Another Pre-Season Analytic Projection
Comments
-
Huh?GrandpaSankey said:
Mods?RuffaloSoldier said:Mr Saneky I saw your story on television it was very inspiring. I hope that all is well with you too.
-
I have payed attention to Beta_rank the last 2 seasons. Maybe the model itself isn't terrible, but the way the creators use it for their talking points makes Jared Sawyer look smart.
-
It’s true. That Colorado weed is special.RuffaloSoldier said:Whyd post being censored?
The Buffs
With Coach Tucker this won't take long to get back to the Top. We're ready to win the South in this year. We have the best returning senior quaterback in the conference, Stephen Montes and the best all arounf athlete int eh league Shannalt. On defense coach Tucker speciality we have the best player too Mustapha. I will not be siurprised if we win the whole league in December. You do not know Jared Mangaham yet but you will by the end of the season. The Buffs are coming charging. This will be a great season. -
Is it differentnycgobears said:
It’s true. That Colorado weed is special.RuffaloSoldier said:Whyd post being censored?
The Buffs
With Coach Tucker this won't take long to get back to the Top. We're ready to win the South in this year. We have the best returning senior quaterback in the conference, Stephen Montes and the best all arounf athlete int eh league Shannalt. On defense coach Tucker speciality we have the best player too Mustapha. I will not be siurprised if we win the whole league in December. You do not know Jared Mangaham yet but you will by the end of the season. The Buffs are coming charging. This will be a great season.
different? -
Cause, meet effect.nycgobears said:
It’s true. That Colorado weed is special.RuffaloSoldier said:Whyd post being censored?
The Buffs
With Coach Tucker this won't take long to get back to the Top. We're ready to win the South in this year. We have the best returning senior quaterback in the conference, Stephen Montes and the best all arounf athlete int eh league Shannalt. On defense coach Tucker speciality we have the best player too Mustapha. I will not be siurprised if we win the whole league in December. You do not know Jared Mangaham yet but you will by the end of the season. The Buffs are coming charging. This will be a great season.
-
The weed be letting me know
-
F
Deserves to be in rotationRaceBannon said:The weed be letting me know
-
FremontTroll said:
If you just pick the favorite in every game you will be about 80%. The question is how he does against the spread. If he doesn’t publicize that it’s probably not good.DoogCourics said:
Reading through his website, in season he hits 80% predictions on who will win games.FremontTroll said:He hates us.
Luckily his model is total garbage.
At least preseason. Maybe it will improve although I doubt it since the returning production portion seems to be the most solid part.
Not sure exactly who he is but he does pods with the Arizona 247 mod, and he claims he is an econometrician.
Put it this way I noticed he loves Utah so I looked at one game- Utah vs. BYU.
He has it at Utah -13.5. Spread is actually -4.5.
If his model were correct the Kelly Criterion says that line is so far out of whack he should bet 40% of his bankroll on it.
-
-
What I've gathered from these metrics is that UW is expected to be a somewhat dominant, beta team in 2019.
-
@NorwegianHuskyoregonblitzkrieg said:What I've gathered from these metrics is that UW is expected to be a somewhat dominant, beta team in 2019.
-
The weed be letting me knowRaceBannon said:
@NorwegianHuskyoregonblitzkrieg said:What I've gathered from these metrics is that UW is expected to be a somewhat dominant, beta team in 2019.
-
This has legs...it just works. Very versatile.GrundleStiltzkin said:
The weed be letting me knowRaceBannon said:
@NorwegianHuskyoregonblitzkrieg said:What I've gathered from these metrics is that UW is expected to be a somewhat dominant, beta team in 2019.
-
Econometrics? Great.DoogCourics said:
Reading through his website, in season he hits 80% predictions on who will win games, but preseason projections are just below 60% hit rates. So it definitely is more accurate in season as the data begins to compile.FremontTroll said:He hates us.
Luckily his model is total garbage.
At least preseason. Maybe it will improve although I doubt it since the returning production portion seems to be the most solid part.
He admits himself that the data skews towards returning production in his preseason models.
Not sure exactly who he is but he does pods with the Arizona 247 mod, and he claims he is an econometrician. -
Even if I don't understand his models and others say they're crap, this Rob Bowron guy is starting to grow on me. -
Today in the race to win the Metrics Natty
-
-
From reading those tweets embedded in that post, this guy sounds like a moron. Our offense sucked and we know what suck looks like. Our offense being bad is mostly independent of Utah's offense. I think that he must conflate being critical of nonsense as trying to build yourself up.
