Started By
Message
re: Bama and 5* Recruits
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:30 am to randomways
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:30 am to randomways
quote:
I think it was pretty obvious from the rest of the discussion that I wasn't talking scope, I was talking quantitative restrictions.
Which is the opposite of broaden
quote:
Your fundamental misunderstanding is that statistical models somehow become less meaningful/applicable with additional parameter sets to clarify exactly what the models are intended to prove. This should, upon reflection, be common sense, really.
its kind of funny you keep trying to discredit myself, when you dont seem to grasp the concept at all.
1
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:32 am to RT1941
quote:
Some folks will go out of their way to skew shite to make Nick Saban and Alabama football look bad.
Which I havent even done in this thread. However some people will make baseless accusations in order to try and make it seem like there are other motives to a conversation in order to make themselves feel better
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:33 am to StopRobot
quote:
I don't understand what he is saying is being skewed.
Then you should probably just step out of the thread, because you arent following along. I am sure you will throw in a "he just mad" or something along those lines.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:45 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Then you should probably just step out of the thread, because you arent following along. I am sure you will throw in a "he just mad" or something along those lines.
I am following along just fine. The stat was pretty simple. By your logic if a player transfers or dies or quits football that makes the stat untrue but it doesn't because it specifically tells you what the criteria are and players that were not draft eligible are exluded. If in the next couple of months Ha Ha Clinton-Dix somehow falls to the second round, guess what, the stat will no longer be true but as it stands now the stat is true and your being mad about it won't change that.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:47 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Which I havent even done in this thread. However some people will make baseless accusations in order to try and make it seem like there are other motives to a conversation in order to make themselves feel better
quote:
Which I havent even done in this thread.
quote:
in this thread
quote:
this thread
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:51 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
its kind of funny you keep trying to discredit myself, when you dont seem to grasp the concept at all.
Yeah, I was right in the first place when I realized this was a futile discussion. You're not actually understanding the points I'm making, and, trust me (or go ask your smartest unbiased friend), my points are completely logical. Since Auburn is a decent school, my conclusion is your reticence to grasp the logic is entirely predicated upon unwillingness rather than incapacity.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:53 am to skrayper
quote:
skrayper
I realize you have a hard time reading without crimson glasses. Can you point it out to me since you seem to think so
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:56 am to randomways
quote:Random, this is what you run into when you try to converse with this guy. That's why I referred to "logic" in my original response to you in this thread. This guy's picture is next to the word "obstinate" in Webster's
Despite the initial use of "broaden" without additional clarifications, I think it was pretty obvious from the rest of the discussion that I wasn't talking scope, I was talking quantitative restrictions. One parameter is extremely "broad" compared to a dozen parameters, each restricting the subject further and further. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that statistical models somehow become less meaningful/applicable with additional parameter sets to clarify exactly what the models are intended to prove. This should, upon reflection, be common sense, really.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:56 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
How is it skewing the stat, when you include the entire base? I have not left anything off
It is not skewing the stat, it makes a different stat. One which I have repeatedly said I think is more meaningful. Lets try an example, shall we?
I want to look at my life expectancy, so I look at the average life expectancy of every animal on earth, coupled with the number of animals of each species to get an average life expectancy for any "being" on earth.
Then I look at the life expectancy, historical life figures, whatever for only humans and get a whole new stat. Is this stat "skewed" because I reduced the population size because it didn't fit my argument. Or is it simply a more valid stat for what I thought was important.
quote:
This is exaclty whats wrong with what I am saying. you are picking and choosing which works best for you by removing the bad rather than looking at the entire scope
No I am picking the entire data set which best reflects the information I think is valuable in this discussion and seeing what the results are.
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 10:57 am
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:59 am to randomways
quote:
You're not actually understanding the points I'm making
The point you were trying to make failed
quote:
my conclusion is your reticence to grasp the logic is entirely predicated upon unwillingness rather than incapacity.
Good grief you are awful. Your example only proved my point, you can add disclaimers/parameters to make any argument. Which is exactly what you have done when you limit what can and cant be included from a superset to a statistic. You are not simply throwing out outliers, you are throwing out the data in which disproves the ultimate statistic
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:05 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
It is not skewing the stat,
quote:
it makes a different stat
a skewed stat quote:
One which I have repeatedly said I think is more meaningful
Meaningful as in you manipulated it to fit your argument by throwing out data that would disprove it.
quote:
Then I look at the life expectancy, historical life figures, whatever for only humans and get a whole new stat. Is this stat "skewed" because I reduced the population size because it didn't fit my argument. Or is it simply a more valid stat for what I thought was important.
it would be skewed if you throw out all deaths not attributed to natural causes( which is similar to what you are doing, by throwing out players). You are merely looking at the human life expectancy.
quote:
No I am picking the entire data set which best reflects the information
but its not an entire data set, thats the point. you have removed data to fit the end game, rather than seeing the results of the entire data population
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 11:07 am
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:07 am to coachcrisp
quote:
Random, this is what you run into when you try to converse with this guy. That's why I referred to "logic" in my original response to you in this thread. This guy's picture is next to the word "obstinate" in Webster's
You are the prime example of your comment.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:12 am to NYCAuburn
All of LSU's players in history have been No. 1 overall picks.
in small language at the bottom
If they played QB at Wililamson High School in Mobile
in small language at the bottom
If they played QB at Wililamson High School in Mobile
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:17 am to NYCAuburn
You crazy.
Also % of eligible 5* players drafted in the first round can't be skewed by omitting the ineligible players.
Also % of eligible 5* players drafted in the first round can't be skewed by omitting the ineligible players.
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 11:19 am
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:18 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
I realize you have a hard time reading without crimson glasses. Can you point it out to me since you seem to think so
The original media quote was regarding Top 15 players, not 5* players.
I've posted where the statement is accurate - all Top 15 players that signed with Nick Saban have gone in the first round.
The absurd back and forth has focused on the incorrect assumption of 5*, not the actual quote, all because the OP got the quote wrong.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:20 am to jatebe
quote:
Cam Newton was taken #1 in the first round. Should Florida be able to count him since they signed him first? He is considered Auburn's player since he played there last. Dyer either left or got kicked off Auburn's team. Does Auburn claim as a player for their school in the draft? The same with the players that left Bama's team. The don't count for Bama anymore.
I thought this was a boom, apparently not.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:25 am to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
You crazy.
Thats it, name calling. makes it more legit
quote:
Also % of eligible 5* players drafted in the first round can't be skewed by omitting the ineligible players.
But when you determine they are ineligible simply because they were kicked out of the program it can.
I was only going with the term "ineligible" as set forth in this discussion. which included players that were actually able to be drafted.
You should absolutely not include 2nd year - 4th/5th year players that have either not exhausted their eligibility or declared yet. but only because they are unable to fall into the main parameter of the statisitc, yet
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:27 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
quote:Random, this is what you run into when you try to converse with this guy. That's why I referred to "logic" in my original response to you in this thread. This guy's picture is next to the word "obstinate" in Webster's
quote:So me and the other half a dozen posters who have been trying to rationalize with you are all idiots, and you're the enlightened one.
You are the prime example of your comment.
I understand that this thought process is common in psychiatric facilities.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:30 am to coachcrisp
quote:
So me
You have not done anything of the sorts, but nice try to think you have. again prime example of that and this. your projections have been quite comical recently
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:31 am to Walkthedawg
quote:
I was listening to Mike and Mike this morning and they said since Satan has been at Bama, every 5 star recruit either has been a 1st round draft pick, or was "processed"
FIFY
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News