Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen
Comments
-
What a Goddamn'd waste of time reading this thread was. Fuck me.
Have at it Mad-Son. Good thing others will engage you.
I'd bar you from my tailgate party for whining and being insufferably boring.
Christ Almighty. At least Puppy is funny when he rants. -
GrundleStiltzkin said:Gladstone said:
Win. Period. Anything else after fifteen years of wandering the desert is a pretty tough sell.
-
That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.Dennis_DeYoung said:
The other night I was Dilaudid-sext-ranting to Coker about Bayesian analysis and why you have to take all years of Petersen as meaningful prices.Dennis_DeYoung said:
THIS!Mad_Son said:I feel like a broken record. I know Rutgers was keying on the run and giving us the pass. That doesn't change that I didn't see the results I needed to see that something had changed. Null hypothesis is that things are the same until shown otherwise.
He deserves a medal.
It's hard.
But yeah, as my class poaster friend @Mad_Son is saying the idea is this:
The important premise is we are predicting something that changes, but is not random.
Given that the pattern of data is not random, data already gathered can help you make more accurate (not 100% accurate, just MORE accurate) predictions about the future.
So, we just look at what we've gotten out of Pete so far... let's make it simple and not even use stats, just grades.
2014 Offensive Grade: C-
2014 Defensive Grade: B+
2015: Offensive Grade: D
2015 Defensive Grade: A-
What are the grades for 2016 likely to be?
And then, even more than that... Given our prior knowledge, what new information would we view as satisfactory evidence that a new pattern was emerging? -
No one was harder on Sark than puppy was.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
J that aint close to true. I was here bashing Sark in 2013. I bashed Sark on Dawgman from day 1, whic h is why I got banned. Now here, I remember why I dont come here...but will as I like to drag your pussy through the mud.PurpleJ said:
Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
Now if your going to lie about Pup wanting Sark, find proof. I was the original on the topic Ty's 0-12 team Sark took over was better than Sark's team when he left. Now I see your brain firing up a memory , which are few and far between -
A better way of saying this then would be that I'm looking forward to signs that this team has improved on the OL and in the running game (and in fairness, the running game IN GENERAL was fairly good last year as it began to solidify as inexperienced players gained experience) ... after the first game of the 2016 season, the grade for this is INCOMPLETE given the nature of Rutgers defense, their tendency to sell out to stop the run (at the expense of the vertical passing game), and the outcome of the game being decided by no later than halftime.Mad_Son said:I feel like a broken record. I know Rutgers was keying on the run and giving us the pass. That doesn't change that I didn't see the results I needed to see that something had changed. Null hypothesis is that things are the same until shown otherwise.
To suggest that the OL performed poorly or whatnot in a game where the team won 48-13, played significant depth even leading into the eventual pulling of the starters, and was working through the 2nd and 3rd units by the middle of the 3rd quarter at the latest is insanely FS to me. -
You saying that no one ever talks about the times that Peterman was right?BlowItUp said:
coaching effect is a stupid metric and you guys only use it cause it makes petersen look bad and ignore all the ones that make him look fine. bash petersen all you want for the '14 AZ game, the two minute (lol) drill against oregon, the 2nd half vs ASU, etc. i don't give a fuck. i'll just be over here scared of that coach that has a Apple cup record of 1-3 and been outscored by an average of 15 points a game. -
Unlike Mad_Son you may actually understand Bayesian analysis.Dennis_DeYoung said:
That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.Dennis_DeYoung said:
The other night I was Dilaudid-sext-ranting to Coker about Bayesian analysis and why you have to take all years of Petersen as meaningful prices.Dennis_DeYoung said:
THIS!Mad_Son said:I feel like a broken record. I know Rutgers was keying on the run and giving us the pass. That doesn't change that I didn't see the results I needed to see that something had changed. Null hypothesis is that things are the same until shown otherwise.
He deserves a medal.
It's hard.
But yeah, as my class poaster friend @Mad_Son is saying the idea is this:
The important premise is we are predicting something that changes, but is not random.
Given that the pattern of data is not random, data already gathered can help you make more accurate (not 100% accurate, just MORE accurate) predictions about the future.
So, we just look at what we've gotten out of Pete so far... let's make it simple and not even use stats, just grades.
2014 Offensive Grade: C-
2014 Defensive Grade: B+
2015: Offensive Grade: D
2015 Defensive Grade: A-
What are the grades for 2016 likely to be?
And then, even more than that... Given our prior knowledge, what new information would we view as satisfactory evidence that a new pattern was emerging?
Regardless, John Ross' +3 wins cancel out CP's -3 wins ergo we are a 10 win team. Boom. -
Chest?
-
Wow, some actually follow.EsophagealFeces said:
No one was harder on Sark than puppy was.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
J that aint close to true. I was here bashing Sark in 2013. I bashed Sark on Dawgman from day 1, whic h is why I got banned. Now here, I remember why I dont come here...but will as I like to drag your pussy through the mud.PurpleJ said:
Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
Now if your going to lie about Pup wanting Sark, find proof. I was the original on the topic Ty's 0-12 team Sark took over was better than Sark's team when he left. Now I see your brain firing up a memory , which are few and far between -
Translation Plagiarism...good stuffTequilla said:
A better way of saying this then would be that I'm looking forward to signs that this team has improved on the OL and in the running game (and in fairness, the running game IN GENERAL was fairly good last year as it began to solidify as inexperienced players gained experience) ... after the first game of the 2016 season, the grade for this is INCOMPLETE given the nature of Rutgers defense, their tendency to sell out to stop the run (at the expense of the vertical passing game), and the outcome of the game being decided by no later than halftime.Mad_Son said:I feel like a broken record. I know Rutgers was keying on the run and giving us the pass. That doesn't change that I didn't see the results I needed to see that something had changed. Null hypothesis is that things are the same until shown otherwise.
To suggest that the OL performed poorly or whatnot in a game where the team won 48-13, played significant depth even leading into the eventual pulling of the starters, and was working through the 2nd and 3rd units by the middle of the 3rd quarter at the latest is insanely FS to me.
