As “me” suspected … you can’t do it. Just par for the course for Lando. Lots of false accusations … zero support … and zero admissions when “him” is wrong yet again.
So many positives— Kotelnicki O, Drew’s execution— one constant was O line- best performance in years- 0 sacks, clean pocket and zone runs
- Thread starter PA college fan
- Start date
If you think that bothers "I" you're wrong. It just makes you looks like well...yourself
So, in this thread, you were illiterate, and then insisted your mistake wasn't a mistake ... and you still haven't owned up to it. Then you followed that up with a false accusation about "I" re WVU to try to deflect from the illiteracy, and you haven't been able to back that false accusation with any evidence (because there is none). And you haven't owned up to THAT mistake/lie, either.
It's a message board--I couldn't care less about grammar
You absolutely were wrong all of last year and this year about WVU--which yesterday proved--and if you're still confused by that then that's on you.
There's no distraction--again, dumbass, it's a message board.
Wut the wut? "Me" didn't talk about WVU last year. You poor thing. You are so confused.
Here's what "me" said about the WVU game this year ...
Now, show "I" a single thing "me" said about WVU that was wrong, or admit you're a liar.
Have to admit that the game went about exactly as Lando predicted.
Not a fair statement - in statistics, you can't cherry-pick data to fit your conclusions (i.e., eliminate 2 best, but not two worst carries). If you want to normalize data by eliminating outliers, you eliminate outliers on both sides of curve - if you eliminate two best, you have to eliminate two worst as well. Utter nonsense that Singleton's numbers were not good. Eliminating any ball carriers two best carries on 13 touches (without eliminating two worst) will always dramatically skew the numbers from the actual average. Complete bullshit statistics.
Regarding the rushing stats, Singleton had a few other decent runs (4-7 yards). It wasn't just the two long runs. And a nice reception. He had a pretty complete game.
It was Allen who was surprisingly mediocre - virtually all his runs were 0 to 2 yards which is odd given how he typically would grind out more most of time. He didn't seem to be looking for/hitting holes with authority the way he has before. I'm inclined to think it was an off game for him and he'll be fine. He looked great on the pass for the TD.
It was Allen who was surprisingly mediocre - virtually all his runs were 0 to 2 yards which is odd given how he typically would grind out more most of time. He didn't seem to be looking for/hitting holes with authority the way he has before. I'm inclined to think it was an off game for him and he'll be fine. He looked great on the pass for the TD.
Last edited:
Lando, don’t call him a dumbass. He will immediately think you are really Bushwood because we all know the only person in the world who uses that term is some cat named Brushwood.
Perfect Pitch, keep up the practice with Lando. If you continue to work hard and believe in yourself, one day you will be ready to graduate to the Big Leagues of crafting a cogent argument.
Me have to admit, this has actually been somewhat entertaining. Carry on, lads.
8 of Singleton's 13 carries went for 4-or-more yards. Claiming they stuffed Singleton outside his 2 best carries (when he only carried the ball 13 times) is laughable nonsense. Anybody who understands statistics knows you can't just eliminate the two best carries to normalize a pool of statistics - especially on such a small pool of data (13 data points). If you were going to do this (which again you would not do on such a small data set because it leaves you with a statistically insignificant number of data points), you would remove the two best AND two worst carries (the outliers on both sides of bell curve) before recalculating average ypc. Only eliminating the two best carries biases the average low and is an invalid statistical technique called "cherry picking" (intentionally only selecting data series that support your preferred conclusion - data series are random and only known AFTER THE FACT, if you're going to eliminate the two best carries, you have to also eliminate the two worst carries from the data set to avoid biasing your numbers and invalidating any theory you put forth based on recalculated stats on the smaller data set (again, no statistician would do this as you would wind up with a data set of only 9 data points which is statistically invalid due to too small a number of occurrences)). Eliminating two best carries and recalculating average is no more statistically valid than eliminating the two worst carries and recalculating average - Singleton averaged 8.8 ypc on 13 carries, if you eliminate two worst carries, his average ypc jumps to 10.5 ypc.
