FiveThirtyEight: Cowboys NFL's most hated team

[Corso]

Define fun. Being evli is not fun in my book. Villians don't have a long life span.

Oy... we're talking about acting. If you're of the opinion that you think being a general hero in a movie is more fun than a villain then I'm happy for you.
I'm just saying that actors and actresses have been on record saying that villains are more fun to play.
That's my original statement.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

FiveThirtyEight's recent track record isn't stellar.

Based on what? They were one of the most accurate during the election.

They do tremendous work.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Based on what? They were one of the most accurate during the election.

They do tremendous work.

That used to be true. They were spot in 2008 and 2012. But, as demographic preferences shift, polling models must shift as well.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

we ve been useless for 20 plus years, actually no threat for the SB during that time, and people still hate us. Think about that.

But it has been that way as long as I can remember. All the success. All the failures. We are always pertinent. Teams love to beat the Cowboys. People love to watch us win and they love watch us lose. Throughout all the bad records, we still are always among the most watched games, always among the league leaders in merchandise. Not sure how long this has to go on before people just accept it.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That used to be true. They were spot in 2008 and 2012. But, as demographic preferences shift, polling models must shift as well.

They gave Trump a 30% chance of winning the election. Dramatically higher than anyone else. They also were spot on, on the national vote prediction (Clinton plus 1.5%).

I don't think you paid attention this cycle.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

They gave Trump a 30% chance of winning the election. Dramatically higher than anyone else. They also were spot on, on the national vote prediction (Clinton plus 1.5%).

I don't think you paid attention this cycle.

And I don't think you understand what FiveThirtyEight does. Nate Silver doesnt do any actual polling. He's an aggregator, like real clear politics. The difference between Silver and RCP is that Silver runs the polls through his own algorithm and then makes his predictions. Consequently, he's not going to pick up on any trend that's not already reflected in the polling. That's why, like everyone else, he didn't predict the collapse of the blue wall.

Seriously, bruh. There's no reason to be so combative about every little thing.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And I don't think you understand what FiveThirtyEight does. Nate Silver doesnt do any actual polling. He's an aggregator, like real clear politics. The difference between Silver and RCP is that Silver runs the polls through his own algorithm and then makes his predictions. Consequently, he's not going to pick up on any trend that's not already reflected in the polling. That's why, like everyone else, he didn't predict the collapse of the blue wall.

Seriously, bruh. There's no reason to be so combative about every little thing.

What do you mean he didn't predict the collapse? Where else was he getting his 30% Trump likelihood of win from (You think Nate and team thought Trump would win California and New York)? How did he nail the popular vote if polling was not picking up on demographic changes? 538 was beating the drump that many people were overconfident in their prediction of a Clinton win. Again he assigned a 30% chance to a trump victory.

This is a matter of historic record dude. Again I don't think you were paying attention to 2016 if you think 538 missed the boat on the 2016 election.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

"That remains our outlook today in our final forecast of the year. Clinton is a 71 percent favorite to win the election according to our polls-only model and a 72 percent favorite according to our polls-plus model. (The models are essentially the same at this point, so they show about the same forecast.) This reflects a meaningful improvement for Clinton in the past 48 hours as the news cycle has taken a final half-twist in her favor. Her chances have increased from about 65 percent."

Our forecast has Clinton winning the national popular vote by 3.6 percentage points, which is similar to her lead in recent national polls. Her chances of winning the popular vote are 81 percent, according to our forecast.

So what’s the source of all the uncertainty? And why does the same modelOur 2012 model is equivalent to our polls-plus model this year

" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(0, 143, 213); position: relative;">1that gave Mitt Romney only a 9 percent chance of winning the Electoral College on the eve of the 2012 election put Trump’s chances about three times higher — 28 percent — this year? It basically comes down to three things:

• First, Clinton’s overall lead over Trump — while her gains over the past day or two have helped — is still within the range where a fairly ordinary polling error could eliminate it.
• Second, the number of undecided and third-party voters is much higherthan in recent elections, which contributes to uncertainty.
• Third, Clinton’s coalition — which relies increasingly on college-educated whites and Hispanics — is somewhat inefficiently configured for the Electoral College, because these voters are less likely to live in swing states. If the popular vote turns out to be a few percentage points closer than polls project it, Clinton will be an Electoral College underdog."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FiveThirtyEight's recent track record isn't stellar.

