UM No. 1 in Conference Scoring Defense and Red Zone Defense

[Mr. Greenjeans]

I GUARANTEE this will go 17... because I'm gonna keep telling PR he's wrong! :lol:

Seriously... I think you're way over thinking this, even going to the point of stepping outside your field of expertise (the law) to play statistician. You mention that your way is more "valid". Didn't most everyone who's weighed in on this agree that NO STATS at this point in the season are "Valid" yet? I, and others, believe that you can't just always say that 6 data points are more statistically accurate than 2, because it largely depends on the quality of the opponents. You disagree and are sticking with the mind set that more data is always better. Agree to disagree. Good night.

This means you are really stoopid... :shock:. A troll duel, ladies and gentlemen....that's entertainment. :? :roll: :lol:

 

[CDAGRIZ]

No way this makes 17 pages.

Fuck you. I'm on a mission now.

Well, me and CDAGRIZ. :thumb:

OK, mostly CDAGRIZ. :|

Oh, it's going 17, my man. The doubters can go watch the Allatoona Bucs. We could even rip a gentleman's 18 on this if we play it right.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I GUARANTEE this will go 17... because I'm gonna keep telling PR he's wrong! :lol:

Seriously... I think you're way over thinking this, even going to the point of stepping outside your field of expertise (the law) to play statistician. You mention that your way is more "valid". Didn't most everyone who's weighed in on this agree that NO STATS at this point in the season are "Valid" yet? I, and others, believe that you can't just always say that 6 data points are more statistically accurate than 2, because it largely depends on the quality of the opponents. You disagree and are sticking with the mind set that more data is always better. Agree to disagree. Good night.

I'm not over-thinking anything. I picked the best available and most commonly used stats from the conference website and posted them. The main question being discussed now is whether all-game stats or the conference only stats are better, more meaningful, more valid. It is clear that the all-game stats are the best--of these two choices.

Football stats are always impacted by many many factors, including quality of opponent. Also, the weather, injuries, which team was more up for the game, where the game was played, officiating, etc. So what. Everyone knows that. I haven't said that more data is always better. Can you just stick to what was actually said. In college football, however, I will say that 6 games of stats to start a season will almost always be more meaningful than 1 or 2 games of stats. The fact that you can't see that, or are just too stubborn to admit it, makes wonder what is wrong with you.

Do the stats from all of the games count toward season and career totals? Or is it only the stats from the games Bobcat fans choose? I'm no matheme-statistician, but I think maybe all of them count. Could be wrong.

If the stats v. lesser opponents don't count, then I understand. It's like when Lulay went 14 for 39 for 176 against Adams State. That didn't count. I am certain that those incompletions and yards did not factor into his career totals.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I GUARANTEE this will go 17... because I'm gonna keep telling PR he's wrong! :lol:

Seriously... I think you're way over thinking this, even going to the point of stepping outside your field of expertise (the law) to play statistician. You mention that your way is more "valid". Didn't most everyone who's weighed in on this agree that NO STATS at this point in the season are "Valid" yet? I, and others, believe that you can't just always say that 6 data points are more statistically accurate than 2, because it largely depends on the quality of the opponents. You disagree and are sticking with the mind set that more data is always better. Agree to disagree. Good night.

I'm not over-thinking anything. I picked the best available and most commonly used stats from the conference website and posted them. The main question being discussed now is whether all-game stats or the conference only stats are better, more meaningful, more valid. It is clear that the all-game stats are the best--of these two choices.

Football stats are always impacted by many many factors, including quality of opponent. Also, the weather, injuries, which team was more up for the game, where the game was played, officiating, etc. So what. Everyone knows that. I haven't said that more data is always better. Can you just stick to what was actually said. In college football, however, I will say that 6 games of stats to start a season will almost always be more meaningful than 1 or 2 games of stats. The fact that you can't see that, or are just too stubborn to admit it, makes wonder what is wrong with you.

