Who has ESPN insider?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Who has ESPN insider?

    There is an article on ESPN boston, about how the Pats could go from first to worst. I just want to read it, can anyone post it on this thread for me or anyone else interested. Honestly, after all these years of success I can't understand how someone would have the balls to write such a stupid sounding article,

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    The guy who wrote that article is named Aaron Schartz... that is all.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

     

     Of the eight first place teams last year, he ranked the Pats sixth most likely to go from first to worst.  The only two he thought had lower chances of going from first to worst were the Seahawks and Broncos.  Every other first place team last year he though had a higher chance of going from first to worst.  I think this is probably a fair assessment. 


    Shatz and his Football Outsiders website are actually pretty good.  

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    Note the Seahawks and Pats are separated by only .1 %, 8.2 v 8.1.  It is also within a division.  It appears the Broncos have less competition in their division, hence their low percentage.

    Much ado about nothing. Let's not get our panties in a bunch!

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


    It looks like he scharted himself.


    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.


    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.


    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.


    1 or 2 seed.


    That is all.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Please learn how to read.


    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.


    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.


    That is what he is rating.  The probability of the division champs, falling.


    Is he still a moron?  MORON

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    It looks like he scharted himself.

    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.

    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.

    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.

    1 or 2 seed.

    That is all.



    That's quite enough. You're making a mockery of the English language.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:



     




    In response to pezz4pats' comment:




    In response to DougIrwin's comment:




    It looks like he scharted himself.




    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.




    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.




    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.




    1 or 2 seed.




    That is all.




     






    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


     


    Please learn how to read.


     


    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.


     


    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.


     


    Is he still a moron?  MORON


     





    I don't care.  The title of the column is even stupid.


     


    I don't care if it is a "2% chance".  It's dumb.  Like you. VERY, VERY DUMB and GEEKY.


     


    Completely pointless read and a waste of time like yourself. No wonder you enjoyed the piece. 


     





    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


    Learn how to read and comprehend what you do read.  You do it all the freaken time!


    Have to be the stupidist troll on the planet.


    It's dumb that they are virtually a lock to win the division?


    The title?  What title?  You see a title?


    Bwahahaha


    LMAO@U

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


    In response to pezz4pats' comment:


    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


    In response to pezz4pats' comment:


    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


    It looks like he scharted himself.


    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.


    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.


    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.


    1 or 2 seed.


    That is all.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Please learn how to read.


    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.


    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.


    Is he still a moron?  MORON





    I don't care.  The title of the column is even stupid.


    I don't care if it is a "2% chance".  It's dumb.  Like you. VERY, VERY DUMB and GEEKY.


    Completely pointless read and a waste of time like yourself. No wonder you enjoyed the piece. 





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Learn how to read and comprehend what you do read.


    Have to be the stupidist troll on the planet.


    It's dumb that they are virtually a lock to win the division?


    The title?


    Bwahahaha


    LMAO@U





    It's beyond moronic to say "first to worst" and then he actually contradicts himself in the part about the Pats.


    Are you seriously this stupid?  The Pats are going from "first to worst", but will win the division? You're as dumb as Schartz.


    Not only will NE win the division again, the odds favor them being healthier than last year and MORE LIKELY to be better than 12-4.  Don't expect last play of the game bagjobs either. Each of those games created such a negative media backlash towards Goodell and the officiating, it's VERY UNLIKELY the Pats are victim to any shenanigans like that again.  Then again, Goodell is de$perate to see Manning win another SB.


    Here is a list of people who they get back that they lost for large portions or early in 2013:


    Wilfork


    Mayo


    Gronk


    Kelly


    Vereen


    Vollmer


    Jamie Collins (now will be a 3 down player)


    Additions as veterans:


    Revis, Will Smith, Browner, LaFell


    Explain to the board how the Patriots would be on a list of teams possibly to go from "first to worst", but not really (just kidding!)....The writer himself is a moron for creating such a contradictory set of metrics, he doesn't even know that his premise contradicts the substance in the portion about the Pats.


    Did the writer entitle his piece as "first to worst" to get clicks on his piece knowing Pats fans would tell others and get them to read it?


    See, this is why I question anyone who pays for ESPN Insider. They're idiots for playing into what ESPN does.


    Schartz easily confused a moron like you too, which is pee your pants funny to watch. lol





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Try to understand, nut job.


    He is rating the probability of the division leaders to lose that distinction. Therefore first to worst.  He is rating all division leaders.  There is NO TITLE!  It's only the OP's description.


    Get it?


    He put the Pats at the near bottom of that list because there is very little chance of that happening.


    Get it?


    Again, learn to read and comprehend and quit making excuses for your inability to do so.


    You are accomplishing NOTHING, except exposing yourself as the dumbazz, that you are.


    Not that we don't already know.


    We don't need reinforcing evidence.


    Thanks

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    It looks like he scharted himself.

    I gotta tell ya, these geeks who concoct these nerdball formulas just to have a column to write, not only never played sports, but come off as morons.

    What a pointless set of metrics and premise from this guy.

    Pats will go now worse than 12-4, more likely 14-2 and be in numerous close games like that are every year.

    1 or 2 seed.

    That is all.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Please learn how to read.

    He is saying there is (only) a very slight chance of that happening, 8%.

    He is only mentioning them because they are first in the division.

    Is he still a moron?  MORON




    I don't care.  The title of the column is even stupid.

    I don't care if it is a "2% chance".  It's dumb.  Like you. VERY, VERY DUMB and GEEKY.

