syhuang

If you did read the whole thread, you should be able to notice that his system is prematured and incomplete. Missing such an adjective may not be deemed a mistake to you, but it certainly is to me especially he was replying directly to my post. Thank you for providing your opinion. Even he said:

Whatever, Ralph Wilson Stadium is NOT the oldest NFL stadium as you claimed.

For example: Lambeau Field: 1957 Alltel Stadium: 1946 3COM Park: 1960 Network Associates Coliseum: 1966

Wrong, Ralph Wilson Stadium was opened in 1973 and is only the 10th oldest among NFL stadiums.

Not without the ability to create any stats through prematured systems.

Look carefully, it's putting "prematured" between "my" and "system" in his post:

You made a mistake again. You forgot to put "prematured" between "my" and "system". As I said, the results from a prematured system like yours show nothing more than simply saying "I think......". Next time, Just state what you think instead of showing invalid numbers from a prematured system to act like you have some manufactured stats to back your argument up. Everyone can create any numbers he likes with a prematured system. (1) Create his own rules to omit the stats he doesn't want (2) Pick the threshold to favor him most (3) Use personal judgement to retain the stats which should be ommitted by different thresholds based on his rules (4) Simplify the whole system to favor his argument (5) Get the manufactured numbers benefit his opinion These manufactured numbers are useless and show nothing more than "I think ......".

Chris Brown discussed this on his blog today. MERRIMAN DROPS APPEAL: Well as I feared San Diego's Shawne Merriman has dropped his appeal of the four game suspension he was slapped with for having a banned steroid in his system. So now he'll miss the next four Chargers games against the Browns, Bengals, Broncos and Raiders. And when can he return to action? Dec. 3 at Buffalo. The only bright spot is fellow Chargers OLB Shaun Phillips who wreaked havoc in last year's matchup with Buffalo is out indefinitely with a calf injury and may not be able to play by Dec. 3.

You mean creating a prematured system to create numbers like you did? no thanks. (1) Create his own rules to omit the stats he doesn't want (2) Pick the threshold to favor him most (3) Use personal judgement to retain the stats which should be ommitted by different thresholds based on his rules (4) Simplify the whole system to favor his argement (5) Get the manufactured numbers benefit his opinion These manufactured numbers are useless and show nothing more than "I think ......". I'd prefer to simply say "I think ..." instead of wasting time to manufacture numbers.

Good idea, other than these two, the system can be improved by (1) Giving partial credit to the scoring drives instead of current all or nothing method. (2) Using more than yards in box score to give players credits. For example, a QB should be given some credits if he can recongize opponents' blitz and audible a better play (pass or rush). (3) Testing more on thresholds and judgement calls to measure the impacts (4) Applying the judgement calls on all data entries instead of selected few (5) Testing the system on other data sets Once the system becomes more complete, the results can become useful. Currently, HA's system has too many questions and needs to be improved. The results from his current prematured system are useless.

The main problem of HA's work is that he is not consistent. When he brings up something (for example, judgement calls), he only applies it to the data entries favoring him. Also, his threshold is what he feels right and he never mention the impact of different thresholds before being pointed out the results can be inconsistent. He also simplifies many important factors in his system (eq. drive length) and has an incomplete system. His system is basically a work in progress and needs lots of improvements. As mentioned, it never tests on other data sets. The results from his current incomplete system are invalid. As I said, everyone can create any numbers he likes with a prematured system. (1) Create his own rules to omit the stats he doesn't want (2) Pick the threshold to favor him most (3) Use personal judgement to retain the stats which should be ommitted by different thresholds based on his rules (4) Simplify the whole system to favor his argement (5) Get the manufactured numbers benefit his opinion These manufactured numbers are useless and show nothing more than "I think ......".

Should he defend you about omitting stats as well as omitting facts? Remind you again: Everyone can create any numbers he likes by (1) Create his own rules to omit the stats he doesn't want (2) Pick the threshold to favor him most (3) Use personal judgement to retain the stats which should be ommitted by different thresholds based on his rules (4) Simplify the whole system to favor his argement (5) Get the manufactured numbers benefit his opinion These manufactured numbers are useless and show nothing more than "I think ......".

All of above are facts. You not only omit stats but also omit facts. You did try to use your personal judgements to retain the stats which should be ommited by different thresholds based on your original rules. Sure, you're running away after you cannot rationalize your questionable threshold, over-simplified method, incomplete system, and most importantly, your manufactored results. Let me repeat: Everyone can create any numbers he likes by (1) Create his own rules to omit the stats he doesn't want (2) Pick the threshold to favor him most (3) Use personal judgement to retain the stats which should be ommitted by different thresholds based on his rules (4) Simplify the whole system to favor his argement (5) Get the manufactured numbers benefit his opinion These manufactured numbers are useless and show nothing more than "I think ......".

Didn't I tell you that this's not about who pleases who? This is about your incomplete system and your invalid results You're wrong again. You did try to retain these three drves after being pointed out that using different thresholds will have inconsistent results by your own rules. Can you read "different thresholds"? There is no discussion about whether I applied those rules in some cases or not. There are only two relevant facts: that I applied the 10 yard threshold consistently, and the fact that you don't understand this. You not only omit stats but also omit facts. Why did you only mention your 10 yard threshold and forget to mention other thresholds which give you inconsistent results? You indeed tried to retain the data entries which should be ommited by different thresholds based on your original rules. You keep avoiding your questionable thresholds and using your personal judgements on several key problems. It seems like you alway fail to respond to your incomplete system and your invalid results from yoru over-simplified rules. Everyone can create any numbers he likes by (1) Create his own rules to omit the stats he doesn't want (2) Pick the threshold to favor him most (3) Use personal judgement to retain the stats which should be ommitted by different thresholds based on his rules (4) Simplify the whole system to favor his argement (5) Get the manufactored numbers benefit his opinion These manufactored numbers are useless and show nothing more than "I think ......".

No, it doesn't. Why do you only use the time JP entered the game after I listed other ways to calculate it? Why don't you use pass attempt ratio? why don't you use the combination of the time Holcomb injured and the time JP entered the game? This is another judgement call. It's not related to the outliers you mentioned. This is a judgement call of setting up rule/system, not a judgement call of regarding a data entry as a outlier. Again, you still pick the number which favors you most. This is not about what pleases who, it's about the whole system which benefits one side heavily. What the final numbers are is not the main problem, the main problems are your designed rules which omit the stats you don't like, the questionable thresholds, and your personal judgements throughout the whole process. Didn't I address this issue before? I feel like we're going in circles here. I mean before I point the problem out. You never address this issue before being pointed out that different threshoulds generate inconsistent results. After I point out this issue, instead of following your original rules, you try to use personal judgements to retain the drives which would be omitted by a different threshold. These drives may or may not need to be ommited, however, they already reveal your rule/system is incomplete and have problems that you keep bringing in something new to "fix" it. (here "new" means something never be mentioned before in your rules) Don't try to use outliers to confuse the whole issue. An Outlier is a data entry which is quite different to rest of the data. It's irrelevant to our discussion of not applying your rules in some cases. If you insist, please explain why (only) these drives are so different to others to be considered outliers. If you want to use the passing yard and total drive yard ratio, why don't you use it on all drives? It's your own personal judgement and doesn't represent most people's opinions. What you feel is right doesn't mean it's right. As I said, you can simply say "I think..." instead of going through your designed rules to omit the stats you don't want and going through judgement calls of whether to apply your own rules to come up with manufactured stats. It's not about what I think, it's about your system which heavily benefits your argument and omits stats you don't like. As I mentioned, if you want to look at the drive details, you need to apply it on all drives instead of merely the ones don't benefit you. We already discuss this part which brings up the drive length and other issues. It also brings up the problem of over-simplified system you designed and the invalid results from your incomplete system.

This is another example that your system has major flaws. Why do you only count JP played 0.5 game against KC last season? If you consider number of pass attempts (JP: 16, Holcomb: 6), when Holcomb was injured (5 minutes into the 2nd quarter) and when was JP's first series (5 minutes left in 2nd quarter), JP clear played more than 0.5 game. The results can be varied between 11.6 to 12.2 depending on which number you pick, and 0.5 is clearly too low. No, I just follow your original rules and state that with different thresholds, the results are inconsistent. You just pick a number which favors your argument and never mention the impact of different thresholds. You try to bring in judgement calls to retain the drvies which would be ommitted with different thresholds (by your rule). Anytime you bring in judgement calls, the results already lose any remaining meaning. Good, you admit your system has problems. Complexity is not an excuse for your flawed system and flawed results. You can not ignore many factors and simplify the whole system, the results will not be meaningful. Using simplified and incomplete system with questionable thresholds can only get invalid results, it's not better than your personal opinions. Don't shift the focus. I'm only talking about your questionable attempt to omit some stats which don't help your argument. Everyone can design his own rules to omit the stats he doesn't want and gets the results he likes. Take your system as example, some people prefer 10 yards, some prefer 15 yards, some prefer 20 yards, some prefer using pass/rush yard ratio, and so on. People may think some drives should count, some drive shouldn't count. There is no standard on all of these and you basically just pick what you like to get the results benefit you. In the end, it's your own personal judgement, it shows nothing more than "I think ......".

Wow, when people follow your designed rules and find your method produces inconsistent results, you want to change your rules again. Instead of using your hard threshold, you want to use judgement calls now!?!? If you want to use judgement calls, stop creating rules to pretend your results are "fair". It's ok to analyze the drive details, but you need to apply it on all drives, not just the ones don't fit into your "rules". For example, on field goals, why do you give same credits when the drives started at opponent's 47 yards and at own 20 yards? Everyone watches football knows these have very different difficulties. Or why don't you give partial credits to JP when his pass brings a field goal attempt from 52 yards to 44 yards? You can keep modifying your rules and bringing in personal judgements to adjust the results. But at least you can avoid manipulating stats by applying your rules fairly. Stop contradicting yourself. You said you deducted 3 points from Drive 3 in your last post and this is not true. In your original post, you have JP contributed 12.2 points per game in his 2nd stint last season, it's 61 points totally. The scores of the 5 games in JP's second stint last season: KC: Bills scored 14 points. You give all credits to JP SD: Bills scored 10 points. You give all credits to JP CAR: Bills scored 9 points. You give all credits to JP MIA: Bills scored 23 points, including one safety. You give 21 points to JP (never deduct 3 points as mentioned in your rules and your last post) NE: Bills scored 7 points. You give all credits to JP Total: Bills scored 63 points How come you give JP a total credit of 61 ponits if you deducted three points from Drive 3 and two points from a safety? I guess you'll say that the results don't affect your conclusion since You already design the rules to keep JP's credit last season as much as possible. You design the rules to omit some of JP's stats this season, but when the same should be applied to his 2005 stats by your rules, you choose to ignore it. Everyone can create numbers like you did by creating his own rules (and even bringing his personal judgements into the rules). You make up your own rules to omit the stats which don't support your arguments. You can not even apply your rules fairly. When your rules don't produce the numbers you like by using your hard threshold, you start to adjust them and bring in personal judgements. Sure, it's ok to bring in personal judgements, but stop acting like your opinions have fair stats to back up. It has the same effort by simply saying "I think JP hasn't progressed".

Holcombs_Arm, a sincere suggestion to you: Take more statistics classes as some already suggested. I'm not a statistics major and only took several statistics classes as a graduate student in Stanford, however I still can notice your statistics study has major flaws. Take the case you got caught yesterday as example, your method heavily favors one side and it's so obvious to be regarded as manipulating stats. You also make many assumptions but never measure the impacts of these assumptions. Furthermore, you use double standard to explain the results depending on the results support your argument or not. In the same example, when using your original designed threshold, it shows JP is 10% worse than last year. You never mention anything like 'statistical insignificant' on this 10% number and only use it to show JP performs worse. However, when I point out that using different thresholds, the results become JP is 7% and 15% better, you start to bring up 'statistical insignificant' to discount these improved numbers. You need to use the same standard to analyze the results no matter they support your argument or not. If you want to bring up 'statistical insignificant', use it on all results, not just the results you don't like. Please stop using statistis as a tool to create numbers to help your arguments, try to be fair and use more scientific approach.

Why do you take the subject back to how we got the 7% or 15% improvement number on JP's year-to-year comparison when we're discussing how you set the standard? Shifting focus again? The question is how you set the standard? You wrongfully use one player's individual game distribution to define year-to-year standard. You still don't get it, right? To define statistical significance, you can use t-distribution. But you need to use the t-distribution on yearly data when comparing year-to-year performance. In year-to-year comparison, each data entry is yearly stats. On the t-distribution your mentioned, each data entry is a game. These two t-distributinos have totally different meanings and stop confusing one to another.

You are wrong again. By using 15 yards or 20 yards as threshold, JP is better than last year. The question is if 7% or 15% is statistically better. A standard needs to set based on a bigger sample. You only use one player and wrongfully use individual game distruction to define year-to-year standard. This is irrevelant to study of "converted points per game". I only disapprove your "points per game" data and didn't say anything else. Stop shifting the focus.

Again, where did you get your stastics degree? You're comparing summations between two seasons, and now, you are trying to use the individual game distribution of a season to set 'statistically insignificant'? No, I don't believe you. Your study of statistics method is totally wrong. You can NOT use individual game variance to define statisitcally significnat noise on year-to-year comparison. Give you a hint: look at year-to-year variance of bigger sample. So you didn't take other qb's data into study and basically only compare JP's numbers to define "statistically insignificant"?

Stop bringing up some technical terms like t-distribution until you really know what it is. IN your method, you take the summations of JP's number last year and this year. You are comparing summations, the t-distribution of the same player is useless when comparing summations. What are other quarterbacks' numbers you used to set the standard?

You still can not show why 7% or 15% is not "statistically significant" in your method. In some cases, 1% is statistically significant. In other cases, 20% is statistically significant. Again, you haven't defined "noise" here. The noise range is different in different studies. Some cases have higher noise range, some have lower. In this the third time to remind you, you never define "big enough" or "significantly better" by providing other qb's stats. Your method shows very inconsistent result when using 10 yards, 15 yards, or 20 yards as threshold.

Define "Big enough". Have you showed any historical data to define "big enough"? What is regarded as "big enough" for using 15 yards as threshold? how about 20 yards? You must be mistaken, you're discussing JP's improvement with other people here. All I said was to point out you manipulate numbers by making up your own rules so the converted numbers can support your argument. Don't bring other stuff in to shift the focus, I'm only talking about your "converted points per game" numbers from your own rules. Admit your rules have at least one major flaw and the results are not consistent by using different thresholds.

You have to set a threshold, but it can not favor one side. The converted numbers tell a totally different story when using 10 yards and 15 yards as threshold. So can we conclude the numbers you showed are not that meaningful on evaluating JP's progression?