Conner McGovern to Bills

[Royale with Cheese]

33 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Nope. I'm pointing out that all of your complaints are addressed in their methodology. It's far from flawless but it's absolutely scientifically valid based on their process. You're the one saying it isn't valid because 2 NFL players complained about it.

 

I dont care if NFL players agree with it. I care if it's valid. Playing in the NFL doesn't make you an expert of analysis or scheme.
 

 

I couldn't possibly care less what Travis Kelce thinks about anything. He doesn't come off as a very bright dude.

 
PFF is scientifically valid😂

Geezus lol

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

 
PFF is scientifically valid😂

Geezus lol

literally, yes. They follow a scientific process.

Did you go to college? If so, what was your major?

[BritBill]

2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 
PFF is scientifically valid😂

Geezus lol

It's as scientific as religion. 

[Beck Water]

35 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Nope. I'm pointing out that all of your complaints are addressed in their methodology. It's far from flawless but it's absolutely scientifically valid based on their process. You're the one saying it isn't valid because 2 NFL players complained about it.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, BritBill said:

It's as scientific as religion. 

 

Eh, I'll give it props for having a methodology, albeit not a transparent one.  But it's not science, and it's not "scientifically valid".

 

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

literally, yes. They follow a scientific process.

Did you go to college? If so, what was your major?

🤣PFF follows a scientific process.  Dude come on.  

 

I did go to college and received a secondary education degree and was certified in Middle Grades and Secondary Science.  

3 minutes ago, BritBill said:

It's as scientific as religion. 

He’s doubling down on his statement too.

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

 

 

 

Eh, I'll give it props for having a methodology, albeit not a transparent one.  But it's not science, and it's not "scientifically valid".

 

Maybe you just don't know the definition then if you don't think data modeling is a scientific pursuit.

Edited March 15, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[Beck Water]

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

literally, yes. They follow a scientific process.

 

No, Bright Eyes, they don't.

 

One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is transparency and reproducibility.  I do an experiment, I need to be able to share my methods in sufficient detail that any reasonably skilled and knowledgeable practitioner can reproduce them. 

 

Does PFF share details of their grading system and etc. publicly such that anyone following those details could reproduce their grades?

 

C'mon Man.  Don't go throwing around terms like "scientifically valid" and "follow a scientific process" unless you understand them.

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Maybe you just don't know the definition then if you don't think data modeling is a scientific pursuit.

 

Or maybe I understand that data modeling is only as scientific as the data it uses and the methodology it employs.  Predictive models can be scientifically sound - if the methodology used to develop them is transparent, and if they can be demonstrated to be predictive. 

 

You really wanna go here?  Have PFF's results - say, their OL grades - been demonstrated to be predictive of performance?  I'll hang up and listen.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Beck Water

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

 

No, Bright Eyes, they don't.

 

One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is transparency and reproducibility.  I do an experiment, I need to be able to share my methods in sufficient detail that any reasonably skilled and knowledgeable practitioner can reproduce them. 

 

Does PFF share details of their grading system and etc. publicly such that anyone following those details could reproduce their grades?

 

C'mon Man.  Don't go throwing around terms like "scientifically valid" and "follow a scientific process" unless you understand them.

They do share the details of their grading system. I have a bachelor of science degree and work in an engineering field. I know exactly what the scientific method is and use its application every day. How many times do I have to link it in one thread for you guys to be able to follow along?


https://www.pff.com/grades

Neil Hornsby, the founder of PFF, has a bachelor of science in Physics. I'm going to assume he's also familiar with the scientific method

[Motorin']

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

They do share the details of their grading system. I have a bachelor of science degree and work in an engineering field. I know exactly what the scientific method is and use its application every day. How many times do I have to link it in one thread for you guys to be able to follow along?


https://www.pff.com/grades

Neil Hornsby, the founder of PFF, has a bachelor of science in Physics. I'm going to assume he's also familiar with the scientific method

 

So, Connor McGovern eh? 

[BullBuchanan]

8 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

You really wanna go here?  Have PFF's results - say, their OL grades - been demonstrated to be predictive of performance?  I'll hang up and listen.

In order for that to be true, you would need to have a hypothesis that past performance is indicative of future results.  I'm not about to make that claim - are you?

Btw, I posted their model methodology. Eagerly awaiting your rebuttal.

[Royale with Cheese]

9 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

They do share the details of their grading system. I have a bachelor of science degree and work in an engineering field. I know exactly what the scientific method is and use its application every day. How many times do I have to link it in one thread for you guys to be able to follow along?


https://www.pff.com/grades

Neil Hornsby, the founder of PFF, has a bachelor of science in Physics. I'm going to assume he's also familiar with the scientific method

Great.  Just because he has a degree is Science doesn’t mean it can be applied to a game of football lol.  
 

 

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Great.  Just because he has a degree is Science doesn’t mean it can be applied to a game of football lol.  
 

 

You can apply science and scientific methodology to anything.

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You can apply science and scientific methodology to anything.

Not in a player evaluation grade lol.

A player evaluation is a subjective analysis/observation.  Its why not every teams Draft Big Board is the same lol.

 

Remember when you said “just because you play football doesn’t mean you know football?”

 

I starting to think just because you have an Engineering degree….

[BullBuchanan]

12 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Not in a player evaluation grade lol.

A player evaluation is a subjective analysis/observation.  Its why not every teams Draft Big Board is the same lol.

 

Remember when you said “just because you play football doesn’t mean you know football?”

 

I starting to think just because you have an Engineering degree….

Omg, so this whole time you were hung up because you didn't think it was possible to apply a scientific analysis to subjective interpretations?

There are whole industries that do just that - Net Promoter Scores and Customer Satisfaction Scores are just that, except they don't come with grading rubrics or extensive training for the input data.

In the case of PFF, the grader is grading to the rubric. The that all of the grades go through a second set of hands on a play by play is following a peer review model. If you have a system set up like that, you should be getting similar results across personnel.

Edited March 15, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[MrEpsYtown]

I keep checking back for updates. And then I come in and I just feel like the Popeyes kid

 

 

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Not in a player evaluation grade lol.

A player evaluation is a subjective analysis/observation.  Its why not every teams Draft Big Board is the same lol.

 

Remember when you said “just because you play football doesn’t mean you know football?”

 

I starting to think just because you have an Engineering degree….

There is literally no science to drafting a player… science could never measure a kids internal motivations …. Wants , needs …. What makes him tick

 

its a crapshoot …. Because talent only takes you so far

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

Omg, so this whole time you were hung up because you didn't think it was possible to apply a scientific analysis to subjective interpretations?

There are whole industries that do just that - Net Promoter Scores and Customer Satisfaction Scores are just that, except they don't come with grading rubrics or extensive training for the input data.

In the case of PFF, the grader is grading to the rubric. The that all of the grades go through a second set of hands on a play by play is following a peer review model. If you have a system set up like that, you should be getting similar results across personnel.

 lol this isn’t the same as Customer Satisfaction survey to see if people prefer Coke over Pepsi.

 

Geezus dude.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 lol this isn’t the same as Customer Satisfaction survey to see if people prefer Coke over Pepsi.

 

Geezus dude.

that's not what a CSAT does. Keep showing your ass though.

[Royale with Cheese]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

that's not what a CSAT does. Keep showing your ass though.

“PFF is scientifically sound and valid” lol

[Beck Water]

2 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

They do share the details of their grading system. I have a bachelor of science degree and work in an engineering field. I know exactly what the scientific method is and use its application every day. How many times do I have to link it in one thread for you guys to be able to follow along?


https://www.pff.com/grades

Neil Hornsby, the founder of PFF, has a bachelor of science in Physics. I'm going to assume he's also familiar with the scientific method

 

Scientific knowledge is as scientific knowledge does.  There are plenty of people who have scientific degrees who choose to work outside the field of science.  There are also plenty of people who work in science and engineering fields who, unfortunately, aren't very good scientists.  "Familiar" doesn't mean "Utilizing correctly" 

 

I've read the publicly available link at their site.  Know what it lacks? Information about the details of the actual grading rubric being utilized that would enable an independent, reasonably competent practitioner to reproduce the grades, much less the empirical-sounding "adjustment made to the “raw” grades to adjust for what the player is “expected” to earn given his situation on the field".  That's the part that's critical if you want to claim something is "absolutely scientifically valid".  You have to be willing to open the books and let someone look under the hood and

 

Just look at the little graphic you put in.  "Awful throw that should be intercepted" "Eli Manning's Incredible Game Winning Throw".  It reeks of subjectivity.  It totally lacks any objective criteria for distinguishing between the two that someone could utilize to reproduce the grade, much less any objective criteria for assessing whether the grade is accurately predictive of player contribution.

 

That doesn't mean PFF grades aren't useful - obviously tons of fans who are in to fantasy football or podcasts etc find them meaningful and pay for them.  But useful or not isn't what we're discussing here.  We're discussing your claim that PFF's grades are "absolutely scientifically valid".  You haven't presented a thing to support that contention.

 

2 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

In order for that to be true, you would need to have a hypothesis that past performance is indicative of future results.  I'm not about to make that claim - are you?

Btw, I posted their model methodology. Eagerly awaiting your rebuttal.

 

You didn't post their model methodology.  You posted a link to a high-level general description of what they're trying to do and how they do it.  It's equivalent to me saying "active pharmaceutical ingredients are produced by carefully following a validated manufacturing process under cGMP and occasionally adjusting for individual manufacturing circumstances by using data to support a standard FDA deviation reporting process".  Good luck cooking that stuff!

 

As for the first - if PFF's hypothesis isn't that a player's past performance is reflective of what they're capable of contributing and predictive of their future results, what exact purpose do you believe their grades serve?  For what purpose do you believe they are marketing them?

 

Never mind.  I'm out of here.  I knew from your past performance that the likelihood of an actual discussion was negligible, and you're true to type.  You can go off and thump your chest and claim you won if it suits you.