Dirk Bringing the Pain

[lee_carvallo_12]

as if we needed more.

 

[Faux Sean Callahan]

 

[Mavsker]

This doesn't mean anything mathematically. Any exact combination of many results will be very unlikely. You could take all of James Franklin's losses when he was >50% win probability and it would also appear very unlikely he lost them all.

 

[pigsonthewing]

Embarrassing. My advice to frost would be this.

 

[God is a Husker]

Did anybody ever find out if Dirk is actually inbred or does he just look like it?

 

[Kaladin]

Did anybody ever find out if Dirk is actually inbred or does he just look like it?

why do all sports "journalists" look like low testosterone noodle-arm gremlins

 

[God is a Husker]

why do all sports "journalists" look like low testosterone noodle-arm gremlins

Alpha Male Golden Gloves Red Lobster loving Red blooded Run The Ball American

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

This doesn't mean anything mathematically. Any exact combination of many results will be very unlikely. You could take all of James Franklin's losses when he was >50% win probability and it would also appear very unlikely he lost them all.

Yeah, I think the more accurate way to do this is to take the end game win probability (I'd say at least 4th quarter, but something interesting could be done w/ halftime win probability). SBNation highlighted this in Frost's first year (https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...00/nebraska-huskers-football-scott-frost-2018). What's crazy is that the same pattern has continued for 4 seasons and I'm not sure I've seen anything like it. It was already extremely statistically improbable year one. You have to add a whole of zeros after that decimal to get to the probability now.

 

[That SOB Van Owen]

This doesn't mean anything mathematically. Any exact combination of many results will be very unlikely. You could take all of James Franklin's losses when he was >50% win probability and it would also appear very unlikely he lost them all.

It means we had an 85% chance of winning 9 or more of those games.

 

[Alcaus]

 

[22*43*51]

The bass/drum riff in the first vid was tits.

 

[lee_carvallo_12]

how many atomic nut kicks can one man take before his nuts turn to powdered milk, because it seems like we passed that number of nut kicks by year 2.

 

[Jim14510]

Dirk can lick my ball sack

 

[Mavsker]

It means we had an 85% chance of winning 9 or more of those games.

That's technically true but since you're selecting all unlikely losses after the fact, it's kind of meaningless. As in, you could make a similar argument about nearly every coach by selecting only their unlikely losses to make it seem like they're bad coaches. There's no context, so even if a coach like Pat Fitzgerald has twice as many unlikely wins as unlikely losses, since only unlikely losses are selected, the final result will still be "shitty coach".

A better way would be to do this same analysis across all games played, and compare expected wins to actual wins (which is often done). Once you start cherry picking individual games to match the intended narrative, all you're really left with is the finding "having a lot of unlikely outcomes is unlikely".

 

[Baron Winnebago]

That's technically true but since you're selecting all unlikely losses after the fact, it's kind of meaningless. As in, you could make a similar argument about nearly every coach by selecting only their unlikely losses to make it seem like they're bad coaches. There's no context, so even if a coach like Pat Fitzgerald has twice as many unlikely wins as unlikely losses, since only unlikely losses are selected, the final result will still be "shitty coach".

A better way would be to do this same analysis across all games played, and compare expected wins to actual wins (which is often done). Once you start cherry picking individual games to match the intended narrative, all you're really left with is the finding "having a lot of unlikely outcomes is unlikely".

Selecting on the outcome is bad, mmmmmkay

 

[Toe]

Alpha Male Golden Gloves Red Lobster loving Red blooded Run The Ball American

You forgot 'jacking off in the strip club'.

 

[theDankness]

That's technically true but since you're selecting all unlikely losses after the fact, it's kind of meaningless. As in, you could make a similar argument about nearly every coach by selecting only their unlikely losses to make it seem like they're bad coaches. There's no context, so even if a coach like Pat Fitzgerald has twice as many unlikely wins as unlikely losses, since only unlikely losses are selected, the final result will still be "shitty coach".

A better way would be to do this same analysis across all games played, and compare expected wins to actual wins (which is often done). Once you start cherry picking individual games to match the intended narrative, all you're really left with is the finding "having a lot of unlikely outcomes is unlikely".

Problem is, Frost has no unlikely wins

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

That's technically true but since you're selecting all unlikely losses after the fact, it's kind of meaningless. As in, you could make a similar argument about nearly every coach by selecting only their unlikely losses to make it seem like they're bad coaches. There's no context, so even if a coach like Pat Fitzgerald has twice as many unlikely wins as unlikely losses, since only unlikely losses are selected, the final result will still be "shitty coach".

A better way would be to do this same analysis across all games played, and compare expected wins to actual wins (which is often done). Once you start cherry picking individual games to match the intended narrative, all you're really left with is the finding "having a lot of unlikely outcomes is unlikely".

FWIW, there are nerds that put together expected wins or pythagorean wins based on aggregate win probabilities. Same mathematical thing goes on. We perform 2-3 games worse than expected based on expected wins year in and year out.

 

[That SOB Van Owen]

That's technically true but since you're selecting all unlikely losses after the fact, it's kind of meaningless. As in, you could make a similar argument about nearly every coach by selecting only their unlikely losses to make it seem like they're bad coaches. There's no context, so even if a coach like Pat Fitzgerald has twice as many unlikely wins as unlikely losses, since only unlikely losses are selected, the final result will still be "shitty coach".

A better way would be to do this same analysis across all games played, and compare expected wins to actual wins (which is often done). Once you start cherry picking individual games to match the intended narrative, all you're really left with is the finding "having a lot of unlikely outcomes is unlikely".

My head hurts reading that. But then again I’m a window licker.

 

[nscottie]

Did anybody ever find out if Dirk is actually inbred or does he just look like it?

Yeah he definitely is inbred. And one of the family members is a farm animal