Let's bust this myth

[Angry Ram]

Rams Steelers Vikings Patriots Eagles Saints shitbirds

Opponent Wins 62 62 65 69 54 72 61
Opponent Loss 70 69 67 63 78 60 71

132 each combined games (except Steelers who haven't played yet this week).

Not much variance in opponents' W/L.

But...but...who have they played?!?!?!

 

[Mackeyser]

Only the Pats and Saints have played opponents averaging above .500

So yeah.

The strength of schedule and team health play a MASSIVE role in how a team plays.

Well, that and if the tough games are at home or on the road...

 

[Jacobarch]

That's a nice stat on the Eagles. I have told myself all season they've been playing against terrible teams and proof is in the numbers. Hopefully we are on our A game this week.

 

[RamsOfCastamere]

Only the Pats and Saints have played opponents averaging above .500

So yeah.

The strength of schedule and team health play a MASSIVE role in how a team plays.

Well, that and if the tough games are at home or on the road...

I don't like SOS because they vary week to week. A lot of those AFC teams are hovering around 5-7, 6-6, 4-8, so one week, if they win, your SOS is better, then it drops the next week if they lose. The Chiefs are skewing the scale too by choking and letting all of these bum teams get a win too.

 

[LACHAMP46]

after one or two nice tests...doesn't matter much....after Minn. I think we play a lil different too....

 

[KayJay]

I pretty much go by the losing team you played against. For instance, we walked into Dallas and beat Zeke, Dak and Dez Bryant. They don't have Zeke right now, so we probably played them at their best. The Jaguars were hot when we played them, and we beat them in Jacksonville. Saints were hot, we were coming off a loss; showed up and we beat them too. I look at quality, not quantity. Rams have actual quality wins under their belt. I can say the same about every team on that list except for two. That's the Eagles and the Steelers. There are no quality wins for either of those teams unless you want to count Pittsburgh beating Baltimore's defense. The Eagles however, lets just keep it real. Wins are wins regardless, and you can't take those away from them; but yesterday was their first real test. If they did win against us, that would be their first actual signature win.

We are their measuring stick, just as they are ours. Its time we learned about both these teams.

 

[Raptorman]

Rams Steelers Vikings Patriots Eagles Saints shitbirds

Opponent Wins 62 62 65 69 54 72 61
Opponent Loss 70 69 67 63 78 60 71

132 each combined games (except Steelers who haven't played yet this week).

Not much variance in opponents' W/L.

But...but...who have they played?!?!?!

Sorry, but I have to Myth bust your Mythbusted. Not a good way of looking at "But who did they play" Here's why. Two teams same SOS. Which is a BS way of deciding a Tie breaker in my book. Team 1 has played 7 Teams with winning records while team 2 has played 2.

Team 1          Team 2
W     L         W    L
1    11         4    8
8     4         4    8
8     4         5    7
9     3         5    7
8     4        12    0
10    2        12    0
0    12         5    7
9     3         5    7
5     7         5    7
6     6         5    7
0    12         4    8
7     5         5    7
71   73        71    73

BTW, after 12 weeks, it should be 144 games.

 

[Raptorman]

Only the Pats and Saints have played opponents averaging above .500

So yeah.

The strength of schedule and team health play a MASSIVE role in how a team plays.

Well, that and if the tough games are at home or on the road...

Delete the Browns from the Vikings schedule and they go to .542. Go in, delete the highest and lowest team, then figure SOS. Much more realistic.

 

[Angry Ram]

Only the Pats and Saints have played opponents averaging above .500

So yeah.

The strength of schedule and team health play a MASSIVE role in how a team plays.

Well, that and if the tough games are at home or on the road...

I'd say only the Saints have the hardest with the Panthers and Falcons in their division. Anyone really think Miami and Buffalo are playoff teams? lol.

That's a nice stat on the Eagles. I have told myself all season they've been playing against terrible teams and proof is in the numbers. Hopefully we are on our A game this week.

Point wasn't to expose the Eagles. I like them. Point was to expose the shitbirds and how "great" they are and the Rams aren't, even though they play essentially the teams.

That's the Eagles and the Steelers. There are no quality wins for either of those teams unless you want to count Pittsburgh beating Baltimore's defense.

Steelers have beaten the Vikings and Titans in addition to Ravens.

Sorry, but I have to Myth bust your Mythbusted. Not a good way of looking at "But who did they play" Here's why. Two teams same SOS. Which is a BS way of deciding a Tie breaker in my book. Team 1 has played 7 Teams with winning records while team 2 has played 2.

