Huge Reason we Won

[visionary]

Personal attacks are always a good strategy when you have no clue what you're talking about, and when you know nothing about the person you're attacking.

Not to mention that running has low correlation to TOP as well. The highest correlations for TOP are using the play clock, completion percentage and third-down conversions. Rushing attempts and even rushing success correlate much less with TOP.

Ok, I've brought this with you at length in the other thread and I'll do this one last time because I know you will try to change the subject because you don't have the answer.

Many of these things will depend on how you define it and how the person collecting the data defined it, because as you have admitted in the past, you have NO CONTROL of the data or HOW IT WAS ANALYZED, all you are doing is copying and pasting little bits and pieces of other people's work without any knowledge of whether it is accurate or not. You should know as a statistician that what data was collected and how it was collected and analyzed is CENTRAL to whether or not it is reliable. Yet you post statistics from data that you KNOW is incomplete and inaccurate.

Saying that the real data is too difficult to collect is not an explanation, that is an admission that the data you are posting is NOT RELIABLE and therefore should NOT be used to draw hard conclusions. Yet you post it repeatedly to try and shout down other voices as if you have accurate and reliable data, which you don't.

Garbage in garbage out

E.g. "Rushing success" was defined how? "Third down conversion had a good correlation" but a many of our 3rd downs are due to rushing and even our passing third downs are successful because the other team expects us to run so "rushing success" is inherently buried in "3rd down conversion ". This is patently obvious.

Anyway, go back to that thread and answer my questions I had brought up directly.

When data is inaccurately collected and without context and multiple correlations are run without corrrction, then flawed results are achieved. This not only a well known statistical issue but makes common sense.

Don't give us an isolated statistic that is convenient for you to make your point. This is EXACTLY why statistics have a bad name because people quote them out of context and parse bits and pieces without presenting the entire picture.

1. Show me where you KNOW data was collected in the context of situational running and other issues (e.g. running to run out the clock, running to get a first down, how often the running tendency of a team dictated the defense allowing the pass to be successful etc) as I had pointed out in that thread. What data SHOULD HAVE been collected, what WAS ACTUALLY collected and what COULD NOT be collected and entered and why not

2. show me what univariable models YOU RAN (not copied and pasted) and what was statistically significant in a multi variable fashion AFTER correction for confounding variables.

3. Show me where you ran other models like C statistic which are used to show the real significance of a measure in outcomes relative to other variables

4. Show me where any of this was published in a peer reviewed fashion so other experts could point out obvious flaws and limitations in the work

That has been my main problem with you. If you are a stats person you know this data has OBVIOUS limitations yet in your zeal to forward your belief system you ignore them and don't want to admit them. This tells me you have a conclusion looking for data to support it instead of following the data to let it lead you where it does as an open minded researcher would.

These are BASIC statistical norms and if you cannot answer them, then we will know you are simply copying and pasting other people's work and you need to stop trying to pretend you have any more information than any run of the mill blogger. I am doing this because other less sophisticated posters (like @Idgit) assume what you post is gospel and run with it without realizing they are being made fools of.

 

[visionary]

It really isn't up to you whether you decide to trust facts or not

They speak for themselves

In DAL's last 85 games the team that passed more efficiently won 77 times and the other 8 were decided in the last few minutes

You can't come close to that with Rushing Yds, Rushing Atts, TOP or any other stat

Read my post to Adam above
You guys just need to stop drawing black and white conclusions from inaccurate data and using it as gospel

 

[visionary]

The problem with TOP is you used to be able to use that as a predictor of the outcome. You could look at TOP and call the winner without seeing the score and you could look at the team with the most passing yards and predict the loser. Back when TOP was the battle cry, the top passing teams had the worst records and seldom made the playoffs.

In order for a team to capitalize on TOP, they must have an excellent scoring defense. Yards don't matter, all about the Points Off Possessions and forcing FG's instead of TD's. And TOP teams usually play the field position game better.

The Cowboys won TOP against SEA because they stopped their run game and were able to exploit their own. So what happens with the TOP team is that they've worn the other team's D down by the 4Q. That's how we used to play it in the 90's and that's how we played it against SEA, except it was the D that almost screwed the pooch, the O did their job this time.

