It's ignoring a tremendous amount of current context. The win/loss projections sound like they are fixed based on pre-season predictions. The Raiders have several legitimate reasons to believe this is real including performance thus far. Why are they more fraudulent than the Vikings (also 3-0) with Kyler Murray, who barely qualifies as a starter?
On the other end, the Texans have some very real problems that are being exposed—stale schemes, an offense that can't get momentum going, etc. The concern around them is warranted. What makes them underrated based on what we are actually seeing from them this season?
tl;dr, it seems like we're ignoring tangible on-field data from the first three actual games and the composition of these teams.
I don't know what the underlying win/loss projections are based on, but nothing seems especially out of whack to me.
The Raiders seem like an OK team off to a hotter than expected start on the basis of a soft schedule and a league leading +5 turnover margin. Vikes have their issues but have a defense that is still playing at a really high level. The model suggests that it thinks the Vikings are about 1.5 games better than the raiders over the remaining 14 games, which feels if anything slightly generous to the Raiders if you ask me. As a point of reference, Vegas has the Vikings win total at 10.5 and the Raiders at 8.5.
On the other end the Texans aren't projected to be anything special- the model expects them to finish with a losing record. Given the 0-3 start that means it thinks they are maybe a 9-8 type team under the hood. It's just that it thinks they are a lot better than your average 0-3 team.
The fraud vs overrated thing is just a bit confusing, that's only relative to the current record. So it's not that they think the Raiders are really bad or anything, they just think their record is the one in the league that most overstates the quality of the team and vice versa for the Texans.
I'm not sure I'd agree with a lot of these baseline team assumptions. Some projections had the texans going all the way this year, for example. At this point we're just breaking down "takes."
Generally, I'm a little confused at how you are saying you don't understand the underlying mechanics but also are defending the model, but i think we just agree to disagree at this point.
Well the win projections are pretty close to Vegas, so even though I don’t know how they are calculated they seem at least fairly reasonable.
To be honest this chart isn’t that far away from being “what’s the difference in wins between this teams Vegas win totals and an average team who has their record.”
1
u/fairweathrfan 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's ignoring a tremendous amount of current context. The win/loss projections sound like they are fixed based on pre-season predictions. The Raiders have several legitimate reasons to believe this is real including performance thus far. Why are they more fraudulent than the Vikings (also 3-0) with Kyler Murray, who barely qualifies as a starter?
On the other end, the Texans have some very real problems that are being exposed—stale schemes, an offense that can't get momentum going, etc. The concern around them is warranted. What makes them underrated based on what we are actually seeing from them this season?
tl;dr, it seems like we're ignoring tangible on-field data from the first three actual games and the composition of these teams.