The QB's completion percentage is ~57%, meanwhile seatle had one of the best running backs in the league with 4.25 yards per carry in the game.
wilson doesnt throw many interceptions, but Lynch almost never fumbles, Wilson was 4 times more likely to turn over the ball than Lynch was. write that down, if they turn the ball over they loose the game. the play they choose increased their risk of loosing over 400%.
wilson scores 28% of the time from the 10 (dont have 1 or 5 yard stats), lynch scores 42% of the time from the 5. he even scores more than wilson from 10 yards out (37%), which is not even a valid comparison because they only need 1 yard.
There is just no way to cut it, it was a bad decision.
Exactly. But it's hard to make a living criticising bad play calls that go well. That's why I think there are so many bandwagon analysts.
Same with Atlanta passing while in field goal range last Super Bowl and getting a holding penalty and a sack that forced them to punt and gave the Patriots a chance to tie.
From memory, the explanation for the play was that everyone expected them to go with Lynch, so they tried the pass for the surprise factor, and still had the fourth down to go with Lynch if the pass failed. So yes, very much affected by knowing that the opponent knows your stats.
Fewer guns does not equal fewer deaths in the developed world. You are doing exactly what you claim to be against. Cherry picking data to suit your narrative.
> Fewer guns does not equal fewer deaths in the developed world
I didn't argue against cherry picking (which I'm also against) I was arguing against the parent opposing something entirely different than the post he was responding to. I divided the implication into two.
The guns-to-deaths implication isn't clear cut either, but less so than the laws-to-guns one.
My argument is that this is mostly cultural, which is why it's so hard to measure. The reason being that gun culture both creates a cliate of many guns, but also the other way around (many guns means people are more likely to use/buy guns). Comparable societies (such as US vs rest of western world).
By "more guns" I include not just more guns sold/owned but "more guns in circulation" i.e. number of guns on streets, in cars, in bedside tables, as opposed to in gun safes.
A lot of countries with lots of guns have mostly locked up rifles and very few handguns. That blurs these statistics.
There's been a world-wide reduction in crime since the 1970s. It's very possible to isolate the impact of Australia's gun laws by comparing to other similar countries that didn't implement a major gun ban at the time.
Has that been done? I think it would be quite hard to provide any meaningful comparison between countries, because the results would be clouded by many other factors that can influence them.