Agree
Problem is that stat geeks just post some stats without actually watching and understanding the game and other posters just read it and assume it is correct

 

[plymkr]

TOP.

Not sure why no one is talking about it, but it was a huge reason we won yesterday as well as several other times this year.

Our first drive was like 6 min. SEA 3 n out. Then more TOP.

At the end, the SEA O had a horrific time getting traction and our D was kept fresh.

Great point. Explains why Wagner and others seemed sluggish on Dak's 16 yard run. Also when Zeke burst outside for 44 yards. Fatigue can lead to bad technique and mental errors. I think we tired them out with TOP and in the 4th it showed.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Ok, I've brought this with you at length in the other thread and I'll do this one last time because I know you will try to change the subject because you don't have the answer.

Many of these things will depend on how you define it and how the person collecting the data defined it, because as you have admitted in the past, you have NO CONTROL of the data or HOW IT WAS ANALYZED, all you are doing is copying and pasting little bits and pieces of other people's work without any knowledge of whether it is accurate or not. You should know as a statistician that what data was collected and how it was collected and analyzed is CENTRAL to whether or not it is reliable. Yet you post statistics from data that you KNOW is incomplete and inaccurate.

Saying that the real data is too difficult to collect is not an explanation, that is an admission that the data you are posting is NOT RELIABLE and therefore should NOT be used to draw hard conclusions. Yet you post it repeatedly to try and shout down other voices as if you have accurate and reliable data, which you don't.

Garbage in garbage out

E.g. "Rushing success" was defined how? "Third down conversion had a good correlation" but a many of our 3rd downs are due to rushing and even our passing third downs are successful because the other team expects us to run so "rushing success" is inherently buried in "3rd down conversion ". This is patently obvious.

Anyway, go back to that thread and answer my questions I had brought up directly.

When data is inaccurately collected and without context and multiple correlations are run without corrrction, then flawed results are achieved. This not only a well known statistical issue but makes common sense.

Don't give us an isolated statistic that is convenient for you to make your point. This is EXACTLY why statistics have a bad name because people quote them out of context and parse bits and pieces without presenting the entire picture.

1. Show me where you KNOW data was collected in the context of situational running and other issues (e.g. running to run out the clock, running to get a first down, how often the running tendency of a team dictated the defense allowing the pass to be successful etc) as I had pointed out in that thread. What data SHOULD HAVE been collected, what WAS ACTUALLY collected and what COULD NOT be collected and entered and why not

2. show me what univariable models YOU RAN (not copied and pasted) and what was statistically significant in a multi variable fashion AFTER correction for confounding variables.

3. Show me where you ran other models like C statistic which are used to show the real significance of a measure in outcomes relative to other variables

4. Show me where any of this was published in a peer reviewed fashion so other experts could point out obvious flaws and limitations in the work

That has been my main problem with you. If you are a stats person you know this data has OBVIOUS limitations yet in your zeal to forward your belief system you ignore them and don't want to admit them. This tells me you have a conclusion looking for data to support it instead of following the data to let it lead you where it does as an open minded researcher would.

These are BASIC statistical norms and if you cannot answer them, then we will know you are simply copying and pasting other people's work and you need to stop trying to pretend you have any more information than any run of the mill blogger. I am doing this because other less sophisticated posters (like @Idgit) assume what you post is gospel and run with it without realizing they are being made fools of.

Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. I'm glad that it appears nobody's really falling for it.

 

[visionary]

Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. I'm glad that it appears nobody's really falling for it.

It's written in English so maybe you didn't understand

Can you point out exactly what is "nonsense" and why?

 

[JD_KaPow]

It's written in English so maybe you didn't understand

Can you point out exactly what is "nonsense" and why?

No thanks. I can see from reading your posts that you have no interest in good-faith discussion; you're just throwing stuff against the wall. And as I said, the important thing is that nobody takes you seriously, so there's no reason to waste the time.

 

[visionary]

No thanks. I can see from reading your posts that you have no interest in good-faith discussion; you're just throwing stuff against the wall. And as I said, the important thing is that nobody takes you seriously, so there's no reason to waste the time.

Like I said, no substance

Run baby run

 

[Idgit]

Yeah, I'm not really that impressed with Adam's theory on that one.

Not to pick nits, but it's a mathematical correlation and not a theory.

