Football Tweets

I was too young in 1990 to appreciate it, but at least in the social media era this is the most abundant, free, positive press I’ve ever seen Tech receive by far… All media really - radio, print, TV, even random water cooler conversations. Pretty wild if you’ve followed this program for a while. Now please dear god do not lay an egg with GSU!!!
 
I was too young in 1990 to appreciate it, but at least in the social media era this is the most abundant, free, positive press I’ve ever seen Tech receive by far… All media really - radio, print, TV, even random water cooler conversations. Pretty wild if you’ve followed this program for a while. Now please dear god do not lay an egg with GSU!!!
Probably the most excited and optimistic I've been since the 2001 season, but we didn't have Matthew McConaughey talking to People magazine about George Godsey. I don't know what to make of it except to enjoy it. If I can figure out how to do that, this will all probably be a lot of fun. Wreck GSU's öööö, no mercy.
 

Cool. My understanding is that is saying, "based on the key game statistics, without looking at the score, we would have expected Georgia Tech to win with 97% certainty".

That jibes with the sense that FSU got a bunch of lucky breaks. However what stats did we really dominate them on? The only thing I can think is yards per carry.
 
1724705203196.png
 
Cool. My understanding is that is saying, "based on the key game statistics, without looking at the score, we would have expected Georgia Tech to win with 97% certainty".

That jibes with the sense that FSU got a bunch of lucky breaks. However what stats did we really dominate them on? The only thing I can think is yards per carry.
Correct. Success rate was the determining factor in win probability. GTs was like 56% and FSU 40%. Thats a huge difference
 
The real number is rushing yards after their first drive. The had 58 on that drive.
The 35yds on 25 carries has been brought up numerous times. This specific question was which stat did we dominate. Opne of them was total rushing where we doubled them up.

That's a real number in my book
 
I guess I'm surprised that all things being equal, 100 more yards rushing => 97% chance of winning. Maybe it's more the fact that they got so few yards rushing on many attempts, or the fact that we had 2x as much rushing yardage.
 
I guess I'm surprised that all things being equal, 100 more yards rushing => 97% chance of winning. Maybe it's more the fact that they got so few yards rushing on many attempts, or the fact that we had 2x as much rushing yardage.

You are just being your Debbie Downer / doomer self again.

The 97% isn't just a made up number, it is based on all of the stats. Not sure why you are so damn negative. But you warn us right there in your byline.

We had more yards per play (both rushing and passing), higher 3rd down conversion percentage (even factoring in their 4th down conversions), more TDs, and more sacks.
 
You are just being your Debbie Downer / doomer self again.

The 97% isn't just a made up number, it is based on all of the stats. Not sure why you are so damn negative. But you warn us right there in your byline.

We had more yards per play (both rushing and passing), higher 3rd down conversion percentage (even factoring in their 4th down conversions), more TDs, and more sacks.
I wasn't suggesting the 97% is unwarranted. It felt like we were the better team (as I said in the game thread) and we deserved to win it. I just couldn't reconcile the box score numbers with the 97% expectancy.

Our 3rd down efficiency as you say was better but only by 14%:
 
I wasn't suggesting the 97% is unwarranted. It felt like we were the better team (as I said in the game thread) and we deserved to win it. I just couldn't reconcile the box score numbers with the 97% expectancy.

Our 3rd down efficiency as you say was better but only by 14%:

Sorry we won dude. Better luck next week.
 
Back
Top