- 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: Will it be Howard-Faedo tomorrow in the other bracket?
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:25 pm to clamdip
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:25 pm to clamdip
quote:
But, you girls continue fawning over each other. Please. It's high entertainment.
On the contrary, you whining like a bitch is entertaining.
Literally everybody knew then that you were talking out of your arse then and you're just doubling down on the stupidity now.
Adorable.
0
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:25 pm to clamdip
quote:Which was that being a national seed wasn't a "good" thing. You tried to use stats. Stats you didn't understand. Even now with 1 out of the last 6 being national seeds, that's better than 1/8th of the field. Meaning, it's certainly preferred on that stat alone (but if you go back through the entire SR era, it's even higher. you didn't do that though did you?).
my point.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:26 pm to clamdip
You suck at math huh?
Call it whatever you want, you made a thread and were blasted by every person in it, not just two or three like you claim. You still stand by your argument too, despite being proven dead wrong.
Call it whatever you want, you made a thread and were blasted by every person in it, not just two or three like you claim. You still stand by your argument too, despite being proven dead wrong.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:38 pm to Hold That Tiger 10
How critical was a national seed the last 5 years? Pretty simple math, ladies.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:39 pm to clamdip
quote:
Pretty simple math, ladies.
It is simple math, and you still aren't able to pick up on it.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:39 pm to clamdip
You rode the short bus didnt you?
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:40 pm to clamdip
quote:So we're picking and choosing now? How critical was it this year? How critical is it to host a super? How much more likely are you to host a super as a nat seed? How critical was it throughout the whole super regional era?
How critical was a national seed the last 5 years?
I want you to answer all of those questions. Answer them. Here. And I'll never bring this up to you again. Don't, and I'm going to haunt you with your dumbassary.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:52 pm to ell_13
quote:I want you to answer it. Here. Now.
So we're picking and choosing now? How critical was it this year? How critical is it to host a super? How much more likely are you to host a super as a nat seed? How critical was it throughout the whole super regional era?
And I find your 'haunting' to be flattering and cute. The fact that you continue to follow me around like a puppy just shows the stats are driving you nuts on this.
I think I'll call you Chester from now on because I'm obviously your Spike.
This post was edited on 6/23/17 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 6/23/17 at 10:55 pm to clamdip
quote:It's a fricking expression, dumbass. Jesus, I knew you were stupid but now you're just childish. Are you 12?
And I find your 'haunting' to be flattering and cute. The fact that you continue to follow me around like a puppy just shows the stats are driving you nuts on this.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 11:00 pm to clamdip
quote:
clamdip
Shocker... you couldn't answer the question.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 11:04 pm to Broski
He doesn't want to. Like the 12 year old he is, he can't admit being wrong. Even if it means doubling down on one of the dumbest baseball threads on the rant ever. That's quite an accomplishment.
Posted on 6/24/17 at 12:10 am to touchdownjeebus
quote:
their decision made 0 sense. If you pitch Drew Rasmussen and you win, you have your ace for the first game in the championship series. If you pitch Drew Rasmussen and you lose, you have your ace going against the LSU bullpen.
IMO, the most important game is one in front of you. Pitching your ace first gives you the best chance to win, so do that. If they win tomorrow they can still pitch ace in game 3. A better chance of advancing to a championship at detriment of maybe not having my ace pitch at all is a better risk, to me, than decreasing odds of advancing by pitching someone else.
Posted on 6/24/17 at 12:21 am to clamdip
YES!
Posted on 6/24/17 at 9:15 am to ell_13
From ncaa.com - how do national seeds perform?
I know it'll be hard for you 3 slack-jacked, sloped-forheaded ninnies to get through all the big words in the article, but there are nice pictures for you!:
This despite the fact that there are no host sites in NCAA basketball.
This would indicate to someone like me (degree in stats) as well as the average layperson that, while hosting can be seen as advantageous, hosting as a precious national seed (ell_13_akaChester bows his head in quiet reverence) is *not* a factor in ultimate success when compared to the control group.
[Drop mic]
I know it'll be hard for you 3 slack-jacked, sloped-forheaded ninnies to get through all the big words in the article, but there are nice pictures for you!:
quote:
Spots held by top eight seeds in modern NCAA tournament history
CWS/ELITE8 -- CHAMPIONSHIP GAME -- CHAMPION
Baseball -- 56.3% -- 58.3% -- 38.9%
Basketball -- 58.0% -- 68.2% -- 75.8%
For as crazy as March is known to be, the top eight teams in basketball tend to perform much better than their baseball counterparts.
This despite the fact that there are no host sites in NCAA basketball.
This would indicate to someone like me (degree in stats) as well as the average layperson that, while hosting can be seen as advantageous, hosting as a precious national seed (ell_13_akaChester bows his head in quiet reverence) is *not* a factor in ultimate success when compared to the control group.
[Drop mic]
This post was edited on 6/24/17 at 9:24 am
Posted on 6/24/17 at 9:29 am to clamdip
Comparing baseball to basketball is absolutely useless. The parity of talent alone is enough. God, you just can't help being a dumbass.
8 for 19 means that 42.1% of the time national seeds win it all when they're only 12.5% of the field. Do you understand that? 1/8th of the field has a 42.1% chance of winning. Spread evenly that's 5.26% chance of a championship for each team. 1/56th of the field has a 57.9% chance of winning. That's 1.03% for each team. This means that a national seed team has over 5 times better odds of winning it all over a non-seeded team. That's what's important here "mr I have a stats degree". The individual odds not the cumulative because the cumulative doesn't mean shite when one group is 7 times the size of the other. And it's the individual odds that matter for individual teams. Why do I have to explain that to you?
