Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 66
  1. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Balmer Merlin Hon
    Posts
    2,657
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs



    Quote Originally Posted by TL24x7 View Post
    OUTSTANDING!

    This post has inspired me to add a new feature to the front end of the site that we'll call "Message Board Star" and we'll post as a blog forum posts that just stand out...and this one did.

    Here's the link


    Thanks Lobachevsky!!!
    Hey paisan, next time send the lucky poster a message re the aposttheosis, why doncha? I fired up the site this morning & that article popped up & I wondered who the fuck this "message_board_star" was who'd stolen my material (especially since Milton Berle has been dead a lonnnnnng time), & I was about to fire off a complaint to you...then I found my little old screen name waaaaaay down at the end, & wandered over to this thread...

    At the risk of sounding ungracious (not that I've ever let that stop me--& while we're at it, you kids get off my lawn!) let me make a modest proposal: When you lift posts from the boards & front-page them, you might consider providing their authors with just a tad more acknowledgment by putting their screen names (linked to their profiles) up top, rather than as an afterthought at the bottom. ("Today's Message Board Star: John D'oh") That might make it a little more likely that a click-by visitor would think Hm, I'd like to see what else this nitwit has to say...--which, after all, is what most of us hope for when we post here: that fellow fans will be interested in reading what we post & responding to it & that thereby we might gain in stature & respect in this community.




  2. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Balmer Merlin Hon
    Posts
    2,657
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    The odds are very long but nowhere near as long as the odds implied by those numbers because of the OT rule changes. We will be seeing many more ties going forward than we did when OT was sudden death. Count on it.
    Some more, but many? I tend to doubt that. Under the old rules, you got a tie when neither team can score in 15 minutes. Under the new rules, you get a tie that way, or when the receiving team scores a FG on its initial drive & is then answered by a FG on its opponent's drive immediately following.

    Essentially the kicking team would have to stop the receiving team once (& be stopped once) under the new rules, versus twice (& be stopped twice) under the old. This suggests that the added probability of a tie between teams A and B under the new rules is roughly the square root of the probability under the old rules.

    If you go back to 1996, you have 5 tied games in 15 x 256 + (13 x 16 ) - 1 = 4048 games as of this morning, a rate of 5/4048 = 0.001235. Then the added probability of a tie would be estimated as the square root of 0.001235, or 0.035 = 3.5%, for a total of 3.64% of all games. This year under the new rules, out of 207 games you would expect about 207 x 3.64% = 7.5, i.e., 7 or 8 games to end in a tie. Now that would be disturbing, since it appears to be rare for there to be more than 20 overtime games in a regular season.

    (NB I can't seem to dig up a number of overtime games per regular season--if anyone can find that, I'd be happy to use that for analysis.)

    In fact we've seen 1 tie in 20 overtime games this year (5%) and in 207 games total (0.48%), so it looks as if the fear of ties is a tad overblown. That could change, though, as teams get better at working with the new rules & as we head into the winter when it may be harder to move the ball & score.




  3. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perry Hall, MD
    Posts
    13,551

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevsky View Post
    Hey paisan, next time send the lucky poster a message re the aposttheosis, why doncha? I fired up the site this morning & that article popped up & I wondered who the fuck this "message_board_star" was who'd stolen my material (especially since Milton Berle has been dead a lonnnnnng time), & I was about to fire off a complaint to you...then I found my little old screen name waaaaaay down at the end, & wandered over to this thread...

    At the risk of sounding ungracious (not that I've ever let that stop me--& while we're at it, you kids get off my lawn!) let me make a modest proposal: When you lift posts from the boards & front-page them, you might consider providing their authors with just a tad more acknowledgment by putting their screen names (linked to their profiles) up top, rather than as an afterthought at the bottom. ("Today's Message Board Star: John D'oh") That might make it a little more likely that a click-by visitor would think Hm, I'd like to see what else this nitwit has to say...--which, after all, is what most of us hope for when we post here: that fellow fans will be interested in reading what we post & responding to it & that thereby we might gain in stature & respect in this community.
    Some here prefer anonymity. I'd prefer having your name and picture and bio on the front end.

    So I'll put your handle at the top and leave it up to you if you want to follow through on the rest.

    Again, great post.
    Follow me on Twitter @ russellstreport




  4. #52

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevsky View Post
    Some more, but many? I tend to doubt that. Under the old rules, you got a tie when neither team can score in 15 minutes. Under the new rules, you get a tie that way, or when the receiving team scores a FG on its initial drive & is then answered by a FG on its opponent's drive immediately following.

