- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Per twitter and Tiger Sports World, Willis will visit on the 10th
Posted on 8/1/12 at 8:48 am to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 8/1/12 at 8:48 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
If don't understand why 20/20 hindsight is not a viable way to look at these things, then I don't know what to tell you.
That's apparent. Evaluating the 5* evaluations after they have panned out, or not, is the best way to assess how accurate those evaluations/predictions of 1st round-worthy talent were. How can you possibly not agree with that 100%?
quote:
Why don't you start a site that ranks the classes of 2007 and 2008 now, that would be very informative
It would tell you which of the services were more, or less, accurate than the others. If you don't care how predictive the sites have been, then that would not be a site you would frequent; you wouldn't want their historical record to dampen your faith in them.
quote:
This is the heart of your problem right here. You don't like the recruiting services so you disparage them and then assume anyone that doesn't share your view "worships" them. Its nonsesnse.
Granted, the term "worship" may have been a tad hyperbolic, but in the context of the post, it was mean to suggest another word used in the post,"faith." My problem? Hahaha. You fail to note (or choose to ignore) my concluding remarks which stated my sentiments on the services:
quote:
They are fun, a handy guide, and a source of info, but unreliable predictors of future elite performers (unless one chooses to regard 1 in 8 as reliable).
What part of that connotes a dislike? The last part is simply a statement of historical fact, based on retrospective analyses that you open your response by suggesting are not informative. The value of those hindsight analyses is to provide a factual basis for how much confidence, or faith, one can have in those predictive services. They have been consistent over the years. You ignore their historical performance at your own risk. About 1 in 8 of their elites (5*) will end up having 1st round-worthy collegiate careers, actual elites. For me, being wrong 7 out of 8 times does not instill a lot of confidence. You have the right to put a lot of faith in those outcomes and if you don't want to call that "worshiping," fine. Pick your own word to describe that choice.
quote:
he vast majority of us understand what the rankings are and that they are by no means guarentees of anything.
If you think their past performance is irrelevant or uninformative, as you suggest, then you don't understand what they are. Your earlier statement on guarantees was:
quote:
Its not meant as a 100% guaranteed prediction of future success.
My objection remains that "not a 100% guarantee" implies it is still a high probability. The actual value is 12.5% and though my major was not statistics, that's not an objectively high probability and nowhere near 100%.
You quoted this from my post:
quote:
4 of 32 is pathetic IMO.
and commented:
quote:
I don't mean this to sound condesending, so i apolgize in advance, without context, this is completely meaningless and just shows you don't understand how to look at it or statistics.
Your apology is accepted . Your objection is not clear to me. It seems like you are saying "4 of 32
is pathetic" has no context an is therefore meaningless (to you). If that's the case, let me clarify.
The quote is lifted from this paragraph (the context you seem to say doesn't exist):
quote:
You have a better way to evaluate the correctness of 5-star evaluations than the 32 elite players taken in the 1st round of the NFL draft? Hindsight is the best way to assess evaluations. Why you'd disparage that approach is mystifying. The recruiting services are not to be worshiped; 4 of 32 is pathetic IMO.
And you quoted whodidthat and my post repeated this quote:
quote:
quote from whodidthat: This years draft only had 4 players go in the first round that were ranked as 5 star recruits. 4 others were had 2 star rankings and several other 3 stars players were 1st round picks as well
Our exchange begins with you responding to whodidthat's post, which deals with how the recruiting services fared with respect to the 1st round of last year's draft, how their ratings panned out as a matter of fact using the 1st round as the metric. That is what we are discussing.
