The Sports Footage You Won't See Today On TV 277
Hugh Pickens writes "As sports nerds settle in today after Thanksgiving dinner for NFL and college football Reed Albergotti writes that there is some footage you will never see as he argues that the most-watched game in the US is probably the least understood. During every NFL game there are cameras hovering over the field, lashed to the goalposts and pointed at the coaches, but you will never see a shot of the entire field and what all 22 players do on every play which is considered proprietary information available only to teams and coaches. For decades, NFL TV broadcasts have relied most heavily on one view: the shot from a sideline camera that follows the progress of the ball. Anyone who wants to analyze the game, however, prefers to see the pulled-back camera angle known as the "All 22." While this shot makes the players look like stick figures, it allows students of the game to see things that are invisible to TV watchers: like what routes the receivers ran, how the defense aligned itself and who made blocks past the line of scrimmage and gives fans a 'bird's eye view' of the game to dissect team strategies, performances, and keys to success. Without the expanded frame, fans often have no idea why many plays turn out the way they do, or if the TV analysts are giving them correct information."
proprietary? (Score:3)
Reasons for not showing it on TV are poor at best.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's easier to PVR something than it is to sneak in a high quality video camera with a wide angle lens?
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that the TV coverage is focused on the ball, while there is a lot outside of the 16:9 frame that affects where the ball is going. There are many "official" cameras pointed at static locations that could show all 22 players and all in bounds territory at once, but those aren't available to the fans at large.
Re: (Score:3)
We got that. Most people only care about following the ball. Anyone who wants more for "tactical" purposes, can go watch and even record a game for themself. This is a dumb conspiracy theory
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time, But the last thing you want to see is a zoomed in image of a ball flying across 2/3 of the field. This is what the camera mounted at the top of the stadium behind the goal posts does.
Arguably, one does not want to be in this view all the time, but much like the close up, it has a purpose in showing you what happens on a larger sca
Re: (Score:2)
More generally, how do they keep somebody from livestreaming it -- or, at the very least, recording it and streaming it later.
We have cameras that are the size of a pack of cards that record very high quality 1080p video, after all.
Re:proprietary? (Score:5, Insightful)
More generally, how do they keep somebody from livestreaming it -- or, at the very least, recording it and streaming it later.
We have cameras that are the size of a pack of cards that record very blurry 1080p video, after all.
You can put as many megapixels as you want into a camera, but the 1/4" lens is still going to make it look like it was taken by a disposable camera and digitized at the local 7-11.
I don't think people appreciate lenses (Score:4, Informative)
They are far more important than senors, and hence why even back in the days of SDTV professional companies used big cameras.
Even once you go past cell phones, lenses are often the limiting factor. At work we have a couple of Panasonic HDC-TM900s for videoing classes and so on. Not professional cameras, but not cheap things either. About $1000 each when we got them, full 1920x1080 60p recording at 28mbps and so on. A good bit of their cost are in their Leica lenses.
Well for all that, they aren't good enough for 1080 resolution. When you downsample their video to 720p it looks flawless. You can examine it very close up and everything looks as clear and crisp as the pixels allow. The resolution is the limiting aspect, not the source. However when you view the full 1080p stream, well you can see some minor defects. It isn't huge, it still shows more detail than the downsampled 720p version, but you can see that the resolution is capable of more detail, the source is limiting it (and to a lesser extent, the compression).
To truly get 1080p it would take better lenses (and less compression).
You need a large, quality, lens if you want to get truly high resolution photos, where each pixel actually shows distinct detail.
Re: (Score:3)
They are far more important than senors, and hence why even back in the days of SDTV professional companies used big cameras.
That is like saying air is more important than water for a trip to Mars.
Both the sensor and the lens need to be good amongst a lot of other things. The quality of still or video is limited by the weakest link - the least suited aspect of the equipment taking the photograph and the circumstances it is taken under. That includes the ability of the photographer.
