Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Silly if you ask me, they basically robbed us of a home game.

Not sure what was in it for them, but we can't really blame the NFL.

These kind of things are always about money. I'm sure the Vikings got paid handsomely to appear in England. 

The only worse matchup they could put there would be Browns and jaguars. This is a terrible way to showcase football.

Quote from: TheHobbit on September 27, 2013, 03:36:11 PM

Silly if you ask me, they basically robbed us of a home game.

That's what I thought at first as well...but looking more into it, I found out that the Vikings agreed to give up the home game. Not sure what was in it for them, but we can't really blame the NFL.

Yeah, the Vikings definitely agreed to it. We'll likely have a game there the next couple seasons as well since our regular home games will be at TCF Bank stadium...which is significantly smaller than the Metrodome and Wembley.

We are definitely a Wild card team now and I still think we will win our division. Packers are sluggish, the Bears are human, and the Lions always find ways to lose games.

That said, it's looking like the Lions are trying to turn the NFC North completely on its head. If they go into Lambeau next week and come out with a win, they might just become the favorites to win the division.

That's a mighty big if, given that the Hobbit wasn't even born the last time the Lions came back from a road trip to Wisconsin with a W under their belt.

Historical stats have less than 0% bearing on the game.

The correctness of your assertion stands at less than 0%. Unlike the stock market (and other examples), NFL game results are not a stochastic process.

The 2004 Red Sox agree with Alex. 

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on October 01, 2013, 08:51:42 AM

Historical stats have less than 0% bearing on the game.

Historical stats have significantly more than 0% bearing on the psyche.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 01, 2013, 11:57:44 AM

The 2004 Red Sox agree with Alex. 

The 1946, 1967, 1975, 1978, 1986, and 2003 Red Sox agree with me.

This is kind of stuff the media and fans like to blow up when they mean nothing.

Considering most players have played for the lions for 5 or less years looking at any data beyond those years is an exercise in futility, and last time I checked, 20 is more than 5.

In any professional sport the quality of play and things like quality of play at home (home field advantage) are highly correlated from year to year. This is so seems so self-evident to me that I find it difficult to understand why anyone would believe that there are no long-term performance trends in the NFL. (This is almost certainly a failure of imagination on may part.)

As a really simple example we could look at winning percentages or top cut rates for teams over time. Since 2000 (13 complete seasons or more than twice your 5 year number) Green Bay has made the post-season 9 times. Given that each year 37.5% of the teams make the playoffs, the chance of a team getting to the playoffs 9 or more times over a 13 year period is ~2%. Given this number--if performance in uncorrelated from year to year (as you seem to be claiming)--we would expect less than one team (0.64 teams) to have achieved a mark of 9 playoffs berths or better since 2000. The records shows there were five (Colts, Patriots, Ravens, Packers, and Eagles).

And that's even granting the idea that last year matters which I don't really know if I agree with.

Unless you started the season thinking that Jacksonville and St. Louis were just as likely to get to the Superbowl this year as Denver or Seattle, of course you believe that last year matters when it comes to predicting performance.

The fact that the 2004 comeback came the very next year after the 2003 Pedro debacle further supports Alex's notion. The team (and fans) had no reason to believe that they could come back from 3-0, especially while losing in the 9th inning of Game 4. And yet, the unlikely happened. To assume that the unlikely will never happen is not logical. Statistically speaking, the unlikely has to happen eventually. I'm sure Appalachian State is glad of that, too. 

Just to be clear--I am not suggesting that the unlikely cannot happen or that Green Bay is a lock. I am merely making note of the historic fact that in the recent past Detroit has consistently underperformed when playing in Wisconsin, which lessens the likelihood that they will win this Sunday.