Originally Posted by Jaybone2315

I could realistically name off like 5-6 teams in the NFC that I wouldnt be surprised one bit if they made the Super bowl.

I come up with 5. Would be at least a little surprised if any others made the SB.

 

Originally Posted by snaggs

cause athletes are so intelligent...

dots...you cant be serious.
theyre intelligent enough to be among the top .03% of earners in the country. I think they know what color the sky is!

Not to mention my words have been twisted around so much thus far that many of you are arguing about something that I never brought up. My original point is that it is very difficult in the NFL to be 6-0 by fluke. Not sure where all of this "algebra" came in at or all of the other extraneous points

The absurd 72-0 comment I made was in reference to that other guys saying going 6-0 in MLB is as easy as winning a half in the NFL. So the math says that if 12-0 in MLB is as likely as winning 1 NFL game then obviously winning 6 NFL games is equivalent to 72 MLB games. . . unless he was merely showing the differences in % of the season each game compromises which would be a very odd thing to argue since that has nothing to do with anything that has been brought up in this thread

Okay. . . umm .. . so what have I said that has been so absurd thus far? What "argument" have I made or what opinion have I stated that does not make sense?

first, no one said atlantas bad.

second, thats not even what you said, youre just trying to alter your position, because it was so goddam stupid, to one thats purely subjective and cannot be disproven. like how can we really define a team as bad in the nfl without enough sample size to see whether a 6 game winstreak was truly a fluke. however we do recently have denver starting 6-0 only to miss the playoffs.

third

and the Houston Rockets have the longest streak in NBA history.
it was while Yao was injured.
they won 22 straight with rafer alston and shane battier and like chuck hayes. add in carl landry, metta, scola, aaron brooks, and some kyle lowry

If you guys want to talk about variance, could you please explain why the Falcons couldn't have some positive variance in the playoffs this season?

 

Originally Posted by AMARTIN1181

I mean i get what u r saying but variance is the wrong word. It's not luck when one team beats the other, they usually just out play them that time. Whereas poker is like straight up bad luck or good luck in a lot of "high variance" spots. I mean I get it and all i just don't think its pure variance or whatever.

variance isn't about "luck," it's about probabilities

 

Originally Posted by warden

variance isn't about "luck," it's about probabilities

whatever i just disagree with the use of the word the way poker players use it. Sports aren't poker.

i get it

 

Originally Posted by marinersheep

kevdog just cannot be real

sums it up for me.

 

Originally Posted by AMARTIN1181

whatever i just disagree with the use of the word the way poker players use it. Sports aren't poker.

variance isn't a poker only term just because you say it is, variance simply deals with probabilities.

when you play a game where the ball is oblong, or a round object strikes a round ball, there will be variance. shit's real.

 

Originally Posted by AMARTIN1181

when poker players use "variance" to explain the results in sports i always laugh. I mean i get what u r saying but variance is the wrong word. It's not luck when one team beats the other, they usually just out play them that time. Whereas poker is like straight up bad luck or good luck in a lot of "high variance" spots. I mean I get it and all i just don't think its pure variance or whatever.

lol, wut?

How often does a .993 fielder boot a ball to change the complexion of a game, and possibly a series in baseball?

How often does Peyton Manning go off for 3 INTs in one quarter?

Turnovers happen at random with stupid bounces of the ball, and are the great equalizer, very much like diarrhea.

 

Originally Posted by AMARTIN1181

when poker players use "variance" to explain the results in sports i always laugh. I mean i get what u r saying but variance is the wrong word. It's not luck when one team beats the other, they usually just out play them that time. Whereas poker is like straight up bad luck or good luck in a lot of "high variance" spots. I mean I get it and all i just don't think its pure variance or whatever.

I agree there are a lot of factors to consider, and pure luck is not the most important.

What I don't get is people discrediting the Falcons because of past results, and I think we can all agree their playoff resume is a good example of poor variance at least when it comes to drawing opponents.

If you run into a playoff caliber team that's playing better than almost anyone in the NFL, you're going to lose most of the time. I'm just not convinced that Atlanta couldn't be that team that's playing better than almost anyone in the NFL come playoff time.

Randers, you're a jerk for bringing that stuff up.

I think your spot on JTown about people discrediting the Falcons until they win a playoff game. They could go 16-0 this year and people will still say they are like they 8th best team in the league. Just look at the different responses following the Washington game. Somehow Atlanta sucked in finding a way to win on the road, yet for NY it was a sign of a good team to be able to squeak by the same team AT HOME. But the Giants have won playoff games recently and the Falcons have not . . .