL.

Point differential is the most important thing. They rely on getting up early, forcing teams pass the ball and creating turnovers off of predictable plays. The Packers don't have the roster talent to dictate anything against the Niners.

I agree. What backs up the assertion that the passing attack is the most important thing? Looking at a single facet of the game in isolation isn't logically sound.

For every GB that passes well its way to a great record, I can give you a Carolina that passes well on way to a poor one.

Originally posted by whatawegot:

Originally posted by johnnyredneat:
Some of you guys might be familiar with the so-called Pythagorean projection in sports. In a nutshell, it says if you plug a team's points scored and points conceded into a simple equation, you can predict a team's future won-loss record better than just about any other way, including the team's current record)

(Example: a team goes 8-8 but significantly outscores its opponents. Next year, you'd do better predicting their record based upon the point differential, instead of the 8-8 record, or their offensive/defensive rankings, strength of schedule, etc.)

Another way of thinking of it is that the Pythagorean projection identifies how lucky/unlucky teams were to get to their record.

So, plugging the numbers for this year in...it turns out that the 49ers have the best "expected" record in the league: 9.6 wins. Green Bay only has 9.0 wins, suggesting that the Packers have been significantly lucky to get to 12-0. Green Bay isn't even in 2nd place - Houston has 9.2 expected wins, although with their QB situation that's probably not going to last for long.

This stat isn't the gospel or anything. Green Bay may well be getting under-appreciated a bit. But also reflects how a more-rounded team like SF might actually be playing better overall than a team that does one thing extraordinarily well but really struggles elsewhere (e.g., the Packers having 47 rushing yards on 24 carries against a bad, banged up NYG rush D - truly pathetic numbers when you have a Rodgers passing attack)

If anything, it bodes very well for our future staying power as a NFC powerhouse.

This stat isn't the gospel or anything. Green Bay may well be getting under-appreciated a bit. But also reflects how a more-rounded team like SF might actually be playing better overall than a team that does one thing extraordinarily well but really struggles elsewhere (e.g., the Packers having 47 rushing yards on 24 carries against a bad, banged up NYG rush D - truly pathetic numbers when you have a Rodgers passing attack)QUOTE. LOL


hey Einstein. Let me ask you something. If a team does something really well. I mean exeptionally well and the opposing team knows it and prepares for it yet cant stop it then please explain why you need to even run it. THey run just enuf to keep the teams honest. Rodgers is lights out. Thow all your harvard regresion analysis and your multiplication win percentage. It means squat. THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE 12-0 FOR A REASON. THEY PASS THE BALL AND HAVE AN ELITE QB. A more rounded team is great for soup talk but the bottom line is that they along with new orleans are huge hurdles to overcome playoff time. Hurdles that they will not overcome. Hows that for quantitative analysis.

sure pal