daquixers_is_back Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Just a little interesting pattern for fans of Peyton Manning such as myself. Over the past couple of years, Peyton Mannings first 3-5 games have told what he was going to do for the year, unlike other QB's who go up and down as the season rolls along. For example: In 2003, in Peyton Mannings first 4 games he had 914 yards, 9 TD's and 3 INT's. This works out to 3,656 yards, 36 TD's and 12 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 4,267 yards, 29 TD's and 10 INT's. Some what close right? In 2004, in Peyton Mannings first 3 games he had 9 TD's and 1 INT. This works out to 4.816 yards, 48 TD's and 6 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 4,557 yards, 49 TD's and 10 INT's. Pretty darn close huh? In 2005, in Peyton Mannings first 5 games he had 6 TD's and 2 INT's. This works out to 3,593 yards 24 TD's and 12.8 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 3,747 yards, 28 TD's and 10 INT's. Once again. Pretty darn close. Now so far in 2006, he is on pace for 5,408 yards, 32 TD's, and 8 INT. Not really important or anything, just thought you guys would think it was interesting.
BoondckCL Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Just a little interesting pattern for fans of Peyton Manning such as myself. Over the past couple of years, Peyton Mannings first 3-5 games have told what he was going to do for the year, unlike other QB's who go up and down as the season rolls along. For example: In 2003, in Peyton Mannings first 4 games he had 914 yards, 9 TD's and 3 INT's. This works out to 3,656 yards, 36 TD's and 12 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 4,267 yards, 29 TD's and 10 INT's. Some what close right? In 2004, in Peyton Mannings first 3 games he had 9 TD's and 1 INT. This works out to 4.816 yards, 48 TD's and 6 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 4,557 yards, 49 TD's and 10 INT's. Pretty darn close huh? In 2005, in Peyton Mannings first 5 games he had 2 TD's and 2 INT's. This works out to 3,593 yards 24 TD's and 12.8 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 3,747 yards, 28 TD's and 10 INT's. Once again. Pretty darn close. Now so far in 2006, he is on pace for 5,408 yards, 32 TD's, and 8 INT. Not really important or anything, just thought you guys would think it was interesting. 780295[/snapback] That's rather interesting. How were these numbers figured? In other words, what method?
daquixers_is_back Posted September 20, 2006 Author Posted September 20, 2006 That's rather interesting. How were these numbers figured? In other words, what method? 780296[/snapback] Just very simple math. The average of the first 3, 4, or 5 week stats multiplied by a 16 week season and ta-da.
Mark Long Beach Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 So why in 2005 is he projected to have only 12.8 interceptions? He had 2tds and 2 interceptions, so any extrapolation on that would have the two numbers be the same in the future. (24tds & interceptions)
daquixers_is_back Posted September 20, 2006 Author Posted September 20, 2006 So why in 2005 is he projected to have only 12.8 interceptions? He had 2tds and 2 interceptions, so any extrapolation on that would have the two numbers be the same in the future. (24tds & interceptions) 780303[/snapback] Sorry I forgot to edit that. In the first 5 games he actually had 6 TD's and 2 INT's. My fault for not changing that. I will due so now.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Just a little interesting pattern for fans of Peyton Manning such as myself. Over the past couple of years, Peyton Mannings first 3-5 games have told what he was going to do for the year, unlike other QB's who go up and down as the season rolls along. For example: In 2003, in Peyton Mannings first 4 games he had 914 yards, 9 TD's and 3 INT's. This works out to 3,656 yards, 36 TD's and 12 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 4,267 yards, 29 TD's and 10 INT's. Some what close right? In 2004, in Peyton Mannings first 3 games he had 9 TD's and 1 INT. This works out to 4.816 yards, 48 TD's and 6 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 4,557 yards, 49 TD's and 10 INT's. Pretty darn close huh? In 2005, in Peyton Mannings first 5 games he had 6 TD's and 2 INT's. This works out to 3,593 yards 24 TD's and 12.8 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 3,747 yards, 28 TD's and 10 INT's. Once again. Pretty darn close. Now so far in 2006, he is on pace for 5,408 yards, 32 TD's, and 8 INT. Not really important or anything, just thought you guys would think it was interesting. Additionally, Manning didn't win a conference championship or Super Bowl in the first few games of any of those seasons, and sure enough, he didn't win one at the end of the season either.
pkwwjd Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Sorry to encourage the trolls, but HD ... that was funny
Benjamin Franklin Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Just a little interesting pattern for fans of Peyton Manning such as myself. Over the past couple of years, Peyton Mannings first 3-5 games have told what he was going to do for the year, unlike other QB's who go up and down as the season rolls along. For example: In 2003, in Peyton Mannings first 4 games he had 914 yards, 9 TD's and 3 INT's. This works out to 3,656 yards, 36 TD's and 12 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 4,267 yards, 29 TD's and 10 INT's. Some what close right? Not really, except for INTs. In 2004, in Peyton Mannings first 3 games he had 9 TD's and 1 INT. This works out to 4.816 yards, 48 TD's and 6 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 4,557 yards, 49 TD's and 10 INT's. Pretty darn close huh? This one is a little closer but INTs are about 50% off. Try again. In 2005, in Peyton Mannings first 5 games he had 6 TD's and 2 INT's. This works out to 3,593 yards 24 TD's and 12.8 INT's ... Peyton ended up having 3,747 yards, 28 TD's and 10 INT's. Once again. Pretty darn close. This one is a little better. Of course, you picked at random the number of games to project the season over--different in every case: 4 games in 2003, 3 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. Further, it's hardly a shock that how someone plays in their first 4 (or so) games actually projects to how they might play over 16 games. What's the impressive study here? Now so far in 2006, he is on pace for 5,408 yards, 32 TD's, and 8 INT. Not really important or anything, just thought you guys would think it was interesting. 780295[/snapback] So here you use a 2 game sample to project a 15 game season? The Chargers have scored 67 points in 2 games. They are going to score almost 500 points this season. Ryan Denney is on pace for 32 sacks and the NFL sack record. Losman won't throw an INT this season. See how silly this is.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Not really, except for INTs. This one is a little closer but INTs are about 50% off. Try again. This one is a little better. Of course, you picked at random the number of games to project the season over--different in every case: 4 games in 2003, 3 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. Further, it's hardly a shock that how someone plays in their first 4 (or so) games actually projects to how they might play over 16 games. What's the impressive study here? So here you use a 2 game sample to project a 15 game season? The Chargers have scored 67 points in 2 games. They are going to score almost 500 points this season. Ryan Denney is on pace for 32 sacks and the NFL sack record. Losman won't throw an INT this season. See how silly this is. 780547[/snapback] A little harsh, don't you think? He was making an "interesting" observation re. Manning's consistency, not trying to publish a scientific paper. Any way you slice it, this shows me that Peyton Manning is a consistent QB throught the season.
