White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Alright, time to see what all these changes will bring... GO SOX!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 02-14-2013, 10:37 AM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 17,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spawn View Post
For the love of all that is holy...YOU ARE NOT BEING PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!! The only thing being attacked is your position. This
Actually, I think his position smells and dresses poorly.
__________________
Ridiculousness across all sports:

(1) "You have no valid opinion because you never played the game."
(2) "Stats are irrelevant. This guy just doesn't know how to win."
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:13 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 17,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.
Link

Pwned, as the kids say.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:14 PM
Whitesox029 Whitesox029 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Chicago, in enemy territory
Posts: 2,954
Default

I said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitesox029
That isn't the point. I am not trivializing the difference between "weighted statistical models" and random events any more than I would be trivializing the difference between fish and mammals if I were to say sharks:teeth::whales:baleen.
...
In a way though, you did grasp my point--guessing 3.5 as a die roll is obviously absurdly stupid.
You quoted that in the very same post that you then said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
NO, YOUR ANALOGY JUST SUCKS, GUY.

...

And yes, comparing weighted models like PECOTA to random events, again, underscores that you do not have a solid grasp of these ideas.

...

So to say it's the same thing as rolling a dice and getting 3.5 shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about.
I can only infer that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ the post that you quoted. I SAID that I was NOT comparing PECOTA to a random event. How much clearer could I have been? Do you still think that sharks:teeth::whales:baleen is a terrible analogy because, duh! whales are mammals and sharks are fish?

I'll say it again. This is high school English stuff. An analogy is not a comparison. It is meant to show that two DIFFERENT situations exhibit a similar relationship.

Am I alone here? Was there anyone who actually understood what I was trying to say?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:27 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is online now
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 52,993
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesox029 View Post
I said this:


You quoted that in the very same post that you then said:

I can only infer that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ the post that you quoted. I SAID that I was NOT comparing PECOTA to a random event. How much clearer could I have been? Do you still think that sharks:teeth::whales:baleen is a terrible analogy because, duh! whales are mammals and sharks are fish?

I'll say it again. This is high school English stuff. An analogy is not a comparison. It is meant to show that two DIFFERENT situations exhibit a similar relationship.

Am I alone here? Was there anyone who actually understood what I was trying to say?
You can harp on this for as long as you want but your original analogy is still the stuff of complete buffoonery.
__________________
2014 Obligatory Attendance & Record Tracker

0-2

LAST GAME: April 16 - Boston 6, Sox 4 (14)
NEXT GAME: April 26 vs. Tampa Bay
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:50 PM
spawn's Avatar
spawn spawn is offline
Everybody's All-American
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: My Mother's Basement, Plainfield,Il.
Posts: 11,685
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittle42 View Post
Link

Pwned, as the kids say.
You were saying, munch?
__________________


A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson

www.twitter.com/Spawn_03
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 02-14-2013, 01:04 PM
TheFrisbee TheFrisbee is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Bridgeport
Posts: 64
Default

This thread rules
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 02-14-2013, 01:18 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 17,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spawn View Post
You were saying, munch?
You see, it's all irrelevant anyway since the Tigers are a guaranteed lock for the WS.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:26 PM
dickallen15 dickallen15 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
There isn't anything that says his return timetable isn't in question as regards to the beginning of the year, so absolutely not. That Danks SHOULD be there opening day is the questionable statement, the only mention of it is Danks himself being optimistic in reaction to the team's timetable.

And FWIW, Danks isn't even doing normal throwing, let alone normal spring training stuff right now. So to think he'll be ready opening day is pretty optimistic by any stretch of the imagination.
Wrong yet again. You should consider becoming an author. At least then you would get paid to have people read your fiction.
Meghan Montemurro ‏@M_Montemurro
Cooper on Danks: "If you lined up 10 pitchers on the mounds out there & said pick out the guy who had surgery, you couldn't have did it."
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:29 PM
Whitesox029 Whitesox029 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Chicago, in enemy territory
Posts: 2,954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
You can harp on this for as long as you want but your original analogy is still the stuff of complete buffoonery.
Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.

Your idea of a valid analogy is evidently one in which everything is exactly the same: "People who base decisions on weighted statistical models are just like people who base decisions on weighted statistical models because both of them base decisions on weighted statistical models." or, "A zebra is just like another zebra because they are both zebras."

These statements are meaningless.

Calling someone a buffoon just because he paid attention in English class in high school and knows what an analogy is meant to convey is typical--among high school students. Not adults.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:36 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 17,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesox029 View Post
Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.
By the technical definition, yes, if you take what you say as the case in each situation, but the analogy is horrible because your first example is a terrible one. No one in the first situation would "forget to consider" that a die only has 6 whole numbers. The relevant statistic is that there is a 1/6 chance that any number will come up on any roll. An average number there has zero bearing at all on prediction of results. Thus, you are saying two non-analogous situations are analogous.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:41 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:42 PM
Dibbs Dibbs is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Downers Grove
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amsteel View Post
Are people angry that BP isn't projecting 85 wins since that's what they did last year? You realize the functional difference between 85 wins and 77 wins is likely zero, right?

I hope they win 77 just to watch people's heads explode.

At 85 wins lat year, the Sox were the 8th best team in the AL. 77 wins would have been good enough for...8th best.

2011 77 wins = 10th
2010 77 wins = 11th
2009 77 wins = 10th
2008 77 wins = 10th

Are the Sox somewhere around the 8th-11th best team in the league? Of course, so stop losing your **** just because you don't like the numbers.
This is very interesting math.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:45 PM
MUsoxfan MUsoxfan is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Romeoville, IL
Posts: 9,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.

Keep digging that hole
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:45 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is online now
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 52,993
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesox029 View Post
Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.

Your idea of a valid analogy is evidently one in which everything is exactly the same: "People who base decisions on weighted statistical models are just like people who base decisions on weighted statistical models because both of them base decisions on weighted statistical models." or, "A zebra is just like another zebra because they are both zebras."

These statements are meaningless.

Calling someone a buffoon just because he paid attention in English class in high school and knows what an analogy is meant to convey is typical--among high school students. Not adults.
This is what you are simply not understanding, your situation 1 is NOT "BASED ON STATISTICS." Just because something has numbers and you use big college-type words like "average" doesn't make it a statistical model. Only a complete idiot would do what you are proposing. To say that invalidates the work of brilliant minds would be to say we should outlaw NASCAR because my cousin got drunk this weekend, tried to drive home, and ended up splitting his car on a telephone pole. Just because some people are too stupid to drive a car (or, understand stats) doesn't mean that people who are really, really good at it aren't correct. It just means the world is populated by troglodytes who think you can roll a 3.5 on a dice.

To be a proper analogy, the two situations have to have something in common, which these do not. And if you think they do, well, this is a good place to start.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 02-14-2013, 02:45 PM
dickallen15 dickallen15 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.
How does "which could mean not breaking camp with the team" translate to "likely to miss the first month"?

Obviously you didn't excel at reading comprehension in school.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.