• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Let's say Lobo takes a HC gig...

PhDeac said:
Of course it's a misleading stat because it doesn't explain how the margin got to be 7 points or less.
Click to expand...

Fewer not less. I thought you were a teacher. You're IQ team could not compete with Princeton.
 
keeper said:
Fewer not less. I thought you were a teacher. You're IQ team could not compete with Princeton.
Click to expand...


http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/fewer-vs-less/

The basic rule for precise use of “less” and “fewer” is simple (though we slip often). Use “fewer” with countable, individual things, and “less” with uncountable amounts, volumes, etc. So: “I should drink less coffee,” but “I should eat fewer doughnuts.”
But it’s not as simple as plural (fewer) vs. singular (less). Sometimes “less” is correct even with a plural noun. The Times’s stylebook says this:
Also use less with a number that describes a quantity considered as a single bulk amount: The police recovered less than $1,500; It happened less than five years ago; The recipe calls for less than two cups of sugar.
​
We slipped on this point two days in a row recently:
•••
Jon M. Chu’s “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never’’ is billed as a concert documentary, but fewer than half of its 105 minutes are devoted to Mr. Bieber onstage.
The point was not to enumerate the number of individual minutes, but to describe the extent or span of time. Make it “less than half of its 105 minutes is …”
•••
The resignation of President Hosni Mubarak is a stunning accomplishment for the country’s courageous youth-led opposition. In fewer than three weeks, they forced a largely peaceful end to his 30-year autocracy.
Here, too, we meant to describe the extent of time, not to count the number of weeks. Make it “less.”
 
I don't write down your posts. The one that immediately springs to mind is the ridiculous "we tanked in 09 because we let up in the 2nd of half of the Maryland game" theory and supporting "evidence."

You are a cherry-picker. Not that you are the only one.
 
I'm doing all the numbers now and will post when I get done with analysis. I am writing down each game that ended with us winning or losing by 7 or less points. Just got through 2006. Will be done in about 30 minutes.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
I don't write down your posts. The one that immediately springs to mind is the ridiculous "we tanked in 09 because we let up in the 2nd of half of the Maryland game" theory and supporting "evidence."

You are a cherry-picker. Not that you are the only one.
Click to expand...

That's not cherry picking a stat. That's referring to what I posted during the 2nd half of the MD game and at the end of the game. It's called an opinion.

But you're not any better if you're objecting to my posts and can't think of any.

By the way, doofus, bkf has helped your research. He posted this on Sunday:

In the five seasons since the Orange Bowl, we have lost 16 games by a touchdown or less....and 12 of those games were by 4 points or less:

2007: Nebraska-3, Virginia-1
2008: Navy-7, Miami-6, NC State-4, BC-3
2009: Baylor-3, BC-3, Navy-3, Miami-1, Ga Tech-3
2010: Ga Tech-4, Navy-1
2011: Syracuse-7, Notre Dame-7, Clemson-3

In 11 of those 16 games, we had 2nd half leads.....and 4th quarter leads in 8 of them.
 
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that Ph puts out a set of stats without full context relative to his "argument" a mere 15 posts or so after calling out another poster for the same thing. We need the exact details on those 4th quarter leads Ph. What were the leads? How long did we actually have the lead? How long did we trail in those games? The list of stats you need to provide in order to argue that we "sqaundered" 4th quarter leads in winnable games goes on. You can't just post misleading stats to try to make an argument

eta: I don't actually think you need to provide more in depth stats to make the point that we lost games in which we led in the 4th quarter but then again I'm not the one telling others to do more research to prove my points, so....
 
Last edited:
Do our coaches get any credit for our having a lead against good teams in the fourth quarter?
 
BigTreeDeac said:
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that Ph puts out a set of stats without full context relative to his "argument" a mere 15 posts or so after calling out another poster for the same thing. We need the exact details on those 4th quarter leads Ph. What were the leads? How long did we actually have the lead? How long did we trail in those games? The list of stats you need to provide in order to argue that we "sqaundered" 4th quarter leads in winnable games goes on. You can't just post misleading stats to try to make an argument

eta: I don't actually think you need to provide more in depth stats to make the point that we lost games in which we led in the 4th quarter but then again I'm not the one telling others to do more research to prove my points, so....
Click to expand...

It's not ironic because I didn't say they were complete. I said they were a start for doofus' research. If I tried to base an entire argument on those stats, you'd have a point. I just said someone started to do the research doofus needs to do to make his point. They're an improvement on doofus' stat and if he wants to make his point clear, he should improve on those.

Of course, we all know that no stat is going to change anybody's mind so this is a fruitless endeavor anyway. I'd just rather people be smarter about it.
 
