Patriots compared to Cowboys (detailed stat analysis after w

Rodney Parker · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

No, overall won-loss record is not a good indicator. Then again, in this
instance it's not necessary because the two teams have met head-to-head.

Rod

"MZ" wrote in message @giganews.com...
> "James Farrar" wrote in message
> @4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:17:32 -0500, "MZ" wrote:
>>
>>>Which team leads in the relevant one? You know, win-loss record?
>>
>> Actually, that's irrelevant because the schedules played are not
>> identical; hence the W-L record is not necessarily a good predictor of
>> what might happen in a potential Super Bowl between the two teams.
>
> It's by far the most reliable one. Especially when you realize that the
> overall strength of schedule is roughly the same, and that the Cowboys'
> loss was a head to head one.
>

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>dallas-cowboys

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote ...
>
> "observer" wrote ...
> >
> > "MZ" wrote ...
> >>
> >> "observer" wrote ...
> >> >
> >> > Sounds to me like you're burying your head
> >> > in the sand, unwilling to consider if circum-
> >> > stances have changed since that game, and
> >> > unwilling to ponder if changing circumstances,
> >> > like Patriot near-losses to -2- losing teams,
> >> > might adversely impact the Patriots were a
> >> > rematch to occur.
> >>
> >> And since you continue to insist that the Cowboys have been playing
> >> better
> >> than the Patriots since they met in week 6, let's take a look at a couple
> >> of
> >> things.
> >>
> >> * Both teams are 6-0 since then.
> >> * The Pats have won by a margin of victory of 20.3 whereas the Cowboys
> >> have
> >> won by 14.6.
> >> * Of those 6 games, Dallas played 4 at home whereas New England played 2
> >> at
> >> home.
> >> * The common teams they've faced during that stretch are Washington and
> >> Philly. In the other games, the Pats have faced Indy, Buffalo,
> >> Baltimore,
> >> and Miami. The Cowboys have faced Green Bay, Giants, Vikings, and the
> >> Jets.
> >>
> >> Where is this alleged difference in how the teams have played since then?
> >> The strength of schedule is roughly equivalent and both teams have been
> >> perfect since then. The Pats have the margin of victory advantage, but
> >> only
> >> stat-geeks think that sort of thing is relevant anyway.
> >
> > Have you been following the Patriots efforts
> > lately? Certainly, they've won, but is that
> > enough to console you?
>
> Yes, that's all that matters to me. I've seen them win championships with
> 17-2 records, but with 3 point margins against bad teams every other week.
> Margin of victory doesn't really matter a whole lot, since it's not a
> primary goal of a team. That's why I didn't get too worked up over them
> destroying some teams, and I don't get worked up over them WINNING (key word
> there) by a mere 3 points. At the end of the day, the win is worth exactly
> the same amount.
>
> In fact, here in the Pats NG there's been some debate over whether the '07
> Pats are better than the '03 and '04 Pats teams. It's a debate that can go
> either way, even though the '07 Pats teams are winning by much larger
> margins most weeks in comparison to those other teams.
>
>
> > If a team falls short
> > of expectations, by wide margins, is a win
> > enough to make you think they haven't lost
> > something along the way?
>
> Yes. My expectation is that they'll win the game. Not that they'll score
> extra (useless) points. I don't care if they do it by scoring 9 touchdowns
> or by winning 3-0.
>
>
> > A quick look at a stat comparison between
> > the Cowboys' last -2- efforts against likely
> > playoff teams, the Giants & Packers, com-
> > pared to the Patriots' last -2- efforts, both
> > against losing teams, the Eagles and Ravens:
>
>
> Why cherry pick? If we're going to do some cherry picking, how about the
> last 3 efforts instead of the last 2 efforts? What does that look like? Or
> how about last 4 games? Last 5 games? The fact that you're ignoring all
> those analyses pretty much demonstrates that your argument is weak and
> contrived.

I accept that you find the Patriots last 2 games
a weak position to defend, especially when
compared to the last 2 games the Cowboys
have played against likely playoff teams. Cer-
tainly, if you wish to go to all the one-sided
games, you've got a case to make, but the fact
that the Patriots have struggled in the last two,
against two losing teams, that's undeniable.

By the way, points/game, total yards/game,
and passer-rating aren't cherry picking, but
are, by astute observers, considered to be
3 of the most important stats. You didn't
care for -33-, so I thought you could han-
dle -3-. Apparently not, as win/loss is the
only stat you care about, I suppose, unless
we're talking individual accolades.

