Mad Son puts a lot of time into his Ramblings. We should all thank him for his service.
Read the full story here
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. THIS!
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.
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. THIS! 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.He deserves a medal.
Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
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. THIS! 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.He deserves a medal. I don't know what this means but I think it explains why you have had a Maserati and I don't.
Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that. Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.
Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that. Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit. Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.
Win. Period. Anything else after fifteen years of wandering the desert is a pretty tough sell.
Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that. Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit. Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year. 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.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
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.
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. THIS! 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.He deserves a medal. That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect. 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: D2015 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?
Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that. Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit. Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year. 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.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 No one was harder on Sark than puppy was.
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. 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.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.
Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that. Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit. Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year. 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.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 No one was harder on Sark than puppy was. Wow, some actually follow.
Coach effect does not equal game management.You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management. Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games. All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs. Yes, so my logic is that if everything other than game mangement and the offense is good then those are what is costing us three games as per CFBMCE. Realistically if we are overachieving in say defense and off-season stuff then those two bad aspects are potentially costing us more than three wins. I acknowledged I did a poor job of showing game management and offense were linked concepts in the context of CFBMCE. I shouldn't have made offense a separate paragraph or I should have separated out game management into the offense paragraph. Your logic is flawed.Once again- a monkey picking plays using a random play generator wouldn't cost his team three full wins in a season. It's ludicrous Take CP's most derided decision - to hand off to Cooper. An overly generous estimation would be that UW's win probability decreased from 99.5% to 95%.In other terms that decision, as fucktarded as it was, cost UW less than .05 wins in expectation.
Coach effect does not equal game management.You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management. Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games. All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs. Yes, so my logic is that if everything other than game mangement and the offense is good then those are what is costing us three games as per CFBMCE. Realistically if we are overachieving in say defense and off-season stuff then those two bad aspects are potentially costing us more than three wins. I acknowledged I did a poor job of showing game management and offense were linked concepts in the context of CFBMCE. I shouldn't have made offense a separate paragraph or I should have separated out game management into the offense paragraph.
Coach effect does not equal game management.You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management. Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games. All coach effect does is compare recruiting rankings to results.So, assuming the recruiting rankings are unbiased, coach effect attempts to measure every single aspect of coaching from identifying underrated talent to development to roster management to motivation to team-building to game management, etc.Game management is the most visible aspect of coaching but also the most overrated. A lot of awful fourth down decision makers have won Super Bowls and crystal footballs.
Coach effect does not equal game management.You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management. Game management is wrapped up in there. It is a much larger term that encompasses nearly every aspect of the team, as I tried to acknowledge. I maybe wasn't as explicit in mentioning the offense there as I had intended to be. Basically those are the areas where we are under-performing and it is costing us games.
Coach effect does not equal game management.You'd have to be regularly punting on third down to cost your team three wins in one season via game management.
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. THIS! 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.He deserves a medal. That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect. 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: D2015 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? And you're comfortable that 27 observations of a dynamic portfolio of 85 units (most of which Pete had no choice to include or not) is a large enough sample from which to draw conclusions? Askin for a fren
Rutgers didn't really sell out to stop the run. They were playing with 2 safeties back. UW lineman just straight whiffed on some blocks (or weren't in sync with each other). It's concerning, but also the type of shit that can be cleaned up quick.Either way it will be interesting
there is no reason the OL will be worse.
Mad Son puts a lot of time into his Ramblings. We should all thank him for his service. Read the full story here
