Here's My Stupid Opinion...

[Hawks46]

Perfect !

It all comes down to a few plays here and there against these teams usually. Here's a fun fact: No one in the division has won at SF since 2008. It's not just us, they get up for every division game.

All the same, I hate losing to the Niners because of Harbaugh. His hystrionics on the sideline are ridiculous and old. He's the biggest poor sport in the game and when he gloats and gets super happy I just want to punch someone in the face.

 

[nsport]

I find it funny how all the Niners fans are rejoicing in this win, good on them. This goes to show, they were worried about this game and really didn't think they would win it. Keep living on those 5 rings, because you will be stuck there for a very long time

I am certain that Niner fans weren't sure if they would survive that game. Let's not forget they got chipped up pretty good - a couple of concussions and Gore looked like the walking wounded by the end. While it's true our magic number is still 2, SF has work to do. Carolina and possibly Dallas could be the WC's - even Arizona stands a legit shot to steal that last spot. As for the 5 rings thing - it is infuriating when they say it because it typically comes from a misguided place. If we had 5 rings, I'd be damn proud to say it. But what gets lost is when they use it as an argument for any valid football point brought to the table. 5 rings is not a legit answer. But, I do think their team is good enough to win more rings - we are all facing some crazy circumstances with multiple first-ballot HOF QB's in the league right now - that by itself is unusual. Once the playoffs start, everyone is 0-0 - so us and them need to check our egos at the door! 1-0 every week = SB Championship.

 

[Diezel Dawg]

I find it funny how all the Niners fans are rejoicing in this win, good on them. This goes to show, they were worried about this game and really didn't think they would win it. Keep living on those 5 rings, because you will be stuck there for a very long time

I am certain that Niner fans weren't sure if they would survive that game. Let's not forget they got chipped up pretty good - a couple of concussions and Gore looked like the walking wounded by the end. While it's true our magic number is still 2, SF has work to do. Carolina and possibly Dallas could be the WC's - even Arizona stands a legit shot to steal that last spot. As for the 5 rings thing - it is infuriating when they say it because it typically comes from a misguided place. If we had 5 rings, I'd be damn proud to say it. But what gets lost is when they use it as an argument for any valid football point brought to the table. 5 rings is not a legit answer. But, I do think their team is good enough to win more rings - we are all facing some crazy circumstances with multiple first-ballot HOF QB's in the league right now - that by itself is unusual. Once the playoffs start, everyone is 0-0 - so us and them need to check our egos at the door! 1-0 every week = SB Championship.

Agreed 100%

 

[mikeak]

It is ok - it is very hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. This was a smart move

That is a crock. In fact if you beat a team twice, you are extremely likely to win a third time since you're probably the better team, and each contest is independant of the others. {See Gamblers Fallacy}

Wow talk about flawed statistics

http://completement.wordpress.com/2009/ ... s-fallacy/

So teams that go 2-0 are 11-7 in the third game? So 61% of the teams that can beat a team two times wins the third time. OR 39% of teams are unable to beat a team for the third time? I think that proves the point. If they go 2-0 they should be favored to win about 80% of the time in the third game but the fact is that they only hit 60%

 

[Polaris]

It is ok - it is very hard to beat a team 3 times in one season. This was a smart move

That is a crock. In fact if you beat a team twice, you are extremely likely to win a third time since you're probably the better team, and each contest is independant of the others. {See Gamblers Fallacy}

Wow talk about flawed statistics

http://completement.wordpress.com/2009/ ... s-fallacy/

So teams that go 2-0 are 11-7 in the third game? So 61% of the teams that can beat a team two times wins the third time. OR 39% of teams are unable to beat a team for the third time? I think that proves the point. If they go 2-0 they should be favored to win about 80% of the time in the third game but the fact is that they only hit 60%

Which actually illustrates my point. If winning a game was a 50-50 proposition, then a 'no effect' result should result in a 50% loss rate for the third game (because all games are independant). The fact that the rate is really close to 2/3 shows that in most cases if you go 2-0 against a team, it's because you are a better team.

If the addage were true, then you'd expect a win rate of under 50% on a third game where one team goes 2-0 and that's emphatically not the case.

So, no what I said was not flawed.

Edit: My point is that the old adage that it's almost impossible to beat a team a third time if you've beaten them twice already IS a classic case of the gambler's fallacy. The real record shows otherwise (in fact if you go 2-0 vs a team, you are likely to beat them on the third true in the case of NFL football).

 

[loafoftatupu]

I don't think any statistical factor applies to anything Hawks. Its totally subject to conditions, health and everything else.

Anyone who watched the game yesterday knows that it was the Hawks for the taking. The Niners did enough to win because they are good flipping team, but that game could be played in the Stick 10 times and the Hawks win it 5 times. In Seattle? Forget stats, they never matter in an elimination game. If SF would have been dominant it still wouldn't matter. All the Niners did was stay alive, nothing more. They didn't out - muscle or push the Hawks around. In fact the Hawks led for a good chunk of time and the clock became a factor.

The Seahawks are an awesome football team, in a do or die game that had Niners hype all around it they scraped out a survival win. If the Hawks would have won, great, the division would be ours. It didn't happen for SF until week 17 last year and they had less of lead going for them. I suspect that the loss only fuels even more focus and desire on behalf of the Seahawks as they finish the season strong.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Polaris, the gambler's fallacy is also a fallacy unto itself in some ways. Look at any roulette board; you don't see boards filled with alternating reds and blacks at one each, you see 2-3 of one, 2-3 of the other, etc. It varies of course, but that's the point.

According to the gambler's fallacy, you're just as likely to see 17,482 reds in a row as you are to see a couple alternating red/black hits because each spin is unique and not dependent upon the previous one. In reality, it simply does not really work that way despite being able to prove otherwise mathematically. I call it the gambler's fallacy's fallacy.

 

[Polaris]

Polaris, the gambler's fallacy is also a fallacy unto itself in some ways. Look at any roulette board; you don't see boards filled with alternating reds and blacks at one each, you see 2-3 of one, 2-3 of the other, etc. It varies of course, but that's the point.

According to the gambler's fallacy, you're just as likely to see 17,482 reds in a row as you are to see a couple alternating red/black hits because each spin is unique and not dependent upon the previous one. In reality, it simply does not really work that way despite being able to prove otherwise mathematically. I call it the gambler's fallacy's fallacy.

I disagree entirely. What you are talking about is psychology. People remember somethings more than other and mentally overcount them. I trust the statistics.

 

[RolandDeschain]

That happens too; however, despite your disagreement, what I said is a verifiable phenomenon.

 

[Polaris]

That happens too; however, despite your disagreement, what I said is a verifiable phenomenon.

Roulette red/black is not a 50-50 proposition, and a lot of wheels aren't "fair" stochastically. I stand by what I said.