Comments
Bischrob OP t1_itsfg5g wrote
Glad I'm not a Packers fan
BARATHEON96 t1_itsga78 wrote
Crazy how the packers and bucs just fell off a cliff. I dont think I've ever seen this happen before. Unless they just won a sb and everybody left for more money.
Bischrob OP t1_itsgonn wrote
It's been a weird start to the season.
BARATHEON96 t1_itsgy2k wrote
Which teams do you think are for real? I for one only trust the bills and chiefs and eagles to be rela contenders. Everyone else is either bad or not as good as their record would indicate. Also, I for one think the bucs are really bad. Like bottom 10 team in the nfl. Lost to the steelers and panthers. And it's not like they have injured ayers coming back so they are way over rated.
upboatsallaround t1_itsin3z wrote
>Top right is good, bottom left is bad
I just assumed by the Lions' location.
Bischrob OP t1_itsju1p wrote
A helpful guide
Bischrob OP t1_itsk0d8 wrote
I agree with your top picks. No one else jumps out. As much as I hate to say it, I wouldn't count the Bucs out yet.
aPizzaBagel t1_itswcj2 wrote
Dear Football, Stop copying Football. You will never be Football.
RadicalAppa t1_itt4m4d wrote
I like the pauses each week! Fun animation
[deleted] t1_itt4oq6 wrote
[removed]
YouAlreadyShnow t1_ittpslj wrote
The Eagles have a very, very talented and young roster but their schedule makes them a paper tiger. Year or two from now will tell you if they are legit or not. They should waltz into the playoffs though.
The Bills and Chiefs are miles ahead of the other teams right now.
Bad teams are obvious like Panthers, Bears, Houston etc. Then you have outliers like the Packers, Arizona, Lions. Then you have paper tiger teams like the Vikings, Bengals, Jets. Then you get a "Their roster is so bad, how? Must be the Coach " with Dabs and the Giants.
guitarthrower t1_itueuis wrote
Cool animation. And interesting data. Am I the only one distracted by the shifting scale on the axes?
demetrixjennings t1_itufhov wrote
Did you create the EPA metric? How is that calculated?
adams_mike333 t1_itufhw6 wrote
Can you elaborate?
Bischrob OP t1_itve3ov wrote
Without them everyone just looks bunched up in the middle at the end
Bischrob OP t1_itvewjj wrote
I just used the dataset from nflfastR. Here's an explanation of it https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/
demetrixjennings t1_itvgyz3 wrote
Thanks, don’t know how I’ve never seen it before. Super cool though. Great vis
[deleted] t1_itvh1wb wrote
[removed]
guitarthrower t1_itw5mdn wrote
hard to imagine locking it at +/- 0.2(ish) would make much of a difference considering there is only 0.05 variance between them all. Plus the more important point here is the outliers, not the lump in the middle.
Bischrob OP t1_itw655i wrote
Week one has outliers past 0.4. It makes a big difference.
Bischrob OP t1_itwcmv7 wrote
Good question, it is cumulative
Bischrob OP t1_itsen5g wrote
Top right is good, bottom left is bad. Made in R using these packages: nflfastR, nflplotR, tidyverse, gganimate, ggthemes.
Explanation of EPA https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/