Let's play a game - Guess the record

https://b1gvssec.myfootballnow.com/box/4588

Another classic case of blowout suppression. Turnover margin of -3 for us, with 6 penalties on us to 1 on them.

Our QB had all the time in the world and wide open receivers all day, while theirs is under constant pressure and forced to hurry throws into tight windows regularly, but of course we throw a pick and they don't.

We have a guy who touched the ball 5 times total fumble it twice and lose both. His avoid fumble is not great, but not terrible at 65. They have a 45 avoid fumble RB carry the ball 6 times and never drop it (which is not unusual on its own, but a contrast). They did fumble once, but of course they recovered it.

I'm so sick of the constant in your face suppression of domination together with the denial that it exists. The stats don't lie.

Also, why do we have so few stats on the game viewing and box score pages? Actually, this part is probably a better post for a different thread...

If there's blowout suppression, someone out to tell Smirt that in MFN-2...

Sep 05 TENNESSEE (41-0)
Sep 12 JACKSONVILLE (41-0)
Sep 19 @ Chicago (28-0)
Sep 26 @ Cleveland (26-9)
Oct 03 NEW ENGLAND (38-0)
Oct 10 @ Indianapolis (22-0)
Oct 17 @ Jacksonville (21-0)
Oct 24 @ New York (A) (53-0)

The fact is, there's always a random element. Player attributes just feed into whatever algorithm, but the reality is, if it calulates you needed to roll at least 8 to avoid a fumble and a 7 occurs, you coughed it up. Now if each roll should be a discrete event - should a player be more secure after a fumble or maybe fumbles occur in clusters. different story.

I am entirely uninterested in your uninformed "defend MFN at all costs" type posts. I know you don't have any interest in taking a second to consider anything that I am saying, so why even respond?

Smirt is an exploiter, and many of those games are not even blowouts. The ones that are I'm sure could have been much larger. I've had bigger wins where I've been very frustrated at how ridiculously suppressed my team has been. It used to be a regular occurrence to see 70+ point wins from the top teams over the dumpster fire teams. Not that that is ideal, but the disparity is so wide, that it is the only honest option. The suppression exists, clear as day, it is artificial, and it leads sometimes to the most insane losses that should never have happened. Of course you are on the side of keeping it, because it only ever benefits your teams.

1. Hardly "defend MFN at all costs". You're better than that. If you want to make that assertion, then you need to provide proof. You've provided a small sample set of data; league season (regular + post season) is what, 269 games per league. There's around 20 leagues so 5380 games for a season across all leagues - as 4.6 been around a few years, then have say 10 season. So 53,800 games. Each game has around 120+ plays, so at least 6m individual plays.

2. APIs are available to download game plays.

3. If there's a rationale for your claim, then use the data to prove it.

4. Your hypothesis is predicated solely upon one strand, which ignores other factors - other game changes, people improving knowledge, certain elements being amended et al. That's why analysis of pure data is way more important and you need a large set to avoid outliers unduly affecting any theories.

5. Smirt is someone who pushes the game engine, and is invaluable to the game by highlighting areas needing work. He's a net positive for the game.

6. Please explain how it benefits my teams...

7. From what I've seen of data, there's no statistical difference in performance of plays when up by a large amount that stands out as anything other than being within normal ranges for plays. I'm more than happy to be corrected.