Since 2002, Wake Forest has done the following in games decided by a possession or less

Overall: 25-28 (53 games)

Led after 3 (lost): 12 times (23% overall) (46%)
Led after 3 (won): 14 times (26% overall) (54%)
Led after 3: 14-12 (49% overall) (54% winning percentage)

Trailed after 3 (lost): 15 times (28% overall) (60%)
Trailed after 3 (won): 10 times (19% overall) (40%)
Trailed after 3: 10-15 (47% overall) (40% winning percentage)

Tied after 3 (won): 1 time (2% overall) (50%)
Tied after 3 (lost):1 time (2% overall) (50%)
Tied after 3: 1-1 (4% overall) (50% winning percentage)
 
Last edited:
2002 (4-2)

1.NIU +11 (L 42-41) Led after 3 (lost)
2.ECU +4 (W 27-22) Led after 3 (won)
3.Purdue +3 (W 24-21) Led after 3 (won)
4.UVA +10 (L 38-34) Led after 3 (lost)
5.GT -1 (W 24-21) Trailed after 3 (won)
6.Navy -1 (W 30-27) Trailed after 3 (won)

2003 (1-2)

7.BC -8 (W 32-38) Trailed after 3 (won)
8.Purdue -3 (L 16-10) Trailed after 3 (lost)
9.UVA +8 (L 27-24) Led after 3 (lost)

2004 (2-6)

10.Clemson +1 (L 37-30 2OT) Led after 3 (lost)
11.BC +3 (W 17-14) Led after 3 (won)
12.NCSU -7 (L 27-21) Trailed after 3 (lost)
13.VT -3 (L 17-10) Trailed after 3 (lost)
14.FSU +4 (L 20-17) Led after 3 (lost)
15.Wake +9 (W 24-22) Led after 3 (won)
16.UNC -14 (L 31-24) Trailed after 3 (lost)
17.Maryland -6 (L 13-7) Trailed after 3 (lost)

2005 (1-2)

18.Vandy -4 (L 24-20) Trailed after 3 (lost)
19.Clemson -8 (W 31-27) Trailed after 3 (won)
20.BC -1 (L 35-30) Trailed after 3 (lost)

2006 (5-0)

21.Duke -6 (W 14-13) Trailed after 3 (won)
22.NCSU +8 (W 25-23) Led after 3 (won)
23.UNC -3 (W 24-17) Trailed after 3 (won)
24.BC +7 (W 21-14) Led after 3 (won)
25.GT -3 (W 9-6) Trailed after 3 (won)

2007 (3-2)

26.Nebraska -3 (L 20-17) Trailed after 3 (lost)
27.Maryland -14 (W 31-24 OT) Trailed after 3 (won)
28.Duke +11 (W 41-36) Led after 3 (won)
29.FSU Tied (W 24-21) Tied after 3 (won)
30.UVA +3 (L 17-16) Led after 3 (lost)

2008 (3-4)

31.Ole Miss +7 (W 30-28) Led after 3 (won)
32.Navy -7 (L 24-17) Trailed after 3 (lost)
33.Clemson -9 (W 12-7) Trailed after 3 (won)
34.Miami -3 (L 16-10) Trailed after 3 (lost)
35.Duke +2 (W 33-30) Led after 3 (won)
36.NCSU +3 (L 21-17) Led after 3 (lost)
37.BC -2 (L 24-21) Trailed after 3 (lost)

2009 (2-5)

38.Baylor -10 (L 24-21) Trailed after 3 (lost)
39.Stanford -7 (W 24-17) Trailed after 3 (won)
40.BC -7 (L 27-24 OT) Trailed after 3 (lost)
41.NCSU +3 (W 30-24) Led after 3 (won)
42.Navy -10 (L 13-10) Trailed after 3 (lost)
43.Miami +13 (L 28-27) Led after 3 (lost)
44.GT Tied (L 30-27 OT) Tied after 3 (lost)

2010 (1-2)

45.Duke +3 (W 54-48) Led after 3 (won)
46.GT +11 (L 24-20) Led after 3 (lost)
47.Navy +3 (L 28-27) Led after 3 (lost)

2011 (3-3)

48.Syracuse +12 (L 36-29 OT) Led after 3 (lost)
49.NCSU +7 (W 34-27) Led after 3 (won)
50.FSU +8 (W 35-30) Led after 3 (won)
51.Duke +4 (W 24-21) Led after 3 (won)
52.ND -7 (L 24-17) Trailed after 3 (lost)
53.Clemson +7 (L 31-28) Led after 3 (lost)
 
Basically we have won 10 games that we have trailed going into the 4th, and lost 12 games that we have led going into the 4th.

In nearly 10 years, we have lost 2 more games that we led going into the 4th quarter than we have won when trailing heading into the 4th quarter. That comes out to an additional loss approximately every 5 years.
 
Last edited:
You can argue that we have lost more games when up by 10 or more going into the 4th quarter, but somebody else can break that down later if they want to.
 
Thanks. I'll look over it more later.
 
I'd be interested to see those 4th quarter records beside the spread for each game. If someone is that bored...
 
I wish we had national average numbers to compare those against. Only winning 54% of games leading after three seems like a horrible percentage, but winning 40% of games when down heading to the 4th seems pretty good.
 
You don't have to give credit for Grobe's almost wins. You can give him credit for taking an ACC doormat program with pretty much every disadvantage in the book regarding big time colllege football and building that to a mid-level BCS program.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
I wish we had national average numbers to compare those against. Only winning 54% of games leading after three seems like a horrible percentage, but winning 40% of games when down heading to the 4th seems pretty good.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is what I noticed. 54% isn't very good at all, but 40% seems above average as well.

It's hard to tell sometimes because it doesn't take into account whether or not the trailing team is down 14 and has the ball and is about to score, or whether or not the leading team is up 14 and driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top