"4 of 32" refers to the number of 5* prospects who were and have been historically selected in the first round of the NFL draft, deemed elite, stars, having enjoyed 1st round-worthy collegiate careers. In effect the 30 or so 5* prospects is a predictor of the 1st round (we both realize that the number of 5*'s varies from site to site and from within a site fron year to year, but you chose 30 and that's reasonable, even if 50 occurs on one). The 4 of 32 correct predictions of the 1st round made 3, 4, or 5 years earlier is not impressive to me, it strikes me as pathetic -- explicitly stated as an opinion. Star gazers are inclined to view current 5* prospects as "can't miss" 1st rounders. Having that belief -- when only 1 of 8 will achieve that status -- is described figuratively in my post as "worshiping." It was not meant to apply to you specifically, or that a church exists on Highland Rd. called Our Lady of Five Stars, or Sacred Heart of the Divine Prospect.
(continued)
1
Posted on 8/1/12 at 8:56 am to BozoBus
You quote me:
Conveniently omitting the elaboration referred to in the quote, you comment:
Your condescension has already been forgiven. If you knew half as much about statistics as this quote would have me believe, you'd know that statistics can be used to make almost any case for any agenda. And how one looks at them is a matter of choice.
Case in point:
The pools you choose to use no longer exist in a sense and wholly arbitrary. The evaluations are made of prospects. Once they sign that LOI and begin their careers, they stop being prospects, they become players They are in a class of ~3,000 players and that is the pool they are actually in, the pool from which the pros will draft them, not a Rivals concoction. By chance the probability of any 1 from that 3,000 player pool becoming 1st rounders is 32 in ~3,000. The historical record -- the one you suggest is uninformative -- establishes the likelihood that 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 players will have been 5* prospects and 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 will have been 2*. On average -- with little variance -- the likelihood for both is the same, 4 of ~3,000.
The 250-prospect mental construct you use in your calculations plays no role in the 1st round drafting process because it does not exist. The only pool that exists is the players' ~3,000 pool. There have been players drafted in the 1st round who were not even in the Rivals database -- no ranking at all. So the numbers derived from your using a Top 250 recruiting service opinion is completely a choice you made that has nothing whatsoever to do with the real drafting of the 1st round. You choose to look at it that way, but that view has nothing to do with the reality of drafting the 1st round. The probabilities derived from an irrelevant mental construct imposed on the real world has no actual significance -- except what you arbitrarily choose to give it. That choice does not obligate anyone else to follow suit, though those who choose to view it as you do will follow that path of interpreting reality. My chemically accessed gods advise me that reality is an interpretation and perception underlies both. My perception drives me to identify the pool from which the 1st round is drafted as the ~3,000 players, not a four year old opinion of once-prospects and that incidentally 4 of the 32 of ~3,000 will have been gauged 5* and 4 of the 32 will have been 2*. The likelihood is the same -- regardless of any prior irrelevant evaluations that have no connection with the pool from which the 1st round is actually drafted. The fact that there were once ~2,750 2* prospects has nothing to do with the likelihood that the number of 2*'s and 5*'s in that 32 will be the same; they both have a 4 in ~3,000 likelihood of being in that 32..
This entire discussion is centered on 1st round picks and how well the services predict them by their 5* evaluations. The # is 4 of 32 (hopefully, it has meaning for you now). Neither the number nor its use is wrong; it's just pathetic and so you don't want to accept/use it. My belief is that our staff has the competence to compile a much better list. So when CLM's staff offers a kid the services do not rank highly, my tendency is to have faith in the staff. It does not embarrass me to admit to worshiping at the alter of the Almighty Tiger Program. It enjoys my faith and confidence. Star Gazers seem to worship at a different alter, which they have a right to do, but it strikes me as disingenuous when they deny it.
They watch the same film, but they certainly do not see the same things. If they did, they'd all have the same rankings. All phases of the staff's evaluation process employ eyes that see differently than the services, more discerning, more sensitive to subtlety, more aware of concerns unconsidered by the services, concerns specific to our program. That's my belief. When posters complain of the staff's decision to offer a kid, it is apparent to me that they have a different belief, serve at a different alter.
quote:
Once a non-Top 250 kid has signed a LOI and starts his career, he is just as likely to be drafted in the 1st round as any 5-star from the total pool of LOI signers (elaborated on below). And this is true every year; the year cited is not anomalous.
Conveniently omitting the elaboration referred to in the quote, you comment:
quote:
This is completely wrong. Take a basic statistics course. There are only 30-35 5 star players and using your number over 250 non ranked players. if 4 from each pool make it that means and there are 35 5*'s, each 5 star has a 11.4% chance of being a first rounder. If 4 of the pool of 250 make it, they have a 1.6% chance of making.
Your condescension has already been forgiven. If you knew half as much about statistics as this quote would have me believe, you'd know that statistics can be used to make almost any case for any agenda. And how one looks at them is a matter of choice.
Case in point:
The pools you choose to use no longer exist in a sense and wholly arbitrary. The evaluations are made of prospects. Once they sign that LOI and begin their careers, they stop being prospects, they become players They are in a class of ~3,000 players and that is the pool they are actually in, the pool from which the pros will draft them, not a Rivals concoction. By chance the probability of any 1 from that 3,000 player pool becoming 1st rounders is 32 in ~3,000. The historical record -- the one you suggest is uninformative -- establishes the likelihood that 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 players will have been 5* prospects and 4 of those 32 of ~3,000 will have been 2*. On average -- with little variance -- the likelihood for both is the same, 4 of ~3,000.
The 250-prospect mental construct you use in your calculations plays no role in the 1st round drafting process because it does not exist. The only pool that exists is the players' ~3,000 pool. There have been players drafted in the 1st round who were not even in the Rivals database -- no ranking at all. So the numbers derived from your using a Top 250 recruiting service opinion is completely a choice you made that has nothing whatsoever to do with the real drafting of the 1st round. You choose to look at it that way, but that view has nothing to do with the reality of drafting the 1st round. The probabilities derived from an irrelevant mental construct imposed on the real world has no actual significance -- except what you arbitrarily choose to give it. That choice does not obligate anyone else to follow suit, though those who choose to view it as you do will follow that path of interpreting reality. My chemically accessed gods advise me that reality is an interpretation and perception underlies both. My perception drives me to identify the pool from which the 1st round is drafted as the ~3,000 players, not a four year old opinion of once-prospects and that incidentally 4 of the 32 of ~3,000 will have been gauged 5* and 4 of the 32 will have been 2*. The likelihood is the same -- regardless of any prior irrelevant evaluations that have no connection with the pool from which the 1st round is actually drafted. The fact that there were once ~2,750 2* prospects has nothing to do with the likelihood that the number of 2*'s and 5*'s in that 32 will be the same; they both have a 4 in ~3,000 likelihood of being in that 32..
quote:
Basing it on the # of first round picks is simply wrong.
This entire discussion is centered on 1st round picks and how well the services predict them by their 5* evaluations. The # is 4 of 32 (hopefully, it has meaning for you now). Neither the number nor its use is wrong; it's just pathetic and so you don't want to accept/use it. My belief is that our staff has the competence to compile a much better list. So when CLM's staff offers a kid the services do not rank highly, my tendency is to have faith in the staff. It does not embarrass me to admit to worshiping at the alter of the Almighty Tiger Program. It enjoys my faith and confidence. Star Gazers seem to worship at a different alter, which they have a right to do, but it strikes me as disingenuous when they deny it.
quote:
The coach staff recruits mostly higher ranked players. They do not wait for Rivals or 247 to publish their rankings and then go off of that. both have basically the same film to watch and can all see the same things.
They watch the same film, but they certainly do not see the same things. If they did, they'd all have the same rankings. All phases of the staff's evaluation process employ eyes that see differently than the services, more discerning, more sensitive to subtlety, more aware of concerns unconsidered by the services, concerns specific to our program. That's my belief. When posters complain of the staff's decision to offer a kid, it is apparent to me that they have a different belief, serve at a different alter.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News