---

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22449$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "MZ" wrote ...
>>
>> "observer" wrote ...
>> >
>> > Sounds to me like you're burying your head
>> > in the sand, unwilling to consider if circum-
>> > stances have changed since that game, and
>> > unwilling to ponder if changing circumstances,
>> > like Patriot near-losses to -2- losing teams,
>> > might adversely impact the Patriots were a
>> > rematch to occur.
>>
>> And since you continue to insist that the Cowboys have been playing
>> better
>> than the Patriots since they met in week 6, let's take a look at a couple
>> of
>> things.
>>
>> * Both teams are 6-0 since then.
>> * The Pats have won by a margin of victory of 20.3 whereas the Cowboys
>> have
>> won by 14.6.
>> * Of those 6 games, Dallas played 4 at home whereas New England played 2
>> at
>> home.
>> * The common teams they've faced during that stretch are Washington and
>> Philly. In the other games, the Pats have faced Indy, Buffalo,
>> Baltimore,
>> and Miami. The Cowboys have faced Green Bay, Giants, Vikings, and the
>> Jets.
>>
>> Where is this alleged difference in how the teams have played since then?
>> The strength of schedule is roughly equivalent and both teams have been
>> perfect since then. The Pats have the margin of victory advantage, but
>> only
>> stat-geeks think that sort of thing is relevant anyway.
>
> Have you been following the Patriots efforts
> lately? Certainly, they've won, but is that
> enough to console you?

Yes, that's all that matters to me. I've seen them win championships with
17-2 records, but with 3 point margins against bad teams every other week.
Margin of victory doesn't really matter a whole lot, since it's not a
primary goal of a team. That's why I didn't get too worked up over them
destroying some teams, and I don't get worked up over them WINNING (key word
there) by a mere 3 points. At the end of the day, the win is worth exactly
the same amount.

In fact, here in the Pats NG there's been some debate over whether the '07
Pats are better than the '03 and '04 Pats teams. It's a debate that can go
either way, even though the '07 Pats teams are winning by much larger
margins most weeks in comparison to those other teams.

> If a team falls short
> of expectations, by wide margins, is a win
> enough to make you think they haven't lost
> something along the way?

Yes. My expectation is that they'll win the game. Not that they'll score
extra (useless) points. I don't care if they do it by scoring 9 touchdowns
or by winning 3-0.

> A quick look at a stat comparison between
> the Cowboys' last -2- efforts against likely
> playoff teams, the Giants & Packers, com-
> pared to the Patriots' last -2- efforts, both
> against losing teams, the Eagles and Ravens:

Why cherry pick? If we're going to do some cherry picking, how about the
last 3 efforts instead of the last 2 efforts? What does that look like? Or
how about last 4 games? Last 5 games? The fact that you're ignoring all
those analyses pretty much demonstrates that your argument is weak and
contrived.

QuiGon · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 99

"observer" wrote in message $0$22426$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> Get back to me when the Cowboys have
> -3- near-losses like the Patriots have had,
> -2- of them coming quite recently for the
> Patriots, one from a bottom-dweller. The
> Bills, by the way, won 5 of 7 after their
> near-win over the Cowboys, and sport
> a 6-6 record for the year.

This is why arguing "almost losses" is futile... you're conveniently
forgetting the fact that YOU'VE ACTUALLY LOST A GAME. Oh, and guess what..?
IT WAS TO THE PATRIOTS..!! Oh, and another thing... IT WAS BY ABOUT 20
POINTS IN YOUR OWN STADIUM..!!

sheesh...

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"MZ" wrote ...
>
> "observer" wrote in message
> $0$22423$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> >
> > I accept that you find the Patriots last 2 games
> > a weak position to defend, especially when
> > compared to the last 2 games the Cowboys
> > have played against likely playoff teams.
>
> Since when are the Jets a "likely playoff team"?

Disingenous on your part, as I clearly
spelled out that the stat comparison
you failed to respond to was the Cow-
boys versus the Packers & Giants, -2-
likely playoff teams, compared to the
Patriots last 2 games, versus 2 losing
teams, the Eagles & Ravens.

>
> >Cer-
> > tainly, if you wish to go to all the one-sided
> > games, you've got a case to make, but the fact
> > that the Patriots have struggled in the last two,
> > against two losing teams, that's undeniable.
>
> They haven't struggled. They won both games.

They struggled.

>
> Have the Cowboys beat their last two opponents with stronger margins of
> victory? Absolutely. But they didn't play much tougher teams than the
> Patriots. They played one of the worst teams in the NFL and then a very
> good Green Bay team without their starting QB, both at home. Good wins, but
> I wouldn't gloat over them being particularly tough circumstances.

Green Bay had their starting QB. He bombed,
big-time, and had his worst QB rating of his
career, 8.9, prior to his injury. His backup
did well, which should remind you of how
well the Philly & Ravens backup QBs played
versus the Patriots. All 3 backup QBs failed
to win, though the 2 Patriots opponents did
come very close to winning.

>
> But what's so special about the number 2 to you? What if we make it 3?
> Well, the Pats destroyed Buffalo on the road that day, while the Cowboys
> beat an equivalent team by 5 points. How about we make it 4? That day the
> Pats beat Indy and the Cowboys beat a lesser team in the Giants.

