- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:09 pm to Cadello
quote:
Moffit's arse was kissed so much here during the season he has a watermark on it.
exactly
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:10 pm to Cadello
quote:By whom?
Moffit's arse was kissed so much here during the season he has a watermark on it.
I would see someone saying. . ."Recruit X has committed to LSU and runs a sub-4.4 40. Can't wait for Moffit to get ahold of him WTF OMG LOL!!!!!11!!!"
To which someone would immediately respond:
"Why? So he can run 4.9's?"
The "love" was usually tempered.
This post was edited on 2/24/09 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Fair enough. . .but I'll still read it as "bitch"
i think daddy dearest is funnier and it's less likely to get taken down
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
here is something i just posted elsewhere. think about this (slightly edited for cursing)
quote:
when i first say 4.60 i thought that was a slow time for taylor. before 2007 i met a coach who told me that taylor was our fastest player on D. then i saw that 4.60 and i was like...damn. he got slower
but then i remembered what our guys ran last year (chevis 4.65, steltz 4.65, zenon 4.55, ali 4.9, sanders 4.75 dorsey 5.15) and this year (beckwith 4.70, tyson 4.90) and i realize...dang, a 4.60 was our SECOND FASTEST TIME ON D FROM 2007
damn
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:12 pm to Roaad
quote:
The "love" was usually tempered.
by a handful of people who don't know what they're talking about.
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:13 pm to Stevo
quote:
by a handful of people who don't know what they're talking about.
ooooh.
Good one.
Lame attempt at an insult that refutes another poster's claim. . .perfect
quote:
funny we start hating on the dude when a few players dont do as good as expected at the combine.
but i dont hear anybody complaining during the season
This post was edited on 2/24/09 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
(chevis 4.65, steltz 4.65, zenon 4.55,
all guys that everybody already knew werent that fast for the position they played
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:18 pm to iwyLSUiwy
i think the bigger point is that our 2nd fastest defensive player was a 4.60 guy and no player was faster than 4.50
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:20 pm to Roaad
quote:
Lame attempt at an insult that refutes another poster's claim. . .perfect
not really. There are only a few posters who don't like Moffitt. None of these are strength and conditioning coaches, let alone football coaches. My statement is pretty accurate.
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:20 pm to Roaad
quote:since you apparently didn't read my response, he didn't demonstrate good understanding hence, my query. it satisfies the law of identity. the assurance that we're both talking about the same thing, in which case, we weren't.
If he demonstrated a good understanding of the phrase meanings. . .why should he jump through your hoops?
quote:preemptive rebuttals are not necessarily false, as you imply. i think i've got his m.o. down pretty good and others in this thread have alluded to that.
You are basically PRECLUDING his argument must be an example of confirmation bias. This is called a preemptive rebuttal.
quote:they are in no way circular. as far as them being childish, since others have chimed in affirming what i said, i think they would disagree with you and say it is actually sfp who is childish.
They always come across as childish and circular, and this is no exception.
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:quote:does not apply
confirmation bias
my thoughts are based in historical data and a trend that has continued through this year
quote:This explaination only works in situation of consistently correct application of consistently correct facts.
confirmation bias requires an initial bias
i have no initial bias. we have been presented data over the past 5 years or so, and i'm attempting to interpret it.
quote:LINKquote:not a starter
Randall Gay
quote:LINKquote:not a starter
Josh Reed
quote:LINKquote:was last year. let's see if it keeps. that was his first year starting consistently
Robert Royal
Both Gay and Reed were starters last year. And Royal, whom you claimed had not started consistently before last year, had in fact started 15 games each of the previous two years for Buffalo, and 14 games for Washington the year before that. You make up excuses to discount facts that disprove your position (e.g., Gay and Reed being starters), and make up facts to mitigate the ones you cannot otherwise excuse (e.g., Royal not starting consistently before last year).
Clearly, you are not presenting an objective interpretation of accurate historical data. The presence of self-serving inaccuracies proves the presence of bias and specifically the action of confirmation bias. Whether subconcious or deliberate, you are cherry-picking stats and twisting facts to suit your argument, as well as ignoring clear inconsistencies between the predictive outcomes of your theory and the subsequent results vis a vis our continued success on the field and in recruiting.
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:26 pm to bfniii
quote:It doesn't have to be false to be dishonest.
preemptive rebuttals are not necessarily false, as you imply.
quote:
You are an alcoholic, if you deny it you are an alcoholic in denial.
This statement is not necessarily incorrect, but it is foolish and dishonest.
quote:But it isn't possible that they are guilty of confirmation bias?
since others have chimed in affirming what i said, i think they would disagree with you and say it is actually sfp who is childish.
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think the bigger point is that our 2nd fastest defensive player was a 4.60 guy and no player was faster than 4.50
i think the biggest point is that why complain about the 07 defense being slow? didnt seem to hurt us. a top 5 defense and good enough to win a NC. jus sayin
not sayin i wouldnt want them to be faster but i think a timed 40 at the combine is a lot different than just natural speed on a grass field duting gameday.
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:30 pm to bfniii
quote:
since you apparently didn't read my response, he didn't demonstrate good understanding hence, my query. it satisfies the law of identity. the assurance that we're both talking about the same thing, in which case, we weren't.
First explain to me how this statement:
quote:
my thoughts are based in historical data and a trend that has continued through this year
is an example of confirmation bias. That sounds like a quite standard usage of the scientific method.
