In your years of watching, have you ever seen a team not trying to sack a quarterback because he is hobbled by an injury?

The Bengals knew he was injured in the AFC championship and they hit him 5 times and he was sacked three times. If the Eagles did what you said, it would be malpractice and the coaches would need to be fired and the players cut. They didn’t get shut out of sacks because of rules changes that happened years ago and they were afraid to hit the QB...in the Super Bowl, no less.

Mahomes (and the Chiefs) are third best in the league at avoiding sacks per his sack rate. He moves well in the pocket, he gets rid of the ball quick. This is a factor.

These aren’t new rules. You honestly think that players didn’t want to tackle the quarterback because of rules that were implemented years ago? How has anyone ever tackled a hobbled quarterback in a big game in the last 10 years if that was the case?

Mahomes is historically good as sack avoidance based on sack rates, and field conditions were tough for edge rushers who excel at getting up field quickly and using their bend to get around tackles (I.e. the way the Eagles get after the QB).

I’m curious do you follow the NFL?

Rules won’t have anything to do with this, as those rules have been in place all season when the Eagles were getting 4+ sacks per game.

Rules won’t have anything to do with this, as those rules have been in place all season when the Eagles were getting 4+ sacks per game.

Next years Super Bowl: Vikings - Bills, one of them will finally get their ring.

Yeah. I mention that in my write up below. Other nuggets in there as well.

Chart: Excel

Source: Stathead

Description:

Teams with no sacks in a Super Bowl game, listed by their avg sacks per game:

114 teams have played in the Super Bowl, only 14 of them failed to register a sack. This year, the Chiefs stopped the Eagles from doing what they do very often, sack the quarterback. It’s well-known that the Eagles have four pass rushers with 10+ sacks, and they have the third most sacks in NFL history (70). Note: On a per-game basis, the Eagles 4.12 sacks per game is the 20th most ever (1957 Bears with 5.0 per game have the most per game). The 2022 Eagles have the most sacks per game for any team to go without a sack in the Super Bowl.

The chart shows those 14 teams that went without a sack in the Superbowl, sorted by sacks per game in the regular season. The bar represents their average sacks per game in their Super Bowl season. To the right of the bar, I’m listing their sack leader in the Super Bowl year, beneath the team name next to the Y-Axis, you can see their Super Bowl opponent.

Other nuggets:

10 of the 14 teams lost, but the 2009 Saints, 1974 Steelers, 1968 Jets, 1980 Raiders, are the four sackless teams to win the Super Bowl,

The Colts were the Super Bowl opponent for sackless teams three times. The ’68 and ’70 Colts held their opponents (Jets and Cowboys) without a sack, and in another era, they held the Saints without a sack in the 2010 Super Bowl.

The 1997-98 Broncos won back-to-back Super Bowls without giving up a sack in each Super Bowl against the Falcons and the Packers

The Raiders are the only team to be shutout in sacks more than once. The 1980 Raiders held the Eagles to only 10 points in Super Bowl XV without registering a sack and won the game. The 2022 Raiders went sackless in a Super Bowl loss to the Buccaneers. That 1980 Raiders team averaged 3.4 sacks per game coming into the SB, the third highest on this list.

The 1974 Steelers and 1979 Rams (led by Jack Youngblood with 18 sacks) were also sack-heavy teams to go sackless in the Super Bowl.

Usually the people aggressively trying to sound like the smartest person in the room, are...believe it or not, not very smart. They just want to be heard.

Not the sexiest dataviz I’ve seen, but it’s straight forward and easy to interpret. You’re being extremely hyperbolic by saying this is one of the “worst you’ve seen”.

What should OP do to improve on it?

Log scale. It’s not uncommon

I should know my history. This team is cursed.

Definitely going to be landscape. Believe it or not, I’m of the opinion that they’re a QB away from making some real playoff noise. They have the defense, they have the young studs. All they need is a QB.

I’m ruining your shit in two weeks when I tell you who wins the next Super Bowl.

