Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Who Develops Talent Best in the Pac-12?
Comments
-
You are banned.FremontTroll said:
Thanks for showing your work. I always assume everyone is an idiot. Works pretty well.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Go fuck yourself.FremontTroll said:
What is the methodology for "expected # of all P12 players"? Hope it isn't as simple as # of 4/5 star recruits but I can't figure out how you give any value to 2/3*s and OSU still ends up at just 1 expected all conference player over 3 years.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Black eye for USC, UCLA, Stanford and Oregon, IMO.
Feel free to retweet this if you want good players in our class.
To even ask this fucking dumb of a question means you either think I'm a retard or you're a retard. In either case, fuck off.
But if you must know...
--so, first just M and SD for all AC players per team; M roughly 6, SD roughly 5.
--then z score for average recruit during the relevant period (using the 1-100 composite scale because FUCKING OBVIOUSLY THE STAR SCALE DOESN'T WORK YOU FUCKING IDIOT)
Then...
EV = MEAN(AC) + z-score(REC)*SD(AC)
Like a fucking expected value calculation.
How the fuck did you think I was doing it?
I hope some day one of you morons posts something interesting. Until then fuck off.
You're making assumptions about the relationship between recruiting rankings and all-conference teams so maybe you should see how that relationship holds up historically.
(*ducks*) -
-
-
@Babushka just needs more tim
-
Deserves another run....
-
-
Thanks Keith BOnnnahopapa for all the work he puts in on the practice field!
-
@roaddawg55 true?Dennis_DeYoung said:
Go fuck yourself.FremontTroll said:
What is the methodology for "expected # of all P12 players"? Hope it isn't as simple as # of 4/5 star recruits but I can't figure out how you give any value to 2/3*s and OSU still ends up at just 1 expected all conference player over 3 years.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Black eye for USC, UCLA, Stanford and Oregon, IMO.
Feel free to retweet this if you want good players in our class.
To even ask this fucking dumb of a question means you either think I'm a retard or you're a retard. In either case, fuck off.
But if you must know...
--so, first just M and SD for all AC players per team; M roughly 6, SD roughly 5.
--then z score for average recruit during the relevant period (using the 1-100 composite scale because FUCKING OBVIOUSLY THE STAR SCALE DOESN'T WORK YOU FUCKING IDIOT)
Then...
EV = MEAN(AC) + z-score(REC)*SD(AC)
Like a fucking expected value calculation.
How the fuck did you think I was doing it?
I hope some day one of you morons posts something interesting. Until then fuck off. -
I think in switching the colors on the schools that didn’t meet the expected total of recruits (grey and red), the chart no longer accurately repesents the data.
The first ones were better
-
It would look better if the expected/actual bars were next to each other instead of stacked.Domicillo said:
I think in switching the colors on the schools that didn’t meet the expected total of recruits (grey and red), the chart no longer accurately repesents the data.
The first ones were better -
hey, i am just here to regurgitate what has been said before. but talk to leach he squeezes more wins that petermanDennis_DeYoung said:
WHY DON'T YOU DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR LIFE AND FIND OUT?!!?WeakarmCobra said:Who gets most wins out of their stars?
Jesus fuck.
I should ban anyone who - when someone posts something of substance - an idiot immediately asks him to do something else when they, themselves, have contributed nothing.
-
Dennis_DeYoung said:
Go fuck yourself.FremontTroll said:
What is the methodology for "expected # of all P12 players"? Hope it isn't as simple as # of 4/5 star recruits but I can't figure out how you give any value to 2/3*s and OSU still ends up at just 1 expected all conference player over 3 years.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Black eye for USC, UCLA, Stanford and Oregon, IMO.
Feel free to retweet this if you want good players in our class.
To even ask this fucking dumb of a question means you either think I'm a retard or you're a retard. In either case, fuck off.
But if you must know...
--so, first just M and SD for all AC players per team; M roughly 6, SD roughly 5.
--then z score for average recruit during the relevant period (using the 1-100 composite scale because FUCKING OBVIOUSLY THE STAR SCALE DOESN'T WORK YOU FUCKING IDIOT)
Then...
EV = MEAN(AC) + z-score(REC)*SD(AC)
Like a fucking expected value calculation.
How the fuck did you think I was doing it?
I hope some day one of you morons posts something interesting. Until then fuck off.
-
Disagree. Weighted and stacked, all day.FremontTroll said:
It would look better if the expected/actual bars were next to each other instead of stacked.Domicillo said:
I think in switching the colors on the schools that didn’t meet the expected total of recruits (grey and red), the chart no longer accurately repesents the data.
The first ones were better -
I tried it all ways. This was the most clear. @FremontTroll should be burned to death.MisterEm said:
Disagree. Weighted and stacked, all day.FremontTroll said:
It would look better if the expected/actual bars were next to each other instead of stacked.Domicillo said:
I think in switching the colors on the schools that didn’t meet the expected total of recruits (grey and red), the chart no longer accurately repesents the data.
The first ones were better -
Post all the various graphs so the collective can decide for themselves. maybe as some form of percentage would convey the message more clearly?Dennis_DeYoung said:
I tried it all ways. This was the most clear. @FremontTroll should be burned to death.MisterEm said:
Disagree. Weighted and stacked, all day.FremontTroll said:
It would look better if the expected/actual bars were next to each other instead of stacked.Domicillo said:
I think in switching the colors on the schools that didn’t meet the expected total of recruits (grey and red), the chart no longer accurately repesents the data.
The first ones were better
Also source data in a google drive or Dropbox too
:^)
-
Agree. Honestly regardless of the underlying data, this gives the quickest and most positive impression, marketing 101.Dennis_DeYoung said:
I tried it all ways. This was the most clear. @FremontTroll should be burned to death.MisterEm said:
Disagree. Weighted and stacked, all day.FremontTroll said:
It would look better if the expected/actual bars were next to each other instead of stacked.Domicillo said:
I think in switching the colors on the schools that didn’t meet the expected total of recruits (grey and red), the chart no longer accurately repesents the data.
The first ones were better -
Some HCH degenerates like crayons, others like sharpies.Dennis_DeYoung said:
I tried it all ways. This was the most clear. @FremontTroll should be burned to death.MisterEm said:
Disagree. Weighted and stacked, all day.FremontTroll said:
It would look better if the expected/actual bars were next to each other instead of stacked.Domicillo said:
I think in switching the colors on the schools that didn’t meet the expected total of recruits (grey and red), the chart no longer accurately repesents the data.
The first ones were better -
Why did you just have to shit on my core competency like that?Dennis_DeYoung said:
WHY DON'T YOU DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR LIFE AND FIND OUT?!!?WeakarmCobra said:Who gets most wins out of their stars?
Jesus fuck.
I should ban anyone who - when someone posts something of substance - an idiot immediately asks him to do something else when they, themselves, have contributed nothing. -
#GoDucks ????UW_Doog_Bot said:
Agree. Honestly regardless of the underlying data, this gives the quickest and most positive impression, marketing 101.Dennis_DeYoung said:
I tried it all ways. This was the most clear. @FremontTroll should be burned to death.MisterEm said:
Disagree. Weighted and stacked, all day.FremontTroll said:
It would look better if the expected/actual bars were next to each other instead of stacked.Domicillo said:
I think in switching the colors on the schools that didn’t meet the expected total of recruits (grey and red), the chart no longer accurately repesents the data.
The first ones were better
