Monday, February 6, 2017
The Greatest Choke In Super Bowl History
New England has their fifth Super Bowl, and did so in dramatic fashion by pulling off the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. It was a game that didn't have to be that dramatic. The Falcons got a 28-3 lead, and then were outscored 31-0 for the rest of the game. The Houston Oilers blew a bigger lead 24 years ago against Buffalo, but that was a Wild Card game. This one was for all the marbles. I want to take a closer look at comeback of the Patriots. You could have a good argument about how much of it was a great comeback by the Patriots, and how much of it was just a choke by Atlanta. My feeling is that it was more a choke job by the Falcons. Part of it his human nature. You get a big lead, and stop playing with the same intensity. You let up, or you're just playing to run the clock out. In recent Super Bowl history only the Seattle Seahawks got a blowout win. The Super Bowl used to be known as a game that would end in a blowout. This was especially true during the NFC's 13 year win streak. In the last 14 Super Bowls Seattle, in Super Bowl XLVIII, was the only team to win the game by more than 14 points. All of the other 13 games were 1 possession games at some point in the 4th quarter. When Atlanta went up by 25, you should've known they weren't going to win it by that much. You had Tom Brady on the other side, and the Patriots had moved the ball throughout the game, even if they didn't get the points. Atlanta still should've been expected to win the game. New England got a touchdown to get the score to 28-9, but that was a long drive. A field goal got them within 16, but the Pats had to be disappointed they didn't get a touchdown. Now they would need 2 touchdowns, 2 two point conversions to tie the game, and that's if the Falcons didn't score anymore points. Then came one of the biggest plays in the game. It was 3 and 1 for the Falcons, though it was a long 1 yard as they say. Most people seem to be bothered with the fact that they didn't run the ball, but I wasn't bothered by that as much as I was by the formation. Devonte Freeman was close to the line of scrimmage in a way that made it obvious that this was going to be a passing play. I noticed that before the play started. This allowed the Patriots to pin their ears back, and rush Matt Ryan, which they had done a good job of throughout the game. The play resulted in sack/fumble, which set the Patriots next touchdown, and then their two point conversion that made the score 28-20. Up by the 8, it seemed like the Falcons got their edge back. They got a big screen pass to Freeman, and Julio Jones made an incredible catch. Honestly it was one of the greatest catches in Super Bowl history, as he somehow got his second foot down in bounds, while maintaining possession of the ball. Atlanta had a first and 10 at the New England 22, and preceded to fuck it up, with what can accurately be described as a massive choke job. Freeman lost a yard on first down, but at this point the Falcons are still well within field goal range. Then on the second down play Matt Ryan is in the Shotgun formation for some stupid reason. He then backed up to the 35 yard line, and got sacked. Why did Matt go that far behind the line of scrimmage? Why would Kyle Shanahan call that play when you are in field goal range, and a field goal would make it a two possession game? After those two awful plays the Falcons are still within Matt Bryant's field goal range. Bryant has made 26 of 42 field goal attempts of 50+ yards in his career. The 3rd down call should be simple. A quick screen pass, or something of the like, to get you closer for the field goal. The Falcons call a short pass, but the fuck up on this play is an obvious hold, in which Jake Matthews had Chris Long in what looked like half a sleeper hold. It was an unnecessary hold, as the play was just a quick pass, and Matt Ryan didn't need that much time. The next play was an incomplete pass, and Atlanta punted it after that. So Atlanta had a first and ten at the New England 22, with a 28-20, and preceded to lose 23 yards, almost handing New England the opportunity to tie the game. Atlanta's defense didn't stand a chance. The Patriots got their touchdown, and two point conversion to tie the game at 28, and then won the coin toss, and scored a touchdown on the first, and only drive overtime to win the game. It was a game that shouldn't even have reached that point.
Monday, January 16, 2017
The Black Struggle Article On MLK Day
In the 1960s, and into the 70s there was a strong civil rights movement. You had the more rational people such as Martin Luther King (even though he thought homosexuality was a problem that could be cured), and Bayard Rushtin. The type of black people that could fight for the rights of black people without hating white people. There was another side. The Nation of Islam, The Black Panthers, and other black revolutionary groups. The Nation of Islam feels that white people are devil. Even the original Panthers were an anti white, anti police organization. Looking at things now it appears that the theological battle may have been won by the less reasonable portion of the movement. The black movement of today doesn't bare a strong resemblance to the movement of Martin Luther King. The riots in Baltimore, Ferguson, and Milwaukee don't bare much resemblance to what Martin Luther King would have wanted.
