Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, incognito_man said: ever hear of statistics? I have. Ever heard of sample size? If you were basing your hypothesis off a 20 year sample then I'd give you a lot more credit for your argument. But you aren't. You are taking one year and saying because the Bears didn't have a lot of injuries last year they will have a lot this year. That's not how it works. Your just throwing it out there. Do you know what the mean is for games missed per year? I have a feeling you don't know and neither does the guy who introduced this line of discussion. Which is why it came across exactly as it did. Stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, Sasquatch said: Quantitative analysis suggests a regression to the mean. A very simple regression equation can prove this, as does Monte Carlo Theory and other predictive modeling. Math works amigo, and yes, with hard numbers. Your saying that you can predict injuries based off this. I'd agree with that in theory but not in reality. There's too many variables. Games missed by a 3rd string db would be factored in the same as games missed by Khalil Mack. You know what I mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Pool said: I have. Ever heard of sample size? If you were basing your hypothesis off a 20 year sample then I'd give you a lot more credit for your argument. But you aren't. You are taking one year and saying because the Bears didn't have a lot of injuries last year they will have a lot this year. That's not how it works. Your just throwing it out there. Do you know what the mean is for games missed per year? I have a feeling you don't know and neither does the guy who introduced this line of discussion. Which is why it came across exactly as it did. Stupid. It shouldn't be that hard to understand that injuries are a spectrum of luck, and being at the high/good of that spectrum 1 year is not sustainable. It is unlikely that a team is the most fortunate injury-wise for a given season. It is 32x more unlikely they are the most fortunate 2 years in a row, etc etc. Math. Statistics. Probability. Fun stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Pool said: Your saying that you can predict injuries based off this. I'd agree with that in theory but not in reality. There's too many variables. Games missed by a 3rd string db would be factored in the same as games missed by Khalil Mack. You know what I mean? Sorry, but if it’s possible to calculate the half-life of a nuclear core to over 99% accuracy, it sure as hell isnt hard to predict a regression to the mean with regard to injuries, and other football related statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, incognito_man said: It shouldn't be that hard to understand that injuries are a spectrum of luck, and being at the high/good of that spectrum 1 year is not sustainable. It is unlikely that a team is the most fortunate injury-wise for a given season. It is 32x more unlikely they are the most fortunate 2 years in a row, etc etc. Math. Statistics. Probability. Fun stuff. Yes but the player who gets injured is important. Losing Mack would hurt the team more than losing a 3rd string db. This does not take that into account. I'm no math whiz so please correct me if I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, Sasquatch said: Sorry, but if it’s possible to calculate the half-life of a nuclear core to over 99% accuracy, it sure as hell isnt hard to predict a regression to the mean with regard to injuries, and other football related statistics. I said I agreed with you in theory. The practical application is not the same. You can't predict that the Bears will lose a core player to injury. All you can predict is that the Bears as a team will (and here's the important part) PROBABLY have more injuries. You cannot definitively state that they will. You are simply forming a hypothesis based off statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, Pool said: You are simply forming a hypothesis based off statistics. duh better than a hypothesis based on a lot of other things (like emotional fandom) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, incognito_man said: duh better than a hypothesis based on a lot of other things (like emotional fandom) Thank you, LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 41 minutes ago, incognito_man said: duh better than a hypothesis based on a lot of other things (like emotional fandom) Attack the poster because you can't attack the argument. Classic. I can give you a lot of reasons why I think the Bears will be good next year. All you and @Sasquatch can come up with for them being bad is injuries. Laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 49 minutes ago, Pool said: I said I agreed with you in theory. The practical application is not the same. You can't predict that the Bears will lose a core player to injury. All you can predict is that the Bears as a team will (and here's the important part) PROBABLY have more injuries. You cannot definitively state that they will. You are simply forming a hypothesis based off statistics. Nothing for this one Sassy? Didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, Pool said: Attack the poster because you can't attack the argument. Classic. I can give you a lot of reasons why I think the Bears will be good next year. All you and @Sasquatch can come up with for them being bad is injuries. Laughable. i didn't before, but this post is deserving of "attacking the poster" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, incognito_man said: i didn't before, but this post is deserving of "attacking the poster" Wow. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I can see how harsh my words were now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 @incognito_man Throw out your predictions. How many wins will Chicago have next year? How many will Green Bay have? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Pool said: Roquan will be better. The defense will be better if Mack and Jackson play every game. Our rookie backup DT Nichols will be better. The only player we are going to lose is looking like either Amos or Callahan. Not sure what other key free agents you are talking about. We will need to replace either our nickel corner or safety. Not too hard a task with a 3rd round pick. And let's face it, McManis and Bush are not as good as Amos and Callahan but their certainly serviceable. @Outpost31 the Bears are not going to lose Trevathan, Callahan, and Amos. I don't know where you got that idea. Show me where you're getting 14 million to re-sign Callahan and Amos without cutting Trevathan. Or... Do you really think you're signing either Callahan or Amos for less than 7 million per? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Show me where you're getting 14 million to re-sign Callahan and Amos without cutting Trevathan. Or... Do you really think you're signing either Callahan or Amos for less than 7 million per? Where are you getting 14m? This site says 19.7m. And that's before we cut Sims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.