LSU/SEC homers
 

It's safe to say that LSU is the best team of the SEC. The game against Arkansas really showed how powerful the SEC is. I've seen lots of comments about how PAC10 teams and namely USC would not be able to do as well if they were in the SEC. Well... considering that the best team in the SEC barely beat Arkansas, at home mind you (19-17) whereas USC beat Arkansas 70-17, I'd say that the SEC is just a tad over-rated this year [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

i will agree that LSU would have almost no chance against USC but comparing scores is arbitrary b/c of playing styles.

LSU's defense is stout but there offense struggles to move the chains, so they obviously are always going to play close games no matter the opponent whereas USC, a team that is explosive has the potential to blowout any team any day.

the other side of that coin is that if USC were to play LSU, LSU would contain USC for a little while but in the end USC would overmatch them but it wouldn't be a blowout.

comparing scores is part of the reason i hate the BCS. scores against teams have nothing to do with teams that haven't played each other and there has been proof of that in the past.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

Margain of victoy was elminated from the BCS years ago.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Margain of victoy was elminated from the BCS years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
not really what i was talking about. what your opponents (that you already have defeated) do against other teams the rest of the season effects your ranking correct?

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

Well, for the Computer Rankings, and this is smart. A 10-1 team in the Big Ten should get more respect than a 10-1 team in the Big East. And comparing previous victories based on how good we thought they were in Week 1, instead of how good we know they are now is pretty dumb.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
LSU's defense is stout.... if USC were to play LSU, LSU would contain USC for a little while but in the end USC would overmatch them but it wouldn't be a blowout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like Oklahoma last year, right?

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

That's a bad example. Last year's SC team had a very good defense, while this year's SC defense is best described as "mediocre."

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

It affects computer rankings, but they took the SOS out of the formula, now its only 1/3 each for the two human polls and the combination of the computers. They used to have that oppents win thing as part of the actuall cal

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just like Oklahoma last year, right?



[/ QUOTE ]
you are really going to compare the USC defense of last year to this year? come on. they let people basically walk in half the time (though it doesn't matter b/c they walk in themselves).

all i am saying is that you can't compare the score of the arkansas/usc game and the arkansas/lsu game and then just say it shows how soft the sec is. its a dumb comment, what it showed was in a defensive minded conference how every game played is going to be decided by less than a touchdown no matter if its the 10-1 team vs. the last place team. its like that in every sport when defensive teams match up.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

It shows nothing of the sort. The SEC is down this year. That is a fact. When your number one team is a 10 yard completion away from looking at a game winning field goal against a conference also ran, that is not a defensive struggle, that is a team that simply isn't that good, just above average.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
It shows nothing of the sort. The SEC is down this year. That is a fact. When your number one team is a 10 yard completion away from looking at a game winning field goal against a conference also ran, that is not a defensive struggle, that is a team that simply isn't that good, just above average.

[/ QUOTE ]
LSU is above avg? so a team that beats ranked teams most of the year is just above avg? there is a reason they are ranked as high as they are.

more times than not the world series winner plays more 1 and 2 run baseball games in a season, does this make them just above avg?

regardless the SEC just beats each other up week after week, ranked team vs ranked team. at one point this season they had more ranked teams then any other conference but b/c they beat each other up and they are pretty good up and down there isn't just 2 great teams and the rest terrible **ahem big 12*** (hell i am from texas too).

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
more times than not the world series winner plays more 1 and 2 run baseball games in a season, does this make them just above avg?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, huh? Are you saying that the world champions in baseball usually play CLOSER games than everybody else?

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Um, huh? Are you saying that the world champions in baseball usually play CLOSER games than everybody else?

[/ QUOTE ]
do you not agree that traditionally pitching and defense win championships (i don't know why i am asking you, i know the answer) resulting in closer games? i mean the past winners haven't exactly lit the scoreboard up but have had a great stuff and plus defense (some teams being the exception, i did say "more times than not").

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

Well, let's see.