Re: (Score:3)
More generally, how do they keep somebody from livestreaming it -- or, at the very least, recording it and streaming it later.
We have cameras that are the size of a pack of cards that record very high quality 1080p video, after all.
How about using a quadrocopter with a camera as was used at the Poland Independence Day riots?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocIDVaHtcpc [youtube.com]
Is the NFL going to install miniature anti-aircraft guns/missiles at stadiums nationwide, or maybe lobby to have laws enacted that ban all civilian model aircraft?
O/T, but can you imagine the crapstorm resulting from dozens of quadrocopters with cameras swarming someplace like the White House, Pentagon, and/or other sensitive government installations, live-streaming video t
Re:proprietary? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, it's silliness. It would change things if coaches had access to other games, but before long things would reach a new equalizer and things would be fine.
Re:proprietary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whiners (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
News for Nerds, not news for jocks. I guess calling them sports nerds somehow makes it OK.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're trolling, but what about us nerds that were jocks? Having played highschool football, I'm always interested in this stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a popular thing, called X. The people who produce and market X allow one view of it to their fan base, but deny them another, potentially more interesting and informative view.
If you can't shoehorn that into some kind of 'evil megacorps are destroying our freedoms', you're not trying hard enough.
More seriously, the nerdiest guy I know (and that's saying a lot, I'm a developer and I've worked with a TON of nerds) once considered getting into football for the sheer joy of statistical analysis on all
Re:Whiners (Score:4, Insightful)
Oblig. John Madden story (Score:5, Informative)
John Madden said once that the TV people wanted their coverage to look more like his video game, and the video game people wanted the game to look more like TV coverage. This led to the use of the wire-suspended camera for most kicking plays.
Re: (Score:3)
actually the wire-suspended camera was an innovation of the now-defunct XFL. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skycam [wikipedia.org] it's about the only thing (other than Tommy Maddox) the NFL picked up from the XFL.
ESPN's SC with angles the TV coverage doesn't (Score:5, Informative)
ESPN's daytime SportsCenter block has a system they call ESPN Axis which is based on a 3D composite taken by multiple cameras that the TV crew that does the game doesn't have time to compute, these things show up on Monday and Tuesday based on when the computers finish the rendering.
Do this in Chess... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not too different from baseball coverage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with baseball is that, as you've said, you really need the whole park view to see the strategy involved. But at the same time, the TV angle lets you see the individual pitches so much better. It's so much cooler when you can actually see the movement on the breaking balls, or see the batter swing to early on a changeup. You miss out on that stuff if you go in person. There really doesn't seem to be an optimal way to view the games.
Re: (Score:3)
I once had upper deck seats to a Greg Maddux game, where I was lined up directly with home plate, the mound , second base, and the center field distance marker. I was behind a camera well that wasnt in use, so there was no obstruction at all. I was looking straight down, and could possible call balls and strikes better than the ump. This was an amazing way to watch someone who has that level of control.
You insensitive clod! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Of all the conspiracy theory BS I've ever seen... (Score:2)
one problem with football (Score:2)
The rules are arbitrarily created to make for the best viewing experience. There's also a zillion of them.
Jesus H. Christ, (Score:4, Informative)
a writer for the WSJ is giving opinions on viewing NFL games??
OK. here's the deal for those of you, including Reed Albergotti, who don't *really* watch NFL or NCAA football.
As the players line up for a play, the camera typically shows all 22 players. As the ball is snapped, the camera begins to zoom in slowly (allowing for some lead room by putting the ball in the rear third of the frame, as it relates to the direction of play) and as the play progresses it may or may not zoom in closer depending on how the play develops. The players can become so spread out during the course of action that to watch it all on a screen would not show much detail, including who has the fucking ball, or the path the ball takes through the air during a pass play. Some quarterbacks can throw the pill for 70 yards, for fucks sake. Pull the camera back to show the entire field and see how easy the game is too watch. You will lose sight of the ball, and won't be able to tell if the reciever caught the ball for a completion, or was nabbed by the defensive back for an interception. The camera operators even lose sight of the ball every once in awhile as it is.