A spade is a spade Roob Bowron. -
You’re not wrong. I just find it all very entertainingMad_Son said:From reading those tweets embedded in that post, this guy sounds like a moron. Our offense sucked and we know what suck looks like. Our offense being bad is mostly independent of Utah's offense. I think that he must conflate being critical of nonsense as trying to build yourself up.
A spade is a spade Roob Bowron. -
Rob sounds defensive
-
I don't get the metrics obsession. I get the projection and historical comparisons part. But outside of serious gamblers, I don't understand why people get so passionate about that. Some out here seems to value metrics wins more than scoreboard, baby.
-
s/o @HeretoBeatmyChest he loves the s&p all unadjusted or readjusted metricsGrundleStiltzkin said:I don't get the metrics obsession. I get the projection and historical comparisons part. But outside of serious gamblers, I don't understand why people get so passionate about that. Some out here seems to value metrics wins more than scoreboard, baby.
-
Poont of clarification on my own personal stance since I don’t know if I’ve ever made it known:GrundleStiltzkin said:I don't get the metrics obsession. I get the projection and historical comparisons part. But outside of serious gamblers, I don't understand why people get so passionate about that. Some out here seems to value metrics wins more than scoreboard, baby.
I’m not a huge metrics guy. I’m with you on scoreboard. I find my main role and ultimately my purpose at HH is just Dooging over anything that looks good for my Dwags or makes my Dwags shine, or, poasting anything that I find interesting.
And all these metrics like Connelly’s S&P+, the Pick Six Previews, and now this Beta_Rank.... I find them I interesting. I enjoy seeing how they rank UW and generally it’s in a good light (#shocker; a well run program with elite coaching and development and increasing recruiting comes out shining in computer models).
I like to compare them and see what different ones come up with, and I like to investigate them to get a general sense of how teams are projected to be before the season starts (specifically the Pac-12). Then you see how those preseason projections crumble once the season is underway and the actual players on the field matter.
I don’t put a ton of stock in them, but I enjoy finding out how they perceive my favorite team as well as my hated teams. Then I like to poast them here for my brethren and fake internet friends to debate and fight over and call each other names or jerk each other off.
TL:DR
Grundle, all I want is to....
-
Wasn't talking about you. I don't think, I dunno, do you fag out about these too?DoogCourics said:
Poont of clarification on my own personal stance since I don’t know if I’ve ever made it known:GrundleStiltzkin said:I don't get the metrics obsession. I get the projection and historical comparisons part. But outside of serious gamblers, I don't understand why people get so passionate about that. Some out here seems to value metrics wins more than scoreboard, baby.
I’m not a huge metrics guy. I’m with you on scoreboard. I find my main role and ultimately my purpose at HH is just Dooging over anything that looks good for my Dwags or makes my Dwags shine, or, poasting anything that I find interesting.
And all these metrics like Connelly’s S&P+, the Pick Six Previews, and now this Beta_Rank.... I find them I interesting. I enjoy seeing how they rank UW and generally it’s in a good light (#shocker; a well run program with elite coaching and development and increasing recruiting comes out shining in computer models).
I like to compare them and see what different ones come up with, and I like to investigate them to get a general sense of how teams are projected to be before the season starts (specifically the Pac-12). Then you see how those preseason projections crumble once the season is underway and the actual players on the field matter.
I don’t put a ton of stock in them, but I enjoy finding out how they perceive my favorite team as well as my hated teams. Then I like to poast them here for my brethren and fake internet friends to debate and fight over and call each other names or jerk each other off.
TL:DR
Grundle, all I want is to....
If metrics are entertaining, enjoy. There is so much twatters metric smack though, it's cringey.
I do appreciate how Connelly goes about it. PAPNv1 (RIP) used it as a tool but not an end in itself. -
The thing I like about "metrics" is they can do a lot better job of evaluating a lot of data to compare two teams who will never face each other and have many common opponents. This is particularly important if the Pac 12 ever fields a good team because it is the only way the East coast will hear about it. The biggest problem is they have somewhat limited value early in the season and by end of season largely tell you what you already knew, and are more of a refinement for comparing team 13 in texas to team 14 in california to team 15 in mississippi. If you don't watch a lot of games though then maybe this is a lot more informative for you though.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Wasn't talking about you. I don't think, I dunno, do you fag out about these too?DoogCourics said:
Poont of clarification on my own personal stance since I don’t know if I’ve ever made it known:GrundleStiltzkin said:I don't get the metrics obsession. I get the projection and historical comparisons part. But outside of serious gamblers, I don't understand why people get so passionate about that. Some out here seems to value metrics wins more than scoreboard, baby.
I’m not a huge metrics guy. I’m with you on scoreboard. I find my main role and ultimately my purpose at HH is just Dooging over anything that looks good for my Dwags or makes my Dwags shine, or, poasting anything that I find interesting.