You're doing hypotheticals. Your list doesn't exist.

One can't be a member of the criticism police and claim a team "hasn't beaten anyone" then go on to praise a team like the fuckin shitchickens that play the same teams.

Because fuck the shitbirds.

Yes this whole post is fueled from my rage last night.

 

[KayJay]

Steelers have beaten the Vikings and Titans in addition to Ravens.

This is why I spoke of quality over quantity. That Minnesota team, much like the Saints team through the first five weeks is totally different from the one we played against. I'd bet my life, that if the Steelers played against the same Minnesota team now; they would of been demolished. But, that's just my opinion. As for the Titans, they've looked vulnerable all season long. So I'll go ahead and double down on my previous statement. I am unimpressed with the Steelers overall, and they have yet to record a single signature win outside of a Ravens team and Joe Fluke-o.

 

[Raptorman]

You're doing hypotheticals. Your list doesn't exist.

One can't be a member of the criticism police and claim a team "hasn't beaten anyone" then go on to praise a team like the freakin shitchickens that play the same teams.

The list may not exist but the point is valid.

 

[Mackeyser]

I don't like SOS because they vary week to week. A lot of those AFC teams are hovering around 5-7, 6-6, 4-8, so one week, if they win, your SOS is better, then it drops the next week if they lose. The Chiefs are skewing the scale too by choking and letting all of these bum teams get a win too.

I maintain that the current iteration of SoS is meaningless.

Case in point: Beating the Chiefs in week 1-5 would have meant MUCH more than beating them in week 10.

I maintain that a meaningful SoS would be like this.

Week 1: no SoS.

Week 2: Week 1 SoS only. No other games including Week 2 are to be considered. (to consider one's own games is to skew the record. Winning teams would be penalized and losing teams would be given more benefit)

Week 3: Week 1-2 only. No other games including Week 3 are to be considered.

And so on...

Thus, it wouldn't matter if you played an opponent in week 2 that went 15-1 if they'd lost their first game. Your SoS for that opponent would be 0-1. That's it.

Teams would get NO credit for teams that win after they played, nor would they be penalized for teams that lose after they played.

The Eagles and Pats are being penalized because the Chiefs have lost their way after looking unstoppable in the first 5 weeks.

Thus instead of having 192 games that count (12 opponents x 16 games), it would be the sum of 1-15, or 120 games total and those would ONLY precede the contests for each opponent. Then we have to remove divisional games. That makes it 114. The reason it's 114 (or 113 if the last game is a divisional game) is that divisonal opponents are still counted twice with this new metric (since their improvement or decline matters), but the actual games a team played against that divisional opponent would NOT be counted.

Such a system would be far more impartial and relevant to how a team is performing week to week across a season.

Moreover, a further improvement would be to weight up to 4 immediately preceding games (I say up to because obviously, that can't happen before week 5). That would better illustrate how a team is performing in that moment and better capture sustained success or failure.

Moreover, when it comes to using SoS for conference schedules, I think yet another improvement would be to adjust for how a conference performs in non-divisional games. For example, the Pats SoS would be adjusted downward slightly most years because the AFC East in many years has been pretty bad.

The current system is so basic and creates such bias...

What kills me is that a programmer could put together the algorithm for ALL of these parameters probably in less than a day (the UI and other issues would or could take longer)

I won't speculate on why they continue to use such a biased and basic system. If I had money or was a programmer, I'd just have the tool made and then promote the crap out of it because unlike DVR... my "Adjusted Strength of Schedule" ...well... I'd have to figure another name because no-one wants to have the toughest "ASS" or be known to beat the softest "ASS"... and we all know fans and pundits wouldn't stick with ASOS... maybe Modified Strength of Schedule... yeah... that's better...

Anyway, the current stat that is SoS has so many flaws that to me, it's barely a useful tool. It COULD be useful, but it isn't very much at this time the way it's compiled and used.

 

[Farr Be It]

Delete the Browns from the Vikings schedule and they go to .542. Go in, delete the highest and lowest team, then figure SOS. Much more realistic.

Interesting, Raptorman. You were taking essentially the opposite perspective when I laid out the case for the Rams being pretty decent against the run, once you take out the higher than average gash runs. It has seemed to bear out. I'd love to see our first have/second half run defense numbers.

I do agree with your perspective on this issue. Opponent record does not tell the whole story. Teams are also different early in the season, and later. (See San Diego, Kansas City, SEATTLE)

 

[Raptorman]

Interesting, Raptorman. You were taking essentially the opposite perspective when I laid out the case for the Rams being pretty decent against the run, once you take out the higher than average gash runs. It has seemed to bear out. I'd love to see our first have/second half run defense numbers.

