<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The Jaguars Are Maybe Really Good?	</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.footballperspective.com/the-jaguars-are-maybe-really-good/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/the-jaguars-are-maybe-really-good/</link>
	<description>NFL History and Stats</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:08:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Tom		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/the-jaguars-are-maybe-really-good/#comment-329653</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=35738#comment-329653</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.footballperspective.com/the-jaguars-are-maybe-really-good/#comment-329638&quot;&gt;Tom&lt;/a&gt;.

We&#039;ve all moved on I&#039;m sure, but I need to edit this. My spreadsheet had games of *over* 10 points as a Big Win (and under 10 as a BL). Jim&#039;s breaking point is 9, meaning a Big Win is 10 and over as I note in my comments. So, the Jaguars are not at the top of the Big Win Index, as they now have a second Big Loss, to Rams in Week 6. Speaking of which, the Rams are at the top of the list:

1. LAR: 3 Big Wins, 0 Big Losses, 0.714
2. PHI: same, 0.714
3. SEA: 2 BW, 0 BL, 0.667
4. DAL: 3 BW, 1 BL, 0.667
5. JAX: 4 BW, 2 BL, 0.643]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="http://www.footballperspective.com/the-jaguars-are-maybe-really-good/#comment-329638">Tom</a>.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve all moved on I&#8217;m sure, but I need to edit this. My spreadsheet had games of *over* 10 points as a Big Win (and under 10 as a BL). Jim&#8217;s breaking point is 9, meaning a Big Win is 10 and over as I note in my comments. So, the Jaguars are not at the top of the Big Win Index, as they now have a second Big Loss, to Rams in Week 6. Speaking of which, the Rams are at the top of the list:</p>
<p>1. LAR: 3 Big Wins, 0 Big Losses, 0.714<br />
2. PHI: same, 0.714<br />
3. SEA: 2 BW, 0 BL, 0.667<br />
4. DAL: 3 BW, 1 BL, 0.667<br />
5. JAX: 4 BW, 2 BL, 0.643</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tom		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/the-jaguars-are-maybe-really-good/#comment-329638</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 05:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=35738#comment-329638</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This is great stuff and it reminds me of something a reader had created about 6 years ago on Brian Burke&#039;s old ANS site:

http://community.advancednflstats.com/2011/12/revisiting-big-wins-index-kind-of-wins.html

The reader&#039;s name is Jim Glass, and the &quot;metric&quot; is called the &quot;Big Win Index&quot;. The idea is that most playoff winners in the NFL aren&#039;t the teams that win close games (&quot;clutch&quot; teams) but instead teams that dominate and don&#039;t get dominated. So, instead of looking at straight wins and losses, we look at a team&#039;s &quot;big&quot; wins and &quot;big&quot; losses...those games that are either won or lost by 10 or more points. Any scores closer than that are treated as ties. 

Anyway, I&#039;ve always love the idea, and I have a spreadsheet where I keep track of the Big Win Index...home field advantage can be included, and of course, it can be adjusted for SOS.

Not trying to hijack this post or anything, but I thought this was closely related, so if readers find this interesting they may want to check out Glass&#039; article.

And also - while the rankings don&#039;t match up exactly with Chase&#039;s list, the #1 team in the BWI right now is indeed the Jaguars (BWI 0.714) and at the bottom is the Colts (BWI 0.214).

We&#039;re barely at the half-way point and the Jags can still flame out, but so far this is good news.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is great stuff and it reminds me of something a reader had created about 6 years ago on Brian Burke&#8217;s old ANS site:</p>
<p><a href="http://community.advancednflstats.com/2011/12/revisiting-big-wins-index-kind-of-wins.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://community.advancednflstats.com/2011/12/revisiting-big-wins-index-kind-of-wins.html</a></p>
<p>The reader&#8217;s name is Jim Glass, and the &#8220;metric&#8221; is called the &#8220;Big Win Index&#8221;. The idea is that most playoff winners in the NFL aren&#8217;t the teams that win close games (&#8220;clutch&#8221; teams) but instead teams that dominate and don&#8217;t get dominated. So, instead of looking at straight wins and losses, we look at a team&#8217;s &#8220;big&#8221; wins and &#8220;big&#8221; losses&#8230;those games that are either won or lost by 10 or more points. Any scores closer than that are treated as ties. </p>
<p>Anyway, I&#8217;ve always love the idea, and I have a spreadsheet where I keep track of the Big Win Index&#8230;home field advantage can be included, and of course, it can be adjusted for SOS.</p>
<p>Not trying to hijack this post or anything, but I thought this was closely related, so if readers find this interesting they may want to check out Glass&#8217; article.</p>
<p>And also &#8211; while the rankings don&#8217;t match up exactly with Chase&#8217;s list, the #1 team in the BWI right now is indeed the Jaguars (BWI 0.714) and at the bottom is the Colts (BWI 0.214).</p>
<p>We&#8217;re barely at the half-way point and the Jags can still flame out, but so far this is good news.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