And all these metrics like Connelly’s S&P+, the Pick Six Previews, and now this Beta_Rank.... I find them I interesting. I enjoy seeing how they rank UW and generally it’s in a good light (#shocker; a well run program with elite coaching and development and increasing recruiting comes out shining in computer models).
I like to compare them and see what different ones come up with, and I like to investigate them to get a general sense of how teams are projected to be before the season starts (specifically the Pac-12). Then you see how those preseason projections crumble once the season is underway and the actual players on the field matter.
I don’t put a ton of stock in them, but I enjoy finding out how they perceive my favorite team as well as my hated teams. Then I like to poast them here for my brethren and fake internet friends to debate and fight over and call each other names or jerk each other off.
TL:DR
Grundle, all I want is to....
If metrics are entertaining, enjoy. There is so much twatters metric smack though, it's cringey.
I do appreciate how Connelly goes about it. PAPNv1 (RIP) used it as a tool but not an end in itself.
To start a season we know future wins correlate with talent levels, and weakly with returning starts/production, but actually heading in to a season with a metric that predicts how good a team will be would be something else. -
I definitely do not dive into twatters Metric smack talk @GrundleStiltzkin. And I don’t try to use metrics to prove points or win debates. I just like to see where teams are ranked and how they compare to the Dwags.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Wasn't talking about you. I don't think, I dunno, do you fag out about these too?DoogCourics said:
Poont of clarification on my own personal stance since I don’t know if I’ve ever made it known:GrundleStiltzkin said:I don't get the metrics obsession. I get the projection and historical comparisons part. But outside of serious gamblers, I don't understand why people get so passionate about that. Some out here seems to value metrics wins more than scoreboard, baby.
I’m not a huge metrics guy. I’m with you on scoreboard. I find my main role and ultimately my purpose at HH is just Dooging over anything that looks good for my Dwags or makes my Dwags shine, or, poasting anything that I find interesting.
And all these metrics like Connelly’s S&P+, the Pick Six Previews, and now this Beta_Rank.... I find them I interesting. I enjoy seeing how they rank UW and generally it’s in a good light (#shocker; a well run program with elite coaching and development and increasing recruiting comes out shining in computer models).
I like to compare them and see what different ones come up with, and I like to investigate them to get a general sense of how teams are projected to be before the season starts (specifically the Pac-12). Then you see how those preseason projections crumble once the season is underway and the actual players on the field matter.
I don’t put a ton of stock in them, but I enjoy finding out how they perceive my favorite team as well as my hated teams. Then I like to poast them here for my brethren and fake internet friends to debate and fight over and call each other names or jerk each other off.
TL:DR
Grundle, all I want is to....
If metrics are entertaining, enjoy. There is so much twatters metric smack though, it's cringey.
I do appreciate how Connelly goes about it. PAPNv1 (RIP) used it as a tool but not an end in itself.
Connelly is probably my favorite. This new Bowron doesn’t go about it the same way as Connelly even though S&P+ was what made him want to start Beta_Rank.
But yeah, my only investment is to see how metrics claim teams are, then poast it here for others to debate.
Case in point for what I find interesting:
All last season I heard how Cristobal has made Oregon into a smash mouth SEC style team who like to impose their will and wear teams down. Portland radio has discussed how in the UW game last year Oregon dominated the line and wore us down (False, their YPC wasn’t impressive and UW had better rushing stats).
Then this entire offseason it’s been all about how Oregon has the best line in the country, most returning starts. Etc etc.
Then you look at something like footballoutsiders OL metrics and they were extremely average.
I don’t take that to mean their line will suck this year or be amazing. I'll wait until I watch their games and decide. I just find it interesting to see how metrics match or argue the narrative.
TL:DR,
I love college football and UW and try to find all sources of info that talks about it. Metrics are entertaining for me, but I don’t take them as gospel, and I definitely don’t fight on twatter about it. -
Numbers, math, facts, etc
-
You can all fuck off for ruining this @RuffaloSoldier thread with all of your faggy metrics talk.
@RuffaloSoldier -
Uhhh, spade means sumthin different here in the ‘Lou. Ask any white policeman.Mad_Son said:From reading those tweets embedded in that post, this guy sounds like a moron. Our offense sucked and we know what suck looks like. Our offense being bad is mostly independent of Utah's offense. I think that he must conflate being critical of nonsense as trying to build yourself up.
A spade is a spade Roob Bowron.
Just saying. -
DoogCourics said:
Lastly, the 2019 conference comparison:
Quarter Poll Update because it's late and I'm drinking Redbreast 12:
