Search results

I think the D is much improved this year. Not only another year under Baker, but the safety and DT play should be a big step up, and that's what makes this D go. Factor in the maturation of Rousseau, addition of Roche, faster LB's (albeit less experienced), Frierson maturing at striker (who...

Yeah not really stoked about Brown being there. They've been a thorn in our side for long enough now, and have a truly competent HC. Looks like he's recruiting well too.

Not a game, not a game, not a game....

As someone who lived in Manhattan for 8 years, agreed. Which is exactly why I said I'd need to look at the formula to form an opinion. The thing with metrics such as this, is there are many, many ways to do the math, resulting in different outcomes. It's really up to the user to take it for...

That's right.

I think there's a very valid argument that you cannot account for coaching due to: 1) Too many intangible factors, and 2) Small sample size. My initial reaction is you just look at win %age and factor that in, but what do you do with a first year head coach? Too many randoms to quantify.

Isn't the guy an FSU fan who used to/does write for Warchant? Or am I mistaking him for someone else? Clearly I don't get the joke.

I figured that might be the case, but I'm also a nerd for all things statistics, and very interested in the notion of "luck" as a statistical measure. So I couldn't help but chime in. As for the behavior of the rankings, if true and repeatable, sounds like a problem with the metric itself...

My understanding of SP+ is that it's a quantitative metric without subjectivity, and therefore can't have "a crush" or any other sort of bias.