Vikings Message Board.Com

How could you not be expected to extrapolate the numbers over a season or two? if you wanted to make a point about the Packers being a receiptiant of some notable trend of calls, that would be the only way you could really gain full context, 3 weeks of football is just part context and happenstance at this point. The amount of wild conjecture and conclusions that could be drawn after 3 weeks of football are quite vast. But a 3 week sample size is going to give you a hard time convincing anyone that the Packers are on the winning end of your conspiracy theorys.

Also, if your judgement of presnap movement is consistent with that of the Bahktiari Jones free play, then as I suspected your numbers would be a bit off, again, any judgement call on the matter, you are likely to just chalk up as a non call to fit your agenda, just as I stated earlier in the thread, and just as your particularly bias assessment of that play would imply.


Lol so because i need to see more then your cherry picking and bias assessments from a tiny sample size, that means no evidence will be sufficient? I think the reason you are so resistant to basing your theories over a reasonable sample size, is because you know its likely not going to support your silly rationalizations.

As to your 'must be nice comment', well ill just say that it must be nice to have the NFL look the other way on admited tampering scandals.

Jordysghost wrote:How could you not be expected to extrapolate the numbers over a season or two? if you wanted to make a point about the Packers being a receiptiant of some notable trend of calls, that would be the only way you could really gain full context 3 weeks of football is just part context and happenstance at this point.

That's ridiculous. Where are you getting this "season or two" bit other than from your ear? The convenient attempt to set a sufficient sample size at whatever amount of data your opponents can't possibly analyze is simply laughable.

Barring byes, there are sixteen games a week in the NFL. Three weeks is forty-eight games—thousands of snaps, on which defenders will be caught offsides well over a hundred times. Given a trend as stark as the one this season has yielded, the notion that that shows nothing is just nonsensical.

The amount of wild conjecture and conclusions that could be drawn after 3 weeks of football are quite vast.

Three weeks multiplied by the entire league—every snap, every play, 48 games? No. That's ridiculous.

But a 3 week sample size is going to give you a hard time convincing anyone that the Packers are on the winning end of your conspiracy theorys.

There you are pretending I'm pushing "conspiracy theorys" (still sic...) again. Really not sure where you're getting that from.

And as far as "convincing anyone," I'm not sure that the (ahem) sample size of a single partisan Packers fan is terribly good evidence there.

Rieux wrote: That's ridiculous. Where are you getting this "season or two" bit other than from your ear? The convenient attempt to set a sufficient sample size at whatever amount of data your opponents can't possibly analyze is simply laughable.

Barring byes, there are sixteen games a week in the NFL. Three weeks is forty-eight games—thousands of snaps, on which defenders will be caught offsides well over a hundred times. Given a trend as stark as the one this season has yielded, the notion that that shows nothing is just nonsensical.
Three weeks multiplied by the entire league—every snap, every play, 48 games? No. That's ridiculous.
There you are pretending I'm pushing "conspiracy theorys" (still sic...) again. Really not sure where you're getting that from.

And as far as "convincing anyone," I'm not sure that the (ahem) sample size of a single partisan Packers fan is terribly good evidence there.

Trends rise and fall on a week to week basis in the NFL, are you truly trying to claim otherwise? Many trend arise, many fall, but until you look back on it throughout the entirety of the season (an entire sample size), you dont know how long or how far a trend or pattern will go, if the Packers were to have a sharp decline in free plays that werent blown down, would that not change the current trend or pattern? Of course it would, and you know that, and that is a big reason why you are so adamant that such a small sample size be treated as undeniable evidence of favirotism, Because again, no matter how much you dislike it, you are not giving full context, just bias speculation and happenstance.

It doesn't matter what statistics you personally think to be difficult to attain, that is completely irrelevant, the problem is that you are drawing conclusions to howa book plays out based on a little less then a third of the pages. Again, patterns and trends rise and fall, and no matter how much you dislike that it doesnt fit your MO, none of it matters until full, or close to full context is given.

