Orton's Arm Posted October 28, 2006 Author Share Posted October 28, 2006 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. To those who aren't familiar with what syhuang is bringing up, the argument in question is one about whether Losman has played better this year than in his second stint last year. He embarrassed himself with comments like Do you mean you use JP's numbers as standard and then compare his numbers to himself? Syhuang apparently thinks comparing Losman's numbers from last year with those from this year is a ridiculous way of determining whether Losman has improved! Not content with having put his foot in his mouth, he proceeded to shove in the whole leg: In this the third time to remind you, you never define "big enough" or "significantly better" by providing other qb's stats. Other QBs' stats are irrelevant to determining whether Losman has improved, or whether his improvement is statistically significant. So syhuang, what on earth was going through your mind when you provided the link to that thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 To those who aren't familiar with what syhuang is bringing up, the argument in question is one about whether Losman has played better this year than in his second stint last year. He embarrassed himself with comments like Other QBs' stats are irrelevant to determining whether Losman has improved, or whether his improvement is statistically significant. So syhuang, what on earth was going through your mind when you provided the link to that thread? 819267[/snapback] Not to be a prick but what on earth was going through your mind when you started this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Not to be a prick but what on earth was going through your mind when you started this thread. 819273[/snapback] "Everyone's criticizing my knowledge of statistics, so I'm going to leave NO doubt that I don't know what I'm talking about!" HA is the quintessential example of how it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you're an idiot rather than to open it and remove all doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 "Everyone's criticizing my knowledge of statistics, so I'm going to leave NO doubt that I don't know what I'm talking about!" And your evidence for this is what exactly? The fact that you used a lame excuse to chicken out of answering the question? Or is it the fact that when you did participate, the objections you raised demonstrated your own shortcomings? I wasn't the one who couldn't predict the result of a fairly simple Monte Carlo simulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 And your evidence for this is what exactly? The fact that you used a lame excuse to chicken out of answering the question? Or is it the fact that when you did participate, the objections you raised demonstrated your own shortcomings? 819352[/snapback] Well, if you assume I didn't answer, and assume I chickened out, and assume you asked a remotely valid question, and assume my objections were invalid, and assume I demonstrated any shortcomings...then your statements are just as informed as your statistical knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 Well, if you assume I didn't answer, and assume I chickened out, and assume you asked a remotely valid question, and assume my objections were invalid, and assume I demonstrated any shortcomings...then your statements are just as informed as your statistical knowledge. 819360[/snapback] This thread is no longer about statistics. It's degenerated into a flame war; so I'm closing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 This thread is no longer about statistics. It's degenerated into a flame war; so I'm closing it. 819365[/snapback] in other words...once again you got your asss spanked in an arguement, so you are going to close it before you look like an even bigger moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 To those who aren't familiar with what syhuang is bringing up, the argument in question is one about whether Losman has played better this year than in his second stint last year. He embarrassed himself with comments like Other QBs' stats are irrelevant to determining whether Losman has improved, or whether his improvement is statistically significant. So syhuang, what on earth was going through your mind when you provided the link to that thread? 819267[/snapback] No, syhuang trashed you because in your attempted arguement against losman, you OMITTED SOME OF LOSMANS STATS that when included, prove your point is completely false. I can prove anything if i am allowed to throw out some data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Boy, I'm already glad I reopened this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Boy, I'm already glad I reopened this thread. 819550[/snapback] no good deed goes unpunished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Boy, I'm already glad I reopened this thread. 819550[/snapback] I figured it was you I nominate you for the agnostic/athietist equivalent of sainthood, AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 I figured it was you I nominate you for the agnostic/athietist equivalent of sainthood, AD 819556[/snapback] i disagree, in order for that honor he'd have to re-open the Son of Satan thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 No, syhuang trashed you because in your attempted arguement against losman, you OMITTED SOME OF LOSMANS STATS that when included, prove your point is completely false. Prove? Prove! You're actually trying to suggest that a 7% increase in adjusted PPG (at a 15 yard threshold) proves that Losman is doing better this year than in his second stint last year? Shouldn't a stats guy like you be a little more cautious when using words like "proof"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Prove? Prove! You're actually trying to suggest that a 7% increase in adjusted PPG (at a 15 yard threshold) proves that Losman is doing better this year than in his second stint last year? Shouldn't a stats guy like you be a little more cautious when using words like "proof"? 819730[/snapback] Well if you were so right in that thread, why the omission? Oh that's right, it screws up the bias conclusion that you want. FYI, just because you have taken stats classes and know how to regurgitate what is written in the book does not mean you know statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 Well if you were so right in that thread, why the omission? Oh that's right, it screws up the bias conclusion that you want. Are you always this big a jerk? Because it's really annoying when people make false assumptions about my actions. If you care to find out whether there's any truth to your assumptions, go back through my older posts about Losman. You'll see that the first time I used the adjusted points per game method, I was comparing Losman's second stint to Holcomb's performance in 2005. My assertion was that even in his second stint, Losman didn't do as well as Holcomb. Oh, and by the way, I used a 10 yard threshold. Had I used a 15 or 20 yard threshold, people would have accused me of manipulating the system to throw out too many of Losman's contributions from his second stint. The Senator wrote that my adjusted points per game system was too confusing, and on that basis accused me of manipulating stats to make Losman's second stint seem worse than it actually was. Now I'm once again being accused of manipulating stats, but this time to show that Losman's second stint was better than it actually was. And it's been the same system both times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Are you always this big a jerk? Because it's really annoying when people make false assumptions about my actions. 819769[/snapback] Whether or not people make false assumptions about you, they're consistently unequivocally right on their conclusions about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 Whether or not people make false assumptions about you, they're consistently unequivocally right on their conclusions about you. 819776[/snapback] Wow! You've actually written a complete sentence without mentioning the casting for America's Stupidest Woman. Color me impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Are you always this big a jerk? Because it's really annoying when people make false assumptions about my actions. 819769[/snapback] It may be annoying, but by your definition it's statistically valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 It may be annoying, but by your definition it's statistically valid. 819800[/snapback] Looks like this thread is still a flame war. Before I once again shut this thing down, I want to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion about statistics. A number of intelligent observations were made. It's too bad this meaningful discussion got crowded out by the other stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Looks like this thread is still a flame war. Before I once again shut this thing down, I want to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion about statistics. A number of intelligent observations were made. It's too bad this meaningful discussion got crowded out by the other stuff. 819815[/snapback] You ain't shutting it down. If you delete it, I'll bring it back but you won't be around to see it. Try figuring the statistical probability of that, pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts