I feel that <O>'s analysis is incomplete without the following variables being considered:
- A Quarterback who is FAR inferior to Ryan Tannehill came out of the broadcast booth and played the first 5-1/2 games. Is there a historical precedent for this? If not, has there ever been another QB with the nickname "Smokin'" attributed to his name? No? Then, perhaps, we need to consider the Simmons "Ewing Effect," which suggests that when a team loses it's best offensive player, the rest of the team rallies in his absence. Sure, some stats may suggest that this team SHOULD be 2-4, but the Ewing Effect at least needs to be considered.
- Similarly, a high-priced free agent apparently just completely lost his **** the day before the season opener, and stalked his FORMER EMPLOYER. Has there been a weirder high-profile act of craziness that didn't involve the words "Tawny Kitaen?" (Side note, I'd like to see a separate study of the potential effect on the Dolphins record if Whitesnake was played during home games.) We need to see what the potential effect of a starting MLB going AWOL is, historically, before we make any judgements on what should and should not be wins.
- "Hundred Year Storms" - certainly, this would factor into the performance of a team. Alas, as the NFL is not yet 100 years old. So, there cannot mathematically be more than one other "hundred year storm" to consider. (Yes, if we consider 1992's Hurricane Andrew the END of a 100 year cycle, this works just fine.) So...let's take a look at 1992. Much like this year, they had a Week 1 bye. Much like the 2017 squad, they ALSO won three games by four or fewer points. However, the 1992 squad went 6-0 to start the season, then dropped their next two games. They also did this without having to travel to London, and with a QB who had less "Smokin" and more "The Man" attributed to his name.
If the above is measured into the equation, I, for one, would suggest that the 4-2 start this year is attributed to intangibles (which by their very definition cannot be defined statistically). Furthermore, I would suggest, NAY...PROCLAIM...that the 4-2 record is not luck, but rather a REGRESSION. The history of 1992 suggests that the Fins should...theoretically...win their next two games to reach 6-2 for the first half of the season.
- A Quarterback who is FAR inferior to Ryan Tannehill came out of the broadcast booth and played the first 5-1/2 games. Is there a historical precedent for this? If not, has there ever been another QB with the nickname "Smokin'" attributed to his name? No? Then, perhaps, we need to consider the Simmons "Ewing Effect," which suggests that when a team loses it's best offensive player, the rest of the team rallies in his absence. Sure, some stats may suggest that this team SHOULD be 2-4, but the Ewing Effect at least needs to be considered.
- Similarly, a high-priced free agent apparently just completely lost his **** the day before the season opener, and stalked his FORMER EMPLOYER. Has there been a weirder high-profile act of craziness that didn't involve the words "Tawny Kitaen?" (Side note, I'd like to see a separate study of the potential effect on the Dolphins record if Whitesnake was played during home games.) We need to see what the potential effect of a starting MLB going AWOL is, historically, before we make any judgements on what should and should not be wins.
- "Hundred Year Storms" - certainly, this would factor into the performance of a team. Alas, as the NFL is not yet 100 years old. So, there cannot mathematically be more than one other "hundred year storm" to consider. (Yes, if we consider 1992's Hurricane Andrew the END of a 100 year cycle, this works just fine.) So...let's take a look at 1992. Much like this year, they had a Week 1 bye. Much like the 2017 squad, they ALSO won three games by four or fewer points. However, the 1992 squad went 6-0 to start the season, then dropped their next two games. They also did this without having to travel to London, and with a QB who had less "Smokin" and more "The Man" attributed to his name.
If the above is measured into the equation, I, for one, would suggest that the 4-2 start this year is attributed to intangibles (which by their very definition cannot be defined statistically). Furthermore, I would suggest, NAY...PROCLAIM...that the 4-2 record is not luck, but rather a REGRESSION. The history of 1992 suggests that the Fins should...theoretically...win their next two games to reach 6-2 for the first half of the season.
