What would you say the odds of the Eagles going undefeated are?

[MicroBob]

I just think that in some sort of ideal-universe set-up where you have the Eagles play the Redskins over 10 consecutive weeks that it would be VERY difficult for the Eagles to win 9 out of 10 matchups.

7-0 means they are off to a good start....but there is almost always 1 team that starts off 6-0 or 7-0 in football in a lot of seasons.


Heck, in baseball there is frequently some team that starts off 7-0 just because the odds usually dictate that some team, somewhere will be hot (KC did this I think either last year or the year before). Milwaukee strarted 13-0 one year and didn't even make the playoffs.
Baseball is more of a 50-50 type of sport of course (winning 60-65% of your games in baseball is a really good year....winning 35-40% is pretty awful).
Cincinnati had the best record in the major-leagues on memorial day.


Lets say you had a 30-team league in the sport of Imaginary Bazooka-Ball that you do on a computer or with dice or whatever.

15 of those teams are called 'The good teams'.
15 of those teams are called 'The not-good teams'.
You set up a random schedule.
When a good team plays another good team they each have a 50% chance of winning. Same for not-good vs. not-good.
When a good team plays a not-good team then the difference is 65% to 35%.

I would suggest that even with these more modest percentages in this super-parity league....at 7 games into the season it would not be at all unusual to have at least one team that is 7-0 (as well as a team at 0-7 or a handful of teams at 1-6....whatever).
I'm not smart enough to know what the EXACT odds of a team being 7-0 are....but it can obviously be determined.
SOME team SOMEWHERE is probably going to be 7-0.

And remember, there is a ton of parity in this league...yet the chances of a team coming out of the first 7 games unbeaten are still reasonably strong.


you can also look at the past history in the NFL.
I don't know how many teams have started 7-0 in the past 35 years but I suspect it's happened 10-15x (maybe...not sure).
Yet only ONE team has gone unbeaten (1972 Dolphins).


Your point that the Eagles have a somewhat easier schedule is valid.
And they are definitely a very good team.
If they win their next couple of games by scores of 42-10 then I would feel more comfortable calling them 'dominant'.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
you don't consider 7-0 a dominant team?

[/ QUOTE ]

at Philly 31, New York Giants 17
at Philly 27, Minnesota 16
Philly 30, at Detroit 13
Philly 19, at Chicago 9
at Philly 30, Carolina 8
Philly 34, at Cleveland 31 OT
at Philly 15, Baltimore 10

This is not the schedule of a "dominant" team. The Cleveland, Chicago, and Baltimore wins are extremely unimpressive. Detroit and the Giants are inconsistent enough to not make wins over them all that impressive (esp. since the Giant win came in Week 1.)

The only that even vaguely impresses me on that list is that they beat Minnesota.

Sure, they're a very good team, but dominant? Hardly.

-McGee

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
hmmm, i guess i should put a factor in for officiating...i understand your point, but you don't consider 7-0 a dominant team?

[/ QUOTE ]

Need I REMIND you?

[swimfan]

Good point/reminder. Let me counter with historical records leading up to unbeaten streak:

Phi
2002: 12-4
2003: 12-4

Min
2001: 5-11
2002: 6-10

Also, the Eagles are 18-2 in their past 20. I think when Minnesota started on their 6 game win streak last year, it's more related to MicroBob's point, where the probability of Minnesota winning 6 in a row is like .55^6; improbable, but still happens.

OTOH, the Eagles have demonstrated that they're capable of winning at a 75% clip. Why I think they can average to 13-3 or 14-2 this season is the following:

1. Their schedule. GB and Min represent the strongest challenge going into the season. If they had NE, Indy and/or KC, the 3 type of teams that I think the Eagles don't match up as well against (esp. Indy), would change things.

2. Owens/Kearse. Both sides of the ball improved in a synergestic (think i made that word up) nature.

Of course this may all be a moot point after this weekend. I think the Eagles have a decent shot if they can rattle Roethlisberger (sp?) with their pass rush. Will allow them to cheat more against the run.