It also makes zero sense because a 40 yard carry was the second most likely outcome (along with 7 yards and 0 yards) of a handoff to Singleton. Here is how Singleton's 13 carries broke down:
4 ypc - three times
40 ypc, 7 ypc, and 0 ypc - two times each
5 ypc, 3 ypc, 2 ypc and -2 ypc - one time each
The Expected Value (Value X Probability) of a handoff to Singleton would be 4ypc X 23.08% + (40ypc + 7ypc + 0ypc) X 15.38% + (5ypc + 3 ypc + 2ypc + -2ypc) X 7.69% = 8.8ypc otherwise known as the actual average ypc.
Eliminating the second most common outcome simply because it meets your needs (i.e., "cherry picking") on a data series of only 13 outcomes is beyond asinine and clearly not a valid statistical technique. You eliminate any ball carriers two best carries in a game they only had 13 carries and you're going to dramatically lower their average ypc, but the recalculated stat is statistically meaningless garbage.
Last edited:
I was told that there would not be math.
The other surprising aspect for this thread is that Lando is actually a sympathetic figure and not the aggressor in this chain......... And someone even gave him straight up props for his pregame analysis of WVU..... what has happened to this board.
Some people acknowledge when others are right lolI was told that there would not be math.
The other surprising aspect for this thread is that Lando is actually a sympathetic figure and not the aggressor in this chain......... And someone even gave him straight up props for his pregame analysis of WVU..... what has happened to this board.
Spot on regarding Singleton! I am not sure how anybody can try to remove his long runs and say he had a pedestrian game. It’s utter nonsense and illogical. There was something “off” about Allen. He was not running hard at all. It seemed like he wanted to dance to try to hit something big instead of being decisive with what he had in front of him. As a result he took 2 yard gains rather than 5 yard gains.
I would think that the new helmet radios would make it easier to call plays from above the sidelines
To me, we didn’t look like a team that could pick up 2-3 yards with a running back on 3rd and short. Can’t complain about the 222 overall, but not confident we can get the short yardage to keep the D on the sideline. We can’t consistently rely on Allar to pick up the yardage.
This isn't entirely accurate because there's 2 separate analyses happening here ... one of the leading indicators of success is explosive plays ... but one of the other leading indicators is efficiency ... what is also known as "staying on schedule."
So if you happened to have 18 rushing plays where you gained 0 yards on each, and 2 where you gained 80 on each ... when you're looking at efficiency, you can see that you were very inefficient. And one way to talk about that would be to say "if you eliminate the 2 big plays, we were completely inefficient." You're not looking at a bell curve there, you're just highlighting the inefficiency that is present.
And that's what they're getting at ... I think they happen to be wrong, with respect to applying this to Singleton, specifically in this game, but the larger point is that you don't just want explosive plays ... you also want to stay on schedule and have consistent yardage from the run game.
People with a lot more football knowledge than me (Audrey Snyder and John Sauber, for instance) watched the PSU offense Saturday and were excited about what Kotelnicki is doing. He involves a lot of players and gets the ball to playmakers.
OL was basically a showcase of kick-ass position coaching. To have lost 3 OL to the NFL and the unit looks that well organized in the 1st game of the season, that was really something. Trautwein was impressive right off the bat but I'm starting to think he is the best OL coach PSU has had in a really long time, maybe since Dick Anderson in his prime.
But still, pumping the brakes a little -- WVA defense doesn't seem to have a lot of playmakers. They were a little small and a little slow. Just miles of differences between that and a top 10 type defense. The team has two weeks to try out a lot of plays and get run blocking timing figured out a little bit. Then Ill and UCLA at home. It's a good schedule.
Right, but as pertains to one of the five factors of success - efficiency, overall EV isn't relevant.
