We don't have the mentality to win close games

[Big Turk]

Oh?

[eball]

How is our mentality now?

 

[BullBuchanan]

5 minutes ago, eball said:

How is our mentality now?

 

1-7 in the last two years and 0-13 under McD when trailing by 10 or more at the half, but all previous data now invalid.

100% winning percentage in 1 score games and when down 17 points at halftime since October 2nd 2022 - present.



That's how it works, right?

Edited October 3, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

1-7 in the last two years and 0-13 under McD when trailing by 10 or more at the half, but all previous data now invalid.

100% winning percentage in 1 score games and when down 17 points at halftime since October 2nd 2022 - present.



That's how it works, right?

When the cutoff is arbitrarily set at two years, I guess

[eball]

On 9/25/2022 at 4:15 PM, UKBillFan said:

Complete chokers across the board, with no clue how to play when under pressure. Offense was putrid and the play calling little better. Favourites for the Superbowl? Only if the defense is fully fit because the Offense, even with the so called predicted MVP, is not good enough.

 

ETA 15 minutes later - Won't delete the original post because I have to own it. But now I've calmed down slightly... still annoying. And I think I'll still have doubts about us being able to able to cope with the pressure of a one score game at the death until we win one of them.

 

I'll try to be kind...but this was a ridiculous premise and ridiculous post.  The next time you have a visceral reaction after a game...stay away from the keyboard.

 

[ColoradoBills]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's how it works, right?

 

Yes, it is.  The past is the past, it's about going forward.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

When the cutoff is arbitrarily set at two years, I guess

cutoffs have to exist somewhere when analyzing data. I don't think it's guilty of any severe manipulation but rather just showing recent history. The further you go back, the less relevant the information is to current trends. It's an objective fact backed up by data that they haven't won one-score games in recent history until yesterday. It's not a "narrative". Yesterday's win is awesome though does nothing to change the previous data.

[teef]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

cutoffs have to exist somewhere when analyzing data. I don't think it's guilty of any severe manipulation but rather just showing recent history. The further you go back, the less relevant the information is to current trends. It's an objective fact backed up by data that they haven't won one-score games in recent history until yesterday. It's not a "narrative". Yesterday's win is awesome though does nothing to change the previous data.

why not include 2020?  if you're talking about mcd's coaching in close games, it should really include his entire career to give you a fair idea.  people are picking only including last year because it drives their narrative.  last year wasn't good...at all.  the year before was.  every year is different.

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

cutoffs have to exist somewhere when analyzing data. I don't think it's guilty of any severe manipulation but rather just showing recent history. The further you go back, the less relevant the information is to current trends. It's an objective fact backed up by data that they haven't won one-score games in recent history until yesterday. It's not a "narrative". Yesterday's win is awesome though does nothing to change the previous data.

 

They have a new OC this year.  That is where I consider the "data" to be judged from.

They are 1-1 in close games.

[Motorin']

 

 

 

[Warcodered]

14 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

1-7 in the last two years and 0-13 under McD when trailing by 10 or more at the half, but all previous data now invalid.

100% winning percentage in 1 score games and when down 17 points at halftime since October 2nd 2022 - present.



That's how it works, right?

What does that stat look like 3-4 years out though?

[UKBillFan]

16 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I'll try to be kind...but this was a ridiculous premise and ridiculous post.  The next time you have a visceral reaction after a game...stay away from the keyboard.

 

 

They proved me wrong! Maybe I should try an outburst about how we haven't scored over 23 in the last two weeks and see if that works next Sunday? 😁

[Scott7975]

18 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

1-7 in the last two years and 0-13 under McD when trailing by 10 or more at the half, but all previous data now invalid.

100% winning percentage in 1 score games and when down 17 points at halftime since October 2nd 2022 - present.



That's how it works, right?

 

Its not 1-7 in the last two years.  Its 1-7 in the last year + 4 games.  The season before last they were 5-1.  So in the last two years +4 games they are 6-8.  Thats one game from .500 which is normal in the NFL.

 

You are like the guy thats spends $1000's at the casino every week but has one day where he wins 500 bucks and thinks he actually won.

15 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

cutoffs have to exist somewhere when analyzing data. I don't think it's guilty of any severe manipulation but rather just showing recent history. The further you go back, the less relevant the information is to current trends. It's an objective fact backed up by data that they haven't won one-score games in recent history until yesterday. It's not a "narrative". Yesterday's win is awesome though does nothing to change the previous data.

 

Ok so where is that line drawn.  Same group of people at the begining of the season were all about just the 0-7 and the 5-1 one season prior didnt matter.  Then this year starts and we were 0-1 suddenly last year matters.  The truth of the matter is you are drawing the line at your own bias.  Same as people can manipulate stats to say whatever their agenda wants them to say.

[Scott7975]

So you roll your eyes at my post @BullBuchanan.  I take that to mean you have no further argument.

[BullBuchanan]

36 minutes ago, teef said:

why not include 2020?  if you're talking about mcd's coaching in close games, it should really include his entire career to give you a fair idea.  people are picking only including last year because it drives their narrative.  last year wasn't good...at all.  the year before was.  every year is different.

2020 isn't included because it wasn't part of the trend. It's not a narrative, it's stats. They were good, and then they were bad. 1 deviation from an existing trend doesn't change the trend, but it's the only way to start.
 

31 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

What does that stat look like 3-4 years out though?

What does it look like 7-8 years out? 20-30 years out? They were in an uptrend, then in a downtrend. where they go from here is undetermined.
 

25 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Its not 1-7 in the last two years.  Its 1-7 in the last year + 4 games.  The season before last they were 5-1.  So in the last two years +4 games they are 6-8.  Thats one game from .500 which is normal in the NFL.

 

You are like the guy thats spends $1000's at the casino every week but has one day where he wins 500 bucks and thinks he actually won.

 

Ok so where is that line drawn.  Same group of people at the begining of the season were all about just the 0-7 and the 5-1 one season prior didnt matter.  Then this year starts and we were 0-1 suddenly last year matters.  The truth of the matter is you are drawing the line at your own bias.  Same as people can manipulate stats to say whatever their agenda wants them to say.

What you're doing here is called "projecting". My argument is precisely the opposite of your claim because it takes previous trend into account. You're popping the champagne after the first 1 score victory in the last 8 and declaring all previous data invalid. In your words, you're down $6500 and celebrating your recent $500 win.
 

19 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

So you roll your eyes at my post @BullBuchanan.  I take that to mean you have no further argument.

I don't need any further argument because my previous argument stands.

Edited October 3, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[K-9]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

2020 isn't included because it wasn't part of the trend. It's not a narrative it's stats. They were good, and then they were bad. 1 deviation from an existing trned doesn't change the trend, but it's the only way to start.
 

What does it look like 7-8 years out? 20-30 years out? They were in an uptrend, then in a downtrend. where they go from here is undetermined.
 

What you're doing here is called "projecting". My argument is precisely the opposite of your claim because it takes previous trend into account. You're popping the champagne after the first 1 score victory int he last 8 and declaring all previous data invalid.
 

I don't need any further argument because my previous argument stands.

When the narrative is these coaches and players can’t win close games, 2020 must be included in the analysis because it’s essentially the same cast of characters being evaluated. Otherwise, it’s dishonest because this group had clearly demonstrated their capability to win close games previously. 

[Jauronimo]

 

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

When the narrative is these coaches and players can’t win close games, 2020 must be included in the analysis because it’s essentially the same cast of characters being evaluated. Otherwise, it’s dishonest because this group had clearly demonstrated their capability to win close games previously. 

So change the argument that they were good at a thing 3 years ago that they've recently been bad at and see how many people care? I don't even have a horse in this race. I'm just here to defend the concept of trends.

[Warcodered]

8 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

2020 isn't included because it wasn't part of the trend. It's not a narrative it's stats. They were good, and then they were bad. 1 deviation from an existing trned doesn't change the trend, but it's the only way to start.
 

What does it look like 7-8 years out? 20-30 years out? They were in an uptrend, then in a downtrend. where they go from here is undetermined.
 

What you're doing here is called "projecting". My argument is precisely the opposite of your claim because it takes previous trend into account. You're popping the champagne after the first 1 score victory int he last 8 and declaring all previous data invalid.
 

I don't need any further argument because my previous argument stands.

So to translate:

 

That information doesn't agree with my narrative so I'm going to ignore it.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

So to translate:

 

That information doesn't agree with my narrative so I'm going to ignore it.

Why did you translate? Was my post in a different language?

Most of the time when people translate posts around here, they do it incorrectly. This is one of those times.

Edited October 3, 2022 by BullBuchanan