JoPoy88 Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 13 hours ago, D521646 said: Some of you know that I can't stand the fact this women has a job when her prediction rate of success is abysmal, I mean downright awful, but she's still at it, and I warn ANYONE who plays fantasy (especially DFF) to avoid her "predictions" like the plague. I watched her prediction of last night's game, and went back and thought you all enjoy just how bad her "prediction" was. http://www.nfl.com/videos/game-theory/0ap3000001053711/Game-Theory-How-Panthers-can-capitalize-vs-Bucs-at-home There wasn't ONE SINGLE aspect of her prediction that came true, not a one. Discuss! Tim- Will you be committed to calling out every male “analytics” expert that suggests the bills aint that good yet? If not...... 2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: The problem with mathematical models is they are very reliant on prior performance. And the NFL is such an 'any given sunday' league. Her job isn't necessarily to be right. It is to apply a mathematical model to predictions as a contrast against the 3 guys on the panel applying more traditional NFL thinking. It very much is. I agree 100%. I just question the thread calling out the woman when there’s dozens of male “experts” spouting the same nonsense that you just pointed out 1
JoPoy88 Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 6 hours ago, Comebackkid said: ? She's no Kay Adams That’s great. Very constructive. 1
billsfan1959 Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 7 hours ago, RaoulDuke79 said: Her nose is kind of big, but I'd still smash. A good rule of thumb might be for you to have your parents review your posts before you hit "submit." 1
Chandler#81 Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 15 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: A good rule of thumb might be for you to have your parents review your posts before you hit "submit." Or jam their thumbs in his eyes. 2 hours ago, GunnerBill said: The problem with mathematical models is they are very reliant on prior performance. And the NFL is such an 'any given sunday' league. Her job isn't necessarily to be right. It is to apply a mathematical model to predictions as a contrast against the 3 guys on the panel applying more traditional NFL thinking. This. I think this more aimed at obsessed sports betting than actual outcomes. Anything scientific to lure in mo’ ca$h. 1
Giuseppe Tognarelli Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 (edited) I think some people are going a little too far in calling this sexism. Personally, I would complain about these mathematical predictions regardless of the gender of the person responsible. As others have hinted at, the issue seems to be that Frelund's model is talked about like it is groundbreaking and impressive, and because the results have been so bad, the question kind of becomes, How long is she going to be glorified for a bad predictive model? If guessing produces the same or better results, yeah, it's going to rub people the wrong way when it's put out there as a "thing" all the time (the NFL even pushes notifications each week to users on the app). Edited September 14, 2019 by Giuseppe Tognarelli
Doc Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 3 hours ago, GunnerBill said: The problem with mathematical models is they are very reliant on prior performance. And the NFL is such an 'any given sunday' league. Her job isn't necessarily to be right. It is to apply a mathematical model to predictions as a contrast against the 3 guys on the panel applying more traditional NFL thinking. It isn't? Then what's the point? I can come up with a mathematical model that is complete horseshit and predicts nothing but I wouldn't be on employed, much less on TV, very long.
GunnerBill Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 7 minutes ago, Doc said: It isn't? Then what's the point? I can come up with a mathematical model that is complete horseshit and predicts nothing but I wouldn't be on employed, much less on TV, very long. Well what is the point of having anyone on tv picking games? There is no less point in Freuland and her model than in Michael Irvin and his bad dress sense. 1
Doc Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Well what is the point of having anyone on tv picking games? There is no less point in Freuland and her model than in Michael Irvin and his bad dress sense. Humans picking games has always been the way it's been done. Computers can do certain things better than humans but that's dependent on humans programming them properly. If the models are crap, she needs to go back to the drawing board and test them before going on air with them.
GunnerBill Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 18 minutes ago, Doc said: Humans picking games has always been the way it's been done. Computers can do certain things better than humans but that's dependent on humans programming them properly. If the models are crap, she needs to go back to the drawing board and test them before going on air with them. Oh so the way it has always been done doesn't get held to the same standard? Hogwash.
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 1 hour ago, GunnerBill said: Well what is the point of having anyone on tv picking games? There is no less point in Freuland and her model than in Michael Irvin and his bad dress sense. The bookies (legal and illegal) hoping a pretty face and/or analytics steer money into their pockets?
Doc Posted September 14, 2019 Posted September 14, 2019 47 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Oh so the way it has always been done doesn't get held to the same standard? Hogwash. Never said that. I'm saying if the newer method is worse than the old, it's useless and needs to be improved.
Recommended Posts