You could argue that the feelings of Malcolm X (for most of his life in the spotlight), Assata Shakur, and Huey P. Newton is much more attractive to black activists. Another point to be made is that we as black people have our rights. We have the right to vote, discrimination based on race isn't allowed in terms of job hiring, schools, etc., we are desegregated, and other programs are in place like Affirmative Action. Despite that black people continue to lag behind white people in terms of money, civility, academics, and living conditions. In order for black people to still complain about how white people are fucking us over, you've got to go beyond reasonable arguments. The black rights movement now is one filled with conspiracy theories. The crack problem of the 80s. They blame that on Ronald Reagan supposedly "dropping the crack off in the inner cities", despite the fact that high powered drugs were already popular in the inner cities before Reagan became president. There are plenty Illuminati believers, though I wouldn't say most believe in that. There are those who constantly talk about white privilege, and systematic racism. When you can't come up with reasonable complaints good enough, just say some other shit. The strategy is effective enough. Where are the reasonable leaders at now? It would be tough to be reasonable and be a black leader now a days. What are you going to complain about? It isn't that racism is over, it's just that you can't blame it for the situation that black people are in now, and there is also plenty anti white racism. Being reasonable about black problems would mean admitting that black people's problems have a lot to do with black people. We ,as a whole, have not capitalized on the gains of the civil right movement, at least not in a way to close the financial gap. Those problems of poverty and violence still plague the black community. There are reasonable black people who speak on political issues, but they are often called coons, and Uncle Tom. I mean King was called an Uncle Tom also, but was able to build up support. The black leaders of Black Lives Matter are far from reasonable. They are pretty much a modern version of the old Panthers, more so than the New Black Panthers
The fuck white people thing is big. The fuck white males thing is big. The SJW shit is big. The same thing has happened in the feminist movement. A very long time ago they were fighting for rights. I could get into how men also had it tough way back when, but I won't get to that now. The feminist movement had more to fight for back then. Now that they have their rights, and things haven't changed the way they want it to, its become a crying, conspiracy garbage movement.
You could argue that the feelings of Malcolm X (for most of his life in the spotlight), Assata Shakur, and Huey P. Newton is much more attractive to black activists. Another point to be made is that we as black people have our rights. We have the right to vote, discrimination based on race isn't allowed in terms of job hiring, schools, etc., we are desegregated, and other programs are in place like Affirmative Action. Despite that black people continue to lag behind white people in terms of money, civility, academics, and living conditions. In order for black people to still complain about how white people are fucking us over, you've got to go beyond reasonable arguments. The black rights movement now is one filled with conspiracy theories. The crack problem of the 80s. They blame that on Ronald Reagan supposedly "dropping the crack off in the inner cities", despite the fact that high powered drugs were already popular in the inner cities before Reagan became president. There are plenty Illuminati believers, though I wouldn't say most believe in that. There are those who constantly talk about white privilege, and systematic racism. When you can't come up with reasonable complaints good enough, just say some other shit. The strategy is effective enough. Where are the reasonable leaders at now? It would be tough to be reasonable and be a black leader now a days. What are you going to complain about? It isn't that racism is over, it's just that you can't blame it for the situation that black people are in now, and there is also plenty anti white racism. Being reasonable about black problems would mean admitting that black people's problems have a lot to do with black people. We ,as a whole, have not capitalized on the gains of the civil right movement, at least not in a way to close the financial gap. Those problems of poverty and violence still plague the black community. There are reasonable black people who speak on political issues, but they are often called coons, and Uncle Tom. I mean King was called an Uncle Tom also, but was able to build up support. The black leaders of Black Lives Matter are far from reasonable. They are pretty much a modern version of the old Panthers, more so than the New Black Panthers
The fuck white people thing is big. The fuck white males thing is big. The SJW shit is big. The same thing has happened in the feminist movement. A very long time ago they were fighting for rights. I could get into how men also had it tough way back when, but I won't get to that now. The feminist movement had more to fight for back then. Now that they have their rights, and things haven't changed the way they want it to, its become a crying, conspiracy garbage movement.
Saturday, January 7, 2017
On October 23, 2015 three white high school football players attacked a mentally ill black teammate. They lured him into the locker room, before pretending to offer him a hug. Then they held him down and put a wire hanger in his ass. One of them kicked the wire hanger several times, forcing it further into the kid's body. They allegedly yelled racial several racial slurs to him during this attack. One of the attackers, John R.K. Howard plead guilty and avoided jail time. He instead will get 2-3 years probation and 300 hours of community service. The other attackers are Tanner Ward, and an unidentified person who was 16 at the time of the attack.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/idaho-teen-football-player-walks-free-after-sodomizing-black-disabled-teammate-with-wire-hanger/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ex-football-player-avoids-jailtime-assaulting-disabled-teen-article-1.2917313
Recently a story in Chicago has gathered a lot of attention. A mentally ill white man was kidnapped and tortured by a group for 4 black people. Three of them are 18 years old. Those 18 year olds are Jordan Hill, Tesfaye Cooper, and Brittany Covington. The other person involved is Brittany's older sister Tanishia Covington. The victim was held for 2 days. He was forced to say "fuck Trump" and "fuck white people", among other things. Part of the incident was recorded on Facebook Live by Brittany. The victim was forced to drink toilet water, had his head cut to the point that some white meat was visible, had cigarette ashes dumped into that same scar like it was an ash tray, and was hit several times. During the incident the blacks shouted "fuck Trump", and "fuck white people". The victim had his arms and legs tied up, and had something covering his mouth. All of those things are on the video, so it's going to be hard to spin that narrative in court.
http://abc7chicago.com/news/hate-crime-charges-filed-against-4-in-facebook-live-torture-case/1687517/
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/black-captors-torture-white-victim-rant-against-trump-cpd-says/
So taking away the races of victim and perpetrators, which one would you expect to get worse punishment in a court of law. The answer should be the second. For one that is a case of kidnapping, which in itself is a crime. The victim was kidnapped and held for 2 days, which hasn't been talked about much. Then there is the torture which is captured on video, which is enough in itself to result in serious punishment. I also have to wonder about what wasn't captured on video. The man was held against his will for 2 days, and only a small minority of that time was captured on the video. That hasn't stopped people from equating the two events. Shaun King brought up the wire hanger attack when talking about why he won't speak up against the assault. That is a big reason why people are once again talking about the wire hanger attack. It's as if people like Shaun King, don't want to condemn the kidnappers, but want to speak on the incident so they play the victim card and mention some shit they feel white people did wrong. How hard is it to condemn the kidnappers. What they did was horrible, and should be treated as such. Or at least some of these people should just come out and say "fuck white people", instead of hiding their racism by pretending that they are freedom fighters.
Update-The unnamed person was 16 at the time of the attack, and I said he was 17 before I corrected it
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/idaho-teen-football-player-walks-free-after-sodomizing-black-disabled-teammate-with-wire-hanger/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ex-football-player-avoids-jailtime-assaulting-disabled-teen-article-1.2917313
Recently a story in Chicago has gathered a lot of attention. A mentally ill white man was kidnapped and tortured by a group for 4 black people. Three of them are 18 years old. Those 18 year olds are Jordan Hill, Tesfaye Cooper, and Brittany Covington. The other person involved is Brittany's older sister Tanishia Covington. The victim was held for 2 days. He was forced to say "fuck Trump" and "fuck white people", among other things. Part of the incident was recorded on Facebook Live by Brittany. The victim was forced to drink toilet water, had his head cut to the point that some white meat was visible, had cigarette ashes dumped into that same scar like it was an ash tray, and was hit several times. During the incident the blacks shouted "fuck Trump", and "fuck white people". The victim had his arms and legs tied up, and had something covering his mouth. All of those things are on the video, so it's going to be hard to spin that narrative in court.
http://abc7chicago.com/news/hate-crime-charges-filed-against-4-in-facebook-live-torture-case/1687517/
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/black-captors-torture-white-victim-rant-against-trump-cpd-says/
So taking away the races of victim and perpetrators, which one would you expect to get worse punishment in a court of law. The answer should be the second. For one that is a case of kidnapping, which in itself is a crime. The victim was kidnapped and held for 2 days, which hasn't been talked about much. Then there is the torture which is captured on video, which is enough in itself to result in serious punishment. I also have to wonder about what wasn't captured on video. The man was held against his will for 2 days, and only a small minority of that time was captured on the video. That hasn't stopped people from equating the two events. Shaun King brought up the wire hanger attack when talking about why he won't speak up against the assault. That is a big reason why people are once again talking about the wire hanger attack. It's as if people like Shaun King, don't want to condemn the kidnappers, but want to speak on the incident so they play the victim card and mention some shit they feel white people did wrong. How hard is it to condemn the kidnappers. What they did was horrible, and should be treated as such. Or at least some of these people should just come out and say "fuck white people", instead of hiding their racism by pretending that they are freedom fighters.
Update-The unnamed person was 16 at the time of the attack, and I said he was 17 before I corrected it
Thursday, January 5, 2017
How Selfish Is Russell Westbrook
How can you tell how selfish a basketball player is? In the past I would think of a player, who took his fair share of shots, without many assists. Russell Westbrook has me thinking about things differently in the past 3 seasons. It is true that a person can get assists for selfish reasons. Sure assists are seen as a selfless thing to do, but what if the guy getting the assists is also taking a bunch of shots. A player like that effectively takes his teammates out of games. They have to sit around waiting for him to do something, either pass the ball to them, or create the shot for himself. A couple seasons ago it seemed like Westbrook became addicted to this, do everything style, of play. Kevin Durant missed 55 games that season, and Westbrook took over dominating the basketball. Even when Durant came back last season, Westbrook still played the same way to a lesser extent. With Durant gone to Golden State this season Westbrook is having his way in OKC. I can't help but think that Westbrook is a little happy that Durant is gone, and the team is his. I came up with a statistics of my own. Okay it's really just a combination of other statistics that can be found on basketball reference. One of those stats that I combined is Usage%. Usage% is an estimate of the number of possessions a player ends for his team when he is on the floor. Usage% doesn't factor in assists, it factors in free throw attempts, field goal attempts, and turnovers. A player like Magic Johnson didn't have high usage rates throughout his career, but he obviously played a big role in the Lakers offense when he played. So I decided to combine Usage% with assists per 100 possessions. I'll just take the numbers given by basketball reference, which is rounded to the nearest tenth. This doesn't count instances in which a player could've gotten an assist, but someone missed a shot, but since they don't keep track of that, this will have to do. I looked at Westbrook stats the past three seasons (stats this season are prior to January 5th game at Houston), and compared it to seasons from other great players
Name Season Usage% Ast Per 100 Total
Russell Westbrook 2016-17 42.4 14.9 57.3
Russell Westbrook 2014-15 38.4 12.5 50.9
James Harden 2016-17 33.7 15.9 49.6
Russell Westbrook 2015-16 31.6 15.4 47.0
Dwyane Wade 2008-09 36.2 10.3 46.5
Lebron James 2009-10 33.5 11.5 46.0
Kobe Bryant 2005-06 38.7 5.8 44.5
Allen Iverson 2005-06 35.3 8.9 44.2
Michael Jordan 1986-87 38.3 5.8 44.1
Magic Johnson 1986-87 26.3 15.9 42.2
I believe that the seasons for everyone other than Westbrook is the season in which that total is highest of each person's career, but I'm not sure. Kobe had a higher total in a season when he only played six games, so I didn't count that. . Lebron James' total was 40.8 in 2011-12, his first championship season. It was 40.3 the season he won his second title, and 41.2 last season in which he won his third title. Jordan's totals for his championship seasons were 40.4, 39.7, 41.9, 39.3, 39.2, and 38.5 respectively. So is Westbrook playing the most selfish season in NBA history? Well it depends on what you consider selfish. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50.4 ppg, and around 2 assists per game, so obviously he was focused on getting his points. Part of it comes down to whether Westbrook is getting a lot of assists for selfish reasons. You can debate that one. One thing that I am sure of is that Westbrook big numbers this seasons aren't the product of great efficiency. It's the product of him getting so many opportunities to make plays. He constantly has the ball. A 42.4 Usage% would be the record if he kept that at the end of the season. The highest Usage% usually goes a gunner. It goes to a player whose job is to score, and who doesn't dish out a bunch of assists. Westbrook is on his way to breaking the record, while at the same time constantly controlling the ball for his team in a way that Kobe, or Jordan, or even Lebron never have.
