Jump to content
SportsWrath

Welcome David Wilson.


BlueInCanada

Recommended Posts

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.

 

No it's not. I just calculated the statistical significance based on a sample size of 30, and the probability that the true mean falls outside the bell curve is 0.0004%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. I just calculated the statistical significance based on a sample size of 30, and the probability that the true mean falls outside the bell curve is 0.0004%.

 

In the scientific field of research, you want more than 30 participants. Fact. You talk about empirically supported, that's empirically supported. You don't see peer-reviewed literature on a sample of 30 people. You don't see norm-referenced tests standardized on 32 students. lol.

 

What the fuck are you "no it's notting"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 30 I realize you aren't necessarily improving the strength of the statement about your relationship. However, in order to be EMPIRICALLY supported, 30 doesn't cut it. Try the 480 and come back later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the scientific field of research, you want more than 30 participants. Fact. You talk about empirically supported, that's empirically supported. You don't see peer-reviewed literature on a sample of 30 people. You don't see norm-referenced tests standardized on 32 students. lol.

 

What the fuck are you "no it's notting"?

 

The test statistic at 31 degrees of freedom is statistically significant. That's not up to me or you. That's up to how statistical significance is calculated, and probabilities are assigned.

 

Anyone can go look up a t- stat chart and see the same thing.

 

Besides, the P-Value gives you all the information you need.

 

Think of it this way. Imagine you have a hat full of 1000 M&Ms, half red half blue. You know what the probability is to draw 30 M&Ms in a row, all of the same color? It's like 1 in a trillion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but again, Mr. Statistician, you need a bigger sample size than the 2012 NFL draft that just occurred.

 

Not to mention more then one source then ESPN.

 

Especially when multiple sites have differing grades and player positions.

 

Not accounting for the 100s of "expert" mock drafts out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but again, Mr. Statistician, you need a bigger sample size than the 2012 NFL draft that just occurred.

 

I'm not disagreeing that larger sample sizes, to a point, aren't better.

 

I'll do a full correlation on the entire draft once complete, fair? (it really takes me about 2 minutes, it's a simple copy and 4 clicks away in excel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think you can make a relationship like and have it mean ANYTHING, because, in general, most folks have a good idea who the top players are coming out of college. Of course the "experts" bring this knowledge to the masses, but you and I could toss out who we think are going to be great players and hand them out grades. "Oh, shit, Peyton Manning, consensus best pick in the draft, best QB, I'll give him a 98". We'd have a strong relationship, too. Doesn't mean we knew shit about the draft or about what team needed what or who was the best fit for the coaching staff and team dynamic, etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disagreeing that larger sample sizes, to a point, aren't better.

 

I'll do a full correlation on the entire draft once complete, fair? (it really takes me about 2 minutes, it's a simple copy and 4 clicks away in excel.

 

That's fair. I have to use SPSS, I kind of prefer it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention more then one source then ESPN.

 

Especially when multiple sites have differing grades and player positions.

 

Not accounting for the 100s of "expert" mock drafts out there.

 

I did the correlation on espn and nfl's draft grades.

 

I personally use cnnsi, but can't easily get the data into excel.

 

We're spinning our wheels here denying the correlation exists, lol. And nobody is saying this should be the end all, be all of ALL draft decision making lol.

 

Let's just agree that we hope things turn out the best for David Wilson here in NY...

 

And that the giants draft the best graded player available at #63, haha (Ok, now here I'm being sarcastic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think you can make a relationship like and have it mean ANYTHING, because, in general, most folks have a good idea who the top players are coming out of college. Of course the "experts" bring this knowledge to the masses, but you and I could toss out who we think are going to be great players and hand them out grades. "Oh, shit, Peyton Manning, consensus best pick in the draft, best QB, I'll give him a 98". We'd have a strong relationship, too. Doesn't mean we knew shit about the draft or about what team needed what or who was the best fit for the coaching staff and team dynamic, etc. etc.

 

Not to mention how do you account for busts and sleepers?

 

Guys like Tom Brady who probably wouldnt even have a grade on him coming out of college but then out performing anyone in his draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the correlation on espn and nfl's draft grades.

 

I personally use cnnsi, but can't easily get the data into excel.

 

We're spinning our wheels here denying the correlation exists, lol. And nobody is saying this should be the end all, be all of ALL draft decision making lol.