And frick your degree. No one gives a shite.
8 for 19 means that 42.1% of the time national seeds win it all when they're only 12.5% of the field. Do you understand that? 1/8th of the field has a 42.1% chance of winning. Spread evenly that's 5.26% chance of a championship for each team. 1/56th of the field has a 57.9% chance of winning. That's 1.03% for each team. This means that a national seed team has over 5 times better odds of winning it all over a non-seeded team. That's what's important here "mr I have a stats degree". The individual odds not the cumulative because the cumulative doesn't mean shite when one group is 7 times the size of the other. And it's the individual odds that matter for individual teams. Why do I have to explain that to you?
And frick your degree. No one gives a shite.
This post was edited on 6/24/17 at 9:50 am
Posted on 6/24/17 at 9:49 am to ell_13
quote:Wow. It is laughable that you post this stuff and actually think it supports your argument; and its downright enjoyable to me that you then call me the dumbass.
42.1% of the time national seeds win it all when they're only 12.5% of the field. Do you understand that? 1/8th of the field has a 42.1% chance of winning. Spread evenly that's 5.26% chance of a championship for each team
Here's a clue, maybe those national seeds won it all because they are better. Your argument is that they won because they hosted.
Back in the 90s, I showed an earlier version of your clueless self that being a #1 seed (6-team regional format) correlated better to winning than hosting. How? Because back then there were occasions where the best teams by region didn't have the facilities to host, but traveled as the #1 seed. Guess who won more often?
You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.
Posted on 6/24/17 at 9:52 am to clamdip
quote:Wait Wait Wait Wait... you tout all these stats ignoring subjective arguments only to say, "well maybe they were better" when all they do is prove that being a national seed is preferable??? Holy. fricking. shite. Then what's the point of talking stats in the first place? That's one hell of a hot take... "National seeds are better" - clamdip 6/24/2017
maybe those national seeds won it all because they are better
Are you really trying to say that home field advantage doesn't exist? Is that what you are trying to prove with all of this? Because if you go an look at who hosted supers, the numbers skew even further toward the host teams.
quote:Take the L, man. This hasn't gone well for you at all.
You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.
This post was edited on 6/24/17 at 9:55 am
Posted on 6/24/17 at 9:59 am to ell_13
Lol. Just say "uncle" and get on with your life. It will be better for you.
Another clue: the way to determine if being a Precious National Seed is a success factor is to compare it to control groups. There are two I've noted: NCAA basketball and the 80s/early 90s in baseball where not all #1 seeds were able to host. Both clearly support my original argument that there is "too much emphasis" placed by folks like you on clammering for that Precious National Seed.
I'm sorry I interrupted your Precious National Seed Vigil in May. I really am. It is obviously an emotional topic for you. I wish you the best with that.
Another clue: the way to determine if being a Precious National Seed is a success factor is to compare it to control groups. There are two I've noted: NCAA basketball and the 80s/early 90s in baseball where not all #1 seeds were able to host. Both clearly support my original argument that there is "too much emphasis" placed by folks like you on clammering for that Precious National Seed.
I'm sorry I interrupted your Precious National Seed Vigil in May. I really am. It is obviously an emotional topic for you. I wish you the best with that.
Posted on 6/24/17 at 10:07 am to clamdip
You don't even know what a control group is. Look it up.
1) There are way too many disparities between NCAA basketball whether it be format, talent spread, etc. Need proof? Look at basketball teams records. Losing only a few games is the norm for some of the best teams. In other words, win % among the elite basketball teams are much better than the elite baseball teams from year to year. OSU has lost just under 10% of their games and it's one of the best seasons in college baseball history. That happens regularly with basketball. Need more proof? Look at the NBA draft vs the MLB draft and where players come from. The talent on teams like Stoney Brooke, Coastal, and Fresno are 100 times better than the lower 12-16 seeds of the basketball tournament where no one will ever play beyond college.
2) What's your sample size with the early 90s teams? How many years? How many top 8 teams didn't host? What about the disparities there? 6 team regionals. Smaller overall field. Host teams getting bye's. Concentration of talent.
Are you sure you have a stats degree?
1) There are way too many disparities between NCAA basketball whether it be format, talent spread, etc. Need proof? Look at basketball teams records. Losing only a few games is the norm for some of the best teams. In other words, win % among the elite basketball teams are much better than the elite baseball teams from year to year. OSU has lost just under 10% of their games and it's one of the best seasons in college baseball history. That happens regularly with basketball. Need more proof? Look at the NBA draft vs the MLB draft and where players come from. The talent on teams like Stoney Brooke, Coastal, and Fresno are 100 times better than the lower 12-16 seeds of the basketball tournament where no one will ever play beyond college.
2) What's your sample size with the early 90s teams? How many years? How many top 8 teams didn't host? What about the disparities there? 6 team regionals. Smaller overall field. Host teams getting bye's. Concentration of talent.
Are you sure you have a stats degree?
This post was edited on 6/24/17 at 10:13 am
Posted on 6/24/17 at 10:14 am to ell_13
Ah yes the "but it's baseball!" argument. Was waiting for you to grasp for this.
Yes, it is baseball. Now, your homework assignment is to think and realize how that supports my original argument, not yours.
Yes, it is baseball. Now, your homework assignment is to think and realize how that supports my original argument, not yours.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News