Name Season Usage% Ast Per 100 Total
Russell Westbrook 2016-17 42.4 14.9 57.3
Russell Westbrook 2014-15 38.4 12.5 50.9
James Harden 2016-17 33.7 15.9 49.6
Russell Westbrook 2015-16 31.6 15.4 47.0
Dwyane Wade 2008-09 36.2 10.3 46.5
Lebron James 2009-10 33.5 11.5 46.0
Kobe Bryant 2005-06 38.7 5.8 44.5
Allen Iverson 2005-06 35.3 8.9 44.2
Michael Jordan 1986-87 38.3 5.8 44.1
Magic Johnson 1986-87 26.3 15.9 42.2
I believe that the seasons for everyone other than Westbrook is the season in which that total is highest of each person's career, but I'm not sure. Kobe had a higher total in a season when he only played six games, so I didn't count that. . Lebron James' total was 40.8 in 2011-12, his first championship season. It was 40.3 the season he won his second title, and 41.2 last season in which he won his third title. Jordan's totals for his championship seasons were 40.4, 39.7, 41.9, 39.3, 39.2, and 38.5 respectively. So is Westbrook playing the most selfish season in NBA history? Well it depends on what you consider selfish. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50.4 ppg, and around 2 assists per game, so obviously he was focused on getting his points. Part of it comes down to whether Westbrook is getting a lot of assists for selfish reasons. You can debate that one. One thing that I am sure of is that Westbrook big numbers this seasons aren't the product of great efficiency. It's the product of him getting so many opportunities to make plays. He constantly has the ball. A 42.4 Usage% would be the record if he kept that at the end of the season. The highest Usage% usually goes a gunner. It goes to a player whose job is to score, and who doesn't dish out a bunch of assists. Westbrook is on his way to breaking the record, while at the same time constantly controlling the ball for his team in a way that Kobe, or Jordan, or even Lebron never have.
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Wrestlemania 30 and 31 Attendance
WWE lies about their attendance figures. To people in the IWC (Internet Wrestling Community) this shouldn't come as a surprise. During Wrestlemania they announce an attendance number during the show, and then maybe a week or so later, you get the real attendance figure. Dave Meltzer is usually the guy depended on to give the true attendance figures. There has been some debate, though, about how accurate Meltzer is. Many want to believe the WWE"s attendance figures, or at the least want to believe that the real attendance is higher than the number Meltzer gives. I trust Meltzer, but I decided to look at some numbers, to see what I can figure about Wrestlemania attendance figures. Using the WWE's Key Performance Indicators (KPI), I will make some estimates on the WWE's attendance for Wrestlemania, or at least their paid attendance
First let's look at Wrestlemania 30. It happened during the second quarter of 2014. In that quarter there were 54 shows with a listed average of 7,000. Not counting Wrestlemania, the 53 other shows have an average attendance of about 6,000. Those numbers are obviously rounded, but if I were to use those numbers to estimate the attendance for Wrestlemania 30, it would be 60,000, but that could just be paid attendance. Still the numbers are rounded. Let's say they are rounding to the nearest hundred. a 7000 average can represent an average just under 7050, or as low as 6950. The 6000 average could represent a number just under 6050, or as low as 5950. I wanted to come up with high, and low estimates. I did the same for my Wrestlemania 31 estimates
Quarter Q. Avg/shows Avg. w/o mania/shows Estimate High Est. Low
Wrestlemania 30 2014Q2 7000/54 6,000/53 60,000 65,349 54,651
Wrestlemania 31 2015Q1 7400/73 6,700/72 57,800 65,049 50,551
The announced attendance for Wrestlemania 30 was 75,167, but the real attendance was around 65,000. If you look at my estimate as representing paid attendance, that 65,000 number makes sense. In terms of Wrestlemania 31, announced attendance was 76,976, real attendance was around 67,000. That 67,000 number makes a lot more sense than the 76,976 number when you look at my estimates based on the WWE's own data.
WWE KPI
http://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/documents/events/revised-kpi-measures-final.pdf
First let's look at Wrestlemania 30. It happened during the second quarter of 2014. In that quarter there were 54 shows with a listed average of 7,000. Not counting Wrestlemania, the 53 other shows have an average attendance of about 6,000. Those numbers are obviously rounded, but if I were to use those numbers to estimate the attendance for Wrestlemania 30, it would be 60,000, but that could just be paid attendance. Still the numbers are rounded. Let's say they are rounding to the nearest hundred. a 7000 average can represent an average just under 7050, or as low as 6950. The 6000 average could represent a number just under 6050, or as low as 5950. I wanted to come up with high, and low estimates. I did the same for my Wrestlemania 31 estimates
Quarter Q. Avg/shows Avg. w/o mania/shows Estimate High Est. Low
Wrestlemania 30 2014Q2 7000/54 6,000/53 60,000 65,349 54,651
Wrestlemania 31 2015Q1 7400/73 6,700/72 57,800 65,049 50,551
The announced attendance for Wrestlemania 30 was 75,167, but the real attendance was around 65,000. If you look at my estimate as representing paid attendance, that 65,000 number makes sense. In terms of Wrestlemania 31, announced attendance was 76,976, real attendance was around 67,000. That 67,000 number makes a lot more sense than the 76,976 number when you look at my estimates based on the WWE's own data.
WWE KPI
http://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/documents/events/revised-kpi-measures-final.pdf
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
KKK vs BLM
The Klu Klux Klan has an estimated 5,000 members. That's a lot less than the 20,000-50,000 estimate given for the Nation of Islam in 2007. People talk about the KKK, as if they are this powerful organization. It's like they use the past of the Klan to make their point of how bad white racism is. The current KKK, which is split into different independent branches, is a relic of what the group used to be. They aren't respected. The simple implication that a white person is a Klan member is a hugely derogatory thing to insinuate. They have trouble having marches without getting beaten up. Compare this to the racist Nation of Islam, which regularly has big events. Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March drew an estimated crowd of 837,000 in 1995. Just last year he led a "Justice or Else" event that drew a significant crowd, though I couldn't find an estimate on how many people were there. Imagine a known member of the KKK trying to throw some shit like that, in Washington D.C. just like Farrakhan's marches. They wouldn't get away with some shit like that. What political power does the Klan have?
Tomi Lahren got into an argument with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show. Her most controversial point was saying that Black Lives Matter was the new KKK. I can see why people think the comparison is stupid. BLM is portrayed in the mainstream as if it is some freedom fighting movement. Like that shit is just like the civil rights movement of the 60s. To take this group, and then compare them to a group with a reputatuion as bad as the Klan, could seem like a ridiculous comparison., but it isn't. BLM is a racist movement. The Black Lives Matter group is racist, just like the Klan. The difference is their race, and who they are racist against. Blacks being racist against whites is more acceptable than whites being racist against blacks. One problem this causes is that black racism isn't checked. Black people can say some racist shit about white people, without facing criticism. Not only that, but they can gain a reputation as being a conscious person. While the KKK has caused much harm over the past 150 or so years, recently BLM has been more of a problem. That's the reason so many people arguing against Lahren's comparison, go back to the distant past to tell us why it doesn't make sense. What about dealing with the recent years? What group presently is more of a danger. In terms of body count BLM has done more in this one calendar year, than the Klan has in years. They have real political power like the Klan used to have. They are more powerful, and more respected than the Klan, and guess what they are also more dangerous, and I'm not talking about the early 1900s. Fuck it, you can say the same thing about the Nation of Islam compared to the KKK. The Klan has fallen that hard. Look the KKK is a stupid, and racist group. It's a good thing to see their numbers dwindle, but Black Lives Matter is also racist, divisive, and are dangerous. They have a strong anti-police/anti-white theology that often goes unchecked. They shouldn't be respected the way they are.
References
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KUyc16Kow8&t=1658s
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257808/profound-racism-black-lives-matter-john-perazzo
http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.html
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Barry Sanders
It's hard to say that someone is the consensus greatest running back of all time. Many old sports analyst think that Jim Brown is the best ever. He averaged 5.22 yards per carry, and an NFL record 104.34 yards per game. He did play in a weak era. At 230 lbs he was bigger than most of the linebackers, and many of the defensive linemen he played against. He also played in the weaker of 2 NFL divisions. That being the NFL east. If you were to have a poll on ESPN on who the greatest running back of all time is, I think that Barry Sanders would win, though it would be close between him and Walter Payton. No doubt, Barry Sanders' highlight reel is amazing. He juked, spinned, and embarrassed NFL defenders during his 10 year career. I wanted to take another look at his career.
One misconception is that he did what he did without much help. It is constantly done in comparisons between him and Emmitt Smith. The quality of Sanders' teammates is diminished in order to help the argument for his own greatness. The fact was that the lines he ran behind weren't terrible. It wasn't like he constantly had guys in the backfield as soon as he got the ball. I've looked at the highlights looking for full runs, and while it is not a good idea to measure the quality of an offensive line by a highlight reel, Barry often had a hole to run through. I noticed that he would hesitate when he got the ball, as if he were looking around for an opening. This was part of his style. He was a home run hitter, who was constantly looking to make the big play, and sometimes because of his incredible physical ability, he would make that play happen, and sometimes he would lose yards. It wasn't that he had a poor offensive line, it was his style of running. Detroit's offenses were a mixed bag during his career. Sometimes they were good, with their best year being 1995, sometimes they were bad, and sometimes they were around average. While Detroit had trouble finding a number 1 quarterback, Herman Moore was a really good receiver. I think Barry had an average group of players around him during his career.
