FCB02062
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 11,679
- Reaction score
- 10,935
I am rightYou are wrong.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I am rightYou are wrong.
Bill Belichick didn’t throw a game because he was afraid of the Steelers. If that were his nature we wouldn’t have any rings.I am right
How can you be 11-7 in the first matchup and 2-8 in the second? There are 8 missing games.If you are counting playoffs, Brady is 2-8 rematching the Dolphins and Broncos on the road. However, when the first matchup of the year against them is on the road he is 11-7.
If the Pats beat the Bills 26 straight times, what are odds that they win the 27th game? PRETTY FRIGGIN GOOD.
OH man, I know you are kidding but don't get me started with those kinds of people who think that way.
Every year when a playoff game features a matchup of divisional rivals in which one team went 2-0 during the regular season, indoubtedly there will be at least one analyst who confidently says......
" (insert 0-2 here) will win this game because it's tough to beat a team three times in one season."
Is it tough to beat one team three times in one season? Yes, it is (all things equal, a 12.5% chance of this happening), but that's not really the situation being presented here.
Instead, the probability question becomes, what are the odds one team wins all three GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY WON THE FIRST TWO?
All things being equal, the probability of winning all three is 50%. But the reality is that the teams probably aren't equal, and the 2-0 team is 2-0 because they are better. So the odds would actually be greater than 50% for them to win the third game.
Let me use a more drastic example to make my point.
If the Pats beat the Bills 26 straight times, what are odds that they win the 27th game? PRETTY FRIGGIN GOOD.
But you'll have that one misinformed, dope analyst say "no, I'm taking the Bills because it's tough to beat a team 27 straight times"
That isnt how probability works. Past events have no bearing on future events (strictly with respect to probablity). Just because you flip 25 straight heads doesnt magically improve the odds of flipping tails next... Its still 50/50.
You need to reread my post. Yes, I understand that 'all things being equal' that the odds of winning a third game (or 27th) GIVEN that you won the first two (or 26) is 50% IF ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL. But I think it's logical to come to the conclusion that a team that won 26 straight times isn't just insanely lucky, but better, and therefore all things aren't equal.
How can you be 11-7 in the first matchup and 2-8 in the second? There are 8 missing games.
But that devalues the stat. Winning or losing in a year where you meet once is irrelevant to whether you do better or worse in a rematch. Those only matchups should be eliminated. Home/away should also be broken out.I just edited the post. If the first (or only) matchup of the year....
But that devalues the stat. Winning or losing in a year where you meet once is irrelevant to whether you do better or worse in a rematch. Those only matchups should be eliminated. Home/away should also be broken out.
How do games against teams you play once mean anything in determining if you play better or worse in rematches? Please explain that one to me.Lol. AJ special.