RemindMe! 2 weeks

Nice work!

And then there is Joe Burrow.

Bring up the fact that Burrow threw a dropped interception in the first quarter that he lucked out on because it was dropped and didn’t go against his stats. He hates when you mention that.

Thank you!

>So what?

The “so what” is this...you mentioned that the stats don’t tell the entire story because he threw a good pass that the receiver didn’t catch. You called that out specifically to say he did better than the stats show. Fine.

My response is that he threw a should be interception into a defenders hands that wasn’t intercepted. I’m literally doing the same “I watched the game and stats didn’t reflect this play” thing you are doing. That’s the “so what”

You are blatantly disingenuous to give credence to a dropped pass, but not to a dropped interception.

If we adjust passer rating for your almost completion, it moves from 78.0 to 80.4

If we adjust passer rating for my almost interception it moves from 78.0 to 72.8

If we adjust passer rating by using both the almost completion and the almost interception, his passer rating moves from 78.0 to 75.1. So there you go. 75.1 it is.

Also, we all know stats don’t tell the entire story. That’s a given. It’s a snapshot of 60 minutes of football that directionally tells us how well someone performed.

He also threw an should bring interception right into a defenders hands in the first quarter and the defender dropped it. You forgot to add that the things that don’t get captured in box score stats.

Source: Pro Football Reference and ESPN

Chart: Excel

Explanation/Analysis: (this is /s)

It has been a widely assumed narrative that Joe Burrow dominates the Chiefs at Arrowhead stadium based on the renaming of the Stadium to Burrowhead by Bengals player Mike Hilton. The name Burrowhead caught on like wildfire over the week and was adopted by many Bengals fans and even the Mayor of Cincinatti. So, I decided to go through the painstaking effort to find out just how dominant Joe Burrow is at Burrowhead Stadium. In yesterday's AFC Championship game at Burrowhead, a healthy Joe Burrow (26/41 for 270, 1 TD 2 INT) was outplayed by a one-legged Patrick Mahomes (29/43 for 326, 2 TDs 0 INTs) as the Chiefs advanced to their 3rd Super Bowl in the last 4 seasons.

When I looked at the data, it turns out that Joe Burrow is actually significantly worse at Burrowhead stadium. Burrow's Passer rating decreases by 22% and his ANY/A decreases by 31% when he is playing in the stadium named after him. You can see the details in the charts below.

Additionally, Joe Borrow's winning percentage when NOT at Burrowhead Stadium is .606. Thats really good, it's the equivalent of slightly better than a 10-7 record over the course of a full season. But what happens when he plays at Burrowhead? It drops to .500; a decrease in winning percentage of -.106.

Joe Burrow's passer rating of 78.0 at Burrowhead is the equivalent of Davis Mills passer rating in 2022 (31st ranked out of 33 QBs). His ANY/A at Burrowhead is the same as Carson Wentz (32nd out of 33). Burrow essentially becomes one of the worst quarterbacks in the league when his is playing at the inaptly named Burrowhead Stadium.

Now, I know some of you might be inclined to point out that it's only a two-game sample size at Burrowhead. But I now have double the sample size used in my analysis than what was used to suggest that Burrow's performance was worthy of a name change. I feel like a two-game sample size is scientifically and narratively appropriate.

What’s the R-squared without JJJ?

Great post BTW

This headline reads 10X better than your comment. I read your mess three times and still don’t know what you’re saying.

Yeah. Rwanda isn’t just a movie “Hotel Rwanda” and I don’t pretend to know a lot about the genocide, but this is sobering data. So many innocent lives. Mom’s, dads, sons, daughters, families, children. In the West, we just overlook this stuff as some blip in the news that doesn’t concern us. “It’s just some poor nation that can’t get their shit together. Whateves” is often the mentality. It’s terrible.

Incredible to look at. Great work on this. Creative and beautiful. Sad data though.

Right. Democrats can’t wear a tan suit, buy cookware, or fall off a bike without half of the country losing their God damned minds. Please have some self awareness for your own tribe.