I've given the #'s numerous times in this thread. the odds of winning ALL games X,Y,Z can be found by multiplying the individual odds to win each game.
2 posters mocked me for stating a mathematical proof.
so I offered money on my side to back up my statements. neither replied.
You expect me to search this massive thread and read all your posts? Clearly your ego exceeds your reach sir.
The problem is that your simplistic formula does not in fact consider ALL factors possible.
For instance it cannot account for overall team as well as individual talent, egos, coaching, teamwork, preparation, injuries, etc. Therefore your formula is merely a convenient tool, and nothing more than that, to calculate ROUGH probabilities while telling us nothing conclusive.
Can your formula predict that Randy Moss would catch something near 150 yards and a TD in a crucial performance against the Colts or that Wes Welker would catch a key TD, then make a key 3rd down catch to seal the game against the Colts secondary? Can it account for injuries to Marvin Harrison, Gonzales, and Ugo and the resultant impact on the Colts as a team? No it cannot.
In short your formula is far too CRUDE to be used as a confident predictor of results in football games.
IF you can manage to make a substantial enough argument to disprove my points, I would be glad to make a wager. Let this wager at least benefit a charitable foundation. The loser of said wager is to donate $50 to the Bread of Life. My wager is that your crude and oversimplistic formulas prove bubkus, and that the Patriots will go 16-0. If I lose I will admit that the gods of probability defeated me and I will donate the aforesaid $50 to the above charity. If you lose, you will admit that your formulas don't amount to a hill of beans, and you will donate $50 to the above mentioned charity.
Regarding the 1977 article which you cited as proof:
http://www.geocities.com/[email protected]/CramerClutch2.htm
The Player Win Average is without doubt a perfect measure of which hitters (and pitchers) are winning and losing games. But its computation, with the requirement of an accounting for every situation in every game, is forbiddingly expensive even when the data are available, and quite impossible in general since play-by-play information is not saved by the major leagues.
Even the author of the article admits that computing an accurate PWA is impossible because of the lack of play to play situational data that is not recorded. So your FOUNDATION of proof lies upon an impossible feat? How interesting. And ultimately worthless.
It concludes with a pretentious conclusion:
So fades a legend-but after all, what was really meant when someone was called a "clutch hitter"? Was he really a batter who didn't fold under pressure-or was he a lazy batter who bothered to try his hardest only when the game was on the line?
Which really tells us nothing, except it is wrapped in a pretty bow. Reminds me of the so-called 'logic' you keep trying to employ on this thread. BTW if you find yourself being on the butt end of mockery, it's probably because you're pretending to be smarter than you actually are. Reasoned arguments are welcome on this forum, but expect people to call you out when they come to see the gaps in your logic. And why you would think some outdated article written in 1977 is the ultimate proof of anything is beyond me. Thank you come again.
