Trending
Steve Brownlee
But I'll try to bring it around to pro football at the end.
I got looking at some volleyball stats the other day and remembered how they calculate the attack percentage from numbers involving kills.
Seems like it might be a straightforward calculation, dividing the number of kills into the number of attempts, much like a batting average in baseball divides the number of hits into the number of at-bats.
But no, they make it quite a bit tougher to have a nice-sounding high number like a .400 hitter in baseball.
They take the number of successful kills, THEN SUBTRACT the number of attack errors -- ones that go out of play and lose the point immediately, I think -- and divide what you have left into the attack attempts.
That's how I've seen players quite commonly have a negative attack percentage, which happens anytime you see more errors than actual kills.
I'm thinking, what if you did something similar in baseball, say, take the number of hits and subtract the number of strikeouts and the number of groundball double plays.
I bet nowadays there'd be quite a few negative batting averages, too.
You might have a player batting .250 because he had 120 hits in 480 at-bats, say, but he struck out 90 times and hit into 20 double plays. Suddenly his batting average becomes .021, a number even a bad-hitting pitcher would be embarrassed about.
In football, how about for quarterbacks we take the number of completions and subtract the number of interceptions -- heck, let's multiply the interceptions by 10 since they're so negative -- and divide that into pass attempts.
Maybe we should subtract every QB sack, too, though with no multiplier, and not give credit for any completion that doesn't generate at least one positive yard.
So Jared Goff of the Lions completes 65% of his passes, 65 of 100, but he throws four interceptions and has 10 passes that don't generate any positive yards. Suddenly that knocks him down to 15 of 100, or 15%, not a very good completion rate even if you were severely nearsighted and forgot your glasses the day of the game.
Give me some time here, and I'll have every QB but Patrick Mahomes having a negative completion percentage.
Guess that wouldn't be what most of you want, so maybe it wouldn’t work so well in sports outside of volleyball.
But hey, I just wanted to try an exercise in thinking outside the box.
Now onto this week's games, with Kansas City and Carolina getting the first bye weeks this season:
Today, 8:15 p.m.
Tampa Bay at Dallas -- Uh, the Bucs are just trying to find ONE win, and while Dallas' defense may help undrafted rookie Jalon Daniels look like, say, 500,000 bucks (not even a million bucks), it won't help only scoring 24 points. Cowboys, 37-24.
Sunday, 9:30 a.m.
Philadelphia vs. Jacksonville, at London -- Two weeks in a row of Sunday morning games. If you remember a few years ago when Jacksonville was really struggling, the only place they could win consistently was in jolly ol' England.
Now they're better and the Eagles have been looking just putrid. Adding in the pseudo-home field advantage, Jaguars, 30-19.
Sunday, 1 p.m.
Chicago at Green Bay -- OK, now Packers fans you have to HOPE that in a heated rivalry game that records don't matter. Still, I kinda think they do. Bears, 34-26.
Cincinnati at Miami -- The Dolphins looked competitive in a 15-10 loss to Minnesota on Sunday, but alas, that may be the fate the worst team in the league is assigned to, having victory dangling just out of reach over and over. Bengals, 27-24.
Cleveland at New York Jets -- Much the same may be true for these two teams, except Cleveland seems to have grabbed fate by the neck and wrung out a 3-1 record so far. Browns, 26-22.
Houston at Tennessee -- OK, now we're talking not only about bad-luck winless squads, but a pair of 0-4 teams from the same division.
Much as I root for Northern Michigan University grad Robert Saleh, head coach of the Titans, I think they have to REALLY bottom out by going 0-9, 0-10, maybe 0-12, before rising from the ashes. Give me the Texans, 28-20.
Indianapolis at Pittsburgh -- The Colts really showed me something last week in London, so let me run away from them as fast as I can. Steelers, 29-23.
Las Vegas at New England -- Unlike Sean McVay and the Rams, I don't see the Raiders as traveling well and playing what for them is a 10 a.m. Pacific time game. Patriots, 34-21.
Minnesota at New Orleans -- I don't like the Saints on a short week, and since their opening game at Detroit, they haven't looked very good. Despite the big home field advantage, give me the Vikings, 31-29.
New York Giants at Washington -- Might be a bit of a European vacation hangover for Washington, but with Jayden Daniels apparently ready to get back on the field, I'll still take the Commanders, 26-24.
Sunday, 4 p.m.
Denver at Los Angeles Chargers -- Until further notice -- or they play Tennessee -- I'm off even the tiny clown car that doubles as the Chargers' bandwagon. Broncos, 29-17.
Detroit at Arizona -- I'm thinking Detroit should start a golf or bowling team. You know, when they say, "There IS no defense in golf" -- that describes the Lions. Still, the Cardinals apparently practice playing their game without a whole lot of quality offense OR defense, from what I'm reading. Nevertheless, being at home, give me the Cardinals, 39-36.
San Francisco at Seattle -- I'm finally ready to concede that San Fran is that good, even though I did pick them to win Week 1 in Australia. Apparently both these teams have taken on injuries, some at key positions, so I'll again gulp and take the 49ers, 27-23.
Sunday, 8:20 p.m.
Baltimore at Atlanta -- A couple weeks ago, this would've been a slam dunk pick with the Ravens featuring Lamar Jackson and the Falcons featuring not one single play in the first two weeks of the season snapped in the opponent's red zone.
Jackson now is nicked up and Atlanta looked excellent these past two weeks with the return of Michael Penix at QB. And two of the best running back are featured here, Baltimore's Derrick Henry and Atlanta's Bijan Robinson. I won't gulp or swallow here, just hunch my shoulders a little. Falcons, 30-24.
Monday, 8:15 p.m.
Buffalo at Los Angeles Rams -- Both teams' sterling reputations have been tarnished a little, but then again, it's early in the season and if either makes a Super Bowl run, coming back from some early-season problems will make them look even better. With the Rams struggling with defensive injuries, give me the Bills, 30-26.
Last week
10-6, 63 percent. Season, 40-24, 63 percent.
Journal Sports Editor Steve Brownlee's email address is sbrownlee@miningjournal.net.