Also, I did not take the bet, though ignoring injury potential (a huge if, of course), I change my 2:1 to around 5:2 to 3:1.

[swimfan]

If their schedule is relatively easy, points out that the probability of going unbeaten is relatively higher.

Let's compare the 1985 Chicago Bears schedule and win margin against the 2004 Eagles.

Bears
TB - 38-28
NE - 20-7
@Min - 33-24
Was - 45-10
@TB - 27-19
@SF - 26-10
GB - 23-7

TB was 2-14 that year. Min was 7-9. Was is impressive, as well as SF. Ave win margin is 15.3 compared to the Eagles' 11.7. I would argue the Bears were the most dominant team since 1972 and better relatively than this Eagles team. However, is a 3.6 point difference all that great to not be considered 'dominant'?

Edit: I would certainly argue the Eagles are dominant within the NFC.

[swimfan]

I agree with all your points, good post. I argue the Eagles case a little more in the post I made a little bit ago.

Just to clarify the Eagles v. Redskins...if they played 10 consecutive weeks, by the 10th week I would think it would be like 65/35. However, if you simulate at that point of time I believe the Eagles will win 9 out of 10 times, because of match-ups. I think the latter statement is what you're pointing out (difficulty in winning 9 out of 10), again just wanted to clarify the consecutive weeks point.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I did not take the bet, though ignoring injury potential (a huge if, of course), I change my 2:1 to around 5:2 to 3:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 5:1 offer still is out there... only two more days to claim it...

[swimfan]

I wouldn't take anything worse than 9:1.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
If their schedule is relatively easy, points out that the probability of going unbeaten is relatively higher.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say anything about their remaining schedule, which is the only issue now since the bet starts now.

[ QUOTE ]
However, is a 3.6 point difference all that great to not be considered 'dominant'?


[/ QUOTE ]

Margin of victory is a pretty overrated measure, in my opinion, because game conditions and proper strategy often dictate that teams make very little effort to score for as much as an entire half of football. But to answer your question, in football, 3.6 points is quite a lot. Think of it this way; that 3.6 is almost 31% of Philly's margin of victory.

It's actually unfair to Philly to compare them to the '86 Bears, because we can evaluate Chicago on the basis of an entire season, and we only have 7 games to do that for the Eagles. However, dominant teams do not give up 31 points to a really bad Cleveland team or need overtime to beat them.

-McGee

[swimfan]

[ QUOTE ]
It's actually unfair to Philly to compare them to the '86 Bears, because we can evaluate Chicago on the basis of an entire season, and we only have 7 games to do that for the Eagles. However, dominant teams do not give up 31 points to a really bad Cleveland team or need overtime to beat them.


[/ QUOTE ]

The '86 Bears, another dominant team, went 14-2. In fact, they also gave up 31 points to a Cleveland team. However, that Cleveland team was good. It's not unfair to compare the Eagles to the '85 Bears, because we know they have been the most dominant team in recent memory. Furthermore, since they are the most dominant team, how do they rate at equal junctures of season? If comparing them to the '85 Bears is unfair, what would a fair comparison be? Additionally, the '85 Bears gave up 28 points to a very bad TB team. At home.

[ QUOTE ]
Margin of victory is a pretty overrated measure, in my opinion, because game conditions and proper strategy often dictate that teams make very little effort to score for as much as an entire half of football. But to answer your question, in football, 3.6 points is quite a lot. Think of it this way; that 3.6 is almost 31% of Philly's margin of victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but is there a better measure or standard? How about a 1st PF and 1st PA (ave) in the league measure? What is a better standard? I'm sure if we took a look at multi-variate statistics we could come up with one, however I don't have the time or brainpower. And exactly what does 31% mean? 3.6 points is a lot when margin is small, they have lesser meaning as points go up; and for the reason you stated: [ QUOTE ]
because game conditions and proper strategy often dictate that teams make very little effort to score for as much as an entire half of football

[/ QUOTE ] . Again, an average margin of 11 points is high.


Edit: Anyway, my definition of a dominant football team is one that can expect to win 75% of games on average

Edit2: oops, think the ave PF for the Eagles rank them 3rd.