Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Link to the Re-Rank Results is LIVE

2»

Comments

  • H_DH_D Member Posts: 6,098
    Muttzen said:

    Dardanus said:

    Muttzen said:

    Average score given by each participant.

    image

    I like how you got 5 decimals deep and decided, "screw it, add four more decimals!"
    gotta have those extra numbers mang

    also... here is an unweighted variation of how far participants were from the average for each player (doesn't correct for standard deviation and other factors...)

    Smaller number means closer to the average... on average.

    image

    Statistics Superiority Guy
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,491 Founders Club
    edited January 2015
    kh83 said:

    And @Swaye‌ wtf dude, I love ya but Jamaal a 4???

    Either I was shitpoopfaced or that was a misclick. No way I gave that scrub a 4. I do notice I was the third lowest overall score...which means I am sort of a dick jerk I guess.
  • chuckchuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,052 Swaye's Wigwam

    Tequilla said:

    DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1

    I think I see why this happened. I didn't really use the 0 unless people actually never enrolled. People gave Josh Banks a 0! He played!

    I stuck to this criteria:

    0 = Never enrolled
    1 = Never contributed
    2 = Contributor or bad starter
    3 = Good/Multi-year Starter
    4 = All Pac-12 level player (a guy that other teams would want on their team)
    5 = All-American level player, first round pick, etc.
    I went into it with a pretty much identical scale. I just didn't stick to my guns throughout, for a number of reasons. One of those was that I couldn't always remember whether or not a guy played. I definitely handed some zeros to guys who were on the field at times, but I think they deserved them in most cases.
  • Dennis_DeYoungDennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    chuck said:

    Tequilla said:

    DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1

    I think I see why this happened. I didn't really use the 0 unless people actually never enrolled. People gave Josh Banks a 0! He played!

    I stuck to this criteria:

    0 = Never enrolled
    1 = Never contributed
    2 = Contributor or bad starter
    3 = Good/Multi-year Starter
    4 = All Pac-12 level player (a guy that other teams would want on their team)
    5 = All-American level player, first round pick, etc.
    I went into it with a pretty much identical scale. I just didn't stick to my guns throughout, for a number of reasons. One of those was that I couldn't always remember whether or not a guy played. I definitely handed some zeros to guys who were on the field at times, but I think they deserved them in most cases.
    I just think it puts a weird bias to it if you can call a guy who played a 0. Look, I don't think Josh Banks was a great player, but Josh played 2 years here, started some games and contributed. Even calling him a 1 is disingenuous. Otherwise you end up with rankings all over the place...

    People gave Kasen a 2! I mean, a 2? I can understand a 3, but a 2?!?

    No players should have 3 rankings among the raters. Des Trufant should either be a 4 or a 5. Kasen should be a 3 or a 4. Callier should be a 2 or a 2. Etc.
  • chuckchuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,052 Swaye's Wigwam
    edited January 2015

    chuck said:

    Tequilla said:

    DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1

    I think I see why this happened. I didn't really use the 0 unless people actually never enrolled. People gave Josh Banks a 0! He played!

    I stuck to this criteria:

    0 = Never enrolled
    1 = Never contributed
    2 = Contributor or bad starter
    3 = Good/Multi-year Starter
    4 = All Pac-12 level player (a guy that other teams would want on their team)
    5 = All-American level player, first round pick, etc.
    I went into it with a pretty much identical scale. I just didn't stick to my guns throughout, for a number of reasons. One of those was that I couldn't always remember whether or not a guy played. I definitely handed some zeros to guys who were on the field at times, but I think they deserved them in most cases.
    I just think it puts a weird bias to it if you can call a guy who played a 0. Look, I don't think Josh Banks was a great player, but Josh played 2 years here, started some games and contributed. Even calling him a 1 is disingenuous. Otherwise you end up with rankings all over the place...

    People gave Kasen a 2! I mean, a 2? I can understand a 3, but a 2?!?

    No players should have 3 rankings among the raters. Des Trufant should either be a 4 or a 5. Kasen should be a 3 or a 4. Callier should be a 2 or a 2. Etc.
    I agree with all of the above except fuckeff you on the bolded.

    I gave Banks 1* but wouldn't argue with someone who gave him 2. He wasn't completely worthless. I feel like I underrated a few guys by a star and I MIGHT include him in that group. Half stars, if available, would have definitely raised my average stars awarded.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    @Dennis_DeYoung, you were a little more generous giving out 2's then others. Potoa'e was a 1 to me. He played a little, but he never did anything and was pretty much a liability when he was on the field. Same with Hartvigson.
  • 79smoothdawg79smoothdawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 715 Swaye's Wigwam
    Muttzen said:

    Dardanus said:

    Muttzen said:

    Average score given by each participant.

    image

    I like how you got 5 decimals deep and decided, "screw it, add four more decimals!"
    gotta have those extra numbers mang

    also... here is an unweighted variation of how far participants were from the average for each player (doesn't correct for standard deviation and other factors...)

    Smaller number means closer to the average... on average.

    image

    Clearly science is on my side.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    The Pepsi family, why the 4 for Kikaha? Very good freshman season before the injuries. Then he comes back a few years later and has 13.5 then 18.5 sacks. He's the all time leading sacker in UW History, made two all conference teams, and one All American.
  • AlexisAlexis Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 3,143 Swaye's Wigwam

    The Pepsi family, why the 4 for Kikaha? Very good freshman season before the injuries. Then he comes back a few years later and has 13.5 then 18.5 sacks. He's the all time leading sacker in UW History, made two all conference teams, and one All American.

    I think you are thinking of Jamora. Common mistake.

  • whatshouldicareaboutwhatshouldicareabout Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,735 Swaye's Wigwam
    I should've given Banks a 1 instead of a 0.

    I only saw he played in 3 games in 2013 with one of those being Idaho St. Didn't realize he played in 9 games in 2012.
  • Dennis_DeYoungDennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754

    @Dennis_DeYoung, you were a little more generous giving out 2's then others. Potoa'e was a 1 to me. He played a little, but he never did anything and was pretty much a liability when he was on the field. Same with Hartvigson.

    @RoadDawg55, I gave 2s off the criteria I stated: 'contributor' or bad starter. Sione was a border 1/2, but I thought in his last year he was a backup. It wasn't like you NEVER heard about him. I think, again it was a case of me only using 0s as 'never enrolled'.

    I think the 0 ranking is justified in that it's a total waste of resources to recruit a guy who will never come on campus. So if that happened, then I'm fine with @CokeGreaterThanPepsi's punishment of a 0. But once they enroll, the lowest they can be is a 1. Nick Montana was a 1.

    But, if you are around all 4 years and play a good amount (contribute), you're a 2. Sione was close to that... but I think if Sione'd come in as a 3 star kid, people would've been nicer to him in the rankings. Once people think you're a bust, they de-value you.

    I think that happened with Kasen, too.

    Also, I think Peters was a 5 because he was a All-America level for most of last year.
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    Gave Kikaha a 4 because he was pretty inconsistent until this year. He had GREAT games last year as a junior, but he also disappeared in games. I love Kikaha, but I just couldn't pull the trigger on the 5. Now I am kinda doubting myself, but whatever.
  • MrsPetersenMrsPetersen Member Posts: 724
    What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

    FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

    But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    Gilliland made a couple of plays at UW. He had a pick against Eastern in the terrible opener. He was a one because he left early, but I think he would have been a solid 2 if he had stayed. He didn't suck any worse worse than Timu, Fuimaono, and Kearse in 2010 and 2011.
  • Dennis_DeYoungDennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754

    What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

    FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

    But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

    Here's my issue with this... with this criteria, a 5* player has to essentially be Steve Emtman. Once every 20 year player. By this kind of measure we might have had 3-4 5* players in the last 20 years... Dillon, Marques... who else? Jerramy Stevens?