As for being a "student" of the game, there is plenty of opportunity for those who care. Every network that broadcasts football has a staff of former coaches and players who's job it is to teach fans about how the different teams operate on the field, and how effective they are against opponents. There are hours of shows dedicated to this. The film used to dissect play often shows all 22, but it sometimes isn't necessary as some on field play isn't relevent. Sure, downfield blocking by wide receivers on run plays is important, but on a 3rd and 1 attempt, they are sometimes just going through the motions; it's basically a scrum in trying to move the ball forward a yard.
Ok, I'm done being pissed, back to the games!
Re: (Score:2)
Fox Sports once had the glowing hockey puck. Many Canadians were upset at the idea because we are bigger hockey fans than the US. So maybe if American networks implement the glowing hockey pucks again, Canadians will have football broadcast with glowing footballs! I don't know if this will ever extend to other sports. Golf would be my main complaint. Just don't show Tiger's balls glowing!
Re: (Score:2)
You will lose sight of the ball, and won't be able to tell if the reciever caught the ball for a completion, or was nabbed by the defensive back for an interception.
Right, because with all the technology used today to highlight the field and overlay graphics,
we certainly wouldn't be able to work out a good system for tracking and highlighting the ball.
Re: (Score:3)
The camera will probably show the 11 offensive players on almost every snap, but you will very rarely see a safety for more than a quarter of a second. And after the ball is snapped, the camera is stuck in the pocket until a pass is thrown, so you won't know which specific route was ran. Heck, receivers on the other side of the pass probably won't be shown at all.
There are sports where the TV coverage is better than what you'd get on a mid-priced ticket on the stadium, as far as following the action goes. W
Re: (Score:3)
I have a friend who has been to every Giants home game for at least 20 years. After every game, he goes home and watches the game he recorded on TV. His take is that being at the game is a lot of fun, but the one thing you can't really do is tell what is happening with the game. He also says that the new stadiums are better, because they have giant TV screens showing the TV coverage.
Sounds ripe for a RC helicopter project (Score:2)
I hope someone can take up this matter to defeat the nonsense. In any case, it sound ripe for a video-mounted RC helicopter project.
I am sure release of such video can make way for serious profits. On the other hand, the so called project manager is likely to attract a barrage of lawsuits as he's labeled an 'infringer' if such a term
It's not like the plays are a mystery (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that, without the 22 player view, It's extremely hard to judge a QB or a coordinator's performance. The TV can't tell you if the quarterback stinks, the receivers stink, or the offensive coordinator stinks.
Now, if a guard is having a horrible game, TV will make it far easier to find out, but that's arguably a far less interesting question unless you've spent half of your young years as a lineman.
So now we know the real reason... (Score:3)
...for the no-fly zone over the superbowl.
NFL flushes money down the toilet (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand why the NFL isn't selling access to video libraries containing all these streams. With all the football fans, fantasy football and otherwise, obsessively analyzing the game, don't you think they could sell subscriptions? I'd buy. Give me a searchable archive. Let me find all targets at a receiver in a given year, or all fumbles of a players, or all INTs, etc.
The problem of delivering video on demand is already solved. They've got the content. It's just money in the street, waiting for them to pick up.
Soccer differs... (Score:2)
... not just in the rules and play, but in the TV coverage.
Soccer is insanely popular the world over, and TV coverage of soccer seems to provide a wider view of the field, which is crucial. Soccer covers a lot of ground on a regular basis, where American football doesn't so much. And those long plays tend to be easier to zoom into. Zoom into a decent penetration in a soccer match, and you'll miss everything important.
And I love both. I'd love to have a wider view of football.
Re:This is /. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is /. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is /. (Score:5, Funny)
They lost them in the wickets during a power-play caused by a penalty kick, if only they had done a better job protecting the blern.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but there was a hole in one!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can say, with no reservation whatsoever, that I don't care about this article in any way, shape or form.
