The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:57 pm**

Does anyone here look at the Sagarin Ratings?:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl04.htm

It has the Skins rated 14 out of 32.
The Giants, Cowboys, and Browns are all Top 10.

This contradicts everything I hear about how
bad these 3 teams are. :?:

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:13 pm**

Yeah, the bears are number 6???? We should let the computer pick the super bowl winner like the BCS.

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:35 pm**

I'm wondering how in the heck we managed to be as high as "14"?

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:41 pm**

You shouldn't use it to pick a champion.

But it is unbiased ... and most of the time,
it is quite accurate.

The Bears are rated highly because they
beat the Packers on the road, and all of
their losses are against top-rated teams
(Lions, Vikings, Eagles).

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:50 pm**

but how does a team with no wins (the bucs) rank higher then two teams with two wins the Rams and Saints?

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:51 pm**

I'm wondering how in the heck we managed to be as high as "14"?

Probably because we narrowly lost to top-rated teams.
The Sagarin Rating is based on:

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:22 pm**

For historical references, the Skins were ranked
25th (out of 32) at the end of the 2002 & 2003 seasons.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl02.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl03.htm

So, even though our record (1-3) indicates otherwise,
there has actually been an improvement over the
Spurrier era.

I should note that the Sagarin rating becomes more
accurate as the season progresses.

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:03 pm**

There is a famous quote by B. Disraeli (and Mark Twain after that) on this subject:

"There are three kinds of lies:

lies, damn lies, and statistics."

We will -know- that our team has improved when the facts reveal themselves on the field with quality plays and on the score with points.

The rest... Well, it is a matter of statistics as Mark Twain said...

Posted: **Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:11 pm**

I think the list is a nice alternative to the ESPN rankings, which rely so heavily on one's W-L record that they are often not that great (in my opinion). I'm not saying that this list is better, it's probably much worse for the time being; but I agree that over time it will probably be more accurate than ESPN's rankings.

Then again, maybe not.

Posted: **Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:05 am**

Redskin in Canada:

It is interesting to read your opinion about
statistics and then see what you choose to
list as your signature.

Posted: **Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:23 am**

Actually those aren't statistics but facts. Statistics can never prove anything, only support a belief.

Posted: **Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:25 am**

SkinsFan4Life - this is another BS "list". How can we take this seriously? Can anyone really "rate" the Lions and Giants over the Patriots, Colts and Seattle?

By the way - my list has the Skins at #17!!

Good point about the avatar.

Posted: **Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:24 pm**

By the way - my list has the Skins at #17!!

The Skins moved down 3 steps after the MNF game was completed.

Can anyone really "rate" the Lions and Giants over the Patriots, Colts and Seattle?

If you look at the RATING numbers carefully, the
Lions, Giants, and Patriots are all bunched together
(difference of 0.35 points). They are essentially
all tied for 3rd.

Anyway, I was also very surprised at the Sagarin
Rating --- particularly at how high the Bears are
rated. But if you look carefully at the records of
each team, their opponents, the margin of victory,
and whether the game is at home or on the road,
things seem to make more sense. The rating is not
perfect; but it should get better as each week
passes.

Posted: **Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:31 pm**

NIcely done Skinsfan4life.

Posted: **Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:47 pm**

i really dislike rankings of any type.. i guess they provide some insight by some sports writer but the only ranking that matters to me are based on team records.. plus those rankings usually make me depressed the way things have been going :evil:

Posted: **Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:48 am**

SkinsFan4Life wrote:Redskin in Canada:

It is interesting to read your opinion about
statistics and then see what you choose to
list as your signature.

In football as much as in political elections the -ONLY- statistic that -really- counts is the score at the end of the game and the actual election.

Team rankings as much as political polls are good entertainment and half-baked opinions but no much more.

Statistics would have shown no chance for a victory in game six in 1991 after 5 straight loses.

Statistics, at least as they are use in these systems, can not account for intangible facts and continued improvement in play. That is why you will lose money every time you bet anything based solely on statistics!

The only statistic that matters is your record and we are 1-3. That number is -actually- reflected in my sugnature. I am hoping to add to the left column real soon.

I believe!

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:37 pm**

Statistics would have shown no chance for a victory in game six in 1991 after 5 straight loses.

Do you mean 1981? Or 2001? Your statistics show
that we lost only two games in 1991. You are off
by a decade it seems.

That is why you will lose money every time you bet anything based solely on statistics!

Not true. In betting, you can't win all the time.
Nor can you lose all the time ... even if you try.

The only statistic that matters is your record

Also not true. In the NFL, it matters which
division you are in. That's why some teams make
it to the playoffs; while others with the same
or even better records are left out. If you look
at the tie-breaking rules, the margin of
victory and strength of schedule are included.
Those stats are parts of the Sagarin's rating.
See the link below for the tie-breaking rules:

http://www.southendzone.com/packerg/nfl/tiebreaker/

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:48 pm**

Well, if it has us at #14 with a 1-3 record...I just ignore it.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:09 pm**

SkinsFan4Life wrote:Do you mean 1981? Or 2001? Your statistics show
that we lost only two games in 1991. You are off
by a decade it seems.

No, I am not off by a decade. I am talking about Joe Gibbs, not Marty. This is precisely the point of this "statistic". But I assuned you went that far back as a Skins' fan. Sorry.

Not true. In betting, you can't win all the time.
Nor can you lose all the time ... even if you try.

So, the more you lose the more chances you have to win eh? No relationship to play, coaching preparation etc...

In the NFL, it matters which division you are in.

No kidding... :shock:

But fourth place will get you nowhere no matter how many victories you have. Let us cheer for the Skins on Sunday evening. I look forward to the only statistic that really counts at the end of that game: the score.