If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sportige)   There's a chance Adrian Peterson broke the rushing record after all... a 15% chance to be exact   (sportige.com) divider line 25
    More: Interesting, rushing, Eric Dickerson, nfl seasons, Vikings  
•       •       •

4237 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Feb 2013 at 9:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-27 09:16:48 AM
Subby accidentally selected the "Interesting" tag, rather than the "Stupid" tag.
 
2013-02-27 09:19:13 AM
Sounds like it was written by a Vikings fan
 
2013-02-27 09:21:03 AM
ie: Probably not
 
2013-02-27 09:29:49 AM
Your blog sucks
 
2013-02-27 09:33:32 AM

KingKauff: Sounds like it was written by a Vikings fan


As a Vikings fan, I thought the exact opposite. The entire piece seems like an attempt to cheapen what AD achieved.
 
2013-02-27 09:38:49 AM
There's statistically a 15% chance he covered more ground while carrying the football.  There's a 0% chance he broke the rushing record.  That second part isn't really up for debate.
 
2013-02-27 09:43:28 AM
There is a 15% chance that your blog doesn't suck.
 
2013-02-27 09:46:48 AM
I was told there would be no math.

/your blog sucks
 
2013-02-27 10:01:44 AM
I sinceerely hope that a recount verifies that he DID break the record, and I don't have a dog in this fight.
 
2013-02-27 10:11:02 AM
There's a 15% chance this article is interesting.  It would have been more useful to just go watch all the games from each dudes record season and actually see where they got plus minused and...

who the fark cares, its over, AP purple jesus puff and stuff didn't get the record!
 
2013-02-27 10:12:12 AM

Crewmannumber6: I sincerely hope that a recount verifies that he DID break the record, and I don't have a dog in this fight.


If that happens they should go back to Eric Dickerson's record season and apply the same measuring standards.
 
2013-02-27 10:19:35 AM
There's no chance that the NFL will take your blog seriously.
 
2013-02-27 10:47:36 AM
Some people just like to play with numbers ... they get an inkling of an idea in their brains, and they can't sleep until they take the idea to its logical conclusion.

These are the people we beat black and blue back in our school days.
 
2013-02-27 11:32:03 AM
As a stats major, I approve of this link.
 
2013-02-27 11:39:10 AM

VvonderJesus: As a stats major, I approve of this link.


I don't know if you should - he simulated when it would have been much simpler to actually calculate a p-value.
 
2013-02-27 11:53:49 AM
AP rushed for 409 yds and 3 TDs against the Packers.

The Packers leading rusher for the season, Alex Green, rushed for 464 yds and 0 TDs.

As a counterpoint, though, here is a Link to the Joe Webb playoff highlights.
 
2013-02-27 12:28:50 PM

Crewmannumber6: I sinceerely hope that a recount verifies that he DID break the record, and I don't have a dog in this fight.


Its not a re-count, this dude is just mentioning that rushing yards are always rounded to the nearest yard.  So if you rush 30.2 yards on a play, you get 30 yards in stats.  End result- thems the rules.  Still an interesting geeky article.
 
2013-02-27 12:58:31 PM
It is a little-known fact that the grounds crew in Minnesota mismeasured the distance between the 40 and 45 yard lines on the north side of the stadium by a distance of approximately .033 centimeters. Having analyzed Peterson's runs that took place between the 40 and 45 yard lines, I have determined that there is a 9% chance that Peterson failed to break the rushing record by only 2 yards instead of 9.

I have filed a grievance on Peterson's behalf with the NFLPA on this subject, and an currently in the process of burning down the Pro Football Hall of Fame to make sure that this greivous statistical error is not perpetuated.
 
2013-02-27 01:50:06 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-27 05:44:16 PM
hey, any of you youngsters remember Dave Hampton, rb for the falcons in the 70's.  TWICE he went over 1000 yards...only to have yards taken away from him soon after the season ended.  ended up with 993 and 995, or something like that.  the next year he went over 1,000 and stayed there. 14 game season.
 
2013-02-28 01:38:44 AM

KJUW89: Crewmannumber6: I sincerely hope that a recount verifies that he DID break the record, and I don't have a dog in this fight.

If that happens they should go back to Eric Dickerson's record season and apply the same measuring standards.


i172.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-28 12:25:01 PM
Point 1)  Actually, there's a ZERO % chance he broke the record.  The record is calculated with a rounding assumption, it is essentially encoded into the rules.  It's not about who runs the furthest in some smallest unit we can count, it's about who runs the furthest in yards where there is an agreed upon process for counting yards.

Point 2)  Also, the article is distinctly incorrect at a couple of points that my skimming found.  "a carry reported as 6 yards could just as easily be 5.7 yards or 6.4 yards or whatever."  This is distinctly untrue.  A carry reported as closer to the midpt (in this case 6) has a greater likelihood of actually being within a half hard of that midpt (6) than being closer to the other option.  

In other words, it's more likely that a carry reported as 6.4 is actually  6.5 and should be recorded as 7 than it is that a carry reported as 5.7 is actually 5.49 and should be recorded as 5.

Since it's not clear if this explanation is an error on the part of the blog post author or on the part of Sheff explaining, and I'm way too lazy to check the actual statistics, the only logical choice is to just reject the entire post.  Especially given point 1, which trumps all other points.
 
2013-02-28 01:27:43 PM

aharown: Point 2)  Also, the article is distinctly incorrect at a couple of points that my skimming found.  "a carry reported as 6 yards could just as easily be 5.7 yards or 6.4 yards or whatever."  This is distinctly untrue.  A carry reported as closer to the midpt (in this case 6) has a greater likelihood of actually being within a half hard of that midpt (6) than being closer to the other option.  

In other words, it's more likely that a carry reported as 6.4 is actually  6.5 and should be recorded as 7 than it is that a carry reported as 5.7 is actually 5.49 and should be recorded as 5.


Well, I wouldn't say it's more likely. The measurement system is pretty much random. You run for a TD from 1-71 inches out and you have a 1-yard TD. You ever see where it's 4th-and-2 and the ball's realistically about a yard and four inches away from the marker? How about when it's 4th-and-2 and the ball is 3 yards away? Not to mention the whole question of accurate markings by the refs as it is, which is largely a result of eyeballing and making educated guesses on where the ball goes.

But I agree that it's impossible to know. The rules are the rules because we're too lazy/can't be bothered with more accurate measurements.

It's still not as bad as fantasy leagues that still do whole-point values. "Oh, your QB threw for 349 yards while your opponent threw for 250...well, you get 6 points to his 5. That accurately represents the disparity between those numbers."
 
2013-02-28 01:40:10 PM

IAmRight: It's still not as bad as fantasy leagues that still do whole-point values. "Oh, your QB threw for 349 yards while your opponent threw for 250...well, you get 6 points to his 5. That accurately represents the disparity between those numbers."


At least that is an optional setting, what about end of game kneel downs counting as negative rushing yards?  That is BS right there.
 
2013-02-28 04:29:04 PM

roc6783: At least that is an optional setting, what about end of game kneel downs counting as negative rushing yards?  That is BS right there.


it's even worse when combined with the whole-point system.

"Cool, I have enough points to win! Whoops, now my QB has 9 yards instead of 10 because that idiot wanted to have a lead at the end of the game. We're tied. :/"

Or, even worse, "my QB is on a team where they take a step or two back before kneeling, so I lost an extra couple yards that took me from 12 to 9, which cost me the whole point and the week."
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report