With regard to efficiency, the parameters may be something like 50% of needed yards on 1st down, 70% on 2nd and 100% on 3rd (which is one measurement I've actually seen). So if those 4 yard runs happened on 1st down, and those -2, 0, 2 and 3 yard runs didn't meet the criteria for success on their downs, then 8 out of 12 runs would have been unsuccessful, and there could obviously be improvement there.
Yup, that is a ridiculous comment. Scoring on a bunch of 4-6 yard runs is hard. Eventually you get a false start or a TFL that puts you behind schedule. Or a dropped pass that stalls the drive on 3rd and short. You want big plays, it’s the most reliable and effective way to score a lot consistently. Franklin is absolutely on target with his chunk play philosophy, the issue is execution!
Franklin doesn't have a "chunk play philosophy" ... he's an adherent to the 5 factors of success in football ... only 1 of which is explosiveness.
1. Explosiveness
2. Efficiency (success rate)
3. Drive-finishing (pts when you get w/n opponent's 40)
4. Average starting field position
5. Turnovers
So you want to be explosive AND efficient. Get those 4-6 yard runs consistently AND the long runs. Those 2 things have the highest correlation with winning football games, and they're pretty close to one another.
His weight is what is off.
He came in a little heavy as a freshman. The staff then raved about him after he lost some weight. He had a very good freshman season.
Last year he put some weight back in and was not as sharp. This year he put on more weight.
He didn't have a pedestrian game. He had a very good game. What those of us are saying is we need more consistency. Still too many 3rd and longs. That can't happen against better teams. This isn't anti-Singleton. The line needs to be better.
Do you want Evan Royster or Saquon?
Royster will get 4 all the time and help you control the clock.
Saquon will make the defense pay extra special attention every play, which opens up other players and can change the game on any touch.
More nonsense, there is not an appreciable difference between 2nd-and-6 or 2nd-and-5 in terms of the full playbook being open to run or pass on 2nd Down. Just utter nonsense that a 1st Down run is considered a failure if it is not 5-or-more yards, but a 2nd or 3rd Down run can be considered "successful" if you only pick up 2, or even, 1 yard (or even 0, -1, or -2 on 2nd Down if you gained 9 yards on first down). Under your absurd metrics, you would not only have to track yardage gained per run, but also down the run was made! But let's deal in reality instead of your hypotheticals even using your silly floating metrics (50% of yards needed for First Down on 1st Down Run, 70% of yards needed for First Down on 2nd Down Run and 100% of yards needed for First Down on 3rd Down Run) - in reality, and fact, 8 of Singleton's 13 total carries would have been considered "successful" using your metrics - diametric opposite of the proportion you attempt to suggest in your silly hypothetical.
BTW, there is no advantage to consistency in ypc by a RB - the goal is always to gain as many yards as you possibly can on every run. To suggest that the two long runs should have been counted if they were 7 yards, but eliminated because they went for 40 is beyond statistically specious... - it's utter bullshit and nothing but "cherry picking" the data set in a statistically illegitimate way to get a desired result (in this case, a lower ypc average). There is NO VALID STATISTICAL THEORY that would support eliminating ONLY the two best results (especially on a data set that only has 13 data points) - again, the actual science of statistics says to NEVER DO THIS (i.e., cherry-picking data and selectively eliminating random results in a statistically invalid way simply to force-validate your theory.).
Last edited:
These aren't my absurd metrics - it's the metrics that determined that explosive plays had a correlation to winning. It's all part of the same analysis.
College football's 5 most important stats
Explosiveness, efficiency, field position, finishing drives, and turnovers are the five factors most directly correlated to winning football games. Check out the numbers.
www.footballstudyhall.com
As to your 2nd paragraph ... you seem to be struggling with basic concepts. You look at explosiveness as one metric, and you look at efficiency as another metric. You're not actually eliminating the 2 best results in the second metric ... you're just looking at them from a different perspective ... and I believe that's what those other posters were trying to convey.
Again, this isn't MY theory ... this is the excepted statistical analysis that I had absolutely nothing to do with, but which is relied upon by folks like Franklin, and many others in football circles.
Royster is the school's all time leading rusher, not chopped liver.
Saquon ain't gonna grind you out 4 all game long.
Bill Parcels may prefer Royster over Saquon. I'm asking the question. Home run hitter or steady Eddie?
Reggie Bush or Ron Dayne?
These aren't my absurd metrics - it's the metrics that determined that explosive plays had a correlation to winning. It's all part of the same analysis.
College football's 5 most important stats
Explosiveness, efficiency, field position, finishing drives, and turnovers are the five factors most directly correlated to winning football games. Check out the numbers.
As to your 2nd paragraph ... you seem to be struggling with basic concepts. You look at explosiveness as one metric, and you look at efficiency as another metric. You're not actually eliminating the 2 best results in the second metric ... you're just looking at them from a different perspective ... and I believe that's what those other posters were trying to convey.
Again, this isn't MY theory ... this is the excepted statistical analysis that I had absolutely nothing to do with, but which is relied upon by folks like Franklin, and many others in football circles.
Again Silly, the other posters weren't trying to convey this as they suggested eliminating the two best results before doing your analysis - which IS NOT A STATISTICALLY VALID thing to do (and is a form of explicit cherry-picking). Your claim that they are simply trying to use your silly metrics is a proven falsehood in that both of the 40 yard runs would be considered "successful" under your metrics, which is not how they "counted" them genius- they eliminated them as if they never happened (i.e., increasing the percentage of unsuccessful runs by eliminating fully 1/4 of the "successful runs" under your own metrics).
BTW, and again, even if we use your silly metrics, 8 of Singleton's 13 runs would have been deemed SUCCESSFUL - the diametric opposite of proportion you attempt to suggest in your hypothetical.... go figure. LMAO
Bush wasn't just a homerun guy in college. He was very consistent. The problem with this comps are that we have two great but not elite backs. And every team if different. For us to win this year we can't be in 3rd and 8 or longer consistently. We need to be more effective on the ground and I think that will come but wasn't there Saturday.
And picking between those 2 would vary on my OL. With our team now Bush. Last year's team Dayne
"My" "silly metrics" are the metrics used by most/many decision-makers in football to construct teams and coach them properly ... and they aren't mine.
You're taking what they were saying far too literally in an attempt to try to seem relevant.
And I never criticized Singleton's performance, sparky. Singleton's awesome, and while people were crying about him last year, I still believed in him as a star RB.
Good lord, man ... get it together. This is almost as bad as your horse-collar debacle.
Should we be semi-concerned about Kaytron struggling to run?
I'm still concerned about our wr group, obviously.
I'm still concerned about our wr group, obviously.
I'm taking what they're saying far too literally???? So when they said they were going to eliminate Singleton's two best runs (25% of his successful runs using your preferred metrics - 2 of his 8 successful runs), they didn't actually mean eliminate them even though they factually DID eliminate his two most successful runs before calculating their new, clearly biased downward ypc statistic???? Whatever you say always-wrong genius-boy.... talk about making a fool of one's self, LMFAO.
You need to get medicated, Bushwood. You may have gotten horse-collared one too many times and suffered whiplash to the noggin or something. Yeah, the salient point to take away from the exercise of stripping away the big runs is to expose the overall efficiency. It's a quick and dirty way to do so. It's OK. You could add them back in and go through the entire analysis I laid before your feet (and you freaked out about that, too ... since you freak out about everything), or you could do what those people did and get the same gist.
In places where you need to be literal (like with the horse-collar rule), you decided to make up your own rule and disregard entirely what is actually written and enforced. In places where you don't need to be literal, but can understand what these folks are getting at, you decide to be literal-boy.
It's like you want to fail ... and then flip out about it.
