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.

They said “yes” though.

You seem really nice. S/ No wonder no one responds to your begging for sex on the internet.

Chart: Excel

Source: House.gov

Wikipedia

What happens to John 3:16 data without football end zones? Can you rerun the numbers excluding that?

There are people today who have only known the game since they started saying RBI. I’m old and I’m not changing. 75% of my life we used an S. LOL.

I won’t say data are. I know it’s grammatically correct but I’m not doing it. I’m also not going to say datum.

I’m also not changing plural RBIs to RBI in baseball.

I’m not a PETA supporter and their statement is not true unless your being a pedant for the sake of arguing in vary bad faith. The spirit of the post, and we all know this, is by reducing your meat consumption by a day a week “for the rest of to it life” less animals will be killed.

Mr arguing for arguments sake is only arguing for a point in time, which isn’t “the rest of your life” and isn’t the spirit of the post. Reducing the demand for meat, reduces the production and harvesting of meat. It doesn’t kill the same mount of animals. Why is this such a hard concept for you all to understand?

Im not a vegan, and I’m not interested in changing your eating habits. I just call out bullshit when I see it. If you’re believing that decreased demand doesn’t decrease supply you’re also willfully dumb. You’re both proof that people will believe whatever the fk they want regardless of what they were taught. Just eat meat, without being liars.

If you have a high tolerance for utter ignorance good for you. You’re a better person than me.

You said this

> Either way, that's 1 less cow that's alive.

In response to this

> Less animals will be bred to meet demand. So they’re not killed.. they’ll just for the most part never live.

That’s beyond stupid. I’m sorry, but I feel like you’re being dumb on purpose. You’re arguing in bad faith and I’m not wasting any more time.

So now a 1 cow not being bred for suffering and being killed is the same as 1 cow being bred for suffering and being killed. Good lord, how do you get through life with such a lack of common sense.

That’s obtuse as hell. The current supply yes, but you and I both know that future supply would decrease. I don’t understand why you feel the need to push against commonly known supply and demand theory. The mental gymnastics you people are going through. Just fcking eat meat if you like it, but don’t try to fool other people.

Whatever your opinion is on that I don’t care. My point is, your comment about eating less meat not changing the supply and animals getting killed anyway, couldn’t be more wrong. If you want to eat meat because it’s tasty, go ahead, but don’t make up easily debunked tales.

Say you don’t know how supply and demand works without saying you don’t know how supply and demand works

This is a stupid comment. Over the long term if a significant amount of people didn’t eat meat 1 day a week, demand goes down and supply goes down - animal production would decrease therefore less animals will be bred for food and less animals will be killed for food.

Right, that’s the equities line. It’s about -20%

Maybe me and your bro can start our own support group.