GatewayRedbirds.com

pioneer98 wrote:

JL21 wrote:Season-long parity and individual season strength aren't really the same as random variation or confidence in outcomes.

OK.

I still say MLB has more random variation and less confidence in who will win on any given day than football.

EDIT: but we are talking about playoffs. Season-long parity and individual season strength are what determines which teams make the playoffs and play in things like the Super Bowl.

Sorry, I was rushed when I typed that and it probably came off rude. Not my intention, and I think this can be a great discussion.

What I'm thinking, though… compare and contrast just how much of baseball can be predicted within a really reasonable measure of accuracy. That's because there's so much more data to work with. What can't be predicted, however, are the ticky tacky luck events, like a flurry of odd, well-timed base hits that make a team go from 85 wins and 2nd place to 93 wins and a playoff spot. Look at the Orioles last year, for instance, and their bizarre ability to win tight games in historically successful ways. Without that, they would've been on the outside looking in come playoff time.

Football, on the other hand, has 1/10th of the data to work with, and that's not even applicable to a lot of positions. I don't know for sure but I doubt there's any sort of predictive model for guys on the OL, or whether or not there's any kind of accuracy to the projections for several of the skill positions. Defense is even more of a crapshoot because so many of the stats that are tracked are kind of meaningless.

Now, teams… maybe teams are more predictive in the NFL. Is that a function of a wider gap in talent evaluation? And while there's been a lot of static Super Bowl appearances, there's at least one team every year that goes from garbage to the playoffs. Look at the Chiefs and Panthers this year, or the Colts and Redskins last year. In 2011, it was the Niners. And the reverse is true, too. Houston completely collapsed, for instance.

Freed Roger wrote:

jim wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote: But I don't think Sherman is wrong, all he's did was claim the obvious - the SF matchup was the tougher game for them and thus a tougher matchup -how in the world, in retrospect, wasn't it?

I took offene (as a Denver fan, obviously) to his statement that San Francisco was the second best team in the NFL. If he had simply said that San Francisco played a better game than Denver in their matchup........ well, duh!

To be fair, he was comparing playing the 49ers to playing the Vienna Boys Choir, so we have to cut him a little slack on the diplomacy thing.

Hey, don't sell the Vienna Boys Choir short! They've qualified for the playoffs as many times as the Rams have over the last 9 years or so!

Socnorb11 wrote:Really, even more than the whole "San Fran is better than Denver" statement that he made, it torques me a little that he, once again, is giving full credit to himself (or, in this case, Seattle's secondary). In reality, Seattle's front 7 is what gave Denver fits. I'll absolutely take my hat off to them............ but apparently Sherman won't.

The problem I have with Sherman is that it's alwasy about Sherman.

That's what I like about Sherman. In a CB I want the football Walter White: extreme talent and that kind of F You hubris. You show me a humble corner I'll show you a guy gets smoked by a good WR.

33anda3rd wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:Really, even more than the whole "San Fran is better than Denver" statement that he made, it torques me a little that he, once again, is giving full credit to himself (or, in this case, Seattle's secondary). In reality, Seattle's front 7 is what gave Denver fits. I'll absolutely take my hat off to them............ but apparently Sherman won't.

The problem I have with Sherman is that it's alwasy about Sherman.

That's what I like about Sherman. In a CB I want the football Walter White: extreme talent and that kind of F You hubris. You show me a humble corner I'll show you a guy gets smoked by a good WR.

Champ Bailey says hello.

(Caveat: he's lost a step over the years, but he's been one of the best for a decade, and he's not "in your face").

Aeneas Williams

Secret Weapon wrote:Aeneas Williams

+
Great team player-well deserving of HOF.

Rams had him on the back end of his career, lost a step, and from what I read, he never really had great speed to begin with -and he was still a superb player.

I remember him popping Terrell Owens when TO was in full yapper stage. TO -much bigger than Williams- and Aeneas clocked him. That's how you do your talking. And he had a knack for taking his interceptions to the house.

I think he may still live in STL area, at least part time? One time I was with the kids at Tilles County Park -and he was out walking and reading his Bible. Not to build him up as a hero on/off the field, because I don't know him-but he seems to be a cat who walks the walk, instead of just talking the talk.

Darrell Green

Freed Roger wrote:I didn't realized he added that bold part- it was in the link, but not in Rad's quote -so Radbird is to blamefor all our wasted time.

C'mon Roger. I don't just make this [expletive] up. And this entire site is a waste of time - which is why I'm always here...

Let's talk about important stuff - like stealing signals.

cardsfansince82 wrote:Darrell Green

+
Roger Wehrli. Emmitt Thomas

There's less parity in the NFL (look how many teams win 66% or more of their games and how many lose 75% or more--unheard of numbers in baseball) because there's less luck/variation. It's matchups and gameplan, and the best matchups and gameplan win.

Sure, Seattle loses to a bad team once in a while--like 7% of their games. But good baseball teams lose to bad ones about 40% of the time.