Gil Dobie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:37 am
Phillies are 27 out of 30 in winning percentage.
Yes, we know they suck. Why the need to pile on?
Is it because the Twins suck too?
That's rhetorical. Don't answer
My team is #8, but only won 4 World Series. Twins are #21 with 3 World Series which includes the original Senators.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:52 am
by 93henfan
So if you're going with multiple world series victories, that's why the Phils are average. That apparently balances their most ever losses of any franchise in the world.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:08 am
by 89Hen
Wait, Patriots at 28? Ok, this one is beyond futile, it's just moronic.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:59 pm
by Gil Dobie
93henfan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:52 am
So if you're going with multiple world series victories, that's why the Phils are average. That apparently balances their most ever losses of any franchise in the world.
And why are the Twins ahead of the Red Sox on the list?
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
93henfan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:52 am
So if you're going with multiple world series victories, that's why the Phils are average. That apparently balances their most ever losses of any franchise in the world.
And why are the Twins ahead of the Red Sox on the list?
For the same reason the Lakers are ahead of the Patriots...factoring in decades of results with no recency bias,
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
And why are the Twins ahead of the Red Sox on the list?
For the same reason the Lakers are ahead of the Patriots...factoring in decades of results with no recency bias,
Last time I looked 9 WS > 3
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:28 pm
by 89Hen
Pwns wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:14 pm
recency bias
That is debatable as to what that should mean.
Twins have 8 playoff trips in the last 28 years with only one playoff series win. 28 years. That's not what I would call recency.
Redskins perfect example. They have been one of the bottom three franchises since before my 23 year old daughter was born. Their ancient Super Bowls should almost be worthless by now.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Pwns wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:14 pm
recency bias
That is debatable as to what that should mean.
Twins have 8 playoff trips in the last 28 years with only one playoff series win. 28 years. That's not what I would call recency.
Redskins perfect example. They have been one of the bottom three franchises since before my 23 year old daughter was born. Their ancient Super Bowls should almost be worthless by now.
Like they said in the video, that 86 year gap hurt their standings.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:38 pm
by Vidav
89Hen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:08 am
Wait, Patriots at 28? Ok, this one is beyond futile, it's just moronic.
But how long did they go without a Super Bowl win, or without an MVP? They took lots of things into account. The video explains it.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
But how long did they go without a Super Bowl win, or without an MVP? They took lots of things into account. The video explains it.
Except pre Super Bowl Champions were not counted as champions.
I said "how long did they go without a Super Bowl win" so I'm not sure of your point.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:07 pm
by Vidav
Watch this if you want to understand why pre Super Bowl championships shouldn't really matter to anyone. So many teams were in and out of the league in the early days.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Except pre Super Bowl Champions were not counted as champions.
I said "how long did they go without a Super Bowl win" so I'm not sure of your point.
Pat's yes, but the things they took into account and things they didn't count, hurt Green Bay and the Bears.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:10 pm
by 89Hen
Vidav wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:07 pm
Watch this if you want to understand why pre Super Bowl championships shouldn't really matter to anyone. So many teams were in and out of the league in the early days.
Perfect, we can discount 70% of the Yankees World Series.
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Twins have 8 playoff trips in the last 28 years with only one playoff series win. 28 years. That's not what I would call recency.
Redskins perfect example. They have been one of the bottom three franchises since before my 23 year old daughter was born. Their ancient Super Bowls should almost be worthless by now.
Like they said in the video, that 86 year gap hurt their standings.
You guys are assuming I watched the video. I just fast forwarded to where I saw them actually give the team ranks. I don't give a shit about their methodology, it sucks. They all suck. Of course some of the rankings are accurate (Cardinals highly ranked) but there are just too many that don't pass the sniff test. WGAF if a team had a drought in the 60's and 70's?
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
Like they said in the video, that 86 year gap hurt their standings.
You guys are assuming I watched the video. I just fast forwarded to where I saw them actually give the team ranks. I don't give a shit about their methodology, it sucks. They all suck. Of course some of the rankings are accurate (Cardinals highly ranked) but there are just too many that don't pass the sniff test. WGAF if a team had a drought in the 60's and 70's?
Red Sox 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's 80's 90's
Re: Using math to rank all teams in the four major sports
89Hen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:15 pm
You guys are assuming I watched the video. I just fast forwarded to where I saw them actually give the team ranks. I don't give a shit about their methodology, it sucks. They all suck. Of course some of the rankings are accurate (Cardinals highly ranked) but there are just too many that don't pass the sniff test. WGAF if a team had a drought in the 60's and 70's?
Red Sox 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's 80's 90's
Why are we talking about the Red Sox? I didn't bring them up.