Rams and NFL interesting stats

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Tano said:
And then there are their high number of penalties when Vinobitch is the referee.

Coincidence?
Click to expand...
To expand on this.

McVay should have someone provide a list of all there games when Vinobitch is not refereeing us and the average number of penalties vs the average number of penalties when Vinobitch is refereeing us and then send the list to the NFL.

I bet there would be some eye opening stats.
 
  • 3Like
  • Cheers
  • High Five
Reactions: RamBall, Mackeyser, Steve808 and 2 others
  • HaHa
  • Cheers
Reactions: Soul Surfer, RamBall and RamFan503
Psycho_X said:
Despite the popular opinion after last week we've got a hell of a football team. If we can just eliminate the backbreaking turnovers and tighten up the defense and offense in the first half we'll be a top 3 team.
Click to expand...
(edit - the above is from last year, but my comment stands):

I think giving up less 3rd and long first down plays would go a long way.
I dread 3rd and long for the Rams defense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tano
jjab360 said:
I don't really get what you're not seeing here.

That stat is technically true but with no context it implies drafting a QB in the top 5 is a mistake. You can add context but that's not what was written. The fact is technically true but it creates a false impression. That's the definition of misleading and I'm not a fan of misleading stats.

Fun discussion starter sure but it's like those clickbait headlines that intentionally bury the lead.
Click to expand...
There's nothing in the stat that indicates drafting a QB in the top 5 is a mistake. Nothing.

It indicates teams drafting QBs in the top 5 haven't won a Super Bowl with that QB.

More than anything it says that drafting a QB in the top 5 *is no guarantee* that you'll get to the promised land.
 
Pupped said:
There's nothing in the stat that indicates drafting a QB in the top 5 is a mistake. Nothing.

It indicates teams drafting QBs in the top 5 haven't won a Super Bowl with that QB.

More than anything it says that drafting a QB in the top 5 *is no guarantee* that you'll get to the promised land.
Click to expand...
Oh c'mon. If I told you that nobody who bought a lottery ticket has won the grand prize in the past 30 years do you not think I would be leading you to believe buying a lottery ticket is a mistake? And then I neglected to mention that the majority of people who bought this magical lottery ticket ended up winning more than their money's worth from secondary prizes, would intentionally leaving that information out be misleading you from the bigger picture?

But whatever, I already dug into the minutia of this two weeks ago.
 
jjab360 said:
Oh c'mon. If I told you that nobody who bought a lottery ticket has won the grand prize in the past 30 years do you not think I would be leading you to believe buying a lottery ticket is a mistake? And then I neglected to mention that the majority of people who bought this magical lottery ticket ended up winning more than their money's worth from secondary prizes, would intentionally leaving that information out be misleading you from the bigger picture?

But whatever, I already dug into the minutia of this two weeks ago.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Sorry.. as someone who reads and listens to way too much football stuff.. the only thought I had was.. “and there’s a reason those organizations are drafting in the top 5.”
 
Pupped said:
Nope.

Sorry.. as someone who reads and listens to way too much football stuff.. the only thought I had was.. “and there’s a reason those organizations are drafting in the top 5.”
Click to expand...
Just because something is not misleading to you or me personally as educated football fans does not mean that it's not misleading to the casual fan by the definition of the word.

"Misleading" describes information, statements, or actions that create a false impression or lead someone to believe something untrue, often intentionally. It refers to deceptive, fraudulent, or confusing content, such as advertising, statistics, or reports that give the wrong idea.

That fun fact barely dodges the goalpost in so many ways that I have already mentioned to lead the uneducated fan to believe that a top 5 QB pick is inherently not a good decision. Also just because that's not what is expressly stated doesn't mean the impression isn't still the intention.

This was such a dumb debate when I engaged in it the first time, please stop dragging me back into it because I can't stop myself lol.
 
jjab360 said:
Just because something is not misleading to you or me personally as educated football fans does not mean that it's not misleading to the casual fan by the definition of the word.

"Misleading" describes information, statements, or actions that create a false impression or lead someone to believe something untrue, often intentionally. It refers to deceptive, fraudulent, or confusing content, such as advertising, statistics, or reports that give the wrong idea.

That fun fact barely dodges the goalpost in so many ways that I have already mentioned to lead the uneducated fan to believe that a top 5 QB pick is inherently not a good decision. Also just because that's not what is expressly stated doesn't mean the impression isn't still the intention.

This was such a dumb debate when I engaged in it the first time, please stop dragging me back into it because I can't stop myself lol.
Click to expand...
Wholeheartedly disagree and I will point out that you are, in fact, making assumptions.

It's not "misleading" in any way, shape or form. It's a short post about drafting QBs. What that post triggers in us is much more about us, the viewer, than it does the post.

And.. here's the thing... sometimes it just takes a click to find out where a poster was coming from.



View: https://x.com/sponhourm/status/2024590769646887286?s=20
 
Pupped said:
Wholeheartedly disagree and I will point out that you are, in fact, making assumptions.

It's not "misleading" in any way, shape or form. It's a short post about drafting QBs. What that post triggers in us is much more about us, the viewer, than it does the post.

And.. here's the thing... sometimes it just takes a click to find out where a poster was coming from.



View: https://x.com/sponhourm/status/2024590769646887286?s=20
Click to expand...

jjab360 said:
The obvious implication is that if you draft a QB in the top 5, you're not likely to win a Super Bowl with that QB. The underlying implication is that you shouldn't draft a QB in the top 5. That's where this twitter post is leading the you. Status as a bad organization being the reason you got there is reading between the lines but that's not where this stat is leading you. Hence if you don't add context, it's misleading.

Also the reason why this is not just a simple stat and is intentionally misleading is in all the ways it had to be perfectly cherry picked to be technically true:

1) A QB drafted in the top 5 just won the Super Bowl. In fact QBs drafted in the top 5 have won 2 out of the last 5 Super Bowls but yes not by the team they were drafted by
2) Brady and Mahomes have won 10 out of the last 26 Super Bowls leaving limited space available in this sample size
3) Peyton won a Super Bowl since 2000 but yes he was drafted before 2000
4) A QB drafted in the top 5 by their original team has been to 5 out of the last 11 Super Bowls
5) Eli not being drafted by the Giants is just a technicality since the only difference is that he was traded immediately after the pick and not before the pick was made

It's just reminiscent to me of those misleading stats that announcers say to fill time like teams that have a rusher with 20+ carries is far more likely to win the game. But they're running the ball more in the second half because they already have the lead and are trying to run the clock out, so of course they're more likely to win the game.
Click to expand...
This is an argument of semantics. I've already given the definition of misleading and the ways that I think the original post fits the definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back