Orton's Arm Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Yeah, I don't have a knack for statistics. Ignore my publications on statistical physics, and your ridiculous "true average value" of a die roll being 3.5. I'm the one deluding myself, and have the power to wrongly convince multiple other people here that you, as the sole arbiter of truth, are a numbskull. > Yeah, I don't have a knack for statistics. Agreed. > Ignore my publications on statistical physics . . . Trust me, I have. Nothing you have to say about statistics could possibly be worth reading. > and your ridiculous "true average value" of a die roll being 3.5. The concept of expected value is yet another statistical concept you are too stupid to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 The truth is somewhere in between with Fitz. Honestly I like the guy and for better or worse he is our guy. I think that if he and Gailey can work on the offense you can see Fitz improve tremendously from what he displayed during the losing streak. In business you are never as bad as your worst and never as good as your best. Agreed, but who was Stevie Johnson and Scott Chandler before Fitz got there? Even Freddie's game went up with Fitz at the helm. The truth is still somewhere in between about Fitz I agree with this. Fitz is what he is. An up and downer qb who can get very hot and very cold. But if our defense wasn't awful, he can be a winning qb. He is throwing to 7th rounders and undrafted free agents. A stud receiver with speed would be a huge addition. If somehow RG3 is there (and he won't), you have to take him. But anyone else, you build the team around Fitz. As much as this 7 game losing pissed us off, they aren't that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 The truth is somewhere in between with Fitz. Honestly I like the guy and for better or worse he is our guy. I think that if he and Gailey can work on the offense you can see Fitz improve tremendously from what he displayed during the losing streak. In business you are never as bad as your worst and never as good as your best. Agreed, but who was Stevie Johnson and Scott Chandler before Fitz got there? Even Freddie's game went up with Fitz at the helm. The truth is still somewhere in between about Fitz If the Bills ever decide to draft for that O line and get some top tackles to give Fitz more time to throw, he will have more games like he did in the first part of the season. Also a speedy deep threat would help open up that short passing game more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 If the Bills ever decide to draft for that O line and get some top tackles to give Fitz more time to throw, he will have more games like he did in the first part of the season. Also a speedy deep threat would help open up that short passing game more Until opposing defenses figured out that Fitz could never hit that speedy deep threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 (edited) > and your ridiculous "true average value" of a die roll being 3.5. The concept of expected value is yet another statistical concept you are too stupid to understand. Except that the expected value applies to a population and not a single trial... Edited December 24, 2011 by BlueFire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 [/b] Until opposing defenses figured out that Fitz could never hit that speedy deep threat. If he had an o-line that could give him more consistent time I think he could pop a deep threat on a semi-consistent basis. Fitz has the arm, he just needs the speed at the skill position and the time. Also if the D could play much more consistent Fitz could pick his spots more. I think its clear that when the D started to fall apart he took more and more chances and that led to a lot of turnovers. I wouldn't stick a fork in Fitz at all. Next season what Fitz can learn from his best and worst will measure exactly where he is as a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 (edited) Except that the expected value applies to a population and not a single trial... My understanding has always been that expected value can apply both to large populations and to single trials. Consider the first example from the Wikipedia article: Example 1 Let X represent the outcome of a roll of a six-sided die. . . . The expectation of X is . . . 3.5. Similar examples are used in the Dartmouth article about expected value. Example 6.5 The heights, in inches, of the women on the Swarthmore basketball team are [heights listed here, with an average of 67.9]. One can also interpret this number as the expected value of a random variable. To see this, let an experiment consist of choosing one of the women at random, and let X denote her height. Then the expected value of X equals 67.9. In the big scheme of things, misremembering the definition of expected value (as you seem to have done) is not a big deal at all. My own memory is far from perfect. Others on this board have typically been very generous in their treatment of me when I'd misremembered something--provided that I first admitted my mistake. I'll also add that I've been able to maintain reasonably friendly relations with the overwhelming majority of people on this board, and I hope I'll be able to maintain them with you. My reason for being here is to engage in friendly and intelligent discussions, not the name-calling contest which Tom seems to enjoy. That said, I'd like to provide an explanation of the tone I've used thus far in my responses toward Tom. In my initial discussions with him, I'd repeatedly and correctly explained statistical concepts, and Tom responded with disagreement and ridicule. Eventually, it occurred to me that I was acting foolishly. Not about statistics--everything I wrote was correct, and Tom's objections were blithering idiocy. Tom was acting like a bully, and I was trying to reason with him! That was incredibly stupid of me on a social level, regardless of how correct my statistics had been. I will not make the same mistake twice. The second Tom starts running his mouth about anything statistics-related, I will challenge not just whichever erroneous statement he might have made, but the underlying stupidity which led him to make it. I will not attempt to spare his ego or preserve some shred of credibility for him. Mercy is always a mistake when dealing with a bully. I will not show Tom mercy again. Edited December 26, 2011 by