Then there is the fact that he was a boom or bust running back. To look into that, I'll look to Football Outsiders, and their metrics. Two important statistics they have are DYAR (Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement), and DVOA (Defense Adjusted Volume of Attempt). I don't t know their full formula for getting DYAR, but they are seen as a dependable source. Their advanced metric statistics value consistency. Sure you get more credit for big runs, but it is not linear. The value for each yard is less past a certain point. In football when you get a first down, you start a whole new sets of downs, where you usually have to gain another 10 (unless it's goal to go). So it's important to be able to consistently move the ball. That is something that you can depend on to score points, more than depending on a big play. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. A team gets the ball at their own 20 yard line. Let's say the running back gains 20 yards on the first play, but then he loses 4 on the next play. His team throws the ball on the next two downs. They then punt. The back was successful in getting his team in better position to punt the ball, but that's about it. He had 2 carries for 16 yards, which is good for an 8 yard average, but his 4 yard loss helped kill the drive. While Sanders gained 15,269 yards in his career, he lost yards on a lot of carries. Now let's look at Barry's career in terms of DYAR. Despite winning 4 rushing titles in his career, he led the league in DYAR only one season. That was in 1990. That was the year he had the second lowest total for rushing yards in his career (1304). Though he did average over 5 yards per carry that season, and led the league in rushing. That season he had a 55% success rate. It is hard to explain success rate, but it is based on down and distance to go. Obviously a 3 yard gain on 3rd, and 10, isn't the same as one on a 3rd and 1. 55% is uncharacteristically high for Sanders. During his two biggest seasons, he finished 2nd in DYAR. In 1997 when he gained 2053 yards, he was behind Terrell Davis in DYAR, while Davis gained 1750. Even more surprising is that Emmitt Smith gained 1484 yards in 1994, and finished over 100 yards ahead of Barry Sanders who gained 1883 yards. I'm am going to look at Sanders DYAR, and DVOA, and Success Rate for each season, as well as where he ranked among running backs with at least 100 rush attempts.
Season DYAR Rank DVOA Rank Suc Rate Rank
1989 239 3 12.1% 5 50% 15
1990 330 1 21.7% 3 55% 6
1991 254 5 8.7% 15 55% 8
1992 93 19 0.3% 23 43% 35
1993 70 22 0.7% 20 44% 34
1994 348 2 18.5% 2 46% 19
1995 200 7 6.8% 12 44% 32
1996 380 2 22.7% 2 51% 10
1997 447 2 25.3% 2 46% 16
1998 15 29 -6.4% 28 39% 35
In 1998 Sanders had a negative DVOA, but a positive DYAR. Football Outsiders does give some extra credit to a back that carry the ball a lot. Now I want to compare him to Emmitt Smith in terms of basic running stats, and in DYAR. To make it an apples, apples comparison I want to compare Smith's first 10 seasons to Sanders' career
Attempts Yards Avg Rush TD DYAR
Barry Sanders 3062 15269 4.98 99 2376
Emmitt Smith 3243 13963 4.31 139 2900
Smith led the league in DYAR 4 seasons, which is the same number of seasons he led the league in rushing. He led in both for the 1992, 1993, and 1995 seasons. Smith led the league in rushing yards during 1991, and was 2nd in DYAR in 1991. He was second in the league in rushing yards, and 1st in DYAR for the 1994 season. Barry Sanders had the advantage in basic run stats. He ran for more yards over 10 seasons, and averaged almost 0.7 yards more per carry than Smith. Smith did score 40 more rushing touchdowns, and was the better short yardage runner. It's hard to factor in teammates and offense. The Cowboys offense was usually good during Smith's first 10 seasons, but that wasn't always the case. They peaked as an offense from 1992-95, but had mixed results in the other 6 seasons. It's hard to know how much his teammates contributed to Smith's success, or how much he contributed to the greatness of their offense when he was at this best. My feeling is that he contributed greatly to the team's offensive success during those years. He may have been the most important player on the team.