How do you figure that?

In this last election they were one of the few outlets that gave credence to the November polls and said that the eventual winners had a legitimate shot. When the polls were different in September he wrote accordingly.

He predicted a 4 point spread in the general and it ended up at 3.

Previous cycles he has been absolutely uncanny. I think the main issue here is that partisans had issue letting go of the September commentary and struggled acknowledging new information as it came in.

In this case it is them having people listing their top 3 teams and not weighting them. I think if you were to handle it like MVP voting and give extra points the higher the rank then the Cowboys would blow away the competition. GB are the ultimate underdog story being the small market franchise of small market franchises.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And I don't think you understand what FiveThirtyEight does. Nate Silver doesnt do any actual polling. He's an aggregator, like real clear politics. The difference between Silver and RCP is that Silver runs the polls through his own algorithm and then makes his predictions. Consequently, he's not going to pick up on any trend that's not already reflected in the polling. That's why, like everyone else, he didn't predict the collapse of the blue wall.

Seriously, bruh. There's no reason to be so combative about every little thing.

He does much more than aggregate. He compares past performance and evaluates for polling type then adjusts. RCP just gives a list and averages them.

And actually evaluating past performances for trends and then normalizing is exactly what he is doing.

He had all of the states that ended up flipping within the margin of error except one. He most certainly allowed for the outcome in his projections. The rub here is that the election was razor close given how many points the winner lost the general by.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

What do you mean he didn't predict the collapse? Where else was he getting his 30% Trump likelihood of win from (You think Nate and team thought Trump would win California and New York)? How did he nail the popular vote if polling was not picking up on demographic changes? 538 was beating the drump that many people were overconfident in their prediction of a Clinton win. Again he assigned a 30% chance to a trump victory.

This is a matter of historic record dude. Again I don't think you were paying attention to 2016 if you think 538 missed the boat on the 2016 election.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

It is clear you don't understand Some of the concepts here but I can explain them because it potentially breaks board rules. Suffice to say, the fact I'm concerned with is that he didn't get anywhere near to predicting the outcome of the election.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

How do you figure that?

In this last election they were one of the few outlets that gave credence to the November polls and said that the eventual winners had a legitimate shot. When the polls were different in September he wrote accordingly.

He predicted a 4 point spread in the general and it ended up at 3.

Previous cycles he has been absolutely uncanny. I think the main issue here is that partisans had issue letting go of the September commentary and struggled acknowledging new information as it came in.

In this case it is them having people listing their top 3 teams and not weighting them. I think if you were to handle it like MVP voting and give extra points the higher the rank then the Cowboys would blow away the competition. GB are the ultimate underdog story being the small market franchise of small market franchises.

Youre right, bruh. Given the eventual winner a 28 percent chance is super close. My bad.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Youre right, bruh. Given the eventual winner a 28 percent chance is super close. My bad.

You're all over the place. Bottom line he predicted the general to an uncanny degree and had all of the states you claimed he did not see within the margin of error. Sure on average he had the loser ahead but that is besides the point.

All I am getting from this is you do not understand the role of uncertainty in statistics. He gave a better than 1 in 4 chance and it hit. That is not that strange of an outcome for all of your complaining.

If anything, he was the one that was chastising the media at large that the winner had a path to victory in that first week of November.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You're all over the place. Bottom line he predicted the general to an uncanny degree and had all of the states you claimed he did not see within the margin of error. Sure on average he had the loser ahead but that is besides the point.

All I am getting from this is you do not understand the role of uncertainty in statistics. He gave a better than 1 in 4 chance and it hit. That is not that strange of an outcome for all of your complaining.

If anything, he was the one that was chastising the media at large that the winner had a path to victory in that first week of November.

You're right, bruh. I'm totally in awe of the 28 percent chance he gave the eventual winner. Spot on!

 

[Toruk_Makto]

You're right, bruh. I'm totally in awe of the 28 percent chance he gave the eventual winner. Spot on!

You don't understand how to use statistics to understand the world around you.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You don't understand how to use statistics to understand the world around you.

Totally. But thanks to you, I now know a 30 percent chance is a virtual certainty.