Edwards' Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 (edited) Judging from his career as unquestioned starter, he has a new mean of around 80.5-81. That's not terrible, actually, and probably makes him the second best qb in the division. If you factor in his extraordinarily low sack rate (a stat that is way too overlooked), he looks even better. I thought he played well against the broncos, who have a good defense. Edited December 26, 2011 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 "SF really shows what good coaching can do as they did zip with Nolan and Singletary. Once the Jets figured us out then everybody else did it and our coaches haven't been able to overcome it. Harbaugh has the right idea, run the ball and agressive defense to protect your QB and you can win a lot of games. SF probably wont beat the Saints or Packers but nothing would me me happier if they did because as the copycat league teams would get back to smashmouth football instead of this pansy-ass spread." Thank you. This is a team sport. Put Alex Smith at quarterback for Buffalo and their record would be the same. A playoff caliber football team starts with two things: Good offensive line play, and good play from the front seven. Everything else follows from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert cohen Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 His completion percentage is quite a bit higher this year than at any time in his career. ya cuz all this throws are 2 yarders... and even on those he has trouble hitting guys in stride.. hes an average backup at best... we need a QB that can throw down field so that the short stuff opens up. any QB's could have a high comp % in this dink and dunk offense.. Barkley staying in school is the worst possible thing for us.. makes teams that need a QB more desperate. luck and RG3 will be both be gone by top 5 and nest best is landry jones who has a bigtime arm but has been really shaky this yr.. i have all the oklahoma homes on DVR and will be watch every one once he declares for draft.. he may also end up staying in school too cuz coming into yr, he was the #2 QB on the big boards after luck and seemed like a sure fire top 5 pick and i think hes now maybe 15th unless someone falls in love with him and drafts for need not BPA.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob T from OP Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I think we can win games with Fitz, but there has to be a better team around him as a whole to get to that point. Look at Alex Smith in San Fran. Is he really better than Fitz? I don't think so, jmo. He has a good defense that gets him the ball back and makes stops. Earlier in the year we were fairing better on defense and the offense was rolling. Now the defense can't get off the field. It's putrid. I've said before that I do not see Fitz as a franchise QB. He's makes inaccurate throws for various reasons, gets nervous in the pocket at times for no reason, is wildly inconsistent on deep passes, and his arm strength is average at best. Fitz is a good backup only!!!! He is laboring to throw the ball down field!!His inaccurracy is due to lack of arm strength!!! Do you think Fitzpatrick could throw 45 touchdowns and only 6 ints in 15 games with the 31st defense ???! I don't think so. Even with they had better receivers this guy is no Aaron Rodgers !!!! Bills need to find a quarterback for the future and this up coming draft the time to do it!!! Go Bills!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Judging from his career as unquestioned starter, he has a new mean of around 80.5-81. That's not terrible, actually, and probably makes him the second best qb in the division. If you factor in his extraordinarily low sack rate (a stat that is way too overlooked), he looks even better. I thought he played well against the broncos, who have a good defense. There were games when Trent Edwards and JP Losman played well. There were a few games when Rob Johnson played very well. With a guy like Fitz, you have to look at his overall body of work. Is Fitz as good as, or perhaps slightly better than, the QBs for the Jets and Dolphins? Quite possibly. But neither of those two teams will win the Super Bowl unless or until they can upgrade themselves at the QB position. The same can also be said about the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 There were games when Trent Edwards and JP Losman played well. There were a few games when Rob Johnson played very well. With a guy like Fitz, you have to look at his overall body of work. Is Fitz as good as, or perhaps slightly better than, the QBs for the Jets and Dolphins? Quite possibly. But neither of those two teams will win the Super Bowl unless or until they can upgrade themselves at the QB position. The same can also be said about the Bills. Your goals are way too high. I'll happily take a simple playoff appearance, and for that goal I think Fitz is good enough. Also, it's not as if there are other QB options out there for the taking. There won't be any good FAs and they won't be in a position to draft an obvious franchise QB. They can win with him if they get the other pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 My understanding has always been that expected value can apply both to large populations and to single trials. Consider the first example from the Wikipedia article: Similar examples are used in the Dartmouth article about expected value. In the big scheme of things, misremembering the definition of expected value (as you seem to have done) is not a big deal at all. My own memory is far from perfect. Others on this board have typically been very generous in their treatment of me when I'd misremembered something--provided that I first admitted my mistake. I'll also add that I've been able to maintain reasonably friendly relations with the overwhelming majority of people on this board, and I hope I'll be able to maintain them with you. My reason for being here is to engage in friendly and intelligent discussions, not the name-calling contest which Tom seems to enjoy. That said, I'd like to provide an explanation of the tone I've used thus far in my responses toward Tom. In my initial discussions with him, I'd repeatedly and correctly explained statistical concepts, and Tom responded with disagreement and ridicule. Eventually, it occurred to me that I was acting foolishly. Not about statistics--everything I wrote was correct, and Tom's objections were blithering idiocy. Tom was acting like a bully, and I was trying to reason with him! That was incredibly stupid of me on a social level, regardless of how correct my statistics had been. I will not make the same mistake twice. The second Tom starts running his mouth about anything statistics-related, I will challenge not just whichever erroneous statement he might have made, but the underlying stupidity which led him to make it. I will not attempt to spare his ego or preserve some shred of credibility for him. Mercy is always a mistake when dealing with a bully. I will not show Tom mercy again. Wow. 4 years later and you still don't understand the difference between discrete and continuous variables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janicks Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Phrases like "regression to the mean" and "law of averages" are made up phrases typically used by people who are extremely limited mathematically. They don't appear in any textbook. For "regression to the mean" to have any possible meaning, one has to define what "mean" one is talking about, and the sense in which one "regresses" to it. What I think people think they mean when they say something like this is the "law of large numbers," where the *mean* approaches some true value after a large number of trials. The law of large numbers does nothing to help predict a single outcome, such as the performance in a single game. Yup. Here I am. I don't have a lot to add to the OP's post. I think most fans recognize that Fitz is a mediocre QB who had a few good games against lousy pass defenses who hadn't yet figured out how to defend the Fitz/Gailey short-passing-game-only attack. But if for some reason someone feels inspired to learn more about the regression effect (a.k.a. regression to the mean), I'd suggest this article. This article is complete utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 (edited) This article is complete utter nonsense. I agree. That article is bogus, and probably cooked up by some bozo commie Canadian, where they spend too much time gazing at navels and coming up with new "social" reforms. What it fails to take into account is the variable of the time and day you took your SAT test, because on Mondays, you have a different bio-rhythm than, say, a Saturday. And, let's face it, a person who scores a 750 on a SAT test is likely cheating, so the lower score on the follow up test is well-deserved. I'm still not sure what this has to do with completing a pass. Edited December 26, 2011 by ieatcrayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 (edited) Phrases like "regression to the mean" and "law of averages" are made up phrases typically used by people who are extremely limited mathematically. They don't appear in any textbook. For "regression to the mean" to have any possible meaning, one has to define what "mean" one is talking about, and the sense in which one "regresses" to it. What I think people think they mean when they say something like this is the "law of large numbers," where the *mean* approaches some true value after a large number of trials. The law of large numbers does nothing to help predict a single outcome, such as the performance in a single game. This article is complete utter nonsense. At least according to Gene Dallal, the chief of Tufts' Biostatistics Unit, "There have been many attempts at online statistics instruction. HyperStat is one of the better ones, not only for the content but also for the additional links." The article to which I linked came from HyperStat. Dallal also wrote his own article about the regression effect (a.k.a. regression toward the mean). The same regression effect was also described in this short Stanford article, and is the subject of this longer Harvard article. Rather than read through all that--especially the Harvard article!--I suggest thinking of the phenomenon in the following terms. When an initial test is 0% due to random chance, then on a retest there will be no regression toward the mean. For example, if you measure someone's height at 6'2" the first time around, then upon being remeasured his height will still be 6'2". Now imagine a different test which is 100% dependent on luck or random chance. For example, students might be tested on their "ability" to predict ten coin flips. Suppose you were to gather up students who got eight or more predictions right, and were to retest them. Upon being retested, that group would achieve the same success rate one would expect from random chance. Now suppose the results of some initial test were due 50% to innate qualities, and 50% to random chance. Suppose you were to select the 10% of the population which did the best on some initial test. Their initial success was 50% due to innate traits, and 50% due to luck. Upon being retested, the luck element of their initial success will disappear, while the portion based on innate qualities will remain behind. Upon being retested, the people in this group will be 50% closer to the population mean. Edited December 26, 2011 by Edwards' Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Wow, it must have been 1 hell of a season to revisit this topic again. Apparently this forum regresses to the mean every few years. Or maybe we progress to the mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 3.5 took you 12 minutes to respond, are you slipping? So thing sstarted going downhill against the bungles is the 4th game of the season. 3.5 * 4 = 14 which coincidentally is Fitzpaycheck's jersey # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I think we can win games with Fitz, but there has to be a better team around him as a whole to get to that point. Look at Alex Smith in San Fran. Is he really better than Fitz? I don't think so, jmo. He has a good defense that gets him the ball back and makes stops. Earlier in the year we were fairing better on defense and the offense was rolling. Now the defense can't get off the field. It's putrid. I've said before that I do not see Fitz as a franchise QB. He's makes inaccurate throws for various reasons, gets nervous in the pocket at times for no reason, is wildly inconsistent on deep passes, and his arm strength is average at best. Look at the teams in the playoffs that aren't the 49ers - clearly they are the anomaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts