Audio: Mickey and Shan got into it on the radio today

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
60,481
Lol... omg... lol "Hey, this guy Belichick trusts used to trade bonds! Kraft loves analytics! Hey look, Belichick did a thing that analytics people like... must be a secret devotee!"

That's great. Good stuff. Hope you feel validated.


The guy mocking information presented to him, says he hopes somebody else feels “validated”. When you mocking is just a way for you to make yourself feel validated. Funny how that works.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Complaining about an ad hominem that never happened is playing the victim though. It’s textbook victim behavior.

It actually did happen. Don't forget you called me a liar, too. Just for the record.

So are you new to debate? I mean, it's pretty common in debate to point out ad hominem to show your opponent has no argument. Not sure what strategy you're using now by saying I'm acting like a victim, but I think it's to distract from any actual substance. Easier to try to antagonize and get a response in kind than stick to actual debate.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
The guy mocking information presented to him, says he hopes somebody else feels “validated”. When you mocking is just a way for you to make yourself feel validated. Funny how that works.

No. I actually laughed out loud. Thought that was hilarious and told you why. I'll explain further-

This response from you is telling about why you like analytics. You gave me, "information," and you apparently think information is inherently valuable. You thought that particular bit was valuable to your point. It wasn't. It was someone with a vested interest in analytics desperately trying to connect the greatest coach in the sport to them in spite of the many instances he said he doesn't use them.

So, ironically, you're actually reinforcing my point- not all information is valuable or relevant. Read that article again and cite just one example of someone saying Belichick actually uses analytics. You can't. That was a garbage piece of propaganda with nothing of substance.
 

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
60,481
It actually did happen. Don't forget you called me a liar, too. Just for the record.

So are you new to debate? I mean, it's pretty common in debate to point out ad hominem to show your opponent has no argument. Not sure what strategy you're using now by saying I'm acting like a victim, but I think it's to distract from any actual substance. Easier to try to antagonize and get a response in kind than stick to actual debate.

I’m not trying to antagonize. I’m just calling it like i see it. When you put out an ad hominem that didn’t happen, that’s not showing I had no argument. It’s you playing the victim to try and strengthen your own argument.

Like I said. It is what it is. We disagree. You have your opinion. I have mine. We clearly aren’t going to change each other’s minds.
 

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
60,481
No. I actually laughed out loud. Thought that was hilarious and told you why. I'll explain further-

This response from you is telling about why you like analytics. You gave me, "information," and you apparently think information is inherently valuable. You thought that particular bit was valuable to your point. It wasn't. It was someone with a vested interest in analytics desperately trying to connect the greatest coach in the sport to them in spite of the many instances he said he doesn't use them.

So, ironically, you're actually reinforcing my point- not all information is valuable or relevant. Read that article again and cite just one example of someone saying Belichick actually uses analytics. You can't. That was a garbage piece of propaganda with nothing of substance.


Dismiss anything you don’t agree with as propaganda”. First of all, you have no
Proof it’s propaganda, Second of all, dismissing something you don’t agree with as propaganda is exactly something a close minded person would
Do.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Yeah I’ve hung around longer than I liked.

although it’s hard to see how you could equate me sticking around longer than I intended to, as me
“Running away”. Actually, it’s a sign of me
Doing the exact opposite of running away.

You seem to struggle with context. When did I say you were running away? Oh yeah... it was when you said, "I'm done with this debate. Goodbye." That, "running away," comment make a little more sense now?

As for the rest of your post. That’s your opinion. You’re free to it. Just like I’m free to think it’s an asinine opinion. I’ve cited plenty of examples
As to how it could be valuable. You choose
To think otherwise.

it is what it is.

That it is. Variety is the spice of life. Take care of yourself. Go Cowboys!
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
I’m not trying to antagonize. I’m just calling it like i see it. When you put out an ad hominem that didn’t happen, that’s not showing I had no argument. It’s you playing the victim to try and strengthen your own argument.

Sigh... I'm starting to believe you calling me a liar was projection. Here's what I responded to when I said you were namecalling-

Belief has nothing to do with it.

And you don’t get it. You are far too close minded and clearly have no interest in taking in information to form your opinion on this.

Hey, just like Garret is too close minded to take analytics into his opinion forming.

imagine that.

You going to say with a straight face that wasn't an attempt to be antagonistic?

Like I said. It is what it is. We disagree. You have your opinion. I have mine. We clearly aren’t going to change each other’s minds.

That's obvious by now.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Dismiss anything you don’t agree with as propaganda”. First of all, you have no
Proof it’s propaganda, Second of all, dismissing something you don’t agree with as propaganda is exactly something a close minded person would
Do.

I didn't dismiss it. I read it and gave a critique. I explained why it's propaganda. Again-

Writer has a vested interest in analytics
Writer has no inside knowledge
Writer cites 1 person in the organization (Kraft) who likes analytics
Writer brings up another person in the organization (Adams) who used to trade bonds as if that had any relevance
Writer cites 1(!) play that lined up with an analytics inspired move
Writer has ZERO quotes from sources (and no, a quote from the website about Kraft doesn't count)

If he had one source or quote affirming Belichick is a secret analytics guy, it wouldn't be propaganda. There's absolutely nothing in it of substance, just the writers supposition and belief that Belichick, "understands," analytics.
 

Zordon

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,142
Reaction score
45,674
There was a game recently where Peterson went for 2 after scoring a TD but it failed so the score was like 17-9 after the miss and it made no sense to me

I guess this explains why unless someone else can chime in with an answer
This is the new trend in analytics. Apparently the odds are higher of...

-Going for two, converting, cutting it to a 6pt game, and then scoring again to win by 1pt in regulation.

rather than...

-Going for the extra pt, cutting it to a 7pt game, scoring again to tie the game, and winning the game in OT.
 

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,574
Reaction score
60,481
Ok it's not borderline. This is willful ignorance or flat out trolling.


As soon as he questioned the value and relevance of the data, I should have known to not discuss it with him any further. That alone showed an incredible lack of intelligence or like you said, willful ignorance.
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,943
Reaction score
91,587
You have to really sit here and laugh at how in the tank some of you guys are for Garrett. It's weird.

The entire league, to one extent or the other, is shifting towards more analytics usage in scouting, situational play calling, decision making, etc. Some of the recent SB winners like the Patriots and Eagles are big into analytics as are current successful teams like the Ravens.

But Garrett comes out and says we basically don't use and the Garrett homers come out and want to argue much of the league is wrong and Garrett knows what works. LOL.

Geezus.
 

birdwells1

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,737
Reaction score
3,945
I am going to give one more example and if this doesn’t work, then I give up.

have you ever watched people play Texas Hold ‘me on TV?

When the first two cards are dealt to each player, on the screen they show TV watchers each players probability of winning, based on every players card.

The players themselves cannot see those probabilities on the TV screen. So, they will use their mind and experience to try to calculate the probability of winning in their brain. They will ALSO make decisions based off their opponents body language, their opponents tells, the bets their opponent is making, etc.


all the while, the TV viewer can see the probability on TV.

The dealer then deals the first 3 cards that all the players share. Each players probability of winning is then almost instantaneously re-calculated and the new probability of winning is shown on the TV screen to the viewers.

again, the players don’t see this. They can only use their brain to calculate the probability and again go based off bets and opponent body language. Probably also factor in how much money they have left, vs how much money their opponent has left, etc.


the player takes into account many factors when deciding whether to raise or check or fold.

now, imagine how much of an advantage it would be, for one of those players to actually see the win probabilities that are on the TV screen? That have been calculated by a computer.

seeing those probabilities would alter their decision making and give them high quality information, for which to base their next move.

Based off this example. Garret is playing poker at the table. And he is going off body language and opponent tells and how much they’re betting and what they see with their eyes.

meanwhile the other head coach, the other “player” at the poker table is using all the same observations Garret is doing AND that coach is able to see that computer generated win probability. So now, Garret is at a disadvantage. He may still win the hand. Because of course, even without that data he may get lucky, and the cards may just get dealt in his favor.

But if Garret’s opponent playing poker, can see that win probability on that TV screen and base his decisions off that. Wouldn’t it stand to reason, that he would want to see that win probability too? Over the course of many hands of poker dealt throughout the night, wouldn’t that give Garret the best opportunity possible to win as much money as possible?

I mean honestly. This should be easy to understand why the poker player would at least want to see those win probability numbers. Right?

Great analogy!!!
 
Top