Our take on this sunday's matchup vs SD

by sancho8297 on Sep 12, 2008 7:46 PM MDT

San Diego @ Denver: From Inside the Numbers

Ok you can stop laughing now. Yes we do have the Broncos favored by 3 touchdowns against the might of the west coast, San Diego. When we dig into the numbers we see a Broncos team that is slightly over playing its potential, and we surely see a San Diego team that is under performing given its abilities. So we dig a little deeper and we find…nothing. The slate is blank as San Diego fails to present any real mismatch against Denver. And when you’re at Mile High stadium, there is a long way to dig before you might find anything.

ITN week 1 ranking: San Diego #19 | Denver #11

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Only 3 TDs?

by UnarmingMermaid on Sep 12, 2008 11:32 PM MDT reply actions

that's very generous

but i don’t believe our d and st’s are quite up to the task yet. if l.t. and cromartie can’t go, and gates is hobbled, and…, then maybe your right. but for now, i’ll take a squeaker and a 1.5 game lead in first place. we will take this game, though

hear me, perpetrators of bread crime, your punishment is at hand.
taste my blintzkrieg!

by davecheffy on Sep 12, 2008 11:43 PM MDT reply actions

Wouldn't that be a 2.0 game lead?

"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen

by spock on Sep 13, 2008 8:21 AM MDT up reply actions

2,5 actually

If the Broncos beat the Chargers, we’d be 2-0, Chargers would be 0-2. With us getting a tie breaker, it’d be a 2.5 game lead.

I like a man who fights with a grin on his face. Winston Churchill.

by bradley on Sep 13, 2008 10:35 AM MDT up reply actions

Is this the new math?

What tie breaker? Aren’t you counting the chickens a little early? A two-game lead is a two-game lead. Even if we end up tied in the final standings with the tie-breaker in our favor, it doesn’t mean we have a half-game lead. It means we’re tied with the tie-breaker in our favor.

"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen

by spock on Sep 13, 2008 12:46 PM MDT up reply actions

no

i was referring to the division lead, not the “charger lead”. k.c. or oak. must win this week, and be 1-1, unless there is the rare event of a tie. the .5 would be in effect if oak. wins, since we already beat them(but there is a rematch). if k.c. wins, it would be 1.0 only, with 2 games remaining between them. although, since neither of them has a shot to take the division, you’re basically right, mathematics aside. 2.5 on s.d with a win

hear me, perpetrators of bread crime, your punishment is at hand.
taste my blintzkrieg!

by davecheffy on Sep 13, 2008 12:45 PM MDT up reply actions

The term tie-breaker

suggests that there’s a tie to break, not that there’s a half game advantage. Hell, you could call it a 1.0000000001 game lead if you’re simply suggesting that a tie-break advantage is equivalent to a part of a game lead. Let’s not confuse the mathematically disadvantaged with voodoo mathematics.

"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen

by spock on Sep 13, 2008 12:53 PM MDT up reply actions

ok. essentially, then

that is the term used to describe this advantage in sports, “essentially, a 2.5 game lead”. they don’t break it down any further than that, as the point is taken. if we have one less win than the chargers, and play s.d. in the final game of the season, for instance, another win would automatically give us the division tie-breaker, even though we are now tied in record. simplified, .5. also, if we are tied with s.d. going into that game in record, they need to win it, while all we need to do is tie them, hence our advantage. we win the division in these cases based on the head-head victory sunday, and avoid the rest of the tie-breaking process. that’s all .5 means, proper mathematics(and standings) aside. i thought this was more well-known, my apologies

hear me, perpetrators of bread crime, your punishment is at hand.
taste my blintzkrieg!

by davecheffy on Sep 13, 2008 2:31 PM MDT up reply actions

Hey, a win is a win.

Yes any margin of victory for Denver would please the masses. On a side note, anyone want to take a shot at the over/under on number of different running backs that get carries on sunday? Im going with a conservative 4….

Inside the Numbers LLC

'Making sense of sports statistics'

by sancho8297 on Sep 13, 2008 7:44 AM MDT reply actions

Do catches count?

if so, yes, four is a good number. Otherwise I would say 3 would be conservative, but four would be correct. :)

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Sep 13, 2008 10:18 AM MDT up reply actions

Do you consider

Hillis in the equation seeing as he is listed as a FB? If its based on depth chart positions I go 3, if it encompasses rb/fb I go 4.

Though the end is near, Still I am not sorry

by broncfanstuckinsd on Sep 13, 2008 11:29 AM MDT up reply actions

You bring up a good technical point.

“RB” is an oft misused term (I misuse it all of the time myself).

Halfbacks and fullbacks are both considered running backs. When we say “RB” we often are really refering to the HB. I do the same thing myself, but it isn’t proper. Hillis is a RB, just like Selvin Young. But Hillis is a FB, while Young is a HB.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Sep 13, 2008 3:35 PM MDT up reply actions