Do the stats from all of the games count toward season and career totals? Or is it only the stats from the games Bobcat fans choose? I'm no matheme-statistician, but I think maybe all of them count. Could be wrong.
If the stats v. lesser opponents don't count, then I understand. It's like when Lulay went 14 for 39 for 176 against Adams State. That didn't count. I am certain that those incompletions and yards did not factor into his career totals.

Don't make a traveshamockery of this process, CDA. :evil: :evil:

 

[PlayerRep]

I GUARANTEE this will go 17... because I'm gonna keep telling PR he's wrong! :lol:

Seriously... I think you're way over thinking this, even going to the point of stepping outside your field of expertise (the law) to play statistician. You mention that your way is more "valid". Didn't most everyone who's weighed in on this agree that NO STATS at this point in the season are "Valid" yet? I, and others, believe that you can't just always say that 6 data points are more statistically accurate than 2, because it largely depends on the quality of the opponents. You disagree and are sticking with the mind set that more data is always better. Agree to disagree. Good night.

I'm not over-thinking anything. I picked the best available and most commonly used stats from the conference website and posted them. The main question being discussed now is whether all-game stats or the conference only stats are better, more meaningful, more valid. It is clear that the all-game stats are the best--of these two choices.

Football stats are always impacted by many many factors, including quality of opponent. Also, the weather, injuries, which team was more up for the game, where the game was played, officiating, etc. So what. Everyone knows that. I haven't said that more data is always better. Can you just stick to what was actually said. In college football, however, I will say that 6 games of stats to start a season will almost always be more meaningful than 1 or 2 games of stats. The fact that you can't see that, or are just too stubborn to admit it, makes wonder what is wrong with you.

Do the stats from all of the games count toward season and career totals? Or is it only the stats from the games Bobcat fans choose? I'm no matheme-statistician, but I think maybe all of them count. Could be wrong.

If the stats v. lesser opponents don't count, then I understand. It's like when Lulay went 14 for 39 for 176 against Adams State. That didn't count. I am certain that those incompletions and yards did not factor into his career totals.

Of course, career and team stats are from all football games, not just of the level the team is at (FCS in the case of the Big Sky conference). FBS/D-II are included.

Throwing out FBS/D-II games is just plain silly, especially at mid-season. They're still football games. Sure, they can have some influence on the stats earlier in the season, but so do multiple other factors, including which conference teams a team has played.

And the Cat trolls, and some other dumb posters, also wanted to throw out 16 FBS games played by the Big Sky, some of which were non-conference games played against conference opponents. There have only been 24 conference games played. Too small of a sample.

In the Cat troll view, MSU should get credit for playing UND, but UM wouldn't. Davis would include it's 2 conference wins, but it's losses to NAU and PSU wouldn't be included. Sac St would includes it's 2 conf wins, but exclude it's loss to So Utah.

Some of the FBS/D-II games influenced the stats, but others didn't, and a number of the FBS and D-II games offset each other. That's the value of having more games included in stats. Aberrations get evened out. Trying to argue that stats for 2 or even 1 conference game(s) was more meaningful was truly ridiculous.

 

[jodcon]

This argument isn't going to end until 11/10...probably not even then because a new angle will no doubt be introduced. 17 pages is no joke here guys.

 

[poorgriz]

I GUARANTEE this will go 17... because I'm gonna keep telling PR he's wrong! :lol:

Seriously... I think you're way over thinking this, even going to the point of stepping outside your field of expertise (the law) to play statistician. You mention that your way is more "valid". Didn't most everyone who's weighed in on this agree that NO STATS at this point in the season are "Valid" yet? I, and others, believe that you can't just always say that 6 data points are more statistically accurate than 2, because it largely depends on the quality of the opponents. You disagree and are sticking with the mind set that more data is always better. Agree to disagree. Good night.

I'm not over-thinking anything. I picked the best available and most commonly used stats from the conference website and posted them. The main question being discussed now is whether all-game stats or the conference only stats are better, more meaningful, more valid. It is clear that the all-game stats are the best--of these two choices.

Football stats are always impacted by many many factors, including quality of opponent. Also, the weather, injuries, which team was more up for the game, where the game was played, officiating, etc. So what. Everyone knows that. I haven't said that more data is always better. Can you just stick to what was actually said. In college football, however, I will say that 6 games of stats to start a season will almost always be more meaningful than 1 or 2 games of stats. The fact that you can't see that, or are just too stubborn to admit it, makes wonder what is wrong with you.

See... now you're adding words in there to back off a bit. I just have a feeling that IF the griz would have played 4 FBS schools in preseason instead of one, almost positively making the UM stats look better when just looking at the two FCS games, you would have posted those instead, or not posted anything at all because of the Griz being near the bottom in most categories.

Can we at least agree that in my hypothetical from before, IF the griz team played four DII teams and two BSC teams, and the Cats played four FBS teams and two BSC teams, it would be more accurate to make comparisons between the two teams by looking only at the stats from the two BSC games they each played?

 

[grizindabox]

 

[grizindabox]

 

[grizindabox]

 

[grizindabox]

 

[jodcon]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j2Duy_xzEA&feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]

 

[PlayerRep]

I GUARANTEE this will go 17... because I'm gonna keep telling PR he's wrong! :lol:

Seriously... I think you're way over thinking this, even going to the point of stepping outside your field of expertise (the law) to play statistician. You mention that your way is more "valid". Didn't most everyone who's weighed in on this agree that NO STATS at this point in the season are "Valid" yet? I, and others, believe that you can't just always say that 6 data points are more statistically accurate than 2, because it largely depends on the quality of the opponents. You disagree and are sticking with the mind set that more data is always better. Agree to disagree. Good night.

I'm not over-thinking anything. I picked the best available and most commonly used stats from the conference website and posted them. The main question being discussed now is whether all-game stats or the conference only stats are better, more meaningful, more valid. It is clear that the all-game stats are the best--of these two choices.

Football stats are always impacted by many many factors, including quality of opponent. Also, the weather, injuries, which team was more up for the game, where the game was played, officiating, etc. So what. Everyone knows that. I haven't said that more data is always better. Can you just stick to what was actually said. In college football, however, I will say that 6 games of stats to start a season will almost always be more meaningful than 1 or 2 games of stats. The fact that you can't see that, or are just too stubborn to admit it, makes wonder what is wrong with you.

See... now you're adding words in there to back off a bit. I just have a feeling that IF the griz would have played 4 FBS schools in preseason instead of one, almost positively making the UM stats look better when just looking at the two FCS games, you would have posted those instead, or not posted anything at all because of the Griz being near the bottom in most categories.

Can we at least agree that in my hypothetical from before, IF the griz team played four DII teams and two BSC teams, and the Cats played four FBS teams and two BSC teams, it would be more accurate to make comparisons between the two teams by looking only at the stats from the two BSC games they each played?

Can you admit that the all-game Big Sky stats that I posted are more meaningful than the 2/1 game conference stats? That was main discussion that evolved.

Had UM played 4 D-II teams and the Cats played 4 FBS teams, I would never have bothered to post the stats (as between those 2 teams). However, I had a good idea of which teams had played up and down, and what the results of those games were. Of course, I knew that no team had played more than 2 up or 2 down, and few teams had done either.

In the way the Big Sky schedules are done today, it would have to be an incredibly odd and unusual situation for 2/1 games of conference stats to be as meaningful as 6/5 games of stats.

By the way, I did some business course work at Stanford Business School during my law school days, so I know what stats are. I did this to help prepare for doing corporate finance work on Wall St, which I did.

 

[grizindabox]

Once again PR, your stats do not take strength of schedule into account. Of course Montana will have better stats than say EWU...look at the teams each has played. The stats are pretty to look at, but really do not tell the entire story.

 

[PlayerRep]

Once again PR, your stats do not take strength of schedule into account. Of course Montana will have better stats than say EWU...look at the teams each has played. The stats are pretty to look at, but really do not tell the entire story.

Football stats including team and individual records never take into account strength of schedule. I have never seen or heard of football statistics being adjusted for strength of schedule. They are what they are. The 2/1 conference only stats at this point of the season don't take into account strength of schedule. You comment is silly beyond belief.

No one has ever said the stats tell the entire story.

EWU had very good stats against Oregon St, and great stats against W. Ore. Medium stats against Toledo. These stats didn't have a huge impact on most EWU stats. Some but not enough to suggest that 2/1 game conference only stats would be better.

 

[grizindabox]

PR, I did not say the stats are computed accounting for strength of schedule, but to truly analyze stats, you also must account for things as such. A poll or statistical representation can be manipulated by how a question is asked or to whom the questions are asked. You must take these into consideration along with the numbers, if you don't are you getting the real answer, if you don't, you are one of the sheep.

As for you stating "No one has ever said the stats tell the entire story.", that is how you attempt to base almost every statement you make.

 

[jodcon]

Out of curiosity I looked at the current Sagarin ratings to see where they had the teams ranked, surprising how close they calculated these games would be at this point.

EWU Rating 65.08
MSU Rating 64.64
UM Rating 63.95

Basically one point separates the 3 teams on a neutral field, whoever is at home will get +3 on their Rating for that game. EWU's Strength of Schedule helped them despite being only 3-2, they have played the 56th toughest schedule so far while MSU is at 174 and Montana is at 182.
These 3 teams are like 3 apples in a bowl right now.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, I did not say the stats are computed accounting for strength of schedule, but to truly analyze stats, you also must account for things as such. A poll or statistical representation can be manipulated by how a question is asked or to whom the questions are asked. You must take these into consideration along with the numbers, if you don't are you getting the real answer, if you don't, you are one of the sheep.

As for you stating "No one has ever said the stats tell the entire story.", that is how you attempt to base almost every statement you make.

Not true. Your prior post criticized me for not factoring strength of schedule in the conference stats. "Once again PR, your stats do not take strength of schedule into account." And my point, again, is that no one ever calculates football game/individual stats with a strength of schedule factor.

No, again you are wrong. Look at the top post in this thread. Only the stats were posted. No argument or editorial comment was made. Occasionally, I use stats to counter arguments/statements that someone else has tried to make. Again, I have never said that stats tell the whole story about football. However, stats are often very relevant to the discussion.

Can you man up and admit that the 6/5 all-game stats are more meaningful than the 2/1 conference only stats? Or, is your dislike of me so great that your brain is still turned off, or are you not much of a man?

 

[Robsnotes4u]

Stats are cool to look at, but.....

QB 1 has a high passing efficiency, no interceptions, 10 tds, and throws the ball 15 times a game.

QB 2 has a mediocre passing efficiency, 5 interceptions, 25 tds, and throws the ball 45 times a game.

Who would you rather have if the defenses are the same?

Even if QB2 had all his interceptions returned for tds, he still put up twice as many points as QB1. That is why a stat like passing efficiency doesn't tell the whole story.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Brock Landers]

Stats are cool to look at, but.....

QB 1 has a high passing efficiency, no interceptions, 10 tds, and throws the ball 15 times a game.

QB 2 has a mediocre passing efficiency, 5 interceptions, 25 tds, and throws the ball 45 times a game.

Who would you rather have if the defenses are the same?

Even if QB2 had all his interceptions returned for tds, he still put up twice as many points as QB1. That is why a stat like passing efficiency doesn't tell the whole story.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

That doesn't make any sense.

Jeremy Moses-type player = 36-60, 500 yards, 5 TDs and 3 picks
Brock Jensen-type player = 18-24, 280 yards, 2 TDs and no picks

I know which one I'd rather have