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
Comments
-
Statistics Superiority GuyMuttzen said:
gotta have those extra numbers mangDardanus said:
I like how you got 5 decimals deep and decided, "screw it, add four more decimals!"Muttzen said:Average score given by each participant.
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.
-
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!Tequilla said:DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1
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_DeYoung said:
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!Tequilla said:DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1
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 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...chuck said:
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_DeYoung said:
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!Tequilla said:DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1
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.
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 exceptDennis_DeYoung said:
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...chuck said:
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_DeYoung said:
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!Tequilla said:DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1
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.
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.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. -
@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.
-
He got a 5 from me because he was good as a freshman, all conference as a sophomore, and the best CB in the conference as a junior. The season was already over when he was kicked off the team and I didn't need to see 5 more games to see he was an elite player.Tequilla said:Big time disagree with those that ranked Peters a 5. He had 5 talent. He never fully displayed that at Washington. He was an all-conference caliber as a sophomore. All-Conference to me is a 4. He could have been an All-American ... but he decided to get kicked off the team instead. Even if he was a 5-star in ability, I think you have to knock him down a bit for being a knucklehead.
-
Clearly science is on my side.Muttzen said:
gotta have those extra numbers mangDardanus said:
I like how you got 5 decimals deep and decided, "screw it, add four more decimals!"Muttzen said:Average score given by each participant.
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.
-
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.
