Close losses

[Shutitdown]

FC you are Mike Brown's dream lemming (fan)

[5wide]

Just to chime in again, the majority of NFL games are close. We can come up with a criteria for catagorizing "close losses", just for number's sake.

 

But, the reality is, the final score of a game doesn't tell you all about that game. Just because a game would fall outside of the close loss criteria doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't close. Say the Bengals and Steelers were playing and the game was tied with 5 minutes to play. Pitt scores a TD to go up 7, then Cincy gets it back with 3 minutes to play only to have the Steelers defense return an int for a TD. In reality, I'd call that a close game, but the final score might say otherwise. It's just the opposite of a team scoring right at the end to make the final score a one-possession game.

[futurecoach]

Just to chime in again, the majority of NFL games are close. We can come up with a criteria for catagorizing "close losses", just for number's sake.

 

But, the reality is, the final score of a game doesn't tell you all about that game. Just because a game would fall outside of the close loss criteria doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't close. Say the Bengals and Steelers were playing and the game was tied with 5 minutes to play. Pitt scores a TD to go up 7, then Cincy gets it back with 3 minutes to play only to have the Steelers defense return an int for a TD. In reality, I'd call that a close game, but the final score might say otherwise. It's just the opposite of a team scoring right at the end to make the final score a one-possession game.

 

That is my point, you can't just look at the final score to determine if a game is close. However you want to use point spreads instead of looking at the game itself in determining if the game was really close or not. That is why I was debating the Bengals 8 point loss to the Ravens in their second game against them, because that game the Ravens really were in control throughout and never really seemed like the Bengals had a shot to win, especially at the end like in the other games I have talked about. Just like in baseball teams could be tied in the 9th, but a team hits a 3 run shot to win the game. Since the margin ended up being 3 does that all of a sudden mean it was not a close game just because the margin was 3 and not a 1 run game? Point spreads are great to use before a game and determine who people may feel is better going into the game. However how the game is actually played determines what type of game it really was.

[futurecoach]

FC you are Mike Brown's dream lemming (fan)

 

For what exactly? Backing up why I believe these things? I gave people reasons last year why I thought they would do much better than people though, and those were many of the reasons why they ended up doing well. Yet people had their mind up about them without even truly looking at things. Now for this debate, I don't even know how it is a debate considering most people would consider those close games based on how the games were played in 5 of 8 of those losses. I give credit where credit is due, but some people have a hard time with that when it comes to the Bengals. Then if I am wrong I will admit it, just like I was wrong about the whole Carson Palmer thing.

[bugatti]

Just to chime in again, the majority of NFL games are close. We can come up with a criteria for catagorizing "close losses", just for number's sake.

 

But, the reality is, the final score of a game doesn't tell you all about that game. Just because a game would fall outside of the close loss criteria doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't close. Say the Bengals and Steelers were playing and the game was tied with 5 minutes to play. Pitt scores a TD to go up 7, then Cincy gets it back with 3 minutes to play only to have the Steelers defense return an int for a TD. In reality, I'd call that a close game, but the final score might say otherwise. It's just the opposite of a team scoring right at the end to make the final score a one-possession game.

I heard a few years ago where the average score of NFL games over history was 17-13. That may have changed over the past few years with more points being scored, but that margin holds pretty constant.

 

Obviously every game is different and a team can score last second to make it appear close or a team on the other end can score last second to make it seem larger than what the game actually was. I would say over time those average out. 1 possession and under is close in my book.

[SSC]

I heard a few years ago where the average score of NFL games over history was 17-13. That may have changed over the past few years with more points being scored, but that margin holds pretty constant.

 

Obviously every game is different and a team can score last second to make it appear close or a team on the other end can score last second to make it seem larger than what the game actually was. I would say over time those average out. 1 possession and under is close in my book.

 

I'm good with considering a game relatively close if it's a 7 point game. I still say if you're down 7 when you get the ball back you aren't close to winning though. If roughly 1 in 4 drives result in a TD in the NFL (and the numbers might be lower) you generally have a 25% chance to tie that game. Then you still have to win a 50/50 game. The expected win percentage of a team with a 7 point lead with under 5 minutes to go in a game is huge.

[UKMustangFan]

Close losses are still loses. Who cares if they lose by a FG or by 3 TD's? It still counts the same.

[futurecoach]

I'm good with considering a game relatively close if it's a 7 point game. I still say if you're down 7 when you get the ball back you aren't close to winning though. If roughly 1 in 4 drives result in a TD in the NFL (and the numbers might be lower) you generally have a 25% chance to tie that game. Then you still have to win a 50/50 game. The expected win percentage of a team with a 7 point lead with under 5 minutes to go in a game is huge.

 

Which those are great points, however you still have to look how the game was played. When a team first gets the ball back say down 7 at the end of the game, then year the percentage of them scoring is probably just 25% if say they are 75 yards away. However don't you think that percentage of them scoring a touchdown keeps going up the closer they get to the end zone? Those 5 losses I am talking about did involve the Bengals actually driving down field and getting in the red zone before getting stopped on an interception or a failed 4th and one. Then the other game they lost when the Texans did score the winning touchdown at the end. The Bengals put their chance of winning up much higher than the 25% chance they had when they first got the ball on those drives. Which is why you have to take into account how the game was played, in those games they were very close tight games at the end with the outcome very much in doubt for both teams. Why do you think I haven't argued the second Ravens game? If I remember correctly the Bengals did get the ball back down 8 with like 3 minutes to go, and but then gave the ball right back up a few plays later. They never did come close to making a drive or having a chance to tie it. That is why I have never included that in the debate, how the game is played down matter.

[futurecoach]

Close losses are still loses. Who cares if they lose by a FG or by 3 TD's? It still counts the same.

 

I completely agree with you a loss is still a loss. This all started because I joked about how someone was saying well the Reds have some good close losses against good teams. I said no that don't count since people didn't the Bengals close losses count against good teams. I definitely didn't mean to get this whole thing started, it was a simple joke and turned into this debate. At the end of the day you are right it still counts as an L.