Debunking Meatball Myths: "The Bears are a Cold Weather Team"

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,086
Liked Posts:
12,652

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,872
Liked Posts:
12,074
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
I don’t know you can think a less than 2% can mean anything significant. 40 isn’t cold weather for football, and you’re also ignoring the bears have been dog shit. Conveniently the packers and Steelers haven’t been dog shit
 

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,086
Liked Posts:
12,652
and you’re also ignoring the bears have been dog shit. Conveniently the packers and Steelers haven’t been dog shit
I'm giving you stats comparing percentages of opposing ends of the 'weather' spectrum. I'm not "ignoring" anything, you're just too stupid to understand basic math.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,872
Liked Posts:
12,074
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
I'm giving you stats comparing percentages of opposing ends of the 'weather' spectrum. I'm not "ignoring" anything, you're just too stupid to understand basic math.
You’re claiming that they’re not a cold weather team because their win % is less than 2% better in games above 40. That’s not enough of a difference to mean shit. You’re also not including the quality of those bears team who weren’t good. The loss could have nothing to do with the weather and just the fact that they sucked.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,679
Liked Posts:
9,491
You’re claiming that they’re not a cold weather team because their win % is less than 2% better in games above 40. That’s not enough of a difference to mean shit. You’re also not including the quality of those bears team who weren’t good. The loss could have nothing to do with the weather and just the fact that they sucked.
Do you have research to support this or are you just pissing in the wind?
 

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,086
Liked Posts:
12,652
Check the Bears’ record since 1970. With the exception of the late 80s they’ve been dog shit regardless of weather.
And have been worse in bad weather vs good weather.

"Cold weather team"
 

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,086
Liked Posts:
12,652
The loss could have nothing to do with the weather and just the fact that they sucked.
This also applies to games played in warm weather, obviously. Do you have any idea what you're even arguing at this point?
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,872
Liked Posts:
12,074
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
This also applies to games played in warm weather, obviously. Do you have any idea what you're even arguing at this point?
That the bears have an advantage against warm weather teams that they’re evenly matched with or not as good as by a slim margin in the cold. But to say they’re not a “cold weather team” because of their win % is ignoring context because they sucked for a lot of these games.
 

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,086
Liked Posts:
12,652
That the bears have an advantage against warm weather teams that they’re evenly matched with or not as good as by a slim margin in the cold. But to say they’re not a “cold weather team” because of their win % is ignoring context because they sucked for a lot of these games.
I'm literally comparing the exact same teams against games that don't fall under the OP context. I don't know how to make that more clear to you. The context that "they sucked" is not relevant when comparing the same shit bears team vs the same shit bears team.

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,872
Liked Posts:
12,074
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
I'm literally comparing the exact same teams against games that don't fall under the OP context. I don't know how to make that more clear to you. The context that "they sucked" is not relevant when comparing the same shit bears team vs the same shit bears team.

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?
I literally just told you what I’m arguing read my previous post
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,872
Liked Posts:
12,074
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
It’s literally right there
“(Im arguing that) That the bears have an advantage against warm weather teams that they’re evenly matched with or not as good as by a slim margin in the cold”
 

JoJoBoxer

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
11,819
Liked Posts:
8,139
Why did you choose "the recent Bears" as being post 1989?

How do you explain the Bears having a better win% in games that are 41 degrees or more vs games that are 40 degrees or less in the time frame posed in the OP?

Interesting you bring up 1989+... here's how they fared in <=40 degree outdoor games:
View attachment 1998

And in >=41 degree (and indoor) games:
View attachment 1999

Again the bears performed better outside of cold weather.

The timeline thing in your post really didn't have any relevancy to the premise of this thread, as being bad doesn't equate to losing at a higher clip in colder weather vs warmer weather, but I agree with basically the entire timeline for whatever it's worth.
As for 1989, pro football reference had all the years from the beginning of the team. It was just a convenient cutoff on their site (which happened to be 30 years).

As for the difference in temperature, the information is not complete enough to have any real idea if it means something or not. I showed that a lot of the recent cold weather games were against teams that the Bears didn't have a chance against no matter what the temperature was. Of course, there could (or not) be a real thing about them not being a cold weather team, but the basic information that you showed doesn't prove anything because we don't know who they played against and any other details of the games besides temperature.

It is interesting to think about but what you showed does not really prove anything.
 

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,086
Liked Posts:
12,652
As for the difference in temperature, the information is not complete enough to have any real idea if it means something or not. I showed that a lot of the recent cold weather games were against teams that the Bears didn't have a chance against no matter what the temperature was. Of course, there could (or not) be a real thing about them not being a cold weather team, but the basic information that you showed doesn't prove anything because we don't know who they played against and any other details of the games besides temperature.

It is interesting to think about but what you showed does not really prove anything.
Would that not be the same thing for any team, at any time, for any given stat, literally ever?

That's why I left it so broad, a high amount of data eliminates outliers
 

Novoitus

Mitch Trubisky Fan
Joined:
Sep 14, 2012
Posts:
3,525
Liked Posts:
3,138
OP makes another terrible thread. When will this garbage stop?
 

Top