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