    Completely pointless read and a waste of time like yourself. No wonder you enjoyed the piece. 




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Learn how to read and comprehend what you do read.

    Have to be the stupidist troll on the planet.

    It's dumb that they are virtually a lock to win the division?

    The title?

    Bwahahaha

    LMAO@U




    It's beyond moronic to say "first to worst" and then he actually contradicts himself in the part about the Pats.

    Are you seriously this stupid?  The Pats are going from "first to worst", but will win the division? You're as dumb as Schartz.

    Not only will NE win the division again, the odds favor them being healthier than last year and MORE LIKELY to be better than 12-4.  Don't expect last play of the game bagjobs either. Each of those games created such a negative media backlash towards Goodell and the officiating, it's VERY UNLIKELY the Pats are victim to any shenanigans like that again.  Then again, Goodell is de$perate to see Manning win another SB.

    Here is a list of people who they get back that they lost for large portions or early in 2013:

    Wilfork

    Mayo

    Gronk

    Kelly

    Vereen

    Vollmer

    Jamie Collins (now will be a 3 down player)

    Additions as veterans:

    Revis, Will Smith, Browner, LaFell

    Explain to the board how the Patriots would be on a list of teams possibly to go from "first to worst", but not really (just kidding!)....The writer himself is a moron for creating such a contradictory set of metrics, he doesn't even know that his premise contradicts the substance in the portion about the Pats.

    Did the writer entitle his piece as "first to worst" to get clicks on his piece knowing Pats fans would tell others and get them to read it?

    See, this is why I question anyone who pays for ESPN Insider. They're idiots for playing into what ESPN does.

    Schartz easily confused a moron like you too, which is pee your pants funny to watch. lol




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Try to understand, nut job.

    He is rating the probability of the division leaders to lose that distinction. Therefore first to worst.  He is rating all division leaders.

    Get it?

    He put the Pats at the near bottom of that list because there is very little chance of that happening.

    Get it?

    Again, learn to read and comprehend and quit making excuses for your inability to do so.

    You are accomplishing NOTHING, except exposing yourself as the dumbazz, that you are.

    Not that we don't already know.

    We don't need reinforcing evidence.

    Thanks




    Are you seriously this stupid?  The PREMISE IS RETAHDED.  RETAHDED. LIKE YOU.

    Do I need to repeat that part so it can settle into your thick head?  How many times were you dropped as a baby?  Apparently one too many.

    That is MY POINT originally. I don't care about his percentages, his odds, nothing.  The premise is a wast of my time and I feel dumb for even reading it.  The millisecond he realized how dumb it would be to include NE in a list such as that, it should have dawned on him that his premise was compromised. Buffalo has a 0% chance of winning the division with Miami and NY being ahead of the Pats.

    Get it? 8%?  Are you seriously this stupid???  Everyday you come in here with your horrendous reading comprehension, comically claiming that the other person has the bad reading comprehension. When, in fact, the other person is light years beyond your intelligence level with far superior critical thinking skills. You're so insecure that you lash out instead.

    It's just comical to watch. This is another example. You don't get my original points, because you're dumb, so you feel inadequate. lol

    Leave it to you to find it worthwhile, engaging and valid. Priceless.  Every rational person here sees this piece as completely stupid and a wast of time as an ESPN trash piece, but you and RKrap  apparently enjoyed it. LOL

    Again, pee your pants funny!  bawwhahaha




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     ^^^^Psycho nutjob!^^^^

    All the proof anyone needs.

    Guilty as charged.

    I rest my case.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    ^Clear backpedal.

    Summary:  RKrap and Pezzy are the only 2 people here who felt the Schartz column was good.

    LOL!

    What a shocker!

    1. They're both idiots beyond belief.

    2.  RKrap works for ESPN.

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    NO FOOL

    You are the only one to think it's bad.

    That's because you are a pathetic loser who can't read.

    Admit it!  You cried foul because you thought some how this is an insult to your beebee's nap sack.

    Instead of admitting you're wrong, you lash out like a 4 year old child.  Worse

    You pathetic little nut job.

    Hey, let's make a poll and see who's right.

    You want to lose another?

    You're not very good at this, though I suspect, you're not very good at anything.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Who has ESPN insider?

    Aaron Shatz (it's Shatz, not Schartz, which I guess is even funnier) has done some pretty interesting stuff on his "Football Outsiders" blog.  He's pretty good as far as statistical analysis goes, and if anyone read the article with their brains engaged they would have realized that he was saying that of all of last year's first place teams the Pats were one of the three least likely to go from first to worst.  That seems pretty positive about the Pats to me and also pretty realistic.  I know Rusty will argue that the Pats are way better than Seattle and Denver, but objectively this isn't quite so clear.  

     

     

    EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Compared to Bill James by The New York Times Magazine, AARON SCHATZ is the creator of Football Outsiders and most of the original statistical methods used in NFL analysis on this website, as well as lead writer, editor, and statistician on the book series Football Outsiders Almanac. He also writes for ESPN.com and ESPN The Magazine, and during the 2011 season was a regular panelist on the ESPN2 show Numbers Never* Lie. Before Football Outsiders, Aaron spent five years on the radio at WBRU Providence and WKRO Daytona Beach, and three years as the writer and producer of the Lycos 50, the Internet's foremost authority on the people, places, and things that are searched online. He has written for a number of publications including The New Republic, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Slate, The American Prospect, and the Boston Phoenix. He lives in Framingham, Massachusetts.

     
Sections
Shortcuts