- Member for
- 5 years 26 weeks
|15 weeks 6 days ago||Math, or me?||
So a couple of the +/- calculation don't seem to quite work out. am I missing something?
Darboh -1/+1 = +1?? (0)
Butt +9/-6.5 = +3.5? (2.5)
Hill I get, are there un-named reasons for these differences?
|15 weeks 6 days ago||Math error or am I missing something||
So, just looking over the number, Peppers gets a +13 and a -5.5, which seems like it should net +7.5, yet he gets an +8.5. Style points?
Stribling was +6.5 and -9, which seems like it would give you -2.5 and he gets a -3.5. Lack of style points?
There may be some other reason for these, but they usually have an asterisk when there is unaccounted for points. (see Hill in the defense msu UFR)
|18 weeks 13 hours ago||Glad he's still here||
I was very surprised he stuck around, but it was a great call by Harbaugh. I do wonder if he enjoys being out of the spotlight.
|20 weeks 13 hours ago||Harsh on Darboh||
He gets a +1 and a -3 for receiving and the total is -4. That seems unfair.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||35-20 M||
|38 weeks 6 days ago||Wilbon is the worst||
I listened to an interview with him on FiveThirtyEight's "Hot Takedown" podcast and I was irrationally livid. It was like he was celebrating ignorance. He repeatedly argued that nalytics are stupid and then defended the position by saying. "I'm only arguing that black people don't talk analytics socially." It made no damn sense.
The interviewer repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) tried to steer the conversation to how this impacted front-office employment for minorities in sports, which is an interesting question -- only to be dragged back down in to the morass of Wilbon's irrationality.
It felt like he was deliberately trying to sabotage his own premise with weak unsupported opinions based on nothing but his own perspective.
For your own mental health, don't listen to the podcast, or if you do, not while driving.
|39 weeks 5 days ago||So Judgemental||
Everyone seems to assume that they know the "actual" answer to whether football is a good or bad choice for all kids. I have my opinion. I won't let me kids play. Does that mean I want to take that decision away from everyone else? No. If they want their kids to play and they think it's a great idea, all the more power to them. It could be a great idea for one kid and a terrible one for another, who am I to decide for anyone else?
Just because I believe something doesn't mean I should subject everyone else to my beliefs. I respect their decision to have their kids play, or play themselves at the college level, and that's fine with me. What do I know, maybe they are right and I am wrong.
I don't avoid watching football because I don't judge other people's decision to play or not play. To each their own.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||Expected Value for Playcalling||
I really have no idea what would be a normal EV for playcalling, but if we say 1/3 good playcalls (not counted here), 1/3 even playcalls (no point) and 1/3 bad play calls, the EV would be 81. We ended up at 94, which I would put us at 1 full bad play worse than average.
I'm still not sure if I'm reading the scoring for playcalling correctly or not though.
In any case, I don't know that I consider the playcalling a major factor in the lack of rushing yards.
|5 years 26 weeks ago||It's a bit south of the Law||
It's a bit south of the Law Quad.
|5 years 26 weeks ago||Mani Osteria||
Mani is new, but I think it's competing for Best of Ann Arbor honors.