Stats Dak vs Wentz

CalPolyTechnique · May 20, 2019

Birdgang said:
again from what I read , that you posted. He said almost 150% which would be ok as he is rounding up for semantics lets say. Lets try this ok ?

A percentage is a number expressed as a fraction of 100.
If a number is 100% (100 percent), then it is a “whole” – the same as one.
If a number is 50%, then it is a half – the same as 0.5 or 1/2.
If a number is 400%, then it is 4 times, the same as 4.

Increase from 50 by 25:
\frac(25)(50) \times 100\% = 0.5 \times 100\% = 50%
Increase from 75 by 25:
\frac(25)(75) \times 100\% = 0.333 \times 100\% = 33.3%
Increase from 0.0443 by 0.0001
\frac(0.0001)(0.0443) \times 100\% = 0.002257\times 100\% = 0.2257%

No, he said “almost 150% more.” More is the determinative adjective in his claim.

Q: More than what?
A: A given value (37 TDs)

Q: Is 55 “almost 150% more” than 37?
A: No.

Q: So how many more rushing TDs did the Cowboys score than the Eagles between 2016-18?
A: 18 more TDs, or ~48% more than the Eagles during that span.

There is no context in which 150% would be appropriate in context to the specifics of his claim.

I’ve posted his original claim verbatim multiple times; there should be no confusion as to what he was trying to say. It’s there in plain language.

Treat his claim as a basic word problem: 55 is almost 150% more than 37.

True or False

[That’s vastly different than asking “what is 150% of the number 37?”]

Birdgang · May 20, 2019

CalPolyTechnique said:
No, he said “almost 150% more.” More is the determinative adjective in his claim.

Q: More than what?
A: A given value (37 TDs)

Q: Is 55 “almost 150% more” than 37?
A: No.

Q: So how many more rushing TDs did the Cowboys score than the Eagles between 2016-18?
A: 18 more TDs, or ~48% more than the Eagles during that span.

There is no context in which 150% would be appropriate in context to the specifics of his claim.

I’ve posted his original claim verbatim multiple times; there should be no confusion as to what he was trying to say. It’s there in plain language.

Treat his claim as a basic word problem: 55 is almost 150% more than 37.

True or False

[That’s vastly different than asking “what is 150% of the number 37?”]

Look I only gave my 2 cents on what i saw as the argument .... Im now regretting it. What fraction would you use to get 150% increase or decrease of a number? Then what type of problem would be used for them ... Multiplication / division

PhillySpecial · May 20, 2019

Birdgang said:
Look I only gave my 2 cents on what i saw as the argument .... Im now regretting it. What fraction would you use to get 150% increase or decrease of a number? Then what type of problem would be used for them ... Multiplication / division

To simplify - 100% more than 37 = 74
100% of 37 = 37
150% more than 37 = approx. 92
50% more than 37 = approx. 55

I know I'm going to regret this.

CalPolyTechnique · May 20, 2019

PhillySpecial said:
To simplify - 100% more than 37 = 74
100% of 37 = 37
150% more than 37 = approx. 92
50% more than 37 = approx. 55

I know I'm going to regret this.

You're 100 percent correct and that's literally what I explained back to our resident mouth breathers back in February (shown below).

CalPolyTechnique said:
Looool, my gosh!

This is astounding...

If you had $37 and I gave you more cash that resulted in you having $74, what is the percentage increase?

A 100% increase from 37 is 74; a 150% from 37 is 92.5 to be exact.

A 100% increase from 1 is 2.

The original claim by xwalker is that the Cowboys rushing TD total of 55 (2016-2018) is “150% more” than the Eagles 37 TDs.

I've given up on Birdgang. He knows the answer because he's already provided it but I'm convinced he's just trying to be diplomatic on the enemy's message board by equivocating and word vomiting math lessons as if there's some sort of confusion on the math.

So here is the most basic of math problems taken from the actual claim (provided below)

xwalker said:
The Cowboy have almost 150% more Rushing TDs from 2016 to 2018:
Cowboys 55
Eagles 37

Is this claim correct?

True or False.

PhillySpecial · May 20, 2019

CalPolyTechnique said:
No, that's precisely correct and literally what I explained back to our resident mouth breathers back in February (provided below).

I've given up on Birdgang. He knows the answer because he's already provided it but I'm convinced he's just trying to be diplomatic on the enemy's message board by equivocating and word vomiting math lessons as if there's some sort of confusion on the math.

So here is the most basic of math problems taken from the actual claim (provided below)

Is this claim correct?

True or False.

I tried to explain to somebody one time that you can't subtract more than 100% from something or you end up with a negative. This person than proceeded to tell me it gets reported in the news that the price of something has risen 110%. I tried to explain you can increase something by more than 100%, but you can't subtract more than 100%. Maybe that's your ticket in getting them to understand. Have them subtract 150% of 37 from 37. If you do, get ready to tear the hair out of your head.

Birdgang · May 20, 2019

PhillySpecial said:
To simplify - 100% more than 37 = 74
100% of 37 = 37
150% more than 37 = approx. 92
50% more than 37 = approx. 55

I know I'm going to regret this.

@CalPolyTechnique
I will break this down to how I would teach my kids. As I said before my first post was correct. You are letting words and miscommunication get in the way? Maybe some pride? Both can be correct depending on the context of the thing. We know the context or at least how it was meant because we have 2 important numbers 37 and 55.

to get 25% of 100 you would use 100 x 0.25 = 25 150% of 100 would be 100 x 1.5 = 150

now lets use 25% of 37 37 x 0.25 = 9.25 150% 37 x 1.5 = 55.5

now here is where it gets confusing ...

Now if you take add 25% to 100 100+ 25% = 125 as we know 25% is 25 So 100 + 150% = 250 because we know 150% = 150

Now to the 37 ...... 37+ 25% = 46.25 as we know 25% is 9.25 SO now again 37 + 150%= 92.5 as we know 55.5 is 150%.

CalPolyTechnique · May 20, 2019

Birdgang said:
@CalPolyTechnique
I will break this down to how I would teach my kids. As I said before my first post was correct. You are letting words and miscommunication get in the way? Maybe some pride? Both can be correct depending on the context of the thing. We know the context or at least how it was meant because we have 2 important numbers 37 and 55.

to get 25% of 100 you would use 100 x 0.25 = 25 150% of 100 would be 100 x 1.5 = 150

now lets use 25% of 37 37 x 0.25 = 9.25 150% 37 x 1.5 = 55.5

now here is where it gets confusing ...

Now if you take add 25% to 100 100+ 25% = 125 as we know 25% is 25 So 100 + 150% = 250 because we know 150% = 150

Now to the 37 ...... 37+ 25% = 46.25 as we know 25% is 9.25 SO now again 37 + 150%= 92.5 as we know 55.5 is 150%.

Freeaaakin, smh.

Just answer these two SIMPLE questions*:

1. What is 150% of the number 37?

2. What number is 150% more than 37?

Just answer in numbers rather than words.

WE KNOW THE CONTEXT given the specifics and determinative adjective (% “more”) in the claim. As such, alternative answers by default are out of context and therefore incorrect. Now you’re wading into basic logic.

*If you have the urge to respond with yet another long-winded composition of basic math then just vacate the thread dude.

PhillySpecial · May 21, 2019

Birdgang said:
@CalPolyTechnique
I will break this down to how I would teach my kids. As I said before my first post was correct. You are letting words and miscommunication get in the way? Maybe some pride? Both can be correct depending on the context of the thing. We know the context or at least how it was meant because we have 2 important numbers 37 and 55.

to get 25% of 100 you would use 100 x 0.25 = 25 150% of 100 would be 100 x 1.5 = 150

now lets use 25% of 37 37 x 0.25 = 9.25 150% 37 x 1.5 = 55.5

now here is where it gets confusing ...

Now if you take add 25% to 100 100+ 25% = 125 as we know 25% is 25 So 100 + 150% = 250 because we know 150% = 150

Now to the 37 ...... 37+ 25% = 46.25 as we know 25% is 9.25 SO now again 37 + 150%= 92.5 as we know 55.5 is 150%.

55.5 is 150% OF 37 - an increase of 50%
92.5 is 150% MORE than 37 - an increase of 250%

I think I understand what you're saying. Because of the context of the posts.
But if you were assigned two problems in math class:

What is 150% of 37? answer 55.5
What is 150% more than 37? answer 92.5

If the Eagles scored 37 TDs. And the Cowboys scored 150% OF the TDs the Eagles scored. How many TDs did the Cowboys score?
answer - 55.5

If the Eagles scored 37 TDs. And the Cowboys scored 150% MORE TDs than the Eagles, How many TDs did the Cowboys score?
answer - 92.5

CalPolyTechnique · May 21, 2019

PhillySpecial said:
But if you were assigned two problems in math class:

What is 150% of 37? answer 55.5
What is 150% more than 37? answer 92.5

If the Eagles scored 37 TDs. And the Cowboys scored 150% OF the TDs the Eagles scored. How many TDs did the Cowboys score?
answer - 55.5

If the Eagles scored 37 TDs. And the Cowboys scored 150% MORE TDs than the Eagles, How many TDs did the Cowboys score?
answer - 92.5

Ding! Ding! Ding! WINNER!!!

The original claim was “[...] the Cowboys scored (55 TDs) almost 150% more than the Eagles did (37 TDs).”

The claim was not “[...] the Cowboys scored 150% of what the Eagles did.”

There’s an unequivocal difference between the two; they are not saying the same thing.

In no part of the universe will 55 ever be “150% more” than 37; not even in a multiverse.

End of story.

PhillySpecial · May 21, 2019

Birdgang said:
@CalPolyTechnique
I will break this down to how I would teach my kids. As I said before my first post was correct. You are letting words and miscommunication get in the way? Maybe some pride? Both can be correct depending on the context of the thing. We know the context or at least how it was meant because we have 2 important numbers 37 and 55.

to get 25% of 100 you would use 100 x 0.25 = 25 150% of 100 would be 100 x 1.5 = 150

now lets use 25% of 37 37 x 0.25 = 9.25 150% 37 x 1.5 = 55.5

now here is where it gets confusing ...

Now if you take add 25% to 100 100+ 25% = 125 as we know 25% is 25 So 100 + 150% = 250 because we know 150% = 150

Now to the 37 ...... 37+ 25% = 46.25 as we know 25% is 9.25 SO now again 37 + 150%= 92.5 as we know 55.5 is 150%.

Miscommunication is how arguments and disagreements happen. What he meant to say and what he actually said are two very different things.

Because we know the Eagles scored 37 TDs and the Cowboys scored 55 TDs, we should know and accept what he actually said isn't what he meant to say.

Birdgang · May 21, 2019

CalPolyTechnique said:
Freeaaakin, smh.

Just answer these two SIMPLE questions*:

1. What is 150% of the number 37?

2. What number is 150% more than 37?

Just answer in numbers rather than words.

WE KNOW THE CONTEXT given the specifics and determinative adjective (% “more”) in the claim. As such, alternative answers by default are out of context and therefore incorrect. Now you’re wading into basic logic.

*If you have the urge to respond with yet another long-winded composition of basic math then just vacate the thread dude.

I have multiple times, you just don't want to accept what i said. I even gave you an easy out on the whole thing ..... like I said I have nothing in this fight but my opinion. I even gave reasons why someone could be mistaken. Its hard to judge peoples feelings and meaning of things VIA text . My wife used to get mad all the time over misunderstood words since she could not actually hear the conversation. You ever see that Key and Peele video?

PhillySpecial · May 21, 2019

CalPolyTechnique said:
Ding! Ding! Ding! WINNER!!!

The original claim was “[...] the Cowboys scored (55 TDs) almost 150% more than the Eagles did (37 TDs).”

The claim was not “[...] the Cowboys scored 150% of what the Eagles did.”

There’s an unequivocal difference between the two; they are. It saying the same thing.

End of story.

I wish I would've read your post before I spent my time writing mine. I could've just scrolled up a little bit, and I would've seen your post. It's a subtle difference between "of" and "more". But it makes a big difference in the result.

Birdgang · May 21, 2019

PhillySpecial said:
I wish I would've read your post before I spent my time writing mine. I could've just scrolled up a little bit, and I would've seen your post. It's a subtle difference between "of" and "more". But it makes a big difference in the result.

which I said to him forever ago ... i guess he didn't like the way I worded it as well ;D

CalPolyTechnique · May 21, 2019

Birdgang said:
I have multiple times, you just don't want to accept what i said. I even gave you an easy out on the whole thing ..... like I said I have nothing in this fight but my opinion. I even gave reasons why someone could be mistaken. Its hard to judge peoples feelings and meaning of things VIA text . My wife used to get mad all the time over misunderstood words since she could not actually hear the conversation. You ever see that Key and Peele video?

If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between “% more” and “% of” then I can’t help you.

These aren’t asking for the same thing which is what you’ve been arguing.

It’s not hard understand someone’s intent when a very specific claim is made that grants all the necessary values and determinative adjective(s) to provide the necessary context to operate from.

We aren’t communicating via our voices, but rather plain and simple text on a screen no different than how your kid would read a word problem on a paper test.

This isn’t trying to read the body language of the girl at a bar. This is math.

Birdgang · May 21, 2019

CalPolyTechnique said:
If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between “% more” and “% of” then I can’t help you.

It’s not hard understand someone’s intent when a very specific claim is made, providing all the necessary values and determinative adjective(s) to provide context and operate from.

As you already claimed I do know ..... and I even proved. But I have something called common sense ..... which is all you needed to use to figure out what he was talking about. You just cant accept the fact ... you are the type to jump all over the slightest mistake someone makes and dwell on it. Then just keep going because you think it makes you the smartest person in the room ...... Congrats you won the internetzz.

CalPolyTechnique · May 21, 2019

Birdgang said:
As you already claimed I do know ..... and I even proved. But I have something called common sense ..... which is all you needed to use to figure out what he was talking about. You just cant accept the fact ... you are the type to jump all over the slightest mistake someone makes and dwell on it. Then just keep going because you think it makes you the smartest person in the room ...... Congrats you won the internetzz.

Hey man, best of luck to you!

You knew ~92 is “150% more” than 37.

Funny, PhillySpecial jumps on the thread and immediately sees the error, draws the same conclusion, and states the correct answer.

Meanwhile, you were busy writing unnecessarily long-winded screeds to simple math equations that needed no explanation such as this gem:

to get 25% of 100 you would use 100 x 0.25 = 25 150% of 100 would be 100 x 1.5 = 150

now lets use 25% of 37 37 x 0.25 = 9.25 150% 37 x 1.5 = 55.5

now here is where it gets confusing ...

Now if you take add 25% to 100 100+ 25% = 125 as we know 25% is 25 So 100 + 150% = 250 because we know 150% = 150

Now to the 37 ...... 37+ 25% = 46.25 as we know 25% is 9.25 SO now again 37 + 150%= 92.5 as we know 55.5 is 150%.

Birdgang · May 21, 2019

Birdgang said:
I think people are getting lost in the wording yet all sides are saying same thing. It reminds me of my kids fighting while saying trying to prove same point ... just saying it differently but meaning the same thing.

CalPolyTechnique said:
Hey man, best of luck to you!

You knew ~92 is “150% more” than 37.

Funny, PhillySpecial jumps on the thread and immediately sees the error, draws the same conclusion, and states the correct answer.

Meanwhile, you were busy writing unnecessarily long-winded screeds to simple math equations that needed no explanation such as this gem:

to get 25% of 100 you would use 100 x 0.25 = 25 150% of 100 would be 100 x 1.5 = 150

now lets use 25% of 37 37 x 0.25 = 9.25 150% 37 x 1.5 = 55.5

now here is where it gets confusing ...

Now if you take add 25% to 100 100+ 25% = 125 as we know 25% is 25 So 100 + 150% = 250 because we know 150% = 150

Now to the 37 ...... 37+ 25% = 46.25 as we know 25% is 9.25 SO now again 37 + 150%= 92.5 as we know 55.5 is 150%.

yea but I said it over 20 posts ago hence why maybe I felt need to get grade school with it. Also as some others seemed to be confused. Look I got you from the start but I also get people making simple mistakes and let the little things go

Birdgang said:
I think people are getting lost in the wording yet all sides are saying same thing. It reminds me of my kids fighting while saying trying to prove same point ... just saying it differently but meaning the same thing.

Birdgang said:
I dont need a hint LOL 55 would be a roughly 49.5 % increase of 37. 150% increase would be 92.5 . Now 55 is roughly 150% more than 37 . obviously, it is already more than 37 so there is 100% and we already figured out its 49.5 % more then 37 . So you get 150% "rounded up for ease"

HungryLion · May 21, 2019

charron said:
You dont have to like truth but it doesn't change it. There is no defense in this league that plans to stop any 1 of their backs like they focus to stop zeke. You disagree? Load the box, shade a safety to coop and play the rest man on man, That is how they slow us down. Hopefully this changes this year and we start taking advantage of their weaknesses.

It’s not the truth. Your comments show that you didn’t actually watch the eagles running game in 2017 very much. It was outright dominant in a lot of games. They were ripping off huge runs left and right and their offensive line was one of the best in the league that season. Much better than ours, especially once Tyron got hurt.

Those are the facts. You pontificating and throwing out your theory on how a one back offense is more of a threat than a talented two back offense isn’t a fact.

charron · May 21, 2019

DakPresgoat said:
It’s not the truth. Your comments show that you didn’t actually watch the eagles running game in 2017 very much. It was outright dominant in a lot of games. They were ripping off huge runs left and right and their offensive line was one of the best in the league that season. Much better than ours, especially once Tyron got hurt.

Those are the facts. You pontificating and throwing out your theory on how a one back offense is more of a threat than a talented two back offense isn’t a fact.

Their Oline was better, their run game was not. If zeke hadn't missed 6 games it wouldn't even be close. That is fact. Smith was horrid for 3 games then played ok in the final 3 games that zeke missed. When zeke came back they were out of sunc. I only watch 2 eagles games, ones in which their awesome ol and run game couldnt help them against our dline. Gotta love dak supporters, cant say anything that might take away from his performance.

HungryLion · May 21, 2019

charron said:
Their Oline was better, their run game was not. If zeke hadn't missed 6 games it wouldn't even be close. That is fact. Smith was horrid for 3 games then played ok in the final 3 games that zeke missed. When zeke came back they were out of sunc. I only watch 2 eagles games, ones in which their awesome ol and run game couldnt help them against our dline. Gotta love dak supporters, cant say anything that might take away from his performance.

Gotta love people who give opinions and then state it as fact. I also support and get behind actual facts that question dak’s performance and have done so myself. What I don’t support is people making things up.

Stats Dak vs Wentz

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member