Pacific Rim 2 is going to be about giant robots built to fight Adam Jacobi
- Member for
- 6 years 10 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 hours 49 min ago||I vividly remember watching||
I vividly remember watching the two Denard runs on our first drive (starting at 0:42 in the video) and hearing the crowd give this stunned cheer, like "Holy shit, now WE have the guy who does that to you, after being terrorized by it for the past 10 years." I remember thinking we had finally arrived, after about 7 years of wandering the desert (2006 excluded). I was so certain it was going to work.
|14 hours 37 min ago||God I hate seeing highlights||
God I hate seeing highlights of that game, and that play in particular. Everything was so alive and full of hope. Everything was going to be okay.
|3 days 4 hours ago||He's saying that increasing||
He's saying that increasing the number of plays increases the chance to win for the better team by increasing the sample. Think about it this way: does 2007 Appalachian State have a better chance to win 1 game against Michigan or win a best-of-7-game series against Michigan? Obviously the former. Running more plays in a game moves you closer to the latter, though in a very tiny amount.
|3 days 23 hours ago||Doesn't the fact that Gardner||
Doesn't the fact that Gardner didn't look at the clock indicate that the refs called the play differently than normal?
|4 days 14 hours ago||I've always wondered this||
I've always wondered this about sports betting. If it's really the case that Vegas simply tries to equalize money, couldn't you reliably win at sports betting simply by betting on unpopular teams, which are presumably undderrated in the lines? You would think that if this phenomenon shifts the line by even a single point a game from the "true" line, you'd have no problem cleaning up over a large sample by always betting against large schools.
There's gotta be more to it, right?
|4 days 21 hours ago||Oh come on. You can dislike||
Oh come on. You can dislike the don't-talk-about-injuries policy, but who cares what words he uses to not talk about injuries?
|1 week 18 hours ago||That looks like a pretty||
That looks like a pretty strong correlation to me. It would be easier to see if you plotted turnovers and win pct on the x and y and just made each year a single dot in the scatterplot. I'm guessing you'd see a nice diagonal like from bottom left to top right, surprising no one.
|1 week 2 days ago||I'm not sure there's anything||
I'm not sure there's anything in there that's a suprise to those on this blog. We're all painfully aware that have been basically irrelevant since 2006. And of course, when a team is struggling, people are going to perceive that coach to be "in over his head."
|1 week 2 days ago||Oh please. That question is||
Oh please. That question is basically "what went wrong out there?" The whole presser is that question. That's the kind of question an upset, emotional fan asks just to blame a coach, not to get an actual answer, because what kind of answer is Mattison going to give to that?
|1 week 3 days ago||Meh, it doesn't even seem||
Meh, it doesn't even seem that bad after their ridiculous split maryland flag debacle uniforms. What's with the throwing star pattern on the helmet though?
EDIT: I should have read the link. It's shaped like Fort McHenry
|1 week 4 days ago||It's been going on since long||
It's been going on since long before that. Carr's last season inlcuded a beatdown worse than this one, at home.
|2 weeks 23 hours ago||I agree with you that it's||
I agree with you that it's better for us if MSU wins, but if we run the table, we definitely get into the playoff, no matter what the schedule strength looks like. Can you think of the last time an undefeated BCS conference champ finished the regular season outside of the top 4? Hint: it's never happened, and almost certainly never will.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||LOVE the visual as to||
LOVE the visual as to returning starters and experience. Any way we could get some coarse recruiting metric on there as well? Maybe top-100 recruits could be represented by a star instead of a circle? Along with what you have here, that would give a really good 5-second look at the quality of an opposing unit.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Brian, near the top of the||
Brian, near the top of the many reasons I am happy that I'm a Michigan fan is that no matter how many disappointing seasons we have, we always get to have this blog. Truly, there is no other place like this one, and it makes fandom significantly more fun. Thank you.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||It's a monster from hell,||
It's a monster from hell, that's what it is. But those front appendiges are pedipalps, not legs. Trapdoor spiders appear to have very large ones.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||All I want to know is||
who is poor #5 in the Oklahoma drill clip and why is he lining up at DE? He looks to be about 4'11" and 115 lbs. based on the size of the guys around him.
|3 weeks 5 hours ago||Oh hi David Simon.||
Oh hi David Simon.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Of course, did anybody really||
Of course, did anybody really think this offense was going to be as good as 2013 Alabama? I think we came to terms with that reality long, long ago.
|15 weeks 1 day 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.
|15 weeks 1 day 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.
|15 weeks 1 day 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.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Re:||
On point #4 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy.
I agree with your other points though.
|16 weeks 6 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.
|19 weeks 3 days 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.
|20 weeks 2 days ago||XKCD for the win, as usual.||
XKCD for the win, as usual.
|20 weeks 2 days ago||Somebody had to say it.||
Somebody had to say it.
|20 weeks 3 days ago||All of the points, sir.||
All of the points, sir.
|20 weeks 6 days ago||Except Zak Irvin is 2013-2014||
Except Zak Irvin is 2013-2014
|21 weeks 6 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.
|21 weeks 6 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.