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
so sfp, doeas that mean the coaches did that much with that little? or are these guys ballplayers, and not track stars?
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:demonstrably false. your use of combine stats is transparent to many. you are using them as a premise to the intended conclusion that "poor" combine performance will ultimately affect our recruiting (which, btw, is also demonstrably false despite a satisfactory sample size).
i have no initial bias.
quote:all of which were dealt with
as i stated, there are 3 explanations that i can come up with
quote:yet lsu continues to be one of the two or three best programs in all of college football thus obviating this point. why would you make me repeat something i've already addressed? did you not understand it the first time?
but moffit's work is being judged compared to the work of other college S/C coaches at the combine and pro days and the standards that the NFL looks for are constant and in line with every other program. is our's unique? i'll add a 4th possibility: LSU players in general are very lazy
quote:again, i've already stated it is a mitigation and nothing more. your statement here does nothing to rebut my point.
and the combine, specifically the drills i'm discussing, is a measure of athleticism
quote:in ONE sense. that's all. you are making it out more important than it really is to buttess your ultimate conclusion. please let's not dig up examples of all the nfl players who exhibited some success despite a "poor" combine. i think you know they exist.
it doesn't seal your fate, but it gives everyone an idea of what kind of athlete you are compared to others
quote:how did i know you just wouldn't be able to give up on a hopelessly flawed idea? are you really that bad off?
he just was bulked up too much.
quote:then you are agreeing with me that lsu's staff when recruiting may be telling recruits about OTHER success lsu players have in the nfl (as well as college) and that the combine performances you are hanging on to aren't affecting lsu's recruiting like you think they are. clearly, lsu's athletes are among the most "athletic" at the college level which is obvious from lsu's current status among the elite of the elite.
i'm talking about athleticism, not future success
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:43 pm to Roaad
quote:I can offer an answer, though it may not be as precise as his. The problem with confirmation bias is that it leads us to see conclusions before the actual facts support them. Thus, if the "trend" to which Sloflo refers is one that he believed existed before he examined the data, then he would be likely to see that trend whether the data supported it or not. So his own assertion that his thoughts are based on a trend evidenced by historical data is not inconsistent with confirmation bias because it is exactly what an observer afflicted by confirmation would believe.
First explain to me how this statement:quote:is an example of confirmation bias.
my thoughts are based in historical data and a trend that has continued through this year
A response that appropriately addresses concerns of confirmation bias would be one that provides evidence that all relevant data -- specifically including data inconsistent with the observer's conclusion -- was considered, that all the data was weighed properly, and that all the reasonable conclusions from the data were presented. Sloflo's response did none of those, and instead simply reiterated his belief that his observation was correct . . . which is precisely what confirmation bias would lead him to believe.
Alternatively, an appropriate response might offer some evidence that the observer had no bias regarding the data or the conclusions drawn from it. Again, no such evidence was presented in Sloflo's response.
As such, his response is pretty consistent with the response one would expect from an observer with a confirmation bias.
quote:Confirmation bias always does, from the perspective of the person with the bias. His report of the analysis will rarely specifically report the bias. Usually the bias would be discovered upon review of the test data (one of the reasons for peer review), when the data ignored in his conclusions because it was inconsistent with his expected findings is discovered.
That sounds like a quite standard usage of the scientific method
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:49 pm to Roaad
quote:name one thing i said that was dishonest
It doesn't have to be false to be dishonest.
quote:first, if you check my post carefully, i said "probably" not "will" based on his pattern of behavior. second, you are substituting one behavior type for another. alcoholics are known for denial. in our case, i cited confirmation bias knowing that he would probably dig further into stats (which he wouldn't necessarily have to do) attempting to prove his point which he has been doing for 16 pages, thus the confirmation bias.
This statement is not necessarily incorrect, but it is foolish and dishonest.
quote:did they misuse stats to prove their point that he was doing so? no they didn't. they showed how there are other, more broad factors involved that he was ignoring thus again demonstrating his use of confirmation bias.
But it isn't possible that they are guilty of confirmation bias?
Posted on 2/24/09 at 1:55 pm to King Joey
what you said.
I would also add that the combine itself has a selection bias. Teams that have large national exposure will get more invites (all else being equal) to the combine. Therefore, they will have higher expectations and greater visibility to the public. An athelete from a smaller school often has to do more impressive things to get noticed and those that get invited to the combine will probably as a percentage do better. You could probably extend this bias all the way back to the recruiting process.
The point of the thread was to implicate Moffit's strength training for perceived poor combine results. To get back on point
1. Moffitt is pretty highly regarded amongst his peers.
2. the results on the field appear to back him up.
3. The combine is not the best indicator of true football ability or Moffit's program.
I would also add that the combine itself has a selection bias. Teams that have large national exposure will get more invites (all else being equal) to the combine. Therefore, they will have higher expectations and greater visibility to the public. An athelete from a smaller school often has to do more impressive things to get noticed and those that get invited to the combine will probably as a percentage do better. You could probably extend this bias all the way back to the recruiting process.
The point of the thread was to implicate Moffit's strength training for perceived poor combine results. To get back on point
1. Moffitt is pretty highly regarded amongst his peers.
2. the results on the field appear to back him up.
3. The combine is not the best indicator of true football ability or Moffit's program.
Page 16 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News