- Member for
- 6 years 3 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|7 weeks 6 days ago||I don't think that's right.||
I don't think that's right. The NFL data, at least as I read them, are just presenting the accuracy rates (or whatever other dependant variable) for snaps taken after X hits. So, for all snaps taken after 10 hits, the accuracy rate is ~67.5%. The problem, is, better defenses and worse offenses are probably overrepresented as the number of hits get higher, because better defenses get more hits and worse offenses are hit more often. And so there's no way to tell whether the hits are driving the effect or the quality of teams is driving the effect.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Ding Ding Ding||
Denard and the 2010 offense are incredible values. 2010 might be the best offense on that list, given that they were constantly limited by that defense.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Yep. What we would really||
Yep. What we would really like to know is whether within each game the QB's performance decreases as the hits rack up. As you noted, the snaps that occur after a high numbers of hits are likely also disproportionately snaps taken by bad offenses or against excellent defenses, so it is impossible to know whether the performance decrease is due to the hits or the competition. But if you examined how much performance increases or decreases across a game as hits accumulate, you would control for the level of competition.
Even if you did that, it would be hard to know whether the changes were due to the direct effects of the QB being hit, or other effects. Performance could go down because the QB is flustered, but it could also go down because the play-calling changes after the QB is hit, or because other variables change based on the hits.
|8 weeks 12 hours ago||Re:||
On point #4 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy.
I agree with your other points though.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||I'm with you. I actually||
I'm with you. I actually 2003 was a better team than 2006, when it wasn't making crippling special teams errors. That 2003 team took an excellent OSU team to the woodshed--I think that's the single most impressive Michigan game I've watched since I started following in 2002.
I still think about the Navarre-Braylon 90-yard TD that was called back for a ticky-tack hold. It would have put us up 35-7. We still won, of course, but it would have been so much fun to completely blow them out, like they've done to us a few times since then.
|12 weeks 19 hours ago||C'mon man. If you don't||
C'mon man. If you don't think we're in a different historical class in hoops than the true elite -- Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA -- you're in la la land.
|13 weeks 11 hours ago||XKCD for the win, as usual.||
XKCD for the win, as usual.
|13 weeks 15 hours ago||Somebody had to say it.||
Somebody had to say it.
|13 weeks 1 day ago||All of the points, sir.||
All of the points, sir.
|13 weeks 4 days ago||Except Zak Irvin is 2013-2014||
Except Zak Irvin is 2013-2014
|14 weeks 4 days ago||I agree with you, and I'm||
I agree with you, and I'm enough of an addict to Michigan football that I'll always be watching and attending, regardless of record (I actually enjoyed the 2008 3-9 campaign more than many of our more successful ones). I was simply pointing out that I think ticket sales, at least long-term, almost entirely go with how well the team is doing, and we're not doing that well lately, which is why it's hard to sell student tickets. I think all this other stuff is completely secondary to that.
EDIT: Thought you were responding to me--disregard.
|14 weeks 4 days ago||All good points. It's hard||
All good points. It's hard to argue with your anecdotal reference to the 2012 season, but I'm skeptical that long term, "it doesn't matter how good or bad the product on the field is." Look at the basketball team--those stands were empty during the Amaker years and now Crisler sells out. The schedule quality was the same then as it is now. Crisler has a much better atmoshphere now, but I don't think people skipped hoops tickets in the mid-2000s because of that--they skipped them (me included) beacuse we stunk up the joint.
Granted, I'm sure Michigan football, given its history, is less vulnerable to these types of fluctuations, but I don't think it is impervious to them.
|14 weeks 4 days ago||We love to talk about all||
We love to talk about all these fringe issues like "gameday experience" and seating policies and quality of schedule, but I bet 90% of the reason tickets are not selling well is that we are not very good at football. Another 5% is that our style of play is horrific to watch, and maybe, maybe the remaining 5% can be accounted for by the combination all of these fringe issues. But the reality is, no one gives two shits about any of this if we go 10-2 last year. Just win, baby.
This is the definition of fairweather fandom.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||So, can we get us some Eron||
So, can we get us some Eron Harris plz?
|16 weeks 1 day ago||Care to elaborate?||
Care to elaborate?
|16 weeks 1 day ago||I'm not sure I agree with||
I'm not sure I agree with you, but even if you're right, is Cal's college recruiting prowess in the NCAA going to translate to bringing NBA players to his team? I'm skeptical a coach has anywhere near the roster assembly role in the NBA that he does in the NCAA.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||He definitely did well at||
He definitely did well at those other two schools, but even if there was no foul play going on, a huge part of his success at those schools was simply getting superior talent. He recruiting Marcus Camby, Derrick Rose, Chris Douglas-Roberts, etc. Which, in college, is more than half of the battle. But in the NBA, where you can't simply out-talent other teams, you need other skills (Xs & Os; player development; roster/ego management, etc.). He very well might have those skills, but I don't think those are the things that make him a great college coach--it's mostly great recruiting.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||Why does the NBA even want||
Why does the NBA even want him? Isn't almost all of his success attributable to recruiting--a part of the job that literally does not exist in the NBA?
|16 weeks 1 day ago||Freshman? Didn't he play||
Freshman? Didn't he play against CMU last year and burn his redshirt? MGoBlue lists him as a sophomore.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||Except you can lose. In||
Except you can lose. In overtime.
|16 weeks 4 days ago||I'm not sure exactly how this||
I'm not sure exactly how this works, but if it's that easy, why don't we see bad free-throw shooters go to the line all the time for off-ball fouls in late game situations? It seems like it never happens. Wouldn't every team be fouling Morgan off the ball when we're up late? I don't think that happened once this year.
|16 weeks 4 days ago||This was huge. In the||
This was huge. In the excitement of tying the game up there, it was easy to forget that we lost our two-for-one opportunity, which ended up costing us a chance to tie it back up again.
|17 weeks 5 days ago||Exactly. The school wants to||
Exactly. The school wants to incentivize him to choose good coaches and make sure they have all of the resources necessary to win championships. There's nothing wrong with that.
|17 weeks 5 days ago||How is this any different||
How is this any different than individual coaches getting performance bonuses? Gene Smith's job is promoting the athletic programs, and a huge part of that job is getting wins. Why wouldn't the university want to incentivize that?
|18 weeks 1 day ago||I think he's probably||
I think he's probably referring to all of the other Duke students who are slut-shaming her as the "scum of the earth."
|18 weeks 2 days ago||All that is true, but none of||
All that is true, but none of their wins in that span were against anyone good. They needed OT to get by an Iowa team that had lost 6 of their last 7 games. I think this is about as easy as you can ask for in a Sweet 16 matchup -- not a cakewalk, but not last year's Kansas team either.
|19 weeks 5 days ago||I like that you got negged||
I like that you got negged for this on two separate threads.
|20 weeks 2 days ago||Seriously. Who skips the||
Seriously. Who skips the biggest day of a friend's life to wait for the end of a then-blowout against a MAC squad?
|20 weeks 3 days ago||Of course its harder to sweep||
Of course its harder to sweep a series than win a game, but that's because you have to...win multiple games to win a series. I agree that it gets harder to gameplan a team the more you see them, but that cuts equally both ways--that might help us just as much as it helps State. I also agree that State might be better now than they were in earlier games becuase they are healthier now, but again, that has nothing to do with how many times we've played them alraeady.
Maybe there's some evidence that teams that have lost games earlier in the season "want it" more and that increases their probability of winning, but I highly, highly doubt it. If someone can demonstrate that, it would be a very cool finding.
|20 weeks 3 days ago||I think MSU and Wisconisn are||
I think MSU and Wisconisn are guaranteed the 2 and 3 seeds, though which one gets which is yet to be determined. They both have 5 losses with 1 game left, and Nebraska is next with 7 losses.
And the "tough to beat a team 3 times in a season" logic -- the fact that we've played and beat them twice already has no bearing on our chances of beating them a third time (aside from those two earlier outcomes indicating the relative quality of the teams).