There are many things between now and week 16 that could change current trend or pattern, this is an undeniable fact, and yet, you seem to be denying it.

BTW, this is also assuming your assessments were measured objectively, and correctly, which, very in doubt.

Jordysghost wrote:Trends rise and fall on a week to week basis in the NFL...

And on a season-to-season basis, too. Thus your demand that nothing means anything until your opponent can pile up somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 games' worth of analysis (oh, and even that's probably no good because "your assessments probably weren't measured objectively'—the pot-kettle-black factor here is overwhelming) is arbitrary nonsense you're concocting for purposes that have nothing to do with separating fact from fiction.

The point of collecting a sufficient quantity of data is to reduce the likelihood that the effect being observed is actually mere statistical noise. That has nothing to do with "trends" that "rise and fall"—which, as I just noted, is a truism about any phenomenon across any time span. Your "sample size too small!" argument has no actual connection to any particular quantity, so it works just as well to discount 500 games of data as it does 50. A partisan bound and determined to deny the reality staring him right in the face can always deny that it's real and claim it's necessary to wait for more data to come in—and that's what you're doing.

until you look back on it throughout the entirety of the season (an entire sample size), you dont know how long or how far a trend or pattern will go

What is it about a season that has some kind of mystical sample-size value? Plenty of (be still my beating heart) trends only last for a season or two. Maybe officials will totally refuse to call any penalties on visiting teams to Lambeau during the 2016 season; who knows?

In the real world, calling something a "trend" doesn't actually demonstrate that (1) it's not real or (2) it's just statistical noise.

if the Packers were to have a sharp decline in free plays that werent blown down, would that not change the current trend or pattern?

Uh, sure. But by that logic, it is flatly impossible to prove that any "trend" whatsoever is real. Everything is subject to a "sharp decline." Your argument is absurd sophistry.

Rieux wrote: Jordy has, I think, made it clear that no evidence will be sufficient to convince him that the Packers get any kind of consistent inappropriate treatment until the number of games examined is approximately ( x + 1 ), where x is the number of games that any person present is actually willing to examine. I'm wondering—is anyone else interested in seeing this research project reach week 3 (or 4), or should I just bag it?

I was actually thinking of doing this myself until I saw you start it. This is a trend I have seen for several years. And for some reason mostly with Rodgers. Sometime with Manning and Brady.

Rieux wrote: And on a season-to-season basis, too. Thus your demand that nothing means anything until your opponent can pile up somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 games' worth of analysis (oh, and even that's probably no good because "your assessments probably weren't measured objectively'—the pot-kettle-black factor here is overwhelming) is arbitrary nonsense you're concocting for purposes that have nothing to do with separating fact from fiction.

The point of collecting a sufficient quantity of data is to reduce the likelihood that the effect being observed is actually mere statistical noise. That has nothing to do with "trends" that "rise and fall"—which, as I just noted, is a truism about any phenomenon across any time span. Your "sample size too small!" argument has no actual connection to any particular quantity, so it works just as well to discount 500 games of data as it does 50. A partisan bound and determined to deny the reality staring him right in the face can always deny that it's real and claim it's necessary to wait for more data to come in—and that's what you're doing.
What is it about a season that has some kind of mystical sample-size value? Plenty of (be still my beating heart) trends only last for a season or two. Maybe officials will totally refuse to call any penalties on visiting teams to Lambeau during the 2016 season; who knows?

In the real world, calling something a "trend" doesn't actually demonstrate that (1) it's not real or (2) it's just statistical noise.
Uh, sure. But by that logic, it is flatly impossible to prove that any "trend" whatsoever is real. Everything is subject to a "sharp decline." Your argument is absurd sophistry.

I had initially typed up another post disputing the points you made, and I respectfully but vehemently disagree with you for a variety of reasons, but honestly dude, I think this debate has topped out. I can see that this really isnt going anywhere, so unless your really dying to hear my counter argument to your above post, im dropping out of this conversation. I guess this is one of those situations where we will agree to disagree.

With all that said, I appreciate the discussion.