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
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
Member Posts: 7,646
1drv.ms/1yXQA9k
There are three tabs for you to look at:
1. Form Responses: This shows how everyone voted in the re-rank. (we added a few players that didn't show up on campus and just gave them an automatic 0)
2. Data: This pools together all the numbers so you can see how many stars each player got.
3. Graphical Representation: This allows for you to click on individual players to see the pie chart of their star breakdown, or you can click on an entire class year to see a pie chart of the class as it is. (Please note, if you are clicking on a name and it is not showing information it means you are filtering by class. Simply clear that filter by clicking the little red "X" to the right of the word "player" or "class"; if you hover over the red X it should say "clear filter"
I will be writing an article tomorrow at some point, I hope to have it posted tomorrow evening. The data is really FREAKING depressing.
Anyways, enjoy the data. And I apologize for the abuse some out here (including myself) are about to receive from @Dennis_DeYoung.
There are three tabs for you to look at:
1. Form Responses: This shows how everyone voted in the re-rank. (we added a few players that didn't show up on campus and just gave them an automatic 0)
2. Data: This pools together all the numbers so you can see how many stars each player got.
3. Graphical Representation: This allows for you to click on individual players to see the pie chart of their star breakdown, or you can click on an entire class year to see a pie chart of the class as it is. (Please note, if you are clicking on a name and it is not showing information it means you are filtering by class. Simply clear that filter by clicking the little red "X" to the right of the word "player" or "class"; if you hover over the red X it should say "clear filter"
I will be writing an article tomorrow at some point, I hope to have it posted tomorrow evening. The data is really FREAKING depressing.
Anyways, enjoy the data. And I apologize for the abuse some out here (including myself) are about to receive from @Dennis_DeYoung.
Comments
-
I like how @claycha gave Jesse Callier a 3 and Bishop a 4, wtf man?
-
Either way, its quite interesting.
-
And @claycha gave Tru a 3. Can we just throw his out?
-
And @Swaye wtf dude, I love ya but Jamaal a 4???
-
made a quick edit and sorted by the standard deviation in column j (how much people agreed/disagreed on ratings)
http://1drv.ms/1JEl6rP -
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.
-
Your stats are faggy.
-
If I could have given him a 4.5 I would have. Thought the impact he made in the games he played was worth it.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.
-
I like how he grouped Sean Parker, Kasen Williams and ASJ with Mike Criste, Greg Ducre, John Timu and Michael Hartvigson in 2 while Andrew Hudson and Jesse Callier a 3.doogsinparadise said:I like how @claycha gave Jesse Callier a 3 and Bishop a 4, wtf man?
Good fucking god. -
Yeah, he ranked guys down from the average by at least 1 point pretty consistently.HuskyHalfBrain said:
I like how he grouped Sean Parker, Kasen Williams and ASJ with Mike Criste, Greg Ducre, John Timu and Michael Hartvigson in 2 while Andrew Hudson and Jesse Callier a 3.doogsinparadise said:I like how @claycha gave Jesse Callier a 3 and Bishop a 4, wtf man?
Good fucking god. -
Average score given by each participant.
-
I get the bronze medal for doogness!
-
If that was the case, Hartvigson is a 0, Criste and Ducre are a 1, Timu, Hudson, and Callier are a 2, Parker and Williams are a 3, and ASJ is a 4.doogsinparadise said:
Yeah, he ranked guys down from the average by at least 1 point pretty consistently.HuskyHalfBrain said:
I like how he grouped Sean Parker, Kasen Williams and ASJ with Mike Criste, Greg Ducre, John Timu and Michael Hartvigson in 2 while Andrew Hudson and Jesse Callier a 3.doogsinparadise said:I like how @claycha gave Jesse Callier a 3 and Bishop a 4, wtf man?
Good fucking god.
@claycha 's points are Ektard retarded, no fucking excuses. -
I support @claycha
-
I get being a little stiff on the rankings, but being nearly .5 lower on average than the next closest is extreme.
-
I like how you got 5 decimals deep and decided, "screw it, add four more decimals!"Muttzen said:Average score given by each participant.
-
DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1
-
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 a large part of this is due to him never blaming the kids ( he rarely have 0's)Tequilla said:DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1
-
Top 5! I'm like the Oregon of HH...good enought to be in the conversation but not quite good enough to win.
-
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.