 

[Idgit]

Ok, I've brought this with you at length in the other thread and I'll do this one last time because I know you will try to change the subject because you don't have the answer.

Many of these things will depend on how you define it and how the person collecting the data defined it, because as you have admitted in the past, you have NO CONTROL of the data or HOW IT WAS ANALYZED, all you are doing is copying and pasting little bits and pieces of other people's work without any knowledge of whether it is accurate or not. You should know as a statistician that what data was collected and how it was collected and analyzed is CENTRAL to whether or not it is reliable. Yet you post statistics from data that you KNOW is incomplete and inaccurate.

Saying that the real data is too difficult to collect is not an explanation, that is an admission that the data you are posting is NOT RELIABLE and therefore should NOT be used to draw hard conclusions. Yet you post it repeatedly to try and shout down other voices as if you have accurate and reliable data, which you don't.

Garbage in garbage out

E.g. "Rushing success" was defined how? "Third down conversion had a good correlation" but a many of our 3rd downs are due to rushing and even our passing third downs are successful because the other team expects us to run so "rushing success" is inherently buried in "3rd down conversion ". This is patently obvious.

Anyway, go back to that thread and answer my questions I had brought up directly.

When data is inaccurately collected and without context and multiple correlations are run without corrrction, then flawed results are achieved. This not only a well known statistical issue but makes common sense.

Don't give us an isolated statistic that is convenient for you to make your point. This is EXACTLY why statistics have a bad name because people quote them out of context and parse bits and pieces without presenting the entire picture.

1. Show me where you KNOW data was collected in the context of situational running and other issues (e.g. running to run out the clock, running to get a first down, how often the running tendency of a team dictated the defense allowing the pass to be successful etc) as I had pointed out in that thread. What data SHOULD HAVE been collected, what WAS ACTUALLY collected and what COULD NOT be collected and entered and why not

2. show me what univariable models YOU RAN (not copied and pasted) and what was statistically significant in a multi variable fashion AFTER correction for confounding variables.

3. Show me where you ran other models like C statistic which are used to show the real significance of a measure in outcomes relative to other variables

4. Show me where any of this was published in a peer reviewed fashion so other experts could point out obvious flaws and limitations in the work

That has been my main problem with you. If you are a stats person you know this data has OBVIOUS limitations yet in your zeal to forward your belief system you ignore them and don't want to admit them. This tells me you have a conclusion looking for data to support it instead of following the data to let it lead you where it does as an open minded researcher would.

These are BASIC statistical norms and if you cannot answer them, then we will know you are simply copying and pasting other people's work and you need to stop trying to pretend you have any more information than any run of the mill blogger. I am doing this because other less sophisticated posters (like @Idgit) assume what you post is gospel and run with it without realizing they are being made fools of.

I've got ~50k posts on this site. And I mean this sincerely when I say that maybe one of the most bizarre interactions I've seen on my time here is watching you try to lock horns on this subject with the statistical nubs you're bringing to the table with posts like this one. It's so cringey-bad, it makes my eyes water. Statistical observations aside, just the rhetorical approach you're taking to attempt to invalidate his source data is an argument an amateur would make. And--because I've seen the other threads and know how thoroughly and abjectly owned you get each and every time the discussion is brought up--I almost feel bad for you that you keep coming up throwing haymakers like the one quoted here when you hear a bell ring. I say 'almost,' because I don't really feel bad for you at all. You deserve it. And the fact you have the temerity to to pretend that I'm a less sophisticated poster than you in your closing sentence actually makes it even more surreal.

I'll say it again: once you manage to accurately restate the argument you're trying to refute without getting it fundamentally wrong, we can talk. There's no point in engaging on a topic where you don't understand the discussion being had but won't stop responding regardless.

 

[visionary]

I've got ~50k posts on this site. And I mean this sincerely when I say that maybe one of the most bizarre interactions I've seen on my time here is watching you try to lock horns on this subject with the statistical nubs you're bringing to the table with posts like this one. It's so cringey-bad, it makes my eyes water. Statistical observations aside, just the rhetorical approach you're taking to attempt to invalidate his source data is an argument an amateur would make. And--because I've seen the other threads and know how thoroughly and abjectly owned you get each and every time the discussion is brought up--I almost feel bad for you that you keep coming up throwing haymakers like the one quoted here when you hear a bell ring. I say 'almost,' because I don't really feel bad for you at all. You deserve it. And the fact you have the temerity to to pretend that I'm a less sophisticated poster than you in your closing sentence actually makes it even more surreal.

I'll say it again: once you manage to accurately restate the argument you're trying to refute without getting it fundamentally wrong, we can talk. There's no point in engaging on a topic where you don't understand the discussion being had but won't stop responding regardless.

A lot of hot air with no facts

I have numbered 4 questions above
Just answer them
I'll wait

 

[Idgit]

A lot of hot air with no facts

I have numbered 4 questions above
Just answer them
I'll wait

Not hot air. Just my opinion. I won't be answering the four questions you posed about Adam's post, though, if you happen to think that's evidence of anything.

Like I said above, why anybody would assemble evidence for you when you repeatedly demonstrate you don't understand the argument is beyond me in the first place.

 

[Ranched]

 

[visionary]

Not hot air. Just my opinion. I won't be answering the four questions you posed about Adam's post, though, if you happen to think that's evidence of anything.

Like I said above, why anybody would assemble evidence for you when you repeatedly demonstrate you don't understand the argument is beyond me in the first place.

I didn't post evidence
Adam did and you espouse that as fact
I pointed out very obvious and legitimate flaws and asked that those be addressed
The fact that neither Adam nor you are able to answer should tell everyone all they need to know about the validity of those "facts"

 

[Idgit]

I didn't post evidence
Adam did and you espouse that as fact
I pointed out very obvious and legitimate flaws and asked that those be addressed
The fact that neither Adam nor you are able to answer should tell everyone all they need to know about the validity of those "facts"

Why would you expect me to be able to answer your dumb questions about where the data Adam used was collected??? How am I supposed to know if it was peer reviewed? Why in the world would you even expect data offered in a fan forum to be peer reviewed?!!!??? No additional offense, dude, but it's just a really naive and foolish expectation to have regarding data used in a casual discussion like you'd find in a forum thread. And the fact that you don't understand this suggests you've just got a tenuous grasp on what's reasonable in this context.

Add to this the fact that you can't tell the difference between 'the importance of the running game' and 'the importance of an effective running game' means that there's literally no point parsing this debate with you.

 

[visionary]

Why would you expect me to be able to answer your dumb questions about where the data Adam used was collected??? How am I supposed to know if it was peer reviewed? Why in the world would you even expect data offered in a fan forum to be peer reviewed?!!!??? No additional offense, dude, but it's just a really naive and foolish expectation to have regarding data used in a casual discussion like you'd find in a forum thread. And the fact that you don't understand this suggests you've just got a tenuous grasp on what's reasonable in this context.

Add to this the fact that you can't tell the difference between 'the importance of the running game' and 'the importance of an effective running game' means that there's literally no point parsing this debate with you.

Thank you for this post which highlights and confirms exactly what I have been saying

The data Adam espouses as fact is anything but accurate with significant limitations and conclusions drawn from this data are suspect at best

 

[Idgit]

Thank you for this post which highlights and confirms exactly what I have been saying

The data Adam espouses as fact is anything but accurate with significant limitations and conclusions drawn from this data are suspect at best

All it said was I’m not in position to answer specific questions about the basis for Adam’s post. The fact that you mistake it for confirmation of anything underscores the limitations of your ability to arrive at a proper conclusion.

 

[Redball Express]

If we just could have eliminated the big plays Wilson was able to get with Baldwin and Lockett... it would have been another New Orleans type of performance for the D

That is why he is Wilson.

That reply TD they got after the 2 minute warning took only 45 seconds.

Wilson.

He may have just run out of time with us.

He is scary.

 

[basilhayden]

Personal attacks are always a good strategy when you have no clue what you're talking about, and when you know nothing about the person you're attacking.

Not to mention that running has low correlation to TOP as well. The highest correlations for TOP are using the play clock, completion percentage and third-down conversions. Rushing attempts and even rushing success correlate much less with TOP.

What if all the 3rd down conversions were run plays?

 

[visionary]

All it said was I’m not in position to answer specific questions about the basis for Adam’s post. The fact that you mistake it for confirmation of anything underscores the limitations of your ability to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Oh believe me, everyone is aware that you are in no position to answer anything specific regarding what you tout as fact