Dahobbs

That's stupid. But whatever, continue worshipping him.

Sam was not a better passer. But I do think he was a much better leader.

Success rate on its own its a decent consistency metric for an offense. But I'm struggling coming up with anything this version of "net success rate" would be a decent metric for. I could see it being more useful if you're comparing net success over total plays rather than percentage of each team's plays. E.g., Texas had 40 successful plays less Arkansas' 30 successful plays over 90 total players (numbers made up). That would get you a "net success rate" of .11, which I think may actually be an interesting metric to track. It'd tell you who did more good things during a game. If you're the team that did more good things and still lost, there is something interesting going on that maybe you can fix. Alternatively, if you did less good things and somehow won, you might be concerned that it is not sustainable.

He is multi banned from Surly by the admin. He is paid to spread bullshit. That is why is here. You're just enabling it because you don't know the history and just read this thread.

I understand now. It is messed up (at least in my head) because it is comparing percentages rather than totals. That seems like a pointless stat. We ran 30% more plays than Arkansas. But because we were slightly less successful as a percentage of our plays (rather than totals plays), the net success rate ends up being negative even though we had a much higher number of successful plays.

No, he doesn't. He isn't a real person.

Again, that really doesn't track when actually looking at the game play by play. We consistently had the ball in plus territory. We generated yards. And we inflicted a lot of negative plays. And we forced Arkansas to play deep from its own territory. I just don't see how are net success rate was negative. Arkansas had all of 11 plays in the first half that at glance would have likely had a positive EPA. Texas had double that. It was closer to even For the second half. I maintain that the chart is wrong.

But that's not actually how EPA works. At the yard line we were typically at, we would have had a positive EPA on all of those plays, which would be a 100% success rate under his definition.

That makes no sense. If the losing team is set at zero, then all it tells you is how the opposing team did. It doesn't give you the number for the losing team at all. So it tells one side of the story of a game, which isn't very much.

Right, but even if that is the stat, the chart doesn't make any sense. It cannot be measuring that stat for each team on there.

There is no way that is accurate. For instance, the chart has half the teams at a dead even 0 net success rate. That simply isn't believable. I also don't believe that Tennessee had more successful plays than Georgia when Georgia had 3x as many tfls, won the turnover battle 1-0, had more first downs, a higher 3rd down efficiency, 130 more yards of offense, and a higher completion percentage. Something is messed up with the chart.

No. There is a complicated layer of systems behind the scenes that enables those digital transactions. It isn't inherent in the dollar.

I don't understand that chart.

I didn't say Bitcoin couldn't be used as currency. I said it is poor currency. And it is. Its value changes too frequently and by too much. Transaction speeds are slow. Transactions are expensive. It would sort of be like trying to use a vanguard fund as a currency. You could technically do it. But very few people would accept it (without being first converted to an actual currency like dollars). The friction costs are too high to make small transactions worthwhile. And bigger transactions suffer because you can't plan large future contracts/transaction in a very volatile "currency." Real digital currencies will be useful.

I look forward to your next username. Bye.