You at least cared enough to post this.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Slashdot. We generally don't care about sport, but we're always up for a meta-argument.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't this also the same game where the players stop playing the game during commercials [wikipedia.org]? Yeah, paint me surprised.
I will stick to watching a really tough hitting [youtube.com] football game where the althetisism of the players [youtube.com] is second to none.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a rule book for that?
Re: (Score:3)
Next best thing [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Do you hear that? That's the sound of me not giving a fuck.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I only watched a few minutes of the first video, and that was pretty pathetic. Most of those hits aren't even as bad as a home plate collision in baseball.
But more importantly, why the fuck do you consider it a selling point that people get hit hard in a sport with no padding? If you just want to watch people get career ending broken bones and possibly fatal concussions, go watch MMA or boxing. Stop pretending you care about the skill and athleticism, and accept that you'd have been happier living in Rom
Re: (Score:3)
But more importantly, why the fuck do you consider it a selling point that people get hit hard in a sport with no padding?
Because AFL is a contact sport. The idea of a contact sport is to have a challenge between the opposing players. It is challenging other players to be as fit, as nimble and as athletic as you are. Yes, AFL has more injuries then other forms of football. That's the game that has been played here, and that's the game that will continue to be played here.
Aussie rules always ruled higher in the opinion of parents’ when compared to rugby-codes. But this opinion stands challenged, as new research has pointed out that Australian football accounts for the highest injuries as compared to all other types of football. // The aussie code seems to have topped the charts of contact sports injuries, the second place being occupied by league , the third by rugby union and the last , being soccer.
A report published today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that among Australian rules players who are 15 and above, there were 734.3 cases of hospital treatments per 100,000 participants, compared with 677.9 for rugby league. Union and Soccer were way behind to even compete – on 316.9 and 242 hospital treatments per 100,000 participants. Touch football was by far considered the safest, with 121.2 per 100,000 participants. The frequent type of injury was Fractures.
Having said that, do yourself a favour and watch the second video, it forcuses much more some amazing plays rather than big hit ups.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand the point of a contact sport. But usually contact sports involve padding so that the players don't receive any permanent, life-altering injuries. I see no reason to have a contact sport without protective gear, unless the goal of the sport is to satiate fans' bloodlust.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually having read through these comments and actually spent more time thinking about it today than probably ever in my life, I think Aussies just generally like a tougher game of football than most other nations. It's not about hurting the other players, it's simply about playing with all your heart. It's a cultural thing, I had a quick look around and found a few insightful comments that might make more sense.
The Australian national character has been forged by the difficulty of subduing the land. Unlike other cultures based on a nurturing landscape that they seek to protect from others, Australian settlers experienced great hardship and had to support each other in order to survive. The battle against the elements led to the nickname of a member of Australia's working class being the 'Aussie battler'.
The need to laugh in the face of danger while battling the landscape has provoked a strange view of the world, with a distinctive upside-down sense of humour. Times of hardship or even disaster are ridiculed, and this extends to the Australian delight in dubbing a tall man "Shorty," a quiet one "Rowdy," a bald man "Curly" and a redhead "Bluey".
As well as the prevalence of the tall poppy syndrome bringing back to Earth the high fliers, the egalitarian Australian society has a traditional Australian support for the "underdog". Australians will show support for those who appear to be at a disadvantage even when the underdog is competing against fellow Australians.
This underdog attitude is most evident in sport, as sport is also a large part of Australian culture. Should an Australian be asked to choose between two unknown competitors, very often they will choose the one least likely to win, such as swimmer Eric the Eel during the 2000 Olympics. The success of Steven Bradbury in the 2002 Winter Olympics who won a skating gold medal after all his competitors crashed has coined the expression 'doing a Bradbury' which underpins the spirit of the underdog, positive thinking and never giving up.
During the 2003 Rugby World Cup, the Georgian rugby team arrived in Perth with a crowd of Perth residents welcoming them with colourful support, and a similar occurrence was noted in Townsville, Queensland where the Japanese rugby team was preferred to that of the French.
And lastly, this little gem from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Australian rules football culture - Injuries, Health Issues and Prevention
Australian rules football is known for its high level of physical body contact compared to other sports such as soccer and basketball. High impact collisions can occur from any direction. Unlike gridiron, padding is not mandatory and is rarely worn. Combined with the range of activity including jumping, running, kicking, twisting and turning this means that injury rates are relatively high in comparison to other sports.
Australian rules football does not have the range or severity of health issues of American football however players have been known to die whilst playing Aussie Rules, though the most common cause is heart failure. The Victorian State Coroner reported five sudden deaths in that state among Australian rules footballers aged under 38 years between 1990-1997. Three of these deaths were attributed to Ischaemic heart disease (mean age, 31.7 years), and the other two to physical trauma.
(Emphasis mine)
Aussies have a "Harden Up" attitude when it comes to adversity. There are some hilarious comedy sketches that aussies [youtube.com] love becuase they are so on the mark for aussie culture. A person who is seen to overcome difficult odds is generally championed. A tough guy (good or bad) can end up being an Australian Icon such as Ned Kelly [wikipedia.org] who we even depicted during the opening of the Sydney Olympics in 2000!
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
If you just want to watch people get career ending broken bones and possibly fatal concussions..
Aussie rules and Rugby have less injuries than American Football because you don't have padding. You learn to wrap and tackle properly.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
And they don't hit as hard because they don't use padding. In American Football you have idiots running into each other full tilt because they're wearing so much padding. But in that 1/20 chance that you hit wrong you get a serious injury.
If I told you to run into a wall as hard as you could and I'd give you $10. You'd do it at a certain velocity wearing no padding. If you strapped on a helmet and shoulder pads you wouldn't hit just as hard as you had been hitting, you'd start hitting it harder. And most of the time you'd be fine, but occasionally you'd hit it wrong or have your hemet at the wrong angle and hurt yourself. Or in Football you'd hurt the other person because you were hitting that much harder.
In addition there are rules to how to tackle in Rugby (Not sure about Aussie Rules). You HAVE to wrap in a tackle. You can't just body check someone out of bounds. You also have to do something the entire game. American Football you burst for 10 seconds then rest for 60. You don't have people hitting as hard because you have to get up and ruck. You have to be there for the next play because play hasn't stopped.
I'd say almost none of these tackles are legal. [youtube.com] You have someone picking up and dumping, body checking, leading with the head, etc. They have fewer injuries because of the laws of the game AND because they don't use padding. If they started using more padding they'd hit harder.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I only watched a few minutes of the first video, and that was pretty pathetic. Most of those hits aren't even as bad as a home plate collision in baseball.
But more importantly, why the fuck do you consider it a selling point that people get hit hard in a sport with no padding? If you just want to watch people get career ending broken bones and possibly fatal concussions, go watch MMA or boxing. Stop pretending you care about the skill and athleticism, and accept that you'd have been happier living in Roman times.
Having all the padding/armour, helmets or whatever it is that American Football players wear actually makes it a lot more dangerous in the long run. The more ridiculously hard challenges you receive without immediate injury, the worse you will potentially suffer over your career.
My understanding is that there are a lot of American football players with brain damage, as their (well protected) heads get sloshed about a lot more than in a sport like AFL or rugby where an equivalent hit would probably take you out of the game and is therefore better regulated
Re: (Score:3)
Haha, AFL and 'really touch hitting' in the same sentance - ROTFL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66wK9zAppHc [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if every single major league team in the Big 4 sports was the financial equivalent of the Yankees (which most don't even come close to), you'd be looking at less than 50 billion a year - an amount comparable to highway maintenance alone.
Countries are expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, one big difference is that video gamers don't generally get millions of dollars in tax money to build enormous facilities to play video games in.
