How is that even possible?
Simulation: UConn beats Michigan 95 percent of the time.
Maybe in basketball.
Is Simulation an OSU fan?
It's not even close. And this is on Heisman. Without Troy Woolfolk.
It's hard to see how anyone could simulate Michigan this year, with so many positions completely unknown, first among them QB....
It's like saying that a you have the simulation results for a random number generator.
Yes. Thank you.
Not that I disagree with you, but in light of your statements I'm curious about how you feel about the Mathlete's probabilistic analysis (which are semi-favorable for UM).
as I do all statsitical projections for football. A fun excersize, but ultimately not much more useful than one's gut, simply because A: Football is so much harder to gauge statistically than baseball, and B: The statistical analysis of football is years behind baseball ad still hasn't been tackled in earnest by many people.
I would be interested to see numbers on statistical projections of games vs well versed sports casters. I will bet neither is particularly better than the other.
Whatever it takes to make UCONN feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
WhatIfSports projects Michigan going 3-9. They only give us a 19% win chance against Purdue.
Mathlete needs to get them proper data, obviously they have flawed numbers.
is that they are predicting an average of 23 points a game compared to the 30 points from last season, even though offensively we have done nothing but improve at most positions. How we can drop 7 points on average with a more seasoned offense i am not sure. Granted, the 63 we hung on Delaware skews that average, but still.
They should be equally snacky-cake delicious.
Not to nitpick, but we played Delaware State. Delaware is more like App State in football prowess in lower divisions. Plus they stole our helmets, and there were not two sets of winged helmets on the field last year.
...and 23.9 points per game against the Big 10+Notre Dame in 2009.
F that site.
77-78 Canadiens beating the 01-02 Red Wings 4-0? Pshhh.
is impossible. Plain and simple. Sergei, Stevie, Shanahan, Larionov and Dats would put in ten or eleven goals on Dryden. I don't think so.
Hull, Robitaille, Lidstrom, and Hasek in net. The 01-02 Red Wings is one of the greatest hockey teams of all time.
Clearly, they just make shit up.
-2 in his career in the playoffs?
Seriously. In '02 Lids was +6 w/ 16 pts in the playoffs. what if sports needs to hire the mathlete if they want to have any credibility.
edit: and Chelios was +15! wowsa.
man oh man do I miss that team. I was little when they won it in 1997 but I can remember the 2002 championship like it was yesterday. 2008 was awesome too don't get me wrong but that 2001-2002 season for Detroit was the best championship I've seen in a long time. I miss that team.
'97 FTW. All of the first 3 were special. But '97 was the best one for me. The parade was the last day of my junior year of high school, final exams were already over. I was on probabtion for my English class that I had missed a bunch of times and had to be there on the final day to get credit. Skipped it anyways to go down the the parade w/ a buddy and two chicks. Got a NC for the class. Totally worth it.
'02 was pretty awesome too though. Stayed in A2 through that summer and watched most of the games at Skeeps. That was an awesome team and an awesome run. The goal by Lindstrom down 0-2 to Vancouver was what started it all.
his TOI in this "game" was over 40 minutes! I can understand how he got tired!
I can now assure you all, with utmost confidence, that this site is bull.
At 14:50 of the third period:
"Shot on goal by Jiri Fischer (wrap around)"
Well, Jiri Fischer was on that 01-02 cup winning team so whats wrong with that?
I'm not sure Fischer ever went below the hash marks in the offensive zone.
that Canadien team that year was loaded, and I mean loaded. Dryden, Lafleur, LeMaire, Robinson, Shutt. They lost 10 games out of 80 regular season games. Also, you're talking 2 different generations.
Full disclosure, I am NOT a Habs fan...nor a Wings fan, actually. This said, the 77/78 Habs team is borderline greatest of all time...
Jacques Lemaire, Ken Dryden, Steve Shutt, Larry Robinson, Yvon Cournoyer, Guy Lapointe, Serge Savard, Bob Gainey and Ken Dryden, Scotty Bowman (coach)...all in Hall of Fame
The O2 Wings with Hasek, Lidstrom, Yzerman, Chelios (not in his prime but still solid), Robitaille, Hull and Larionov (all certain Hall of Famers) and Scotty Bowman...that is a formidable team.
It's pretty difficult to compare eras but, realistically the 77/78 Habs team is in the conversation regarding greatest NHL team of all time. The 02 Wings, while particularly talented, are not in that conversation.
I'd contest that the 01-02 Red Wings are not only in the conversation, but are the most talented team of all time.
Sure-thing/already inducted HOFers: Hasek, Lidstrom, Yzerman, Chelios, Robitaille, Hull, Larionov, Shanahan, Bowman
Likely HOFers: Fedorov, Datsyuk
Possible HOFers: Draper (several rings, one of the best defensive forwards/face-off men of all time), Holmstrom (several rings and master of his craft)
Only the 56-57 Canadiens even touch that (10 HOFers including the coach).
Wow, this is too like that whole Olympics thing when apparent hockey myopia takes over; particularly when you awaken the Wings fan. Anyway, I'll stand by my position that Habs team (pretty much every Habs team of the late 70's) is *in* the conversation regarding the greatest team of all time...but for you to contend that the 01/02 Wings are the most talented team of all time (jesus, burn Canada) is absolutely incomprehensible.
To put it in context, the 77/78 Habs were in the midst of a run of 4 straight cups, 5 in 7 years and 10 in 15 years and, incredibly, 15 in 24 years.
I don't like that Habs but that team dominated like nothing seen before or since. FWIW I would suggest strongly, however, that the 85/86 Oilers were the greatest team ever seen.