    Essentially the kicking team would have to stop the receiving team once (& be stopped once) under the new rules, versus twice (& be stopped twice) under the old. This suggests that the added probability of a tie between teams A and B under the new rules is roughly the square root of the probability under the old rules.

    If you go back to 1996, you have 5 tied games in 15 x 256 + (13 x 16 ) - 1 = 4048 games as of this morning, a rate of 5/4048 = 0.001235. Then the added probability of a tie would be estimated as the square root of 0.001235, or 0.035 = 3.5%, for a total of 3.64% of all games. This year under the new rules, out of 207 games you would expect about 207 x 3.64% = 7.5, i.e., 7 or 8 games to end in a tie. Now that would be disturbing, since it appears to be rare for there to be more than 20 overtime games in a regular season.

    (NB I can't seem to dig up a number of overtime games per regular season--if anyone can find that, I'd be happy to use that for analysis.)

    In fact we've seen 1 tie in 20 overtime games this year (5%) and in 207 games total (0.48%), so it looks as if the fear of ties is a tad overblown. That could change, though, as teams get better at working with the new rules & as we head into the winter when it may be harder to move the ball & score.
    "Many" more is a relative term. When they happen once every 3-5 seasons and start happening 1 or two times a season, that can be considered "many" more (over 5 seasons or any time period). It obviously can be considered "some" more as well.

    The point was, the odds of a tie in the Pittsburgh/Cincy game are much better than the last 15 year's statistics indicate they would be, even if "much better" still means not very good. And this is because of the new rules.

    I think your math (that lead to 7 or 8 ties per year) just uses a bit too general assumptions to start with. I don't think it is quite as simple as stop once vs stop twice. It was probably more than twice (at least for one of the teams) before now. And it is probably more than once (at least for one of the teams) now. Also for the "now" considerations, it doesn't apply to all the OT instances. The "stop once" only applies after the FG/FG exchange, if we are talking true stops.

    Bottomline is, I agree and appreciate the discussion and analysis you provided here (and provide in general). I wasn't arguing, just pointing out that the new rules will lead to (some?, many?) more ties going forward.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 12-10-2012 at 10:44 AM.




  5. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Balmer Merlin Hon
    Posts
    2,657
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    "Many" more is a relative term. When they happen once every 3-5 seasons and start happening 1 or two times a season, that can be considered "many" more (over 5 seasons or any time period). It obviously can be considered "some" more as well.

    The point was, the odds of a tie in the Pittsburgh/Cincy game are much better than the last 15 year's statistics indicate they would be, even if "much better" still means not very good. And this is because of the new rules.
    Agreed. No one should have been anywhere near as surprised as they sounded when the first one happened. At the same time, we need to remember that going to OT is unlikely in & of itself--at the moment the league seems to be on a record-setting pace for that, & it's still < 10% (20/207).

    I think your math (that lead to 7 or 8 ties per year) just uses a bit too general assumptions to start with. I don't think it is quite as simple as stop once vs stop twice. It was probably more than twice (at least for one of the teams) before now. And it is probably more than once (at least for one of the teams) now. Also for the "now" considerations, it doesn't apply to all the OT instances. The "stop once" only applies after the FG/FG exchange, if we are talking true stops.
    You may be right. It was just a back-of-the-envelope calculation trying to get a feel for the situation.

    I don't know the distribution of drives by length of time, but it seemed plausible to take 3-4 minutes per as a lower bound for a "true stop" (even a 3-&-out can run >2 minutes off the clock with punt) & a drive topped off with a FG would probably last on the average a bit longer. (Unless your ST gives up a 61-yard return ). That would yield time for no more than 2 drives per team in a 15-minute OT period. (If you're driving faster than that. you're in track shoes & someone would quite possibly put up a 6 at some point.)

    Bottomline is, I agree and appreciate the discussion and analysis you provided here (and provide in general). I wasn't arguing, just pointing out that the new rules will lead to (some?, many?) more ties going forward.
    Thanks, lettuce agree to agree on this. "Past results are no guarantee of future performance."




  6. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern Shore
    Posts
    1,773

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    today's lesson; wins in September/October count just as much as wins in November/December.
    I know, I know, mo-mentum. but a stumbling 10-6 still trumps a red-hot 9-7.
    here's hoping being Cam-free invigorates the offense and Sizzle comes back to charge up the Defense. a lift's a lift.
    as far as 52 is concerned...I honestly wonder if we're better off without him starting. (but that's another thread)
    Baltimore Ravens, 2012 NFL Champions!