2005 White Sox: 54 1-run games, not an unusually high totel. Cleveland, Minnesota, Tampa, Washington, Oakland, Texas, LA Angels, Colorado, San Francisco, and San Diego all had at least 49, with Washington clocking in at 61.
2004 Red Sox: 24 one-run games, one of the smallest amounts in the league.
2003 Marlins: 53 one-run games. Doesn't lead the league, around 5 teams have at least 48
2002 Angels: 53 one-run games, leads the league. A few teams at the 48 mark.
2001 DBacks: 48 one-run games.
2000 Yanks: 38 one-run games.
1999 Yanks: 34 one-run games.
1998 Yanks: 32 one-run games.
1997 Marlins: 54
1996 Yanks: 41
1995 Braves: 51
1993 Jays: 45
1992 Jays: 48
1991 Twins: 40
1990 Reds: 39

Looks to me like the average team plays around 40 one-run games.

Later I could run a correlation analysis to see if amount of one-run games correlates with games above .500. I doubt there will be much of an effect.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

it looks like i was close actually cause in my head (i didn't look this up) i was thinking of the past winners since AZ and i said "more times than not" b/c i couldn't see how boston could lead in this category which PROVES MY POINT! defensive teams (and in baseball pitching goes with that) its going to be close games (in baseball 1 and 2 run games) and the marlins, dbacks, angels and whitesox all fit this category.

thank you for these numbers jack.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

BTW, the SEC and LSU are both definitely overrated. LSU is somewhere around the 10th best team I'd say.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

i am dissappointed in you being that its your home state, but then again i don't stick up for UT [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. i guess we will see at BCS Bowl time (maybe, still have to beat GA...yet another tough team in a conference championship that some conferences don't have to play [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]).

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
you are really going to compare the USC defense of last year to this year? come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw both LSU and USC in person in 2005. USC's defense is just as good, if not better than LSU's. It just doesn't show up in the stats because of the offensive firepower on thier schedule.

If USC played in the SEC, instead of outscoring thier opponents 48-21, it would be more like 40-13.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
It shows nothing of the sort. The SEC is down this year. That is a fact. When your number one team is a 10 yard completion away from looking at a game winning field goal against a conference also ran, that is not a defensive struggle, that is a team that simply isn't that good, just above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget about that fourth down miracle in a game in which they were completely dominated at Arizona State.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

I agree, but that game has to be put into context (Katrina and all).

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the SEC and LSU are both definitely overrated. LSU is somewhere around the 10th best team I'd say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said the same thing and people told me I was nuts. Thank goodness someone else will look at numbers too. Ignoring margin of victory is insane. Even people who care about it usually don't care enough or in the right way.

You so smart JoA.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget about that fourth down miracle in a game in which they were completely dominated at Arizona State.



[/ QUOTE ]
let's not forget the circumstances bud.

aside from katrina they had to play a very dangerous ASU team with a new coach and a completely new look when they were supposed to play i think UNT? once again its not the margain of victory that counts. i [censored] hate it when people talk about miracles at the end, its like talking about a bad beat on the river...its useless, end result=lsu won.

Re: LSU/SEC homers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget about that fourth down miracle in a game in which they were completely dominated at Arizona State.



[/ QUOTE ]
let's not forget the circumstances bud.

aside from katrina they had to play a very dangerous ASU team with a new coach and a completely new look when they were supposed to play i think UNT? once again its not the margain of victory that counts. i [censored] hate it when people talk about miracles at the end, its like talking about a bad beat on the river...its useless, end result=lsu won.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, LSU is a great team. If they ever come close to losing to a bad team, its because the other team REALLY is good. Tennesee should get a BCS bid btw.

GO SEC!

about that \"miracle\"
 

i didn't see you chiming in calling USC's 4th and long against ND a miracle, and then the whole 4th and goal a miracle. i mean if you are going to go so far as to say LSU won on a miracle then we need to start calling a spade a spade.

but b/c its leinart and USC and not the "overated" SEC you don't say anything huh? well i agree it wasn't a miracle, it was a gutsy play and showed that USC not only has the ability to blow out teams but win close games against tough teams like ND on the road (those kind of games show me a hell of a lot more than those blowouts of AK).

the thing is is that the LSU game against ASU showed me the same thing...i actually had picked ASU to win but LSU with a new coach, new look, away from home (where they were supposed to be b/c of katrina) go into tempe and played a very good sundevil team.

oh and ASU was held in check for most of the game by LSU's defense. ASU has the 3rd best passing attack in the country and a top 10 scoring team in the country too.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

No, I think Texas is better than USC, too.