Now as for Draper and Holmstrom in the Hall of Fame? Come on now...it's for all time greats, remember? Fedorov is on the borderline and Datsyuk has a lot more work ahead. That Draper to HOF though, that was amusing.
I would love to see how this simulation was set up.
Sept 4th is the only thing that counts.
despite including the result in its equation, MSU beating CMU 9 out of 10 times, sometimes by as much as 30 pts.
their simulations really don't look favorable on UM
It was already mentioned.
Honestly why do you come to this site?
He usually makes posts that are fairly well-informed, but also has a tendency to fall into the NDNation-type drive-by's that you are seeing an instance of above.
I'm with you on not understanding why you'd want to spend so much time on a rival's blog. Then again, NDNation...
Sometimes I just roll my eyes when I see him fall into that ND nation pose. You are right, usually his material is reasonably informed.
ND, rebuilding since my childhood. Enough said.
just to ruin your day
guess I need to work on my posting speed, yeah get over yourselves
Almost as absurd as the 5% chance of beating UConn was an under 20% chance of beating Michigan State OR Purdue. What?!?
I want to neg you for making me read this. There goes my happiness today.
The only thing that I can think of is that they put Denard ahead of Tate and then extrapolated his stats from last year.
FWIW they are using Denards stats as a 6 for passing. Really? A 6? out of 100...really? Even an OL like David Molk should have a higher rating than a 6. Also, our RB listed are V. Smith and Moundros.
well that explains a lot. Somebody should probably point that out to them.
i think you're looking at Denard's passer stamina from last year. i simulated 2009 UM vs. 2009 UConn and the scores were
30-20, 48-41, 17-30, 27-41, 48-24.
that's 3 out of 5. so unless i have an extremely abnormal stat set or they're using a skew that shifts a lot from what these teams were last year.
I think you've solved the mystery.
They must use the same mathematical model where Jim Delaney has a brain and Brandon has a pair of balls..
Garbage in, garbage out
Phil Steele has 3 power ratings that call for a 9 win season for us. One actually says we'll go 11-1...its whatev
can be made to say whatever you want. This is obviously not an unbiased simulation. 5% is a joke. I can't wait to visit that site after we cream UConn in 9 days. Go Blue!
Try typing the number 80,085 into a calculator. What does that number say to you? He, he he.
Ugh. This is pure bait - don't feed the trolls. What's worthy of attention is a good, useful simulation that makes accurate predictions.
There are just too many variables on Michigan's part for anything like this to be of value. Even with fewer variables, there's still very little value.
Does the site also take into context both of UCONN's starting DE being out?
Lol they have Penn State taking 2nd in the big ten with most likely a freshman QB starting, and returning 5 guys on D.. lol right..
Seems to me this is a pretty easy site to disregard. You can have it simulate games that were actually played like the ND and MSU games from last year. Site predicts MSU wins 62-10 and ND wins 69-38...just a wee bit off. Any model that incorrectly predicts the past is pretty poor in my book.
Those are some rough numbers. Apparently, we have the same chance to beat UCONN that we have to beat OSU, PSU, or Wiscy. Not sure how they form these odds, but it's pretty ridiculous. only 75% of the time we beat BG?
Ohio State shuts out Michigan 12-0.
That should tell you all you need to know about their awesome (pause, takes huge hit on bong) simulation engine. (exhales huge cloud of smoke, puts down bong, absent-mindedly rummages around apartment for bag of Doritos.)
You're an old-school, liberal, pot-smokin', hippie Wolverine, aren't you?
Heh.. Definitely old school, with emphasis on old.
Radical commie liberal on some things, raving reactionary wingnut on other things.
Strictly martinis or my Lagavulin for me. Pot's a huge waste of time, IMHO.
Hippie? I mocked them in 1971 as a UM freshman and mock them now. Useless punks on dope.
But definitely 100% Wolverine.
Nice, you have my attention sir. Great Whiskey and nothing beats 100% Wolverine!
Well, if you're going to be attending games this year let me know what section/seat and I'll bring over a flask for a snort. I just have to figure out how to smuggle it in. Might have to be later in the season when I'm wearing a jacket.
Sure, they think they should win 95% of the games, but as everyones favorite ESPN personality Chris Berman says, "That's why they play the games!"
Here's to a 5% ass kicking handed out to the Huskies on the 4th!
Now they don't even have to bother playing the game. We can just sim our way through the season.
Bunch a jags...
CPU IQ is 0. Thought I'd point that out.
This website is retarded. Their "simulated" results for the 2010 Big 10 standings look a lot like the actual finish from last year:
I'm sure they just took Denard's passing numbers and plugged them in. This is great work guys. Who cares if you forgot to take into consideration attrition, player development, luck, and conference parity? But no, the standings will be basically the same right?
And since it is std. in CFBB to give the home team 3 pts. Those with money on the line, consider it to be a toss-up.
it works every time ;)
DAMMIT, WE SUCK IN SIMULATION WORLD! ARRRRRGGGGHHHH
I wonder what the simulations said for the Arizona (49-78) @San Diego (76-49) baseball game tonight... Arizona leads 9-0 in the fifth. That's why they play the game, folks.
Do they still think our QB is Threetidan?
Edsall, Randy proprietor
german octopus > whatifsports.com
You'd think that if their simulation has UConn winning 95% of the team against a team that is a slight favorite (per Vegas), they'd conclude that their simulation was flawed. I mean really, should UConn have a 95% chance of beating any BCS-conference team?