  7. #55

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    What's interesting is that its possible that the Ravens could knock the steelers out of the playoffs by losing to cincy the last game of the season.
    lol. This would be so cruel.




  8. #56

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by sailorsam View Post
    today's lesson; wins in September/October count just as much as wins in November/December.
    I know, I know, mo-mentum. but a stumbling 10-6 still trumps a red-hot 9-7.
    here's hoping being Cam-free invigorates the offense and Sizzle comes back to charge up the Defense. a lift's a lift.
    as far as 52 is concerned...I honestly wonder if we're better off without him starting. (but that's another thread)
    Well Ellerbe has been out and now McClain got injured so 52 returning should be better than anyone else we have. No doubt in my mind that we are not better without 52.




  9. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Olney, MD (Baltimore native)
    Posts
    244

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Ravens clinch the division with one more win. The sooner the better. Why, you may ask? Their most urgent priorities (in order of importance):

    1. STOP the turnovers (aka "Stop the bleeding")!!!!!
    2. FIX the rest of the 'leaks' exposed in last two games.
    3. Once #4 seed clinched, pull the key regulars out of the remaining game(s) - namely, Ngata, Reed, Suggs and Dixon.

    The Ravens don't need a first-round bye; it is a waste of resources. Under Harbaugh, the Ravens are 3-0 in the first (wildcard) round of playoffs - all on the road. They can manufacture their own 'bye' by clinching BEFORE the Cincy game. They NEED to allow their key players to recover from their injuries BEFORE the playoffs begin. How do you think the Giants made it to the Super Bowl last February? They were 9-7 while surrendering 400 points!




  10. #58

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevsky View Post
    They're gonna back into the postseason. The only scenario that shuts them out is one where the CIN@PGH game in Week 16 ends in a tie (& each wins its other 2 games & the Ravens lose out). Over the last 10 years there have been exactly 2 ties in over 2,560 games. Do the math.
    Your post was awesome, but this one is all I take issue with. There are still 3 games left. Nothing is set in stone. The Ravens could still win out and be 12-4. That isn't backing in.

    I refuse at this point to believe the Ravens are losing out. I had 11-5 at the beginning of the season and that is still well within reach. I think we beat the Giants, and the Bengals. Still not sure on Denver, Peyton does seem to own us. But I'm sticking to my 11-5.




  11. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Balmer Merlin Hon
    Posts
    2,657
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by StingerNLG View Post
    Your post was awesome, but this one is all I take issue with. There are still 3 games left. Nothing is set in stone. The Ravens could still win out and be 12-4. That isn't backing in.

    I refuse at this point to believe the Ravens are losing out. I had 11-5 at the beginning of the season and that is still well within reach. I think we beat the Giants, and the Bengals. Still not sure on Denver, Peyton does seem to own us. But I'm sticking to my 11-5.
    I'm not going to try & kill your buzz here; I hope it happens. But when I see small things starting not to go their way, e.g., the DReed fumble recovery (heckuva play by #16 & just crappy luck on a wet field), I get fatalistic. This team had a lot of good fortune culminating in the Inconceivable Conversion at San Diego & they may just have used up the year's quota.

    A major part of my pessimism has been that (other than DC Untied) the teams left on the schedule all had/have pretty nasty defenses--e.g., Peyton Manning isn't nearly as frightening as Von Miller & Elvis Dumervil. I figured Cam (with Harbaugh's blessing) would continue to hold back major chunks of his playbook, hoping to sneak into the postseason & then spring them on unsuspecting opponents*, & as a result the offense would go into (or stay in) the tank, which would allow the defense to be worn down & taken apart. With Cam out, we enter uncharted territory, & who's to say?

    * My conjecture--I have no hard evidence that this was in fact the plan.




  12. #60

    Re: The Ravens are 99+% certain of going to the playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by StingerNLG View Post
    I refuse at this point to believe the Ravens are losing out. I had 11-5 at the beginning of the season and that is still well within reach. I think we beat the Giants, and the Bengals. Still not sure on Denver, Peyton does seem to own us. But I'm sticking to my 11-5.
    We'll see. This week will tell us a lot about this football team. If they can manage to beat one of the hottest teams in football right now, I think their chances of winning their final 2 games are excellent. Even if they lose competitively, I am optimistic about their chances.

    But I have to be honest....I see Manning carving up whatever is left of the secondary this week, which means all the pressure is on Flacco and the offense to keep up. Will the dismissal of Cameron have that much impact? Does Harbaugh have control of this team? Again, I gotta be honest and say I am not sure. Like I said, we'll find a lot about this team this week and in the 2 weeks to come...




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland