Bungee Jumper Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 A number of intelligent observations were made. It's too bad this meaningful discussion got crowded out by the other stuff. 819815[/snapback] Like your bull sh-- interpretation of "statistics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 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. 819969[/snapback] And your reason for keeping this flame war open is . . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 And your reason for keeping this flame war open is . . . ? 819977[/snapback] And you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 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] I am not arguing about losman. I'm stating the simple FACT that you omitted stats that are contrary to the point you are trying to prove. And that is somehow statistically sound? Hell, i want to be a grad student in your school. If i can throw out all my bad data, and the data that i dont like, i would have my PhD in about 1.5 years instead of 5. You've done this consistently throughout your posts however, so its no surprise. Kind of like how you come up with random statistical "measurements" to prove your point, which somehow always include the stats that make your point, and leave out the ones that dont. Or kind of like your little gem: "If you take away tony romo's 3 INT's, he played great" HA's stats theory: if it doesnt fit, throw it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 I am not arguing about losman. I'm stating the simple FACT that you omitted stats that are contrary to the point you are trying to prove. And that is somehow statistically sound? Hell, i want to be a grad student in your school. If i can throw out all my bad data, and the data that i dont like, i would have my PhD in about 1.5 years instead of 5. You've done this consistently throughout your posts however, so its no surprise. Kind of like how you come up with random statistical "measurements" to prove your point, which somehow always include the stats that make your point, and leave out the ones that dont. Or kind of like your little gem: "If you take away tony romo's 3 INT's, he played great" HA's stats theory: if it doesnt fit, throw it away. It's funny you should bring up my Tony Romo comment the day after he went 24/36, for 270 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT. In last week's game, I saw a player who could seriously contribute to his team if he could cut back on his interceptions. That's what Romo did last night. As for the Losman stats, I had to draw the line somewhere. I made the ten yard decision before looking at any data at all; basically for the same reason you decide an appropriate alpha level before looking at any data. I chose a 10 yard cutoff because I felt that getting enough yards to move the chains constituted a meaningful contribution to a drive. Should I have tested the data at 15 and 20 yard cutoff points? In a PhD program, yes. For a paper intended to be published, yes. But for a discussion board post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 I just went back through the play-by-plays from 2005, to look at the drives some people want to eliminate from Losman's second stint by using a 15 or 20 yard threshold. Below are the descriptions of the drives. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether Losman did enough on those drives to deserve some credit for the points they produced. I personally feel he did. Drive 1 (against San Diego): This drive started on the San Diego 47, and moved to the San Diego 35 for a FG. Losman passed for 11 yards, McGahee rushed for 6, and the Bills lost 5 due to a penalty. Drive 2 (against San Diego): Losman completed a 9 yard pass to Reed on 2nd and 10. He completed a 3 yard TD pass to Shelton on 1st and goal from the 3. He also had a 30 yard run. Drive 3 (against Miami): This drive started on the Miami 26, so I deducted 3 points because the Bills were already in FG range. McGahee had 9 rushing yards to Losman's 17 passing yards, including Losman's 4 yard TD pass to Evans. Using a 20 yard threshold, Losman gets no credit for this particular drive. People are accusing me of dishonesty and manipulating statistics because I gave Losman credit for those three drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I just went back through the play-by-plays from 2005, to look at the drives some people want to eliminate from Losman's second stint by using a 15 or 20 yard threshold. Below are the descriptions of the drives. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether Losman did enough on those drives to deserve some credit for the points they produced. I personally feel he did. Drive 1 (against San Diego): This drive started on the San Diego 47, and moved to the San Diego 35 for a FG. Losman passed for 11 yards, McGahee rushed for 6, and the Bills lost 5 due to a penalty. Drive 2 (against San Diego): Losman completed a 9 yard pass to Reed on 2nd and 10. He completed a 3 yard TD pass to Shelton on 1st and goal from the 3. He also had a 30 yard run. Drive 3 (against Miami): This drive started on the Miami 26, so I deducted 3 points because the Bills were already in FG range. McGahee had 9 rushing yards to Losman's 17 passing yards, including Losman's 4 yard TD pass to Evans. Using a 20 yard threshold, Losman gets no credit for this particular drive. And what's your justification for choosing the threshold? Is this another half-assed assumption that "must" be right because you say so? People are accusing me of dishonesty and manipulating statistics because I gave Losman credit for those three drives. 820342[/snapback] No, they're accusing you of being an idiot, because they omit the posts where you know what you're talking about (which, according to you, is statistically valid), and the rest prove your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 because they omit the posts where you know what you're talking about 820367[/snapback] You do realize that there are exactly 0 of his posts that need to be omitted for this reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 You do realize that there are exactly 0 of his posts that need to be omitted for this reason. 820376[/snapback] I think one time he said he was hungry. Admittedly, there is a chance he had no !@#$ing clue whether he was hungry or not, but I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt in that regard. My point still stands: if he ever makes a sane post, we can omit it from the sample. Hell, statistically he wasn't even hungry, since we can safely omit that post as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I think one time he said he was hungry. Admittedly, there is a chance he had no !@#$ing clue whether he was hungry or not, but I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt in that regard. My point still stands: if he ever makes a sane post, we can omit it from the sample. Hell, statistically he wasn't even hungry, since we can safely omit that post as well... 820379[/snapback] I think that post was wrong too. He posted that right after lunch, but omitted the fact that he had just eaten. Thereby he was hungry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 You know what I'm tired of? Moderators who see flame wars as a literal heat source for their cold Alaska homes. I'm tired of posters who a) use too long a cord when bungee jumping, and then b) proceed to make comments about celebrating terrorist attacks or about my knowledge of statistics. I'm tired of Ramius sucking on the private parts of anyone who says something derogatory about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 You know what I'm tired of? Moderators who see flame wars as a literal heat source for their cold Alaska homes. I'm tired of posters who a) use too long a cord when bungee jumping, and then b) proceed to make comments about celebrating terrorist attacks or about my knowledge of statistics. I'm tired of Ramius sucking on the private parts of anyone who says something derogatory about me. 820403[/snapback] I haven't yet made a comment about your knowledge of statistics. You have none to comment on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 I haven't yet made a comment about your knowledge of statistics. You have none to comment on. 820411[/snapback] How long was that bungee cord again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 How long was that bungee cord again? 820414[/snapback] Wow. That really hit me where it hurts. Here's a hint: make fun of my mental illness. I really hate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 You know what I'm tired of? Moderators who see flame wars as a literal heat source for their cold Alaska homes. I'm tired of posters who a) use too long a cord when bungee jumping, and then b) proceed to make comments about celebrating terrorist attacks or about my knowledge of statistics. I'm tired of Ramius sucking on the private parts of anyone who says something derogatory about me. 820403[/snapback] Someone is getting cranky and needs a nap. Try to come up with a reasonable non-losman bashing , non-nall/holcomb ballwashing post, or a post that has even the slightest evidence that you know what sound statistical evidence is, and then maybe the adults will talk to you in our grown up voices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 Here's a hint: make fun of my mental illness. I assume your mental illness is what's caused you to spend so much time on the PPP boards. I've been questioning the sanity of my decision to a) come over here, and b) attempt to engage in reasonable (non-flame) discussions. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but many of the people here exhibit all the maturity, wisdom, and intelligence of an average five year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I assume your mental illness is what's caused you to spend so much time on the PPP boards. I've been questioning the sanity of my decision to a) come over here, and b) attempt to engage in reasonable (non-flame) discussions. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but many of the people here exhibit all the maturity, wisdom, and intelligence of an average five year old. 820426[/snapback] Sorry, i already used the maturity post/insult comment. You cannot use it. nananana poo poo, i used it first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 Someone is getting cranky and needs a nap. Try to come up with a reasonable non-losman bashing , non-nall/holcomb ballwashing post, or a post that has even the slightest evidence that you know what sound statistical evidence is, and then maybe the adults will talk to you in our grown up voices. 820425[/snapback] First off, nothing I've ever seen you write on these boards demonstrates an adult level of maturity. Whether you have a "grown up voice" is, as far as I'm concerned, very much up in the air. Second, the last thing I want is for you to start kissing my private parts the way you've kissed some other people's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I assume your mental illness is what's caused you to spend so much time on the PPP boards. I've been questioning the sanity of my decision to a) come over here, and b) attempt to engage in reasonable (non-flame) discussions. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but many of the people here exhibit all the maturity, wisdom, and intelligence of an average five year old. 820426[/snapback] Given your complete ability to understand statistics, I doubt you can comprehend what the phrase "average five year old" even means. Christ, man...you start off over here with some Mickey Mouse BS eugenics theory based on your complete misunderstanding of statistics, you get called out on it, so you follow it up with a Mickey Mouse BS statistics example proving your complete misunderstanding of statistics, get called out on that...and it's blisteringly obvious to you that the problem is everyone else? Were you dropped on your head as a child or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 First off, nothing I've ever seen you write on these boards demonstrates an adult level of maturity. Whether you have a "grown up voice" is, as far as I'm concerned, very much up in the air. Second, the last thing I want is for you to start kissing my private parts the way you've kissed some other people's. 820439[/snapback] Now Holcombs Arm is complaining about maturity. I have officially stepped through the looking glass. What's next? Kurt Godel complaining about Nazis? PastaJoe complaining about the Democratic Party? Wacka complaining about Fox News? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts