We should break the bank and hire this guy as ST coach | Syracusefan.com

We should break the bank and hire this guy as ST coach

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ey.pulaski/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t12_a2

This is the way the game should be played under the current rules, I believe.

And don't you start about "blah blah high school is different than college blah blah." Yes. You, yes you. Just shut your face. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I'm not listening.

At the 1:32 mark, the player (kicker?) picks up the ball off the tee and laterals it to another player, who then drop-kicks the ball forward 10 yards on the ground. Is this legal in college FB?
 
Coaches are too ing stupid to go for it because math hasn't fully invaded football yet like it has Baseball.
 
I remember hearing about this school couple of years back when we were recruiting a wicked smart lineman from that school. Most likely an Adkins recruit, a lot of people thought he'd end up at Vanderbilt. Pretty sure though he went to Penn.
 
At the 1:32 mark, the player (kicker?) picks up the ball off the tee and laterals it to another player, who then drop-kicks the ball forward 10 yards on the ground. Is this legal in college FB?

Yep, it's legal as long as the ball hits the ground.
 
After 3.5 minutes the other team - "one of the best teams in the state" - had given up 4 TDs? I don't care how many onside kicks you give up, to still allow 4 scores in that short a time period is pretty embarrassing.

As for the lateral kickoff, the refs blew the whistle right after the ball was kicked, so I don't think it was allowed.

[edit] maybe they reviewed the rule and allowed a re-kick, but if you watch the video with sound, the play is obviously blown dead.
 
Coaches are too ******* stupid to go for it because math hasn't fully invaded football yet like it has Baseball.

yeah... cause for all the hub bub that gets made out of the "moneyballers," nobody ever wins without pitching and Billy Beane is still an idiot.
 
every one of the kicks was illegal in college so thats a start.. you need to have 4 guys on each side of the ball..

they use a much higher tee making the high kick much easier
 
yeah... cause for all the hub bub that gets made out of the "moneyballers," nobody ever wins without pitching and Billy Beane is still an idiot.

Don't tell me you don't believe in SABR, or I'm going to laugh.
 
that quarterback ate the other teams lunch. It looked like an adult playing against 11 year olds.
 
Don't tell me you don't believe in SABR, or I'm going to laugh.

What exactly does that even mean, "believe in SABR." It's not that I don't "believe" in some of the advanced stats... what I do believe is that people who just generalize things into bundles and essentially say you either have to choose the traditional way of doing things, or the modern way of doing things, are pea-wits. People speak of SABR like it's a religion.
 
It would be nice if we could work toward a more exciting brand of football but Kelley might have to temper his radicalism in college ball. It seems that he's likely to hired by someone so why not us, but even if not I hope Marrone & Hackett watched the film over dinner. A little more confidence in being aggressive could help our offensive scoring. Kelley has a point that never punting only increases the opposition's scoring percentage by 15%, though I'm not sure that same stat would hold true in the college game. He seems like he'd be a lot of fun to play for, and watch.
 
Coaches are too ******* stupid to go for it because math hasn't fully invaded football yet like it has Baseball.
And because we couldn't eek out a yard against Rhode Island.
 
What exactly does that even mean, "believe in SABR." It's not that I don't "believe" in some of the advanced stats... what I do believe is that people who just generalize things into bundles and essentially say you either have to choose the traditional way of doing things, or the modern way of doing things, are pea-wits. People speak of SABR like it's a religion.
Are you one of those old-timey baseball writers that still think wins, saves, and RBI's mean something? Do you think David Eckstein was good because he had intangibles? SABR's not a religion but the statistics are way better than the originals...
 
Are you one of those old-timey baseball writers that still think wins, saves, and RBI's mean something? Do you think David Eckstein was good because he had intangibles? SABR's not a religion but the statistics are way better than the originals...
If I may chime in, I still think wins, saves and RBI mean something. They're flawed, but they do measure albeit poorly things that actually happen to win baseball games. The problem I have with a lot of the modern baseball statisticians is I feel that they try to divorce player performance so far from the context of the game that they miss the actual purpose behind why it's played. RBI are context driven sure, but that context is what actually wins baseball games.

In other words, the point of playing baseball isn't to finish in the top 10 in WAR. The point is to win the baseball game. Mariano Rivera doesn't pitch to have the best FIP, he pitches to close out wins for his team.

Seems to me like a lot of the baseball stat heads aren't as worried about that stuff. They'd rather try to project what will happen than assess what did happen.
 
If I may chime in, I still think wins, saves and RBI mean something. They're flawed, but they do measure albeit poorly things that actually happen to win baseball games. The problem I have with a lot of the modern baseball statisticians is I feel that they try to divorce player performance so far from the context of the game that they miss the actual purpose behind why it's played. RBI are context driven sure, but that context is what actually wins baseball games.

In other words, the point of playing baseball isn't to finish in the top 10 in WAR. The point is to win the baseball game. Mariano Rivera doesn't pitch to have the best FIP, he pitches to close out wins for his team.

Seems to me like a lot of the baseball stat heads aren't as worried about that stuff. They'd rather try to project what will happen than assess what did happen.

I realize context of games can't be measured. But to say that Mo Rivera isn't the best closer because he doesn't have the most saves is ridiculous. He was the best closer of all time before he got 500 saves. It's such a meaningless stat. And I'm a Sox fan.
 
I realize context of games can't be measured. But to say that Mo Rivera isn't the best closer because he doesn't have the most saves is ridiculous. He was the best closer of all time before he got 500 saves. It's such a meaningless stat. And I'm a Sox fan.
I wasn't making that argument at all.
 
If I may chime in, I still think wins, saves and RBI mean something. They're flawed, but they do measure albeit poorly things that actually happen to win baseball games. The problem I have with a lot of the modern baseball statisticians is I feel that they try to divorce player performance so far from the context of the game that they miss the actual purpose behind why it's played. RBI are context driven sure, but that context is what actually wins baseball games.

In other words, the point of playing baseball isn't to finish in the top 10 in WAR. The point is to win the baseball game. Mariano Rivera doesn't pitch to have the best FIP, he pitches to close out wins for his team.

Seems to me like a lot of the baseball stat heads aren't as worried about that stuff. They'd rather try to project what will happen than assess what did happen.
That's the basis behind SABR though. I can't say I disagree. Basically what most of the advanced statisticians will tell you is that baseball is a team sport that is solely and totally decided by individual performance. So SABRmetrics try to take the "team" element out of it, because you can honestly tell more by judging someone simply in their vacuum.

It's why sabrmetric guys laugh at people who say "Derek Jeter is so gritty! He's incredible." They'll tell you he is the product of great individual players around him, and also the product of some great individual play himself. They have statistics that take out those contextual variables altogether to tell you exactly the worth of the player.
 
That's the basis behind SABR though. I can't say I disagree. Basically what most of the advanced statisticians will tell you is that baseball is a team sport that is solely and totally decided by individual performance. So SABRmetrics try to take the "team" element out of it, because you can honestly tell more by judging someone simply in their vacuum.

It's why sabrmetric guys laugh at people who say "Derek Jeter is so gritty! He's incredible." They'll tell you he is the product of great individual players around him, and also the product of some great individual play himself. They have statistics that take out those contextual variables altogether to tell you exactly the worth of the player.

My argument is that you can't tell the worth of the player if you completely divorce them from winning. You could do that if instead of 162 units of 9 innings with a defined positive or negative outcome for the context the player belongs to holding the context constant you simply had rolling totals for 1458 innings of play with no definitive positive or negative outcome at the end randomizing player contexts. But that's not how the game is played.

Again, the purpose of the game is to win. That's what fans come to see. That's why players compete. And again, I'm not against the development of statistics to better measure player performance, I just think that things have swayed too far to the side where the stats and what is lauded have little correlation to actual winning - case in point, Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young. To some that was a victory, to me it was a disgrace.

To tie it back to the article I posted, I think that coach is a genius. He treats the onside kick as a faceoff with a 50/50 chance of getting the ball. Heck, my guess is it's even better than that for him because he's so far ahead of the curve. You have to wonder though, why haven't more coaches looked at kickoffs this way? It seems to me there's a fair amount of strategy involved that could make winning the onside better than 50% for the kicking team. Even if you disagree with his philosophy on punting (and I don't) why aren't more people buying in on the kickoff strategy?
 
You realize you cited WAR, a statistic that is all about how much a player contributes to his team winning, right?

And Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young was a disgrace? Are you insane?
 
My argument is that you can't tell the worth of the player if you completely divorce them from winning. You could do that if instead of 162 units of 9 innings with a defined positive or negative outcome for the context the player belongs to holding the context constant you simply had rolling totals for 1458 innings of play with no definitive positive or negative outcome at the end randomizing player contexts. But that's not how the game is played.

Again, the purpose of the game is to win. That's what fans come to see. That's why players compete. And again, I'm not against the development of statistics to better measure player performance, I just think that things have swayed too far to the side where the stats and what is lauded have little correlation to actual winning - case in point, Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young. To some that was a victory, to me it was a disgrace.

To tie it back to the article I posted, I think that coach is a genius. He treats the onside kick as a faceoff with a 50/50 chance of getting the ball. Heck, my guess is it's even better than that for him because he's so far ahead of the curve. You have to wonder though, why haven't more coaches looked at kickoffs this way? It seems to me there's a fair amount of strategy involved that could make winning the onside better than 50% for the kicking team. Even if you disagree with his philosophy on punting (and I don't) why aren't more people buying in on the kickoff strategy?

Have to say Otto, don't think I ever agreed more with you than in this thread... we are still not 100% though just because I love King Felix and think the Cy was well-deserved. But everything else is spot on. I still can't believe that RBI have become shunned. One half of the action that actually results in runs is considered worthless... horrendous. And Bnoro, you go to message boards all over the place and this discussion is like the Scopes Monkey Trial, much more than just about the validity of information recorded in print.
 
You realize you cited WAR, a statistic that is all about how much a player contributes to his team winning, right?

And Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young was a disgrace? Are you insane?

The main argument for Yankees fans on why Felix shouldn't have won was "He didn't have enough wins, CC had more." Felix was hands down the best pitcher in the AL that year, he just didn't get wins because the Mariners couldn't get him run support. Hell, John Lackey has 12 wins this year and his ERA is OVER 6! That alone tells you all you need to know about that stat.
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
7
Views
523

Forum statistics

Threads
168,215
Messages
4,756,604
Members
5,944
Latest member
cusethunder

Online statistics

Members online
32
Guests online
913
Total visitors
945


Top Bottom