2 games are the near-losses by the Patriots. As
stated, if you wish to consider the entire season,
feel free, and you'll see that the Cowboys and
the Patriots are extremely close statistically,
and in win-loss record. Yes, the Patriots won,
at Dallas, after blowing a 14-0 lead to trail in
the 3rd quarter, 24-21. They closed strong, but
the Cowboys had no Anthony Henry and no
Terry Glenn. I wonder how the Patriots would
have played without Rodney Harrison and Donte
Stallworth.

>
> You're cherry picking, because it's the only combination of games where the
> margin of victory is greater for the Cowboys than for the Patriots. And
> let's be real here, their high margin of victory over those two weeks is
> only because the Jets are so terrible it's not even funny. Go ask their
> fans.

The Patriots have gone downhill lately, though
you perceive 2 close wins as just fine. Those
are the 2 games where the Patriots have been
outclassed by the Cowboys, statistically, and
just to remind you, in the only area you seem
to recognize, the Cowboys are 2-0 verus those
2 likely playoff teams.

>
> > By the way, points/game, total yards/game,
> > and passer-rating aren't cherry picking, but
> > are, by astute observers, considered to be
> > 3 of the most important stats.
>
> No they're not. Until the NFL starts awarding victories to the teams that
> gain the most yards, it will continue to be a secondary (and frankly,
> irrelevant) statistic.

Fine, ignore all stats, and while you're at it,
ignore Randy Moss's receiving stats and
Tom Brady's record-setting QB stats, and
just focus on wins, 'cause to you, that's all
that matters. All else, per you, extraneous
annoyances.

>
> Wanna know what the most relevant statistic is? 12-0 vs. 11-1. As much as
> you want to criticize the Patriots and pretend that they're in some sort of
> decline, you can't ignore the fact that they've won all their recent games.

Yes, they won. I mentioned that. Just barely,
a fact which doesn't seem to bother you, but
a fact which displays weakness.

>
> > You didn't
> > care for -33-, so I thought you could han-
> > dle -3-. Apparently not, as win/loss is the
> > only stat you care about, I suppose, unless
> > we're talking individual accolades.
>
> Yep. It's the only stat that the NFL cares about too. They give out
> trophies based on winning games, not compiling yards or having certain
> players get certain individual achievements. And they sure as hell don't
> tally a set of 33 achievements and weight them all equally, like what you're
> doing. Yeah, sure, a rushing yards per game difference of 0.1 yards is
> worth as much as a points per game difference of 7.

Whatever, ignoring stats is your forte, and your
attempt to convince us that stats don't matter, that's
a huge hole in your argument.

---

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"Frez" wrote in message @comcast.com...
> Keep in mind that statistics don't apply to the Pats
> in ways that you may think. The Brady led Pats have
> 27 4th qtr "come from behind" victories. The only
> stats that can predict those are Patriot's stats. Those
> 27 wins defy many other teams' stats and all but void them.
>
> This year the Colts led the Pats at the start of the
> 4th qtr. Tell me what the stats say about the Colts
> when they have a lead in the 4th and I will show you
> another example of the Pats defying statistics.
>
> Stats may be interesting, but they are also deceiving.

Interesting, you use the stat 27 4th qtr "come
from behind" victories, and follow that with
stats are also deceiving. Does that stats are
deceiving attribution apply to your stat, too?

The Patriots have 3 4th qtr "come from be-
hind" wins this year. Of course, the only way
to come from behind in the 4th qtr is to trail
in the 4th qtr. The Cowboys, comebacks in
quite a few games this year, although only
one, best I recall, was a 4th qtr comeback.

---

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"observer" wrote in message $0$22423$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> I accept that you find the Patriots last 2 games
> a weak position to defend, especially when
> compared to the last 2 games the Cowboys
> have played against likely playoff teams.

Since when are the Jets a "likely playoff team"?

>Cer-
> tainly, if you wish to go to all the one-sided
> games, you've got a case to make, but the fact
> that the Patriots have struggled in the last two,
> against two losing teams, that's undeniable.

They haven't struggled. They won both games.

Have the Cowboys beat their last two opponents with stronger margins of
victory? Absolutely. But they didn't play much tougher teams than the
Patriots. They played one of the worst teams in the NFL and then a very
good Green Bay team without their starting QB, both at home. Good wins, but
I wouldn't gloat over them being particularly tough circumstances.

But what's so special about the number 2 to you? What if we make it 3?
Well, the Pats destroyed Buffalo on the road that day, while the Cowboys
beat an equivalent team by 5 points. How about we make it 4? That day the
Pats beat Indy and the Cowboys beat a lesser team in the Giants.

You're cherry picking, because it's the only combination of games where the
margin of victory is greater for the Cowboys than for the Patriots. And
let's be real here, their high margin of victory over those two weeks is
only because the Jets are so terrible it's not even funny. Go ask their
fans.

> By the way, points/game, total yards/game,
> and passer-rating aren't cherry picking, but
> are, by astute observers, considered to be
> 3 of the most important stats.

No they're not. Until the NFL starts awarding victories to the teams that
gain the most yards, it will continue to be a secondary (and frankly,
irrelevant) statistic.

Wanna know what the most relevant statistic is? 12-0 vs. 11-1. As much as
you want to criticize the Patriots and pretend that they're in some sort of
decline, you can't ignore the fact that they've won all their recent games.

> You didn't
> care for -33-, so I thought you could han-
> dle -3-. Apparently not, as win/loss is the
> only stat you care about, I suppose, unless
> we're talking individual accolades.

Yep. It's the only stat that the NFL cares about too. They give out
trophies based on winning games, not compiling yards or having certain
players get certain individual achievements. And they sure as hell don't
tally a set of 33 achievements and weight them all equally, like what you're
doing. Yeah, sure, a rushing yards per game difference of 0.1 yards is
worth as much as a points per game difference of 7.

Frez · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 78

Keep in mind that statistics don't apply to the Pats
in ways that you may think. The Brady led Pats have
27 4th qtr "come from behind" victories. The only
stats that can predict those are Patriot's stats. Those
27 wins defy many other teams' stats and all but void them.

This year the Colts led the Pats at the start of the
4th qtr. Tell me what the stats say about the Colts
when they have a lead in the 4th and I will show you
another example of the Pats defying statistics.

Stats may be interesting, but they are also deceiving.

Frez · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 78

"observer" wrote in message $0$22410$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "Frez" wrote in message
> @comcast.com...
>> Keep in mind that statistics don't apply to the Pats
>> in ways that you may think. The Brady led Pats have
>> 27 4th qtr "come from behind" victories. The only
>> stats that can predict those are Patriot's stats. Those
>> 27 wins defy many other teams' stats and all but void them.
>>
>> This year the Colts led the Pats at the start of the
>> 4th qtr. Tell me what the stats say about the Colts
>> when they have a lead in the 4th and I will show you
>> another example of the Pats defying statistics.
>>
>> Stats may be interesting, but they are also deceiving.
>
> Interesting, you use the stat 27 4th qtr "come
> from behind" victories, and follow that with
> stats are also deceiving. Does that stats are
> deceiving attribution apply to your stat, too?

In a way...it's causing other stats to be deceiving.
I say that because it is one of those types of
stats that stands alone. IOW I believe that this
stat would not be pertinent if it were applied to
other teams. I would be interested in a comparison
though.

The thing about the 27 wins is it's an indication of
something that could be considered intangeble. It
not only reflects the player's ability to reach down and
execute, but also points towards good coaching. I
think it's difficult to quantify these types of things
statistically other than of course the actual # of wins.

In past seasons the Pats have won games that resembled
the last two and there were some in the 21 game win streak.
It's really hard not to run into buzz saws in the NFL. This
is especially true when the opponent is seeking the glory of
derailing an undefeated streak. I expect the rest of the reg
season games to also be tough. We'll see if the Pats can
maintain.

OTOH the Cowboys have some youth that has possibly come
together as the season progressed. If they play GB in the
POs, I suspect a better game from Favre. It'll surely be a
highly rated contest. I'm not a fan of Phillips, but the players
are likeable and I'm starting to take a shine to them.

> The Patriots have 3 4th qtr "come from be-
> hind" wins this year. Of course, the only way
> to come from behind in the 4th qtr is to trail
> in the 4th qtr. The Cowboys, comebacks in
> quite a few games this year, although only
> one, best I recall, was a 4th qtr comeback.
>
> ---
>

MZ · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 130

"ndy" wrote in message $6k1.7852@trndny02...
> je.s.te.r@hehxduhmp.org wrote:
>> In alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots observer
>> wrote:
>>>> And since you continue to insist that the Cowboys have been playing
>>>> better
>>>> than the Patriots since they met in week 6, let's take a look at a
>>>> couple of
>>>> things.
>>
>> This thread makes my head hurt.
>>
> me too. plus every time I start reading his posts I think I'm in the
> RedSox ng. baseball, stats ...stats....stats!

But who cares which team won the head to head game? The Cowboys have a 0.1
yard lead in rushing yards per game!

ndy · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 26

je.s.te.r@hehxduhmp.org wrote:
> In alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots observer wrote:
>>> And since you continue to insist that the Cowboys have been playing better
>>> than the Patriots since they met in week 6, let's take a look at a couple of
>>> things.
>
> This thread makes my head hurt.
>
me too. plus every time I start reading his posts I think I'm in the
RedSox ng. baseball, stats ...stats....stats!