You really need to take into account margin of victory.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, I think Texas is better than USC, too.


[/ QUOTE ]
haha really?
[ QUOTE ]
You really need to take into account margin of victory.

[/ QUOTE ]
margin of victory against baylor and every other soft team in our conference. the only other team that is "considered" good is tech and they IMO are the softest ranked team in the country (should have lost last week to OU, officials screwed that one up...and got really lucky that nebraska mucked up at the end).

texas has 1 quality win. name another? and if you dare say a&m at kyle field i will laugh, yes they were outplayed yesterday but they had to play 1000X better than UT to win and they only played 500X (you like my exaggeration [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).

nobody is even close to UT in that conference so you can't make the comment that you made, we saw what happened in columbus and what if they have to play games like that every week? b/c in the big 10 its a dogfight every week, no easy games. if they show up like they did against OSU or A&M against any team in the big 10 they lose. so you are better than that margin of victory comment.

i have to go throw i will be back.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

ND is an excellent team, top 10 in most people's book right now. Arkansas is somewhere in the 50's.. ASU is in the 20's, but that win wasn't a bad one, considering it was after Katrina, and a win over the 20's is quality.

And Texas destroyeed A&M, Oklahoma, and Colorado, all top 30 teams, and none of those games came close. 20+ points to Texas in every game but against OSU and A&M. If that doesn't show dominance, I don't know what does.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
you are better than that margin of victory comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, is your position that margin of victory doesn't matter? Because that's obviously wrong, and that should be obvious to a poker player who understands probability and expectation.

Texas and USC have both killed most teams on their schedules. When they've played excellent teams, they've both struggled. I think Texas is better, but it's close.

I am a huge MOV guy, but I will concede that MOV needs to be handled a bit carefully in blowouts. The difference in a 49-point win and a 35-point win is less than the difference in a 17-point win and a 3-point win.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, is your position that margin of victory doesn't matter? Because that's obviously wrong,

[/ QUOTE ]
so by your reasoning then Texas Tech should be the best 9-2 team in the country, waaaay better than Notre Dame right? b/c they beat the snot out of anemic teams like fla int., sam houston st. and indiana st., teams that give scholarships to kids that are catatonic and partial scholarships to kids that have down syndrome. i mean you can't be serious, they frickin' schedule stat padders for there first few games to see if they can hit the century mark and that should mean that they are better than Notre Dame and Auburn and teams that actual play real teams, teams with some substance. if tech is in any other conference they are at the bottom.

margin of victory doesn't really matter b/c if you haven't played anybody good what does it matter? the big12 is horrendous, the north division is a mess and the south has one bright light so tell me why texas pounding on a bunch of [censored] teams means anything?

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, is your position that margin of victory doesn't matter? Because that's obviously wrong,

[/ QUOTE ]
so by your reasoning then Texas Tech should be the best 9-2 team in the country, waaaay better than Notre Dame right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, of course not. Margin of victory applies to losses as well, and you also obviously need to take into account opponent quality. For example, Notre Dame gets a lot of credit for their three-point loss to USC. That is a GREAT loss, and adds evidence to the case that they're excellent.

Notre Dame is substantially better than Texas Tech. Auburn is about even.

I'm not just a total geek who doesn't watch games. But honestly, just using numbers is a pretty good guide to evaluating teams, because public perception is often way off. Just look at how many NFL commentators pick some BSP team against the Vegas line. And that's their job!

The fact that Texas keeps pounding everyone matters because only excellent teams are that dominant. Even very good teams usually play some close games against bad teams, and most of them even lose to one at some point.

When two teams play a close game, that supports the idea that they are about even, no matter who wins. Honestly, is USC any better because Leinart gets in as opposed to being stopped short? That game was essentially even either way. And if one team is MUCH better than another, they are likely to win by a lot rather than a little. This is a significant part of why LSU is overrated, because they play close with decent teams, which means they're not all that much better than those decent teams they're playing.