Re: (Score:2)
But they do get millions in tax breaks to game studios. Both actions are done in the name of the local economy.
Your right! (Score:2)
Instead we got /Billions/ of dollars in tax money that subsidized private industry and made it possible for us to play those very video games.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been various studies that show some video games to be very useful for developing mental skills. Games are as old as humans and good for building skills, learning teamwork, and relaxing and relieving stress. Even animals play games; anyone with a cat (or better, a kitten) knows this. Video games are just the latest iteration; before them, we played social games like ball-and-stick games, or individual games like solitaire.
The problem with sports is they aren't games at all, at least not for the sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a "true nerd".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"The only sports are motor racing, mountain climbing, and bull fighting. All the rest are games."
Translation: The only thing that are sports are the things that I like. Besides that, bull fighting is ritualized slaughter, not a sport.
Of course there are an awful lot of idiots. Makes me wish for a global pandemic of a fatal disease, it does.
Just remember that you're an idiot in somebody else's eyes, and they'd be just as happy to see you die in your pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why is it football, again? (Score:5, Funny)
Just to piss you off.
You know what you should do? You should give it a clever name like "handegg" and then pat yourself on the back for being so amazingly observant.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to piss you off.
You know what you should do? You should give it a clever name like "handegg" and then pat yourself on the back for being so amazingly observant.
Come on mods, this is the funniest comment in this topic now, and it will be the funniest when the last post is added. +1 Funny
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't called "football" (that is a different game, where the foot is used most of the time to move the ball), it is called "american football". The first word of this should explain everything...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hurr hurr, you sure are clever! Imagine that, people having words for things!
You know, I've heard cricket doesn't actually involve any crickets! They should call it "bunch of guys standing around on a field for weeks at a time ball"! See, I'm clever too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why is it football, again? (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as I'd like to make fun of American Football some more, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good possible explanation [wikipedia.org] for it ("possible", because like many historical things, it can't be known for sure as the records for many historical things are sketchy). Basically, it has nothing to do with the ball being kicked, it's about the game being played on foot, as opposed to on horseback like sports that aristocrats in Medieval times played. Basically, "football" could be any sport played by peasants, since they couldn't afford fancy horses to play totally idiotic games like tilting (jousting).
Re:why is it football, again? (Score:5, Funny)
don't they use hands to carry whatever that thing they call 'ball' around? Why is it called 'football'?
Because it's the only major professional sport in the USA where the ball is *ever* allowed to touch the foot. That's how American sports are named: they go with what unique thing the ball does only a tiny fraction of the time.
Basketball gets its name because it is the only sport where the ball sometimes goes in a basket, even though 99.9% of the time it's being bounced around the court with the hands. Likewise, baseball is named after the bases, even though the ball is only very rarely actually on a base.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I played rugby (prop - loose and tight head) for 15 years and I've never thought I was missing something when I watch coverage on TV. I can see exactly what is happening. Also there is plenty of analysis with overhead and "reverse angles" etc.
Nowadays, I can compile my own distro ...
Cheers
Jon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
just like rugby, but with pads, forward passing and different rules for scoring. Oh, and you take a 45 second break after every play instead of running the entire time. oh, and the time is in 4 quarters of 15 minutes each.
apart from that, yep, we are talking about rugby.
Re:And in Rugby too (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a distinction that we can all understand:
Rugby is an RTS.
American Football is turn-based.
conflicted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is like the fourth time you've told us that.
It appears you care a great deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't give the buggers any ideas!
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of sabermetrics? The math that those people do as a hobby goes far, far beyond anything a computer nerd does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the correct term is "sports geek", actually. "nerd" connotes a particular type of intellectual geek.
And I use "geek" in the commonly understood modern sense, not the sense of a certain type of circus performer.
Re: (Score:2)
yep, go here, these guys take stats to an entirely ridiculous level.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods [footballoutsiders.com]