Made this for Squid and others.....

[Steelhere10]

GARY HARRELL FROM NORFOLK, VA:
The Steelers have a habit of losing to teams that they should beat. I feel once they fix that, No. 7 is on the way. What do you think?

ANSWER: This from Bill Barnwell of ESPN: "I thought we were done but we're not, apparently. The league wins 64.5 percent of the time against sub-.500 teams. Mike Tomlin's Steelers are 74-28, which is a .725 win percentage." And here's another issue I have with this kind of question: what defines a team "that they should beat" and who is making that assessment and what criteria is being used in coming to the conclusion that a particular team is one that the Steelers should beat?





So what's the next excuse.

[Buzz]

"The league wins 64.5 percent of the time against sub-.500 teams." No offense, but what kind of a stat is that? "The league" includes the Browns as well as the Patriots. So Tomlin's Steelers are a hair (8%) better than the average (.500) team at beating bad teams?

[Steelhere10]

"The league wins 64.5 percent of the time against sub-.500 teams." No offense, but what kind of a stat is that? "The league" includes the Browns as well as the Patriots. So Tomlin's Steelers are a hair (8%) better than the average (.500) team at beating bad teams?

How many times are the Browns playing a team with a worse record than them? I thought most on here could comprehend but I guess all is not as gifted.

[Slapstick]

"The league wins 64.5 percent of the time against sub-.500 teams." No offense, but what kind of a stat is that? "The league" includes the Browns as well as the Patriots. So Tomlin's Steelers are a hair (8%) better than the average (.500) team at beating bad teams?

When discussing win%, .725 is markedly better than .645...especially over the course of a long career...that "8%" equals more than a game for a 16 game schedule, on average...

[Buzz]

It would be more helpful, IMO, to know the winning percentage vs. sub-.500 teams of various coaches, and of teams that are serious contenders, and compare ours with theirs.

[feltdizz]

It would be more helpful, IMO, to know the winning percentage vs. sub-.500 teams of various coaches, and of teams that are serious contenders, and compare ours with theirs.

no it wouldn't. Your mind is made up already...lol.

[Buzz]

no it wouldn't. Your mind is made up already...lol.

You can read minds, can you?

At least I have a mind...lol.

[Slapstick]

It would be more helpful, IMO, to know the winning percentage vs. sub-.500 teams of various coaches, and of teams that are serious contenders, and compare ours with theirs.

Again, who gets to make the determination as to what teams are serious contenders? Were the Jaguars considered serious contenders at the beginning of the year? The Rams?

Is the determination of “sub .500” made at the time of the game? Or at the end of the season?

There are too many variables to address everyone’s concerns. Comparing with the entire league is the best metric.

[Buzz]

Again, who gets to make the determination as to what teams are serious contenders? Were the Jaguars considered serious contenders at the beginning of the year? The Rams?

Is the determination of “sub .500” made at the time of the game? Or at the end of the season?

There are too many variables to address everyone’s concerns.

Maybe that's why it's not all that meaningful of a statistic.

[Slapstick]

Maybe that's why it's not all that meaningful of a statistic.

As long as the criteria are consistent, which, we can assume that they are, then it is a perfectly meaningful statistic.