A Pete stat

[LTH]

Pete says that if you take your completed passes and combine them with your rushing attempts and its over 50 than your going to win about 87% of the time

Peteball



thoughts?


LTH

 

[jammerhawk]

Interesting stat, and likely right.

Wonder how they did qgainst the Giants?

 

[LTH]

Im so not the stat guy but....

22 rushing attempts 27 completions = 49


LMAO!!! thats funny....


LTH

 

[TypeSly]

If you take skittles, load them into a freshly opened pepsi bottle and then shake it up...



Interesting stat, but I'm not sure what that does for us, in terms of strategizing though. :229031_confused2:

 

[sdog1981]

The funny thing is once you get to 60 then the winning percentage drops to 50. You can get really deep into this hole.

Like

1. Teams having a 100-yard rusher win 75 percent of games;
2. Teams winning the time of possession battles win 67 percent of games;
3. Having a 300-yard passer has no advantage, as those teams only win 46 percent of games.

Teams that have a first-half advantage of 25 or more passing yards win 71.1% of their games, yet, if the team has a passing advantage of 100 yards for the whole game they only win 33% of their games.

And last but not least, teams with the higher score at the end of regulation have won 100% of their games.

Bassaclity don't try to win a game by scoring 12 points at home to a team that was 4-7 with a backup QB.

 

[xray]

The funny thing is once you get to 60 then the winning percentage drops to 50. You can get really deep into this hole.

Like

1. Teams having a 100-yard rusher win 75 percent of games;
2. Teams winning the time of possession battles win 67 percent of games;
3. Having a 300-yard passer has no advantage, as those teams only win 46 percent of games.

Teams that have a first-half advantage of 25 or more passing yards win 71.1% of their games, yet, if the team has a passing advantage of 100 yards for the whole game they only win 33% of their games.

And last but not least, teams with the higher score at the end of regulation have won 100% of their games.

Bassaclity don't try to win a game by scoring 12 points at home to a team that was 4-7 with a backup QB.

^
We like meaningless , complicated , stat laden scenarios around here . It's too confusing when it's simplified to just wins vs losses .

 

[JustTheTip]

The funny thing is once you get to 60 then the winning percentage drops to 50. You can get really deep into this hole.

Like

1. Teams having a 100-yard rusher win 75 percent of games;
2. Teams winning the time of possession battles win 67 percent of games;
3. Having a 300-yard passer has no advantage, as those teams only win 46 percent of games.

Teams that have a first-half advantage of 25 or more passing yards win 71.1% of their games, yet, if the team has a passing advantage of 100 yards for the whole game they only win 33% of their games.

And last but not least, teams with the higher score at the end of regulation have won 100% of their games.

Bassaclity don't try to win a game by scoring 12 points at home to a team that was 4-7 with a backup QB.

^
We like meaningless , complicated , stat laden scenarios around here . It's too confusing when it's simplified to just wins vs losses .

I think Pete really likes and misunderstands stat 2 in the list above and tries to artificially achieve it to the detriment of the team.

 

[ZagHawk]

If you score higher than your opponent you will win 100% of the time....

 

[TwistedHusky]

Stats out of context do not help.

Very curious if these stats bear out against playoff teams though.

 

[ducks41468]

This sounds like your classic correlation does not equal causation scenario

 

[JayhawkMike]

Unless I’m mistaken we are 2-5 the last 5 years in the playoffs for a winning percentage of 28.5%. That’s also a Pete stat.

Edit: my bad we are 3-4 having missed the playoffs one year. I forgot our victory over the Lions.

 

[LTH]

Stats out of context do not help.

Very curious if these stats bear out against playoff teams though.

I'm totally not a stat guy... if your read my post you will see I see stats as a tool to see where adjustments need to be made not to suggest how good a team or a player is for the season...

I think the Giant game is a perfect example of that... yeah the giants are 4-7 but this is a team playing better than their record...so its reasonable to think that stats are misleading ....

I posted this stat because it's something Carroll picked up off Lombardi And I thought it would be fun to see if it is accurate... I'm unsure if Carroll uses this stat as I think he talks in generalities to avoid giving usefull information to other teams...


But it is a cool fun stat to play with


LTH

 

[cymatica]

I bet if we count how many sticks of gum Pete chews there's a correlation to win %.

> 3 sticks = win 35 % of games
< 3 sticks = win 65 % of games
0 sticks = no statistics available

 

[LTH]

I bet if we count how many sticks of gum Pete chews there's a correlation to win %.

> 3 sticks = win 35 % of games
< 3 sticks = win 65 % of games
0 sticks = no statistics available

I think you are way off base dude... If Carroll chews 3 sticks of gum he is just cruising... if he pops a 4th things get dicey and I ain't even gonna comment on what happens if he changes the brand of gum he chews... come on man get with it !!! LMAO!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


LTH

 

[cymatica]

I bet if we count how many sticks of gum Pete chews there's a correlation to win %.

> 3 sticks = win 35 % of games
< 3 sticks = win 65 % of games
0 sticks = no statistics available

I think you are way off base dude... If Carroll chews 3 sticks of gum he is just cruising... if he pops a 4th things get dicey and I ain't even gonna comment on what happens if he changes the brand of gum he chews... come on man get with it !!! LMAO!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


LTH

My mistake, let me fix that

Chews > 3 sticks = win 35% or tie
Chews <= 3 sticks = win 65%