Just to be clear, I was not trying to say that the reasons are legitimate, just trying to explain why the analytic models have the Browns with a lower win total than most football evaluators.There's a good chance Rene Bugner is my wife's secret pen name, because this article is a case study in nit-picking.
The Browns have been the most aggressive in changing over the offseason. I agree that those who are risk adverse wouldn't bet on the Browns... but what fun is it to predict another Patriots AFC Championship win over Ben Roethlisberger? Dare to eat a peach. Dare to have fun. Dare to invest your Sundays in the Browns.
When I say uncertainty, I mean statistical uncertainty, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is just language of prediction.I dislike how uncertainty is always viewed as BAD. Freddie being a new HC always seem to be viewed negatively rather than positively or simply neutral.
I could list 20 LEGITIMATE reasons why the Browns should be improved, vs about 5 hypotheticals (egos! new HC!) on why the Browns should regress.
The NFL is unpredictable and by no means am I guaranteeing anything, but how anyone can project the Browns to be WORSE is mind-boggling to me.
Actually, this is a great article that explains some of what I am getting at...Just to be clear, I was not trying to say that the reasons are legitimate, just trying to explain why the analytic models have the Browns with a lower win total than most football evaluators.
When I say uncertainty, I mean statistical uncertainty, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is just language of prediction.
So the way the models work is via regression. The regression produces a standard error, and because these variables create uncertainty, this standard error is really large. Nobody shares their results, but my guess is the Browns standard error with a 99% confidence interval ranges between six and twelve wins. It is probably the largest in the NFL, along with the Ravens.
Then the regression tries to establish the significance of every win total... because the error is so large, and because of their performance last season, the most confidence is probably at 8-8.
Again, I think the models are adding uncertainty that is not actually present because of how their formulas function. Literally all I was trying to do is explain why the 538, PFF, Football Outsiders, and ELO models have the Browns at 8-8.
"Players who are hot late in the season have big things ahead in the next season"
This myth is coming into play now with the preseason hype around the Cleveland Browns and Baker Mayfield. Mayfield was absolutely outstanding in the second half of last season. Based on our passing DVOA ratings, his improvement from the first half of the season to the second half was the third-largest of any quarterback since 2004. Certainly, that improvement is going to carry over to this season, right?
Well, the first indication that it's not is the name of the quarterback with the greatest second-half improvement in the past 15 years: Joey Harrington for the 2005 Lions. Harrington didn't exactly set the football world on fire in 2006.
Throughout the history of Football Outsiders, we've looked at the idea that improvement or decline in the second half of a season predicts performance the following season. We always get a similar result: There doesn't seem to be a pattern where players or teams with outstanding second halves carry that momentum over to the next season. Because of Mayfield, we looked at it this offseason, limited to only first-year starters who improved in the second half of that season. Even for these players, their full-season performance was a better guide to their performance the following season than their hot second halves.
There's plenty of reason to believe Mayfield will be an excellent quarterback this season. He was very good for a rookie to begin with, and now he's adding Odell Beckham Jr. to his wide receiver corps. But that hot second half, specifically, is not a reason to believe Mayfield will be great this season.
"'Analytics' says teams should always pass"
Most of myth-busting here has been about how the analytics community views the game of football. This one is more about how football fans view the analytics community.
Yes, analytics says that NFL teams need to pass the ball more often. But it's incorrect to exaggerate and state that analytics says teams should always pass the ball.
First, there are definitely situations where running is more efficient than passing, primarily short-yardage situations. To use just last season as an example, runs converted 73% of the time on third-and-1, while passes converted just 59% of the time in those situations. In fourth-and-1 situations, those numbers were 75% for runs and 64% for passes.
Second, we can analyze the game only as it is actually played, both now and in the past. That means that in every game we analyze, there's always the threat of the run. If there was a football team that literally never ran the ball, it would change the way defenses would play against that team. That would change the probabilities of certain decisions. Most people in the analytics community understand this. We're suggesting that teams pass the ball more, not that they eschew the run completely.
Sounds a little like he is hedging his production. He followed up by saying he is still faster than anyone the team.
he isn't on the injury report and hasn't been at all...seems like he wants to lull the titans to not worrying as much about him with no tape of him in a browns uniform yet