The hell the raiders and eagles doing so high on performance

philly337 said The hell the raiders and eagles doing so high on performance

I guess they are going off of records. But the birds did become the number one rushing team. Expectations were beyond low and nobody had them making the playoffs. But they some how backed in. Now idk about the raiders.

born wisdom said I guess they are going off of records. But the birds did become the number one rushing team. Expectations were beyond low and nobody had them making the playoffs. But they some how backed in. Now idk about the raiders.

Exceeding expectations maybe but im just talking how they're ranked on performance (and can't be record cause niners have better record than eagles and bills/rams have a better one). No way raiders and eagles are above san fran and on same level as bills/rams.

And Falcons performance better than chargers, saints. Vikings, steelers?

Unless I'm reading the sh*t wrong...

49ers were 3rd in super bowl odds during the preseason

philly337 said The hell the raiders and eagles doing so high on performance

Probably expected them to be a*s

philly337 said The hell the raiders and eagles doing so high on performance

It's based on what the preseason record prediction was vs what the actual record ended up being.

As an example…

view image

—the “expectations”, if you will.

AFC West:

1. Kansas City Chiefs (15-2)
2. Los Angeles Chargers (10-7)
3. Denver Broncos (5-12)
4. Las Vegas Raiders (5-12)

NFC East:

1. Dallas Cowboys (10-7)
2. Washington Football Team (9-8)
3. New York Giants (6-11)
4. Philadelphia Eagles (5-12)

Both the Raiders and Eagles were “expected” to win five games. Raiders won 10, Eagles won 9. It appears that the further to the left a team appears, the lower their expectations (no matter how low they are on the chart (which is why the Seahawks are so far to the right—a lot was expected of them this year). The higher a team is (above the diagonal line), the more they exceeded expectations. The further below the diagonal, the more they disappointed.

All we’re missing is what data was used to calculate “expectations”.

That Guy Fly said It's based on what the preseason record prediction was vs what the actual record ended up being.

To me it look like actual performance is up/down and expectation is left/right.

Example...chiefs had highest expectation (furthest right) but 4th best performance (underneath packers, bucs and titans). The packers had the 4th/5th highest expectation but top performance (highest on chart).

So if you're top right in the chart you were expected to good and did good

Bottom right you were epected to do good but performed bad

Top left you were expected to do bad but did good

Bottom left you were expected to do bad and did bad

But just performance is how high you are on the chart (packers, bucs, titans chiefs are 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th and jags, Texans, lions and giants are 4 worst). The team who beat expectation best was eagles or Bengals and the worst was Seahawks

So if thats right...thats retarded and not sure how the hell theyre putting the raiders and eagles that high on performance or have Falcons over teams I mentioned

Kooper said Probably expected them to be a*s

Yeah that's why they're off to the left. Im talking they're performing ranking which looks to be just up/down

Mr Insecurity said As an example… view image —the “expectations”, if you will. AFC West: 1. Kansas City Chiefs (15-2) 2. Los Angeles Chargers (10-7) 3. Denver Broncos (5-12) 4. Las Vegas Raiders (5-12) NFC East: 1. Dallas Cowboys (10-7) 2. Washington Football Team (9-8) 3. New York Giants (6-11) 4. Philadelphia Eagles (5-12) Both the Raiders and Eagles were “expected” to win five games. Raiders won 10, Eagles won 9. It appears that the further to the left a team appears, the lower their expectations (no matter how low they are on the chart (which is why the Seahawks are so far to the right—a lot was expected of them this year). The higher a team is (above the diagonal line), the more they exceeded expectations. The further below the diagonal, the more they disappointed. All we’re missing is what data was used to calculate “expectations”.

I dont think...see my post. If it was just the highest you could do one straight line and that would mean this chart is saying bucs were the 2nd highest team to beat expectations. Top left are team who beat expectations the most

How are people struggling to understand this basic a*s chart?

No wonder the debates on BX have gone to sh*t...

Mr Insecurity said As an example… view image —the “expectations”, if you will. AFC West: 1. Kansas City Chiefs (15-2) 2. Los Angeles Chargers (10-7) 3. Denver Broncos (5-12) 4. Las Vegas Raiders (5-12) NFC East: 1. Dallas Cowboys (10-7) 2. Washington Football Team (9-8) 3. New York Giants (6-11) 4. Philadelphia Eagles (5-12) Both the Raiders and Eagles were “expected” to win five games. Raiders won 10, Eagles won 9. It appears that the further to the left a team appears, the lower their expectations (no matter how low they are on the chart (which is why the Seahawks are so far to the right—a lot was expected of them this year). The higher a team is (above the diagonal line), the more they exceeded expectations. The further below the diagonal, the more they disappointed. All we’re missing is what data was used to calculate “expectations”.

