I agree with this in that the Vikings were generally unlucky, but not enough that would suggest a regression of luck alone should cause a 4 or 5 win bump (though I think that suggesting that the Vikings should regress back up 2 or 3 wins is reasonable).
That said, I do think that the Vikings were unluckier in close games than this article implies. The Vikings went 6-4 in one-score games, yes. That said, in 3 of those 4 lost games the Vikings had a win probability of at least 75% in the last 7 minutes of regulation (75% with 6:40 left against the Titans, 96% with 2:40 against the Seahawks, 75% with 2:40 left against the Cowboys), and in only 1 of the 6 wins did the Vikings opponent have more than a win probability that was above even 50% in the 4th quarter (the Panthers game in which the Vikes were unambiguously lucky).
In case you are wondering, for the rest of their losses the Vikings never got above 50% in the closing 7 minutes, and for their only other win they were over 80% win probability for the entire second half.
Obviously those win probabilities are not the soundest stats in the world, but when they are that stark to me that means something. Or, put differently, when only 4 times this year in a Vikings game did a team that had less than a 25% chance of winning in the final minutes of the 4th quarter pull off the victory, and in only 1 of those 4 cases was it the Vikings, I am comfortable saying that the Vikings were unlucky in closing out games this year.
For comparison sake the Packers never had (much less lost) such a game this year, the Bucs had one such game this year (against the Bears in week 5 they had an 83% chance to win with 3:07 left but lost, though if you want to be charitable you could also could their win against the Falcons when the Falcons had a 68% chance to win with 8:22 left). Even the cardiac kids Seahawks team only had 3 such games (a loss against the Cards and then wins against us and the Niners).
To clarify, my thought is that the Vikings were around 2 or 3 games unluckier than average between health and how games ended that they were supposed to win (e.g., they weren't "lucky" that the Packers didn't complete a hail mary to steal a win in week 8, but rather they did exactly what was statistically likely in that scenario), such that if they had average luck they probably would have won around 9 games. Maybe with some players progressing and some active good luck (rather than just regressing to average luck) the Vikes could get to around 11 wins, or 12 in a 17 game schedule? You never know!
I guess I'm surprised you didn't mention Cousins in the 'Out-of-character performances' section. Yes, by the end of the year he was about what you'd expect, but the start to the year he was uncharacteristically bad, especially in regards to interceptions, which was a big part of the team's terrible start.
I'll have to see if I can find it but I did a piece earlier this year looking at Cousins's hot/cold streaks. It's remarkable how he's had one of each every year he's been a starter. Check out the second half of his 2015 season. It's insane
Cousins had three clunkers in the first six but also played three pretty strong games. Not sure how out of character it was for a historically topsy-turvy QB. Increase in turnovers, yes, but a bunch of those were lumped in two games (Indy, Atlanta).
I agree with this in that the Vikings were generally unlucky, but not enough that would suggest a regression of luck alone should cause a 4 or 5 win bump (though I think that suggesting that the Vikings should regress back up 2 or 3 wins is reasonable).
That said, I do think that the Vikings were unluckier in close games than this article implies. The Vikings went 6-4 in one-score games, yes. That said, in 3 of those 4 lost games the Vikings had a win probability of at least 75% in the last 7 minutes of regulation (75% with 6:40 left against the Titans, 96% with 2:40 against the Seahawks, 75% with 2:40 left against the Cowboys), and in only 1 of the 6 wins did the Vikings opponent have more than a win probability that was above even 50% in the 4th quarter (the Panthers game in which the Vikes were unambiguously lucky).
In case you are wondering, for the rest of their losses the Vikings never got above 50% in the closing 7 minutes, and for their only other win they were over 80% win probability for the entire second half.
Obviously those win probabilities are not the soundest stats in the world, but when they are that stark to me that means something. Or, put differently, when only 4 times this year in a Vikings game did a team that had less than a 25% chance of winning in the final minutes of the 4th quarter pull off the victory, and in only 1 of those 4 cases was it the Vikings, I am comfortable saying that the Vikings were unlucky in closing out games this year.
For comparison sake the Packers never had (much less lost) such a game this year, the Bucs had one such game this year (against the Bears in week 5 they had an 83% chance to win with 3:07 left but lost, though if you want to be charitable you could also could their win against the Falcons when the Falcons had a 68% chance to win with 8:22 left). Even the cardiac kids Seahawks team only had 3 such games (a loss against the Cards and then wins against us and the Niners).
To clarify, my thought is that the Vikings were around 2 or 3 games unluckier than average between health and how games ended that they were supposed to win (e.g., they weren't "lucky" that the Packers didn't complete a hail mary to steal a win in week 8, but rather they did exactly what was statistically likely in that scenario), such that if they had average luck they probably would have won around 9 games. Maybe with some players progressing and some active good luck (rather than just regressing to average luck) the Vikes could get to around 11 wins, or 12 in a 17 game schedule? You never know!
But probably not.
I guess I'm surprised you didn't mention Cousins in the 'Out-of-character performances' section. Yes, by the end of the year he was about what you'd expect, but the start to the year he was uncharacteristically bad, especially in regards to interceptions, which was a big part of the team's terrible start.
I'll have to see if I can find it but I did a piece earlier this year looking at Cousins's hot/cold streaks. It's remarkable how he's had one of each every year he's been a starter. Check out the second half of his 2015 season. It's insane
Cousins had three clunkers in the first six but also played three pretty strong games. Not sure how out of character it was for a historically topsy-turvy QB. Increase in turnovers, yes, but a bunch of those were lumped in two games (Indy, Atlanta).