 

Let's just agree that we hope things turn out the best for David Wilson here in NY...

 

And that the giants draft the best graded player available at #63, haha (Ok, now here I'm being sarcastic)

 

I dont think a single person has denied the correlation.

 

Obviously people are rated on where they should be coming out of college.

 

I was just saying that there is alot more to drafting a player then looking at some grade or rating.

 

But like you said live and let live.

 

Let's hope Wilson turns out to be the player he is since obviously Reese and CO felt like he is worth the 32nd pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention how do you account for busts and sleepers?

 

Guys like Tom Brady who probably wouldnt even have a grade on him coming out of college but then out performing anyone in his draft.

 

True, we wouldn't have gotten guys like Osi or Brandon Jacobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think a single person has denied the correlation.

 

Obviously people are rated on where they should be coming out of college.

 

I was just saying that there is alot more to drafting a player then looking at some grade or rating.

 

But like you said live and let live.

 

Let's hope Wilson turns out to be the player he is since obviously Reese and CO felt like he is worth the 32nd pick.

 

Well then I think we're in somewhat of an agreement. If I didn't say it well enough before, I'll say it again - draft grades certainly aren't the only factor to use - I think they're one of many. They can be used to provide some key information on draft order projections, but certainly not all the info, they're not perfect and there are variances (the R2 is 0.59, which means there other important factors).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the pick, I dunno....maybe I have just been hankering for a running back drafted high to be a gamebreaker for us....I think it's something we've lacked since Tiki left.

 

I would love to see us trade down to grab Fleener now and then spend the rest of the draft on offensive line prospects and defense. It won't happen, but it'd be cool. In reality, I see us grabbing an olineman in the 2nd and then focusing on defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then I think we're in somewhat of an agreement. If I didn't say it well enough before, I'll say it again - draft grades certainly aren't the only factor to use - I think they're one of many. They can be used to provide some key information on draft order projections, but certainly not all the info, they're not perfect and there are variances (the R2 is 0.59, which means there other important factors).

 

I <3 you Venny.

 

I'm glad we can agree there, yes you can make a correlation between draft grades and where a player is selected. Obviously Luck is the best player in the draft, the grades show it and he was taken first over all which he should be.

 

I just dont think you can look at Wilson and say "He's only ranked such and such the Giant's should of done this" When in all honesty the Giants have been doing fine with what they have been doing and know much more about the Giants then any of us ever will. They felt like they got a player that will help them win and hopefully get us lifting up another Lombardi and picking at 32 again so we can have this debate all over again next year :P

 

And who's to say some of these O-line dont slide to us, a second round O-line is probably just as good then an O-line picked at 32.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I <3 you Venny.

 

I'm glad we can agree there, yes you can make a correlation between draft grades and where a player is selected. Obviously Luck is the best player in the draft, the grades show it and he was taken first over all which he should be.

 

I just dont think you can look at Wilson and say "He's only ranked such and such the Giant's should of done this" When in all honesty the Giants have been doing fine with what they have been doing and know much more about the Giants then any of us ever will. They felt like they got a player that will help them win and hopefully get us lifting up another Lombardi and picking at 32 again so we can have this debate all over again next year :P

 

And who's to say some of these O-line dont slide to us, a second round O-line is probably just as good then an O-line picked at 32.

 

Well at the end of the day, how can I not trust in Reese. He's done us well for several years.

 

Also, on the plus side, Wilson is not a Big Ten back, so he's not associated with that "curse of the big ten RBs" on the giants (Bunch,Wheatley, Dayne, Woolfork, Adams etc) :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ladies, the pick is in and it is done.

 

I think the hypothesis of we could have traded out of the first round or even up no longer matters. Trust that we got who we wanted.

 

Player ratings really don't mean much at all. Its a guess at who can produce at the next level.

 

Vernon Gholston was rated pretty damn high by everyone and produced next to nothing. JPP was considered a reach and a bust when he was drafted. I wouldn't be surprised if Chandler Jones turns into a bust.

 

Point is that it just doesn't matter until they get on the field and prove themselves.

 

One concern I have about David Wilson is his running style, I think it will be a problem or he could damn well turn into the next Barry Sanders. The thought of a NY Giants RB running backwards and reversing direction on the field is frightening. I think of it as putting Sinorice Moss in at RB and sure hope I'm wrong.

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...