That's confusing, if the case. You check the Panthers out. We finished with 5 wins, they expected us to win 6 games. So we finished that far below expectations?

infrared AJ6 said How are people struggling to understand this basic a*s chart? No wonder the debates on BX have gone to sh*t...

mwtx said

I mean, that chart doesn't make sense for the Panthers though. Saying we fell that far below expectations when they were expected to win 5-6 games and they won 5 games is a bit stupid. No?

ghettofied said I mean, that chart doesn't make sense for the Panthers though. Saying we fell that far below expectations when they were expected to win 5-6 games and they won 5 games is a bit stupid. No?

I don’t know I never saw anyone saying panthers were a 5 win team, if I had to make a prediction I probably woulda said 7 or 8 wins.

mwtx said I don’t know I never saw anyone saying panthers were a 5 win team, if I had to make a prediction I probably woulda said 7 or 8 wins.

Sportingnews article had us at 6 wins. Most had us finishing below the Falcons in the Division.

mwtx said I don’t know I never saw anyone saying panthers were a 5 win team, if I had to make a prediction I probably woulda said 7 or 8 wins.

view image

Here's another one. sh*ts wild man.

ghettofied said view image Here's another one. sh*ts wild man.

Idk I feel like panthers were tough to gage before the season started. For the most part I feel like it’s pretty accurate.

Especially when you look at ravens browns Seahawks

philly337 said I dont think...see my post. If it was just the highest you could do one straight line and that would mean this chart is saying bucs were the 2nd highest team to beat expectations. Top left are team who beat expectations the most

Nope it says that Tampa had really high expectations (defending champion that brought almost all of that championship roster back) AND they had high performance (they tied for the most wins in the NFL).

I’m not sure what has you confused about where the Raiders, Falcons and Eagles are. The Falcons should be lower—they only won 7 games (Raiders won 10). Falcons may have outperformed expectations, but they also lost 10 games.

mwtx said Idk I feel like panthers were tough to gage before the season started. For the most part I feel like it’s pretty accurate. Especially when you look at ravens browns Seahawks

Those 3 yes. But the Panthers were expected to suck by most. So this sh*t doesn't make much sense.

Mr Insecurity said Nope it says that Tampa had really high expectations (defending champion that brought almost all of that championship roster back) AND they had high performance (they tied for the most wins in the NFL). I’m not sure what has you confused about where the Raiders, Falcons and Eagles are. The Falcons should be lower—they only won 7 games (Raiders won 10). Falcons may have outperformed expectations, but they also lost 10 games.

Because up/down where they are on the chart has nothing to do with expectation and solely their overall performance (left right is expectation). Whatbi broke down is exactly what the chart is. Maybe you made a typo (because your bucs example is exactly what insaid)

Falcons example...their expectation is off to the left and was expected to be the 25th ranked team (24 teams more to the right meaning those 24 were expected to do better). Their actual performance theyre ranked 15th (24 other teams higher up on the chart meaning they are saying the Falcons performed 15th best...the up/down has nothing to do with expectation)

infrared AJ6 said How are people struggling to understand this basic a*s chart? No wonder the debates on BX have gone to sh*t...

view image

I think I figured it out.

view image

view image

ghettofied said That's confusing, if the case. You check the Panthers out. We finished with 5 wins, they expected us to win 6 games. So we finished that far below expectations?

No, you're more accurate...the expectation is how far to left or right (so they were protected to be like 20th worst team) and their actual performance is up/down so they're saying they were like 5th worse...so a little worse than expectation

philly337 said No, you're more accurate...the expectation is how far to left or right (so they were protected to be like 20th worst team) and their actual performance is up/down so they're saying they were like 5th worse...so a little worse than expectation

The way that visualization looks makes it seem like they fell wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy below expectations.

infrared AJ6 said How are people struggling to understand this basic a*s chart? No wonder the debates on BX have gone to sh*t...

Hope your a*s aint referring to me cause I broke the sh*t down. I'm asking what fu*king idiot ranked them this way where the eagles/raider actual performance is on par with bills/rams