One misconception is that he did what he did without much help. It is constantly done in comparisons between him and Emmitt Smith. The quality of Sanders' teammates is diminished in order to help the argument for his own greatness. The fact was that the lines he ran behind weren't terrible. It wasn't like he constantly had guys in the backfield as soon as he got the ball. I've looked at the highlights looking for full runs, and while it is not a good idea to measure the quality of an offensive line by a highlight reel, Barry often had a hole to run through. I noticed that he would hesitate when he got the ball, as if he were looking around for an opening. This was part of his style. He was a home run hitter, who was constantly looking to make the big play, and sometimes because of his incredible physical ability, he would make that play happen, and sometimes he would lose yards. It wasn't that he had a poor offensive line, it was his style of running. Detroit's offenses were a mixed bag during his career. Sometimes they were good, with their best year being 1995, sometimes they were bad, and sometimes they were around average. While Detroit had trouble finding a number 1 quarterback, Herman Moore was a really good receiver. I think Barry had an average group of players around him during his career.
Then there is the fact that he was a boom or bust running back. To look into that, I'll look to Football Outsiders, and their metrics. Two important statistics they have are DYAR (Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement), and DVOA (Defense Adjusted Volume of Attempt). I don't t know their full formula for getting DYAR, but they are seen as a dependable source. Their advanced metric statistics value consistency. Sure you get more credit for big runs, but it is not linear. The value for each yard is less past a certain point. In football when you get a first down, you start a whole new sets of downs, where you usually have to gain another 10 (unless it's goal to go). So it's important to be able to consistently move the ball. That is something that you can depend on to score points, more than depending on a big play. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. A team gets the ball at their own 20 yard line. Let's say the running back gains 20 yards on the first play, but then he loses 4 on the next play. His team throws the ball on the next two downs. They then punt. The back was successful in getting his team in better position to punt the ball, but that's about it. He had 2 carries for 16 yards, which is good for an 8 yard average, but his 4 yard loss helped kill the drive. While Sanders gained 15,269 yards in his career, he lost yards on a lot of carries. Now let's look at Barry's career in terms of DYAR. Despite winning 4 rushing titles in his career, he led the league in DYAR only one season. That was in 1990. That was the year he had the second lowest total for rushing yards in his career (1304). Though he did average over 5 yards per carry that season, and led the league in rushing. That season he had a 55% success rate. It is hard to explain success rate, but it is based on down and distance to go. Obviously a 3 yard gain on 3rd, and 10, isn't the same as one on a 3rd and 1. 55% is uncharacteristically high for Sanders. During his two biggest seasons, he finished 2nd in DYAR. In 1997 when he gained 2053 yards, he was behind Terrell Davis in DYAR, while Davis gained 1750. Even more surprising is that Emmitt Smith gained 1484 yards in 1994, and finished over 100 yards ahead of Barry Sanders who gained 1883 yards. I'm am going to look at Sanders DYAR, and DVOA, and Success Rate for each season, as well as where he ranked among running backs with at least 100 rush attempts.
Season DYAR Rank DVOA Rank Suc Rate Rank
1989 239 3 12.1% 5 50% 15
1990 330 1 21.7% 3 55% 6
1991 254 5 8.7% 15 55% 8
1992 93 19 0.3% 23 43% 35
1993 70 22 0.7% 20 44% 34
1994 348 2 18.5% 2 46% 19
1995 200 7 6.8% 12 44% 32
1996 380 2 22.7% 2 51% 10
1997 447 2 25.3% 2 46% 16
1998 15 29 -6.4% 28 39% 35
In 1998 Sanders had a negative DVOA, but a positive DYAR. Football Outsiders does give some extra credit to a back that carry the ball a lot. Now I want to compare him to Emmitt Smith in terms of basic running stats, and in DYAR. To make it an apples, apples comparison I want to compare Smith's first 10 seasons to Sanders' career
Attempts Yards Avg Rush TD DYAR
Barry Sanders 3062 15269 4.98 99 2376
Emmitt Smith 3243 13963 4.31 139 2900
Smith led the league in DYAR 4 seasons, which is the same number of seasons he led the league in rushing. He led in both for the 1992, 1993, and 1995 seasons. Smith led the league in rushing yards during 1991, and was 2nd in DYAR in 1991. He was second in the league in rushing yards, and 1st in DYAR for the 1994 season. Barry Sanders had the advantage in basic run stats. He ran for more yards over 10 seasons, and averaged almost 0.7 yards more per carry than Smith. Smith did score 40 more rushing touchdowns, and was the better short yardage runner. It's hard to factor in teammates and offense. The Cowboys offense was usually good during Smith's first 10 seasons, but that wasn't always the case. They peaked as an offense from 1992-95, but had mixed results in the other 6 seasons. It's hard to know how much his teammates contributed to Smith's success, or how much he contributed to the greatness of their offense when he was at this best. My feeling is that he contributed greatly to the team's offensive success during those years. He may have been the most important player on the team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)