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Sagarin predictor.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, is your position that margin of victory doesn't matter? Because that's obviously wrong,

[/ QUOTE ]
so by your reasoning then Texas Tech should be the best 9-2 team in the country, waaaay better than Notre Dame right? b/c they beat the snot out of anemic teams like fla int., sam houston st. and indiana st., teams that give scholarships to kids that are catatonic and partial scholarships to kids that have down syndrome. i mean you can't be serious, they frickin' schedule stat padders for there first few games to see if they can hit the century mark and that should mean that they are better than Notre Dame and Auburn and teams that actual play real teams, teams with some substance. if tech is in any other conference they are at the bottom.

margin of victory doesn't really matter b/c if you haven't played anybody good what does it matter? the big12 is horrendous, the north division is a mess and the south has one bright light so tell me why texas pounding on a bunch of [censored] teams means anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

What conference would Tech be at the "bottom" of? The Big 12 has a lot of mediocre teams, with only a few real bad teams. Tech fits right in that mix, but would easily be in the top half of most conferences.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

1. auburn is better than tech.
2. if texas showed up and played the way they did aginst ok state or a&m against the majority of the big 10 the ball game would have been over, they just made too many mistakes. i guess you just look at the end score and not how the game was played...like yesterday that 40-29 score looks a lot worse than how close the game really was, which is why margin of victory is pointless.


[ QUOTE ]
you also obviously need to take into account opponent quality. For example, Notre Dame gets a lot of credit for their three-point loss to USC. That is a GREAT loss in my mind, and adss evidence to the case that they're excellent.


[/ QUOTE ]
that is the truth. TT lost to UT (great opponent) and oklahoma st. (terrible team)...we won't get into the oklahoma game (such bullsh*t!, pretty good opponent FWIW.)

Auburn has lost to Ga Tech (solid/tough team, upset miami) and LSU (top ranked team).

you really think they are the same? texas tech doesn't come close to playing a well-balanced football game and they should be glad they scheduled gimme games non-conference instead of tough ones like Ga Tech or else they could easily have more losses. that coach and that team in lubbock is a joke, and us texans like to laugh at them.

i guess auburn should have been playing oklahoma school for the deaf and kansas school for the hearing impaired before they got to conference play so they could get those solid wide margin of victory's [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

What conference would Tech be at the "bottom" of? The Big 12 has a lot of mediocre teams, with only a few real bad teams. Tech fits right in that mix, but would easily be in the top half of most conferences.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think there are a couple conference in which if they were in i don't think they would be in the top 25 by the end of the year. i just don't think they have a balanced enough team to play a tough game every week, that coach is no dummy, there is a reason there schedule is so soft.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not just a total geek who doesn't watch games. But honestly, just using numbers is a pretty good guide to evaluating teams, because public perception is often way off. Just look at how many NFL commentators pick some BSP team against the Vegas line. And that's their job!

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite was Jason Whitlock saying that "Vegas blew it" with the Thanksgiving line of Denver -2 and that "Bledsoe would fumble at least twice" and "the Denver line would put him in a clown suit," leading Denver to a victory of at least two touchdowns. Uh, Jason, Denver only had 1.4 sacks/game this season... they got to Drew once and he never fumbled. Denver covered by a whopping 1 point.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite was Jason Whitlock saying that "Vegas blew it"

[/ QUOTE ]

Whitlock is an idiot, and of course he's wrong about this as well. Vegas NEVER blows it.

In fact, in some sense Dallas outperformed the line because the margin at the end of regulation was 0. I always think it would suck if you lost a game like that; it seems almost unfair.

Re: about that \"miracle\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not just a total geek who doesn't watch games. But honestly, just using numbers is a pretty good guide to evaluating teams, because public perception is often way off. Just look at how many NFL commentators pick some BSP team against the Vegas line. And that's their job!

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite was Jason Whitlock saying that "Vegas blew it" with the Thanksgiving line of Denver -2 and that "Bledsoe would fumble at least twice" and "the Denver line would put him in a clown suit," leading Denver to a victory of at least two touchdowns. Uh, Jason, Denver only had 1.4 sacks/game this season... they got to Drew once and he never fumbled. Denver covered by a whopping 1 point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look, if there's anything Whitlock values, it's accuracy and objectivity.