I do agree with your perspective on this issue. Opponent record does not tell the whole story. Teams are also different early in the season, and later. (See San Diego, Kansas City, SEATTLE)

I remember the conversation. While deleting the high and lows is much more realistic it's still not a good way to look at it. A better way would be to line them up, sort them by wins and compare them next to each other. That way you have the wins and losses next to each other.

Here, one team after 12 weeks can make a huge difference. Take the Rams. If you consider that you easily could have played the 2-10 Niners already, well you kinda have in the playing the Giants. That's two 2-10 teams you have played. Now, what happens if you take those to games out? Ram SOS goes to .525. Now take out the two lowest from the Eagles. They go from .405 to .458. But that's still not the crux of the problem. SOS only shows the total, and that's why I said I had a problem with it being used for tie breaking purpose's. Basically because you end up with the same type of situation in the running discussion. "If they hadn't played this team". And in playing teams, it's more about when you play them than anything else. Anyone think the Packers Bucs game would have gone into OT if Rodgers had been playing? Or if the Vikings played the Steelers next week? There is no way to look at SOS purely through totals in my view.

Look at the Patriots. They played the Chiefs, Saints, Texans and Panthers the first 4 games. Everyone was "wow, the Pats are 2-2, what's wrong?" since then they have played one team with a winning record. The Falcons. Everyone else is .500 or below. So who have they played? Well a good KC team, A Saints team that some think wasn't so hot in the beginning of the year, and the Falcons when they weren't doing well. But Brady is back to being Brady. The only current winning team they play the rest of the year is the Steelers. So expect them to be 14-2 or 13-3.

 

[Raptorman]

You really want to look at SOS? Look at how many teams in current playoff positions your team has played. The Vikings have played the Steelers, Ravens, Saints, Falcons, and Rams. Next week we play the Panthers. So far they are 4-1

The Rams have played the Vikings, Saints. Seahawks and Jags. And of course have the Eagles this week. So far 2-2. (soon to be 3-2)

The Eagles have played Chiefs, Panthers and Seahawks, and play the Rams next week. So far they are 1-2. (soon to be 1-3)

 

[Zero]

Rams Steelers Vikings Patriots Eagles Saints shitbirds

Opponent Wins 62 62 65 69 54 72 61
Opponent Loss 70 69 67 63 78 60 71

132 each combined games (except Steelers who haven't played yet this week).

Not much variance in opponents' W/L.

But...but...who have they played?!?!?!

Hmmm.A little bird defeathering.

 

[Farr Be It]

You really want to look at SOS? Look at how many teams in current playoff positions your team has played. The Vikings have played the Steelers, Ravens, Saints, Falcons, and Rams. Next week we play the Panthers. So far they are 4-1

The Rams have played the Vikings, Saints. Seahawks and Jags. And of course have the Eagles this week. So far 2-2. (soon to be 3-2)

The Eagles have played Chiefs, Panthers and Seahawks, and play the Rams next week. So far they are 1-2. (soon to be 1-3)

I’m tracking with you. WHEN you play a team, WHERE you play. WHO is injured or suspended. Many things play into SOS. I think this partly explains the Eagles being slightly overrated. And maybe the Vikings slightly underrated. Though most people’s eyes are open now.

 

[Angry Ram]

The list may not exist but the point is valid.

I only have one point:

Fuck the shitchickens.

 

[Angry Ram]

This is why I spoke of quality over quantity. That Minnesota team, much like the Saints team through the first five weeks is totally different from the one we played against. I'd bet my life, that if the Steelers played against the same Minnesota team now; they would of been demolished. But, that's just my opinion. As for the Titans, they've looked vulnerable all season long. So I'll go ahead and double down on my previous statement. I am unimpressed with the Steelers overall, and they have yet to record a single signature win outside of a Ravens team and Joe Fluke-o.

It doesn't matter man. Like you said in your posts, wins are wins.

This whole thing about quality wins, I've never heard about until this year. It was fine for Arizona, SF, and the shitbirds to beat up the 15-65 Rams for a decade but now, FINALLY. FINALLY, the Rams have turned the corner and it's being discredited (and the Steelers too, to a certain extent).

 

[1maGoh]

The list may not exist but the point is valid.

It wasn't, abiding to you, when we were talking about the Rams rush defense a few weeks ago. You can't have it both ways.