ajzepp Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Ryan Denney is on pace for 32 sacks and the NFL sack record.
CircleTheWagons Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 A little harsh, don't you think? He was making an "interesting" observation re. Manning's consistency, not trying to publish a scientific paper. Any way you slice it, this shows me that Peyton Manning is a consistent QB throught the season. 780557[/snapback] But how do you know he's consistent - the analysis is too limited. Why choose a different amount of games for each season? How does the variation actually compare to other elite QBs, or all starting QBs? Enquiring minds want to know (but are too lazy to do the analysis )
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Additionally, Manning didn't win a conference championship or Super Bowl in the first few games of any of those seasons, and sure enough, he didn't win one at the end of the season either. 780406[/snapback]
Benjamin Franklin Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Any way you slice it, this shows me that Peyton Manning is a consistent QB throught the season. 780557[/snapback] Shrewd.
Rico Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Any way you slice it, this shows me that Peyton Manning is a consistent QB throught the season. 780557[/snapback] And PGump is consistent in the playoffs as well. CHA-CHING!
daquixers_is_back Posted September 20, 2006 Author Posted September 20, 2006 Not really, except for INTs. This one is a little closer but INTs are about 50% off. Try again. This one is a little better. Of course, you picked at random the number of games to project the season over--different in every case: 4 games in 2003, 3 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. Further, it's hardly a shock that how someone plays in their first 4 (or so) games actually projects to how they might play over 16 games. What's the impressive study here? So here you use a 2 game sample to project a 15 game season? The Chargers have scored 67 points in 2 games. They are going to score almost 500 points this season. Ryan Denney is on pace for 32 sacks and the NFL sack record. Losman won't throw an INT this season. See how silly this is. 780547[/snapback] Your not very good at this whole message board convo are you? This thread was just supposed to be interesting. Not scientific. It wasnt suppose to be published in the New York Times either. It was just a little thing I looked at early in the morning. Also. If you look at other NFL players, not many have that same consistency from weeks 3-5 in weeks 12-16. It just shows that Manning has consistency. That was my whole point. Of course each varied from 3-5 weeks. That was the ammount of weeks it took for him to get on his pace and play great. The first year I did it took 4 years for him to get going. The next week it was 3 and last year I believe it was 5. How is that hard to understand. Also. I was using 2 games to predict a 16 game season. Not 15. Unless they chopped off a game and didnt tell me. Anyway. The only reason I did the 2 week comparison is because WE HAVE ONLY PLAYED 2 WEEK SO FAR! We can open this thread back up in 2 weeks and put the new predictions up then. By the way Denney is on pace to have 24 sacks and Kelsay is on pace to have 16. I dont know where you got the 32 from. But hey. Thanks for being a dick. I hope it made you feel better.
Dwight Drane Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 I'm with you man....he's going pass happy so far and Edge is gone, but you still have to respect the talent at RB. It's good ol' K-Gun....when everyone cheats pass...shotgun draw. He may be a Goober, but he is a class act and as smart as you can find. I agree that you are on to something....that's why I am going to not put diapers on the baby this week and throw the $37.50 on the Colts -7 against the Jags. Ind 33 JAX16
HopsGuy Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Not to pick nits, but what you've done is called curve-fitting. You've selected data that show a desired result. That being said, I think we can all agreee that PM is a pretty good quarterback. Why anyone would choose to have him as a spokesman for their product is another matter altogether.
daquixers_is_back Posted September 20, 2006 Author Posted September 20, 2006 Not to pick nits, but what you've done is called curve-fitting. You've selected data that show a desired result. That being said, I think we can all agreee that PM is a pretty good quarterback. Why anyone would choose to have him as a spokesman for their product is another matter altogether. 780980[/snapback] I dont get what you mean? You think I just randomly thought that Peyton Mannings first 3-5 games would represent his entire season and checked??? I was just checking on his stats and noticed that the first 3 games of the past few seasons seemed similar to his whole season (simple math in my head) ... once I started doing it on calculator it actually needed to be re-formatted to 3, 4, or 5 games. Still consistent.
HopsGuy Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 ... once I started doing it on calculator it actually needed to be re-formatted to 3, 4, or 5 games. Still consistent. 780993[/snapback] You answered your own question. For one year, 3 works best, for another 5, for another 4. I'm not saying these numbers aren't interesting, but your analysis fits the textbook definition of curve-fitting. I do this for a living. We have a marketing term for it: optimization. If you look at enough toast, eventually you'll find the Blessed Virgin. What your analysis really tells me is that Peyton Manning doesn't get injured.
ajzepp Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 If you look at enough toast, eventually you'll find the Blessed Virgin.
Recommended Posts