Jump to content
SportsWrath

Welcome David Wilson.


BlueInCanada

Recommended Posts

Prove it.

 

"The Relationship holds true"

 

If this was the case the draft wouldnt even need to be a selection process, just line the players up from 1 to 32 with best rating to last and have the team take the player on where they are in the draft.

 

Dont even factor in team needs or personnel.

 

Did you listen to a thing I said before that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didnt prove anything really.

 

I would like to see more examples then one draft, as a statistician you should know one sample of a single round of a draft is nothing to make a claim on.

 

So please, use your statistician trade to prove what you mean.

 

Actually, I did prove it. It was a tonight's actual draft, and a sample size of 32 observations. You just didn't like the results, or don't understand the relationship.

 

What, you think if I do this with any other site, I'm not also going to get a strong correlation? That's your claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, wait, what the fuck formula are you using? Is this a Correlation Coefficient such as Pearson's r....I see R^2, and I don't know what that is...I assume it's simply the square of Pearson's r, which gives you the r of .7 whatever, which is a significant relationship.... Am I correct? It's been a while since I took Psych Stats...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how Vendetta says that CNNSI, ESPN and NFL.com had David Wilson as a 2nd round prospect and "atleast 15 players better than him on the board"

 

Obviously, the Giants have different draft boards. And clearly, you know way more than Reese and Marc Ross by watching youtube highlights of draft eligible players.

 

Please, I beg of you...go back to the politics forum.

 

Beatty is injury prone? Dude had a broken foot and then got poked in the eye. Clearly those are signs of an injury prone player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, wait, what the fuck formula are you using? Is this a Correlation Coefficient such as Pearson's r....I see R^2, and I don't know what that is...I assume it's simply the square of Pearson's r, which gives you the r of .7 whatever, which is a significant relationship.... Am I correct? It's been a while since I took Psych Stats...

 

Correct, R square takes the correlation coefficient and squares it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm curious to know is the Pearson's for Draft Grades since their invention. I'd rather take a large sample size of, 15-20 some seasons (I'm considering since the invention and popularization of the internet)....and therefor some 480-640 draft picks with their corresponding grades....THAT'S a sample size....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has gotten to so far off topic it's next to pathetic.

 

I'm happy with the pick Venny, the Giants got a player that they the Giants you know the team you say you root for and have won two Superbowls in the last five years, wanted.

 

Honestly there isnt anything more to say to it then that.

 

Reese has shown to know what he is doing, regardless of following some mathematical formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how Vendetta says that CNNSI, ESPN and NFL.com had David Wilson as a 2nd round prospect and "atleast 15 players better than him on the board"

 

Obviously, the Giants have different draft boards. And clearly, you know way more than Reese and Marc Ross by watching youtube highlights of draft eligible players.

 

Please, I beg of you...go back to the politics forum.

 

Beatty is injury prone? Dude had a broken foot and then got poked in the eye. Clearly those are signs of an injury prone player.

 

You guys just all said the draft grades have no meaning. I just showed how large of a predictor (among several) they can be in predicting draft order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm curious to know is the Pearson's for Draft Grades since their invention. I'd rather take a large sample size of, 15-20 some seasons (I'm considering since the invention and popularization of the internet)....and therefor some 480-640 draft picks with their corresponding grades....THAT'S a sample size....

 

How much do you want to bet Reese and the giants staff are well versed in math and statistics? And are likely using similar types of analysis in their grades, and projections of draft order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys just all said the draft grades have no meaning. I just showed how large of a predictor (among several) they can be in predicting draft order.

 

I didn't say that. What I should have written was the only draft board that matters is the one in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't even bother reading or going to a draft website that uses mathematically formulas such as coefficients to draft players.

 

Football isn't baseball. Stop.

 

Good, ignore it... to your own peril

 

Like I said, it's not the only variable, but it provides a wealth of predictive power and information about draft order projections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just calculated the correlation on NFL.com's draft grades... the correlation is approx 0.73. Also very high.

 

So yes, I'm correct, lol. Again, no statistician makes significant correlation claims on a sample size of 32. 50 maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much do you want to bet Reese and the giants staff are well versed in math and statistics? And are likely using similar types of analysis in their grades, and projections of draft order?

 

I'm sure they are but at the end of the day, I think they take them with a grain of salt and at the end of the day, believe their eyes....that's all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yes, I'm correct, lol. Again, no statistician makes significant correlation claims on a sample size of 32. 50 maybe.

 

Actually they do. 30 is considered the minimum sample size. It's done all the time. The T-Stat (bell curve associated with this sample size) on the coefficient is statistically significant.

 

You're not going to win going toe to toe with me on the math, I do this on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With mathematically formulas? Are you kidding me?

 

When the fuck did Billy Beane infiltrate the NFL draft war rooms?

 

Holy shit.

Well according to you they dont.

 

Since obviously they chose the worst player they could at pick 32 today.

 

According to you, I'm saying a lot of things I never said nor even implied.

 

Please be sure to use the comments section to demonstrate your own ignorance and unfamiliarity with empirical data, facts, and math.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually they do. 30 is considered the minimum sample size. It's done all the time. The T-Stat (bell curve associated with this sample size) on the coefficient is statistically significant.

 

You're not going to win going toe to toe with me on the math, I do this on a daily basis.

 

30 is bare bones. I realize there is a certain number where adding participants stops decreasing the chance of error, but it's like right at 30. Most would much rather have greater than 100 because they realize correlation does not equate to causation and want to eliminate as much error as possible in order to make a legitimate statistically significant claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...