    We're dividing up performance in to quintiles... Is he in the bottom 20% of players, the lower middle 20%, the middle 20%, upper middle 20% or the top 20%?

    If you were an All-American at any point, you were a 5-star. Otherwise no one will be a 5-star outside of Hall Of Fame level players. I don't see how that really makes sense as an evaluation criteria.

    If Shelton wasn't a 5, who the HOLY HECK is?
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646

    What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

    FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

    But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

    Here's my issue with this... with this criteria, a 5* player has to essentially be Steve Emtman. Once every 20 year player. By this kind of measure we might have had 3-4 5* players in the last 20 years... Dillon, Marques... who else? Jerramy Stevens?

    We're dividing up performance in to quintiles... Is he in the bottom 20% of players, the lower middle 20%, the middle 20%, upper middle 20% or the top 20%?

    If you were an All-American at any point, you were a 5-star. Otherwise no one will be a 5-star outside of Hall Of Fame level players. I don't see how that really makes sense as an evaluation criteria.

    If Shelton wasn't a 5, who the HOLY HECK is?
    I don't know, I mean. Shelton is over a 4.5 which in my opinion is an ELITE player. Bishop, Hau'oli and Shaq were all over that (Desmond was 4.46). I think it worked fine for this study, which was determining contribution. Like I said, over 4.5 you are ELITE.
  • Dennis_DeYoungDennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754

    What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

    FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

    But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

    Here's my issue with this... with this criteria, a 5* player has to essentially be Steve Emtman. Once every 20 year player. By this kind of measure we might have had 3-4 5* players in the last 20 years... Dillon, Marques... who else? Jerramy Stevens?

    We're dividing up performance in to quintiles... Is he in the bottom 20% of players, the lower middle 20%, the middle 20%, upper middle 20% or the top 20%?

    If you were an All-American at any point, you were a 5-star. Otherwise no one will be a 5-star outside of Hall Of Fame level players. I don't see how that really makes sense as an evaluation criteria.

    If Shelton wasn't a 5, who the HOLY HECK is?
    I don't know, I mean. Shelton is over a 4.5 which in my opinion is an ELITE player. Bishop, Hau'oli and Shaq were all over that (Desmond was 4.46). I think it worked fine for this study, which was determining contribution. Like I said, over 4.5 you are ELITE.
    I'm not arguing about averages; about specific ratings.
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646

    What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

    FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

    But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

    Here's my issue with this... with this criteria, a 5* player has to essentially be Steve Emtman. Once every 20 year player. By this kind of measure we might have had 3-4 5* players in the last 20 years... Dillon, Marques... who else? Jerramy Stevens?

    We're dividing up performance in to quintiles... Is he in the bottom 20% of players, the lower middle 20%, the middle 20%, upper middle 20% or the top 20%?

    If you were an All-American at any point, you were a 5-star. Otherwise no one will be a 5-star outside of Hall Of Fame level players. I don't see how that really makes sense as an evaluation criteria.

    If Shelton wasn't a 5, who the HOLY HECK is?
    I don't know, I mean. Shelton is over a 4.5 which in my opinion is an ELITE player. Bishop, Hau'oli and Shaq were all over that (Desmond was 4.46). I think it worked fine for this study, which was determining contribution. Like I said, over 4.5 you are ELITE.
    I'm not arguing about averages; about specific ratings.
    Gotcha... Still a lot of people gave those players 5 stars. And in fact, thinking more about it I probably would have given Danny and Hau'oli a 5th star if I could just because I agree that they were great players. Bishop was one vote shy of getting all 5's. Danny and Hau'oli got 23 5's. Shaq got 19. That's a lot of 5 stars people voted.
Sign In or Register to comment.