re: Predictability of LSU on Offense since 2008 - Why the box is stacked

quote:

---

o be honest, your YPC/YPA graoh is beyond worthless. Your graph shows a downward trend for two stats that went up. And there is no way to determine from your graph that neither, one, or both stats went up.

---

lol, you have no idea how to calculate a ratio, do you?

lets try a simple lesson....

Variable A: [1 2 3 4 5]

Variable B: [1 4 7 10 13]

Q1: is variable A increasing?

Q2: is variable B increasing?

Q3: is the ratio of A:B increasing?


the fact this simple concept eludes your childlike grasp of basic mathematics is hilarious. The fact you thought it was some "gotcha" is fricking priceless....

If you work for the FB team, I understand why they have issues.

quote:

---

lol, you have no idea how to calculate a ratio, do you?

lets try a simple lesson....

Variable A: [1 2 3 4 5]

Variable B: [1 4 7 10 13]

Q1: is variable A increasing?

Q2: is variable B increasing?

Q3: is the ratio of A:B increasing?


the fact this simple concept eludes your childlike grasp of basic mathematics is hilarious. The fact you thought it was some "gotcha" is fricking priceless....

If you work for the FB team, I understand why they have issues.

---

You absolutely refuse to admit that you are wrong.


First, of course I know how to calculate a ratio. The "YPC:YPA ratio" is calculated exactly as I have been describing it throughout this thread: YPC/YPA.


Second, there is a very fundamental difference between your YPC/YPA graph and your "simple lesson." In the "simple lesson," the values for the actual variables are provided:

quote:

---

Variable A: [1 2 3 4 5]

Variable B: [1 4 7 10 13]

---

Thus, anyone can see that variables A and B are increasing.

In your YPC/YPA graph, the actual values for the variables are NOT provided.


Third, you argue now that the YPC/YPA was an attempt to show that YPA increased. However, the YPC/YPA does not show that. And though your "simple lesson" provides values of the A and B variables, the OP and YPC/YPA do not provide the values for the YPC and YPA variables.


Be honest, you took two sets of data, YPC and YPA, both of which went up and make Miles look good, and you divided the variable with lesser change by the variable with greater change, thereby producing a graph with a ratio that went down.

You then tried to pawn off that YPC/YPA graph with a downward slope as the results of LSU's increased rushing plays.

Your YPC/YPA graph does not show that YPC went up . . . although YPC went up.

Your YPC/YPA graph does NOT show that YPA went up . . . although YPA went up.

Your YPC/YPA graph goes down although the two underlying YPC and YPA variables went up.

And you did not provide the underlying YPC and YPA variables like you did in your "simple lesson" to show that the actual values of the variables increased. You did that to present a misleading graph.


Ratio Graph Lesson
Here is a lesson for you. This is your "simple lesson" A/B ratio graph:



Here is another ratio graph:



Just like your OP and your YPC/YPA graph, it does not give the actual values of the variable.

(1) Does Variable A go up?

(2) Does Varaible B go up?

Hint: You cannot determine solely from the graph. It could be any data set that has the same ratios.

Variable A and B might be increasing:
Variable A: [1 2 3 4 5]
Variable B: [1 4 7 10 13]

Variable A and B might be decreasing:
Variable A: [500 400 300 200 100]
Variable B: [500 200 129 80 38]

Either data sets fits the A/B graph.



QUESTION: Why would you provide a graph that goes down and argue: “You would expect this to be true if we were running the ball well over this time. Funny enough, however, the yardages tell a different story” when: (1) the actual values of the variables go up, and (2) you don’t provide the actual values of the variables?

ANSWER: You data mined LSU football and skewed the analysis in an attempt to make Miles look bad. You found two variables that actually increase and make Miles look good You then divided the variable with lesser change by the variable with greater change, thereby producing a graph with a ratio that went down, so that you could argue that the “yardages” did not justify increases in rushing plays.

quote:

---

less miles

---

You are so clever with the play on words

Didnt read the entire thread so someone may have said this...

The fact that you can fit a line of zero slope through your confidence intervals means that there is no statistical significance in the trend line. The fit of the data could just as easily be a line of positive slope representing LSU passing more on first down in recent years.

I agree that Miles is a stubborn idiot who would run into a brick wall until he is blue in the face, but your data does not back your assertion that he is "doubling down on running the ball on early downs" with any statistical significance.

True.

But those results say there is no statistical significance at a 95% confidence limit. (the line of zero slope fits)

You would admit that this data set does not statistically prove that we run the ball more than ever on early downs with 95% CI.

But again I think we all know the Miles game plan stats or not.

You were exposed in this thread and your own....using technical terms isn't a logical fallacy.

It has been fun but I'm going to enjoy my weekend. I hope you and the rest of the staff has a good game tomorrow.

I'll have another thread with a much more complete analysis on sunday. I hope you come by so you can get some more education. Finally, linking points with a line doesn't show a trend, it's just a plotting artifact. The more you know!

quote:

---

You were exposed in this thread and your own.

---

I wasn't exposed in either thread.

Moreover, there's a fundamental difference between this thread and my thread.

In this thread, you deliberately misrepresented the facts. You wanted to show that Miles' decision to increase rushing plays was not justified by the yardage. You took YPC and YPA, two stats that go up make Miles look good, and you divided the stat with lesser change by the stat with greater change, thereby producing a graph with a ratio that went down. You then argued that the graph represented the yardage and that the yardage did not justify an increase in rushing attempts.

When repeatedly confronted with this misrepresentation, you obfuscated and bullshitted. You still have not admitted your mistake.


In my thread, you accused me of lying about Jennings' QB rating. My numbers were correct.

You accused me of not understanding efficiency. I had to explain to you that QB Efficiency is the same as QB Rating because you did not understand it.

You accused me of not using the right numbers for Mett because you used the wrong year.

You accused me of typing the wrong yardage for Mett. My numbers were correct.

You accused me of not understanding ESPN's QBR when you clearly had zero understanding so I had to explain it to you.

Finally, you accused me of lying about Mett's efficiency. When I realized that I had not counted two TDs from the 2012 Idaho game, I IMMEDIATELY acknowledged it. I noticed the two missing TDs first, before anyone brought it to my attention. I APOLOGIZED for the mistake, and I CORRECTED the mistake. I EDITED the OP, and NOTED the edit in the OP. The mistake resulted in a MINOR miscalculation and raised Mett Passer Rating from a 140.81 to a 147.91. The analysis and conclusions remained accurate. I made a mistake. I apologized. I corrected the mistake.

Anyone with a strong ability to discern trends and tendencies will be amazingly frustrated with a Miles-led offense. You are certainly among that brand of fans, so blessings upon you to lessen your expectations, because it is NOT going to change - EVER.

Have a great day!

We run more because we are usually winning