ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Well, for one, they don't clearly define the criteria for better vs. worse. The conclusion points out some ways in which the 'Boys were more impressive than the Pats, but they arbitrarily pick other criteria as more important and decide Pats > Cowboys based on that. That's not objective analysis, it's subjective opinion based on cherry-picked quantitative data.
Their "Quality Opponents" measure is very, very problematic. It only looks at opponent records, regardless of quality of their competition, and doesn't include potentially balancing factors, such as losses vs. poor opponents. A 2-12 team could be ranked higher than a 10-4 team in that system.
There are no controls whatsoever in the measures they use to compare the '92 Cowboys vs. the '04 Patriots, even though more than a decade lies between them. As a data analyst/statistician, the first thing that jumps out is that ALL numbers are higher with the '04 Pats...yards gained AND allowed, pass/rush gained and allowed, etc. Also, despite the fact that the Pats YPG was higher than the Boys, they were ranked lower. This suggests strongly that yardage was up league-wide in 2004 compared to 1994, so comparing straight-up numbers is not going to give a helpful measure of relative ability. (If that's even what they're looking for; they don't say)
It's fine if you want to say "based on these criteria, team X was better," but one could just as easily pick other measures, insert some statistical controls, and demonstrate the opposite. In a solid statistical study, you define your criteria ahead of time, and you use statistical controls to clean up the "noise" in the data.
Well, for one, they don't clearly define the criteria for better vs. worse. The conclusion points out some ways in which the 'Boys were more impressive than the Pats, but they arbitrarily pick other criteria as more important and decide Pats > Cowboys based on that. That's not objective analysis, it's subjective opinion based on cherry-picked quantitative data.
Their "Quality Opponents" measure is very, very problematic. It only looks at opponent records, regardless of quality of their competition, and doesn't include potentially balancing factors, such as losses vs. poor opponents. A 2-12 team could be ranked higher than a 10-4 team in that system.
There are no controls whatsoever in the measures they use to compare the '92 Cowboys vs. the '04 Patriots, even though more than a decade lies between them. As a data analyst/statistician, the first thing that jumps out is that ALL numbers are higher with the '04 Pats...yards gained AND allowed, pass/rush gained and allowed, etc. Also, despite the fact that the Pats YPG was higher than the Boys, they were ranked lower. This suggests strongly that yardage was up league-wide in 2004 compared to 1994, so comparing straight-up numbers is not going to give a helpful measure of relative ability. (If that's even what they're looking for; they don't say)
It's fine if you want to say "based on these criteria, team X was better," but one could just as easily pick other measures, insert some statistical controls, and demonstrate the opposite. In a solid statistical study, you define your criteria ahead of time, and you use statistical controls to clean up the "noise" in the data.
It concludes the Patriots were better than Dallas, so I think the analysis was spot on - perfect!
Well, for one, they don't clearly define the criteria for better vs. worse. The conclusion points out some ways in which the 'Boys were more impressive than the Pats, but they arbitrarily pick other criteria as more important and decide Pats > Cowboys based on that. That's not objective analysis, it's subjective opinion based on cherry-picked quantitative data.
Their "Quality Opponents" measure is very, very problematic. It only looks at opponent records, regardless of quality of their competition, and doesn't include potentially balancing factors, such as losses vs. poor opponents. A 2-12 team could be ranked higher than a 10-4 team in that system.
There are no controls whatsoever in the measures they use to compare the '92 Cowboys vs. the '04 Patriots, even though more than a decade lies between them. As a data analyst/statistician, the first thing that jumps out is that ALL numbers are higher with the '04 Pats...yards gained AND allowed, pass/rush gained and allowed, etc. Also, despite the fact that the Pats YPG was higher than the Boys, they were ranked lower. This suggests strongly that yardage was up league-wide in 2004 compared to 1994, so comparing straight-up numbers is not going to give a helpful measure of relative ability. (If that's even what they're looking for; they don't say)
It's fine if you want to say "based on these criteria, team X was better," but one could just as easily pick other measures, insert some statistical controls, and demonstrate the opposite. In a solid statistical study, you define your criteria ahead of time, and you use statistical controls to clean up the "noise" in the data.
Your premise that it can be objective is impossible to begin with anyhow. They did not play each other and they did not play simultaneously.
It can only be a subjective-opinion based analysis.
__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com
if you read the article, though, he basically argues himself to a standstill listing various feats from both sides - and then concludes in favor of the Patriots. Although his analysis is interesting, I don't find his conclusion compelling.
I'll add my own two cents: I grew up rooting for the Aikman Cowboys because a couple members of my family did, and switched to the Patriots (as my hometown team) once I realized that being a bandwagoner sucks. And I can say with absolute conviction that as good as he was, Troy Aikman was no Tom Brady.
if you read the article, though, he basically argues himself to a standstill listing various feats from both sides - and then concludes in favor of the Patriots. Although his analysis is interesting, I don't find his conclusion compelling.
I'll add my own two cents: I grew up rooting for the Aikman Cowboys because a couple members of my family did, and switched to the Patriots (as my hometown team) once I realized that being a bandwagoner sucks. And I can say with absolute conviction that as good as he was, Troy Aikman was no Tom Brady.
The whole switching from champion fan base to fan base sounds a little fishy to me.
CHFF: '04 Pats > '92 Boys
Linear Mode
