Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"Football Outsiders: Lessons Learned"

20 Comments -

1 – 20 of 20
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Machete thoughts?? Saw it at a drive-in last night, and it made the double bill feature Piranha look smart. Danny Trejo certainly plays a great man-of-few-words tough guy ("Machete don't text"), but the extremely heavy handed immigration lecture and terrbile CGI gore made this a dud.

9/4/10, 6:15 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I once read a post at Slashdot, from a guy who tried to analyze grocery store* traffic patterns, so as to find product placement & pricing strategies which would maximize store profits, and after running the data through every algorithm known to man, his conclusion seemed to be that, in the end, it's all just noise.

Which, from what little military history I've read, would mimic the experience of generals on the battlefield [when matched against foes of more-or-less equal capability] - the general quickly loses any sense of what's going on, and has to just hope [and pray] that his underlings can adapt to circumstances as they change, and that they get a little lucky [or at least that they avoid any truly bad luck].



*I think it was a grocery store, but it might have been a casino and its slot machines [or maybe I am confusing two old Slashdot posts in my memory].

9/4/10, 6:19 AM

Anonymous Camlost said...

Shotgun formations are generally more efficient than formations with the quarterback under center.

This may be a true statement, but it has little practical value.

You can't run shotgun every time you intend to pass, because then you have no play action.

9/4/10, 6:47 AM

Anonymous David Davenport said...

Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games.

Is that actually true? I don't think so.

9/4/10, 8:34 AM

Anonymous bjdouble said...

Eric Dickerson never got any respect, did he?

9/4/10, 10:38 AM

Anonymous jody said...

interesting stuff.

9/4/10, 1:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A team will score more when playing a bad defense, and will give up more points when playing a good offense."

Wow, that's deep.

-broodrack

9/4/10, 1:46 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The running back who gains consistent yardage is also going to do a lot more for you late in the game, when the goal of running the ball is not just to gain yardage but to eat clock time. "

Hm. A case for more white running backs?

9/4/10, 1:46 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure ED got respect. No one ever looked better in a uniform- check him out at SMU

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/81475911/Sports-Illustrated

never had a great QB to take pressure off him. Redskins used to destroy Rams in playoffs for this reason.... Dieter Brock, Jeff Kemp et al were awful


Dan in DC

9/4/10, 1:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Machete.... no chance I'll see that.

Danny Trejo looks like Edward James Olmos with worse skin if that's possible.

Dan in Dc

9/4/10, 1:51 PM

Blogger ricpic said...

"Running on third-and-short is more likely to convert than passing on third-and-short."

This seems so obvious even to a layman like me that I am constantly surprised at the number of drives short circuited by the decision to pass on third-and-short. Not only is conversion less likely but there is also the significant possibility of a sack for a loss of yardage or an interception and run back.

9/4/10, 3:56 PM

Anonymous Steve Johnson said...

Camlost said...

"You can't run shotgun every time you intend to pass, because then you have no play action."

Read the article. Running plays are more effective from shotgun formation as well so you don't give up the play action.

"Shotgun offense is more efficient if you only look at the first half, on every down, and even if you only look at running back carries rather than passes and scrambles."

9/4/10, 5:58 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A team will score more when playing a bad defense, and will give up more points when playing a good offense."

Wow, that's deep.

Some of these seem stupid until you read the explanation. On this one they're just saying that you need to look at strength of schedule when comparing players instead of just looking at the numbers. Two QBs could have the same numbers but if one is playing against better defenses he's having the better season.

9/4/10, 8:54 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The running back who gains consistent yardage is also going to do a lot more for you late in the game, when the goal of running the ball is not just to gain yardage but to eat clock time. "

Hm. A case for more white running backs?


I think it's more a case of taking Jim Brown over Barry Sanders when choosing best of all time.

9/5/10, 6:19 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is funny how much crap these guys take in comment areas around the web. It is like watching the sabermetric baseball revolution all over again. These stats are pretty solid. I've been reading them since day one. If you want proof, use their team aggregate stats to predict winners (both with and without spreads). You'll see two things. 1. Their stats are accurate 2. The folks who make the spreads really know what they are doing.

9/5/10, 9:48 AM

Anonymous Fred said...

"I think it's more a case of taking Jim Brown over Barry Sanders when choosing best of all time."

Jim Brown was Barry Sanders's father's favorite back, so I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders himself would disagree with you. I wouldn't though.

I agree that consistency is probably preferable in most cases. But Barry Sanders was such a threat that his presence alone in the backfield had the potential of opening up the passing game. I remember one playoff game when the Lions played a team that completely stacked the box against Sanders, and the Lions just kept throwing the ball against that run defense and racked up the points.

9/6/10, 12:54 AM

Anonymous Mike Hunt said...

Fred: Jim Brown was Barry Sanders's father's favorite back, so I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders himself would disagree with you. I wouldn't though.

You mean you WOULD be surprised, right?

9/6/10, 8:04 PM

Anonymous GEugene said...

Barry Sanders was the greatest "Boom and Bust" runner of all time. Probably merits an exception to the rule, like Eric Dickerson and 370 carries.

9/7/10, 12:59 PM

Anonymous Silver said...

This seems so obvious even to a layman like me that I am constantly surprised at the number of drives short circuited by the decision to pass on third-and-short. Not only is conversion less likely but there is also the significant possibility of a sack for a loss of yardage or an interception and run back.

Cos sacks and interceptions only happen on third and short. I see.

9/7/10, 7:53 PM

Anonymous ATBOTL said...

"Cos sacks and interceptions only happen on third and short. I see."

Don't you claim to be an Australian?

9/8/10, 1:14 AM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL