re: Alabama Schedule Thread

quote:

---

I fully understand what removing the losses Suffered at the hands of the championship team does, it makes the opponents winning percentage look better than what it actually is. There's no need to do that as the actual winning percentage is already impressive.

He got called on his bullshite and all the Bama fans ran to his aid because any who don't agree that Bama is the greatest thing in the history of ever, is wrong in their opinion.

---

So with all of your butthurt, are you ready to admit it is the toughest schedule by a national champion in NCAA history or nah?

quote:

---

Obviously this is wrong. The SEC has always given L5U the harder schedule aND the Bammers an easy path.

---

Did someone at LSU touch you inappropriately?

quote:

---

t was to show how impressive it was and how you guys along with SEC haters can't complain about Bama having an easy path like you always do.

---

This is the thing. The winning percentage was impressive without the OP modifying it to make it look even better.

He wanted it to be over 70%. That's the only logical reason to remove the losses.

quote:

---

Want you to know, I didn't do the work in the OP. So, someone else decided it was important to remove head-to-head losses, probably for reasons randomways already pointed out.

---

The only reason to remove losses, and only losses, when calculating winning percentage is to inflate the result.

Plain and simple.

quote:

---

The only reason to remove losses, and only losses, when calculating winning percentage is to inflate the result.

Plain and simple.

---

Now that's simply untrue. I gave you a logical reason for doing so -- to distinguish success against a given schedule from failure against the same schedule. Under this system, a team that finishes 12-0 against a schedule looks better than one that finished 0-12. I think most people would agree that bragging about your schedule implies that you actually had success against it. Otherwise, it's just whining that your team never had a chance. The whole point of the stat is to demonstrate this success. Distinguishing winning from losing clearly falls under the purview of that point. And since it's applied to all teams being measured, it's entirely normative. Every team is subject to it.

You don't have to consider it a good reason. That's entirely your prerogative. You're free to argue about whether it should be used and complain that people are only promoting it to make their team look better. But claiming that this reason doesn't exist is just stubbornness and/or trolling at this point.

quote:

---

Dude, when calculating a teams, or a set of teams winning percentage it is NEVER logical to remove losses.

The whole point of winning percentage is how many games were won out of total games played. When you start removing games, for any reason, it makes the entire process moot.

---

If all you're going for is a bare-bones winning percentage without context, certainly. You prefer it because context doesn't help your own prejudices. But if you're trying to give context to that winning percentage -- and that's not some weird idea from left field...it's exactly what people do when they say a 12-0 AAC team isn't the same as a 12-0 SEC team, for instance -- the method used is completely logical. It's basic math and deductive logic, not an arbitrary factor thrown in to screw things up. Instead, by removing losses that happened only to the team in question, it gives an algorithmic view of how the team in question performed that season. I'm wondering if it's possible you haven't thought through how the system works. It wasn't simply a dirty trick to elevate winning percentage. He or she actually used a relevant methodology by removing losses that occurred to the team being studied. It's a logical extension of the quantum "observation effect". In essence, it's trying to minimize the damage winning a game has on a team's data. Perfectly logical. It does exactly what I said it does. If you can dispute the actual logic rather than the motivations, feel free to give it a shot.

quote:

---

If all you're going for is a bare-bones winning percentage without context, certainly.

---

Winning percentage is calculated in one way:

Wins divided by total games played.


What you, and the OP, are using is NOT the winning percentage no matter how many times you two try to claim that it is.

quote:

---

Winning percentage is calculated in one way:

Wins divided by total games played.


What you, and the OP, are using is NOT the winning percentage no matter how many times you two try to claim that it is.

---

I've tried to be polite, but there's no way around it -- you sound really, really stupid now. You're quibbling over semantics and giving the impression you're incapable of understanding what's being explained. Would it make you feel better if someone inserted "adjusted for better context" after the words "winning percentage" or are you just going to dig in your heels and continue acting as if you aren't able to comprehend the point being made? Nothing I've said requires a Vandy education to understand. I've given you the reason it was adjusted, and pointed out why the methodology was in no way arbitrary. Past that, it's just a matter of you getting past your intense desire to do exactly what you're accusing the Bama posters of doing -- picking a course because it's the one you prefer.

quote:

---

"observation effect".

---

Boom, caught a mistake Vandy-man. A period outside of your quotations, do you even Vanderbilt bruh?

By the way, I've been drinking and read this whole thread. RB10 tried fighting the good fight.