http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/patriots-nfl-predictions.15783/We gotta find the preseason predictions thread.
Thanks Tony - looks fun.if you want some skin in the game, i'm putting together a confidence pool here: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/nfl-playoff-pool.17302/
Phil Plantier went 0/8 on division winners and had Arizona beating Cincinnati in the Super Bowl. You know, that wasn't a crazy Super Bowl pick back in August.http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/patriots-nfl-predictions.15783/
I haven't spent a ton of time looking at the results, but I'll give the edge to Gunfighter for being the only one to put Dallas in the playoffs.
Oh, totally agree, and I took the Pats myself. That said, if people were picking along purely probabilistic lines, then each game would have 100% of the votes, and that's where I think the bias comes in. There are almost 30% of people picking OAK over HOU, or NYG over GB, despite the odds being against them, because they have some reason to think that the underdog might win, and apply that. I think the bias is that none of us are going to do that in the Pats games, which is why they look even more skewed than probability might suggest.Making odds vs. individuals picking games (even on a Pats board) are two different things.
If instead of just team names imagine people see both team names and odds to win at the same time. If you see NE vs PIT as NE having a 60% chance of winning (and NE vs KC as roughly the same) won't most people logically take that 60% and NE? The narratives now suggest NE has an unusually easy path to the SB. Stats, whether advanced or normal, point to the Pats as the best team in the NFL. If people think they are the best team and the eventual AFC Champion with an edge to win the SB over any of the NFC teams (say 55% chance of winning) wouldn't a greater proportion of people pick them to win the SB? It would make sense to me for NE to be picked by a higher percentage of people to win the SB than their theoretical % to win it.
This is also a Pats site - but I'd imagine if people were voting with their heads and not their hearts then you'd see a similar but less pronounced difference.
Thank you sir!Thanks Tony - looks fun.
You may also want to check your super bowl matchup in the post above.
I pretty much agree with the consensus in re favorites (leaving aside that the Pats are obviously not 90% favorites, nor 75% for the Super Bowl -- even though I think most agree -- even non-Pats' fans -- that the Pats are clear favorites, I can't imagine they win in more than 40 or 45% of simulations). I agree on the Giants having only a 10% chance or so to get thru the conf championship, and per your note on them being overrated the anomaly here is that if you fear the Giants you REALLY fear the Giants and that 10% turns into 6% chance to win the Super Bowl. I think that's more psychology than anything else -- to me the Cowboys are a clearly superior team and I'd flip with them with Giants in order of probability of winning it all, 2nd only to the Pats....
Conference Championship Round (number of people who had this team win their game this round)
NE: 89.2%
KC: 7.7%
PIT: 3.1%
ATL: 33.8%
DAL: 33.8%
GB: 10.8%
SEA: 10.8%
NYG: 9.2%
DET: 1.5%
Super Bowl (percent of picks to win it all)
NE: 76.9%
NYG: 6.2%
KC: 4.6%
ATL: 4.6%
SEA: 3.1%
PIT: 1.5%
DAL: 1.5%
GB: 1.5%
edit: Either we are very biased, or the Pats are the best team ever! The NFC picture is a lot more competitive, as evidenced by the fact that no one has any of MIA, OAK, HOU winning a game after the wild card round. Looks like we as a group are collectively underrating DAL and ATL at least, and probably the rest of them aside from DET as well (though maybe overrating the NYG).
Looked it up, co-MVPs has happened once in SB history:[QUOTE="mwonow, post: 2079752, member
Super Bowl
NE over DAL, 36-24 Just to be different, Marty B and TB12 as co-MVPs
SI just came out with their playoff picks. I'm too tired to collate all the previous rounds, but I thought it interesting what their SB winner breakdown was:Added everyone up with an entry so far:
WC Round
...(lots of stuff deleted)...
Super Bowl (percent of picks to win it all)
NE: 76.9%
NYG: 6.2%
KC: 4.6%
ATL: 4.6%
SEA: 3.1%
PIT: 1.5%
DAL: 1.5%
GB: 1.5%
edit: Either we are very biased, or the Pats are the best team ever! The NFC picture is a lot more competitive, as evidenced by the fact that no one has any of MIA, OAK, HOU winning a game after the wild card round. Looks like we as a group are collectively underrating DAL and ATL at least, and probably the rest of them aside from DET as well (though maybe overrating the NYG).
Why not bring this here? Isn't a hallmark of here to take something a basic media bit does, and make it better? In my case, from most to least likely: New England, Dallas, Atlanta, Pittsburgh*, Kansas City, Green Bay, Seattle, New York, Miami, Oakland, Houston, Detroit.I'd be interested to see everyone rank the 12 teams in order of likelihood to win the SB and then combine the results. That would be more telling then 10 guys picking NE, 1 ATL, 1 PIT, zero field.
Each of the 13 - not 12, there were actually 13 - writers completed their full playoff brackets in that article...and the most amazing thing to me is that only 1 of them picked the Cowboys to reach the Super Bowl. (5 Falcons, 5 Packers, 2 Giants.) 12 of the 13 picked the Patriots to reach the Super Bowl.I'd be interested to see everyone rank the 12 teams in order of likelihood to win the SB and then combine the results. That would be more telling then 10 guys picking NE, 1 ATL, 1 PIT, zero field.
I'll go with New England, Atlanta, Dallas, Green Bay, New York, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Oakland, Miami, Detroit, Houston. The NFC is wide open; I don't think New England is a prohibitive favorite by any means - for me they're more likely to not win the Super Bowl than they are to win it - but they'll probably only need to win 2 competitive games while everyone else has to win 3 or 4, and that's a huge edge in their favor.Why not bring this here? Isn't a hallmark of here to take something a basic media bit does, and make it better? In my case, from most to least likely: New England, Dallas, Atlanta, Pittsburgh*, Kansas City, Green Bay, Seattle, New York, Miami, Oakland, Houston, Detroit.
That's what I thought as well when I first read it, but then I noticed that either there were 12 writers, or else SI has two writers named Ben Baskin who's thoughts and predictions are identical. I chose the former.Each of the 13 - not 12, there were actually 13 - writers completed their full playoff brackets in that article...and the most amazing thing to me is that only 1 of them picked the Cowboys to reach the Super Bowl. (5 Falcons, 5 Packers, 2 Giants.) 12 of the 13 picked the Patriots to reach the Super Bowl.
C'mon, Gunfighter is depressed enough. He has to watch them getting beat twice? Here's mine:ConigliarosPicks
NE, Dallas, Atl, KC (just by having a bye, these have to be in the top 4 for me), Pit, GB, Sea, NYG, Det, Hou, Oak, Miami.In my case, from most to least likely: New England, Dallas, Atlanta, Pittsburgh*, Kansas City, Green Bay, Seattle, New York, Miami, Oakland, Houston, Detroit