Grantland: Arizona has a Numbers Problem

OP
OP
kerouac9

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
36,994
Reaction score
26,797
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Yep. Like I said, they were guessing and hiding behind a faulty methodology for a perceived legitimacy. They didn't know the future, and were quite off.

Funny enough, their highlighting of differential not only was wrong, but the Cards were at or near the top the entire season on that.

In the end, Grantland was the one who had a 'numbers' problem.

I think it's faulty to say that just because something unlikely happened, that saying it was an unlikely event was wrong.

Palmer did end up getting injured/falling off the pace that he set last year. It just took 15 games instead of right off the bat. The defense wasn't as effective as it was the prior year. The running game stepped up.

Just because you flip a coin three times and it comes up heads each time doesn't mean that suddenly the world has shifted and your model isn't correct.
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,309
Reaction score
3,864
I think it's faulty to say that just because something unlikely happened, that saying it was an unlikely event was wrong.

Palmer did end up getting injured/falling off the pace that he set last year. It just took 15 games instead of right off the bat. The defense wasn't as effective as it was the prior year. The running game stepped up.

Just because you flip a coin three times and it comes up heads each time doesn't mean that suddenly the world has shifted and your model isn't correct.

Of course it isn't correct. Unlikely doesn't mean squat. They made a decision to write an article where they guessed based on a model with incomplete variables. They put their validity on the line for a model that cannot think, hear, listen or adjust to reality.

A model isn't correct unless it captures reality 100 percent of the time. Otherwise it's a guess. 0 or 1.

The world didn't shift because the world was not contained in the model.

If you flip a coin three times it can come up heads-heads, tails-tails, heads-tail, tails-heads. That's the point. Nothing can tell you what it is going to turn up as at any given time. In fact, sometimes it needs to be flipped again because it doesn't rotate, and conceivably, it can land on it's side as well.

I point this out, because in this world we suspend our minds and follow models in many places incorrectly, and like Grantland did, they used their faulty methodology to promote an article that clearly didn't know what was going to happen, but they pretended to.

2008. It wasn't a 1 percent failure, it was a 100 percent assured occurrence. Just like the next one won't be seen coming because people follow quackery to numb their mind to reality.

Yes it's a tool, but most of the time it's completely misused, and relied on when it shouldn't be. Too many people blindly follow the model and the opportunity cost is... they didn't see the obvious. It was obvious before this year that we had a great team. They doubled down on stupid because they got it wrong for 2014 as well. That's two years in a row they didn't follow their eyes and went by the numbers, and they were made to look stupid both times. This only happened because of the blind belief in faulty methodology. When the 2014 quackery didn't work, they found another way to try... and it in 2015 didn't work.

Life isn't a coin flip, and definitely not a model. The greatest power of models is the Power of Suggestion and a place for people to rally around if they are all convinced and made confident in it.
 
Last edited:

Chris_Sanders

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
37,967
Reaction score
27,081
Location
Scottsdale, Az
I think it's faulty to say that just because something unlikely happened, that saying it was an unlikely event was wrong.

Palmer did end up getting injured/falling off the pace that he set last year. It just took 15 games instead of right off the bat. The defense wasn't as effective as it was the prior year. The running game stepped up.

Just because you flip a coin three times and it comes up heads each time doesn't mean that suddenly the world has shifted and your model isn't correct.

It was so wrong it's comical. Fake analytics are fake.
 

splitsecond

ASFN Addict
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Posts
5,580
Reaction score
1,528
Location
Chandler, AZ
Of course it isn't correct. Unlikely doesn't mean squat. They made a decision to write an article where they guessed based on a model with incomplete variables. They put their validity on the line for a model that cannot think, hear, listen or adjust to reality.

A model isn't correct unless it captures reality 100 percent of the time. Otherwise it's a guess. 0 or 1.

The world didn't shift because the world was not contained in the model.

If you flip a coin three times it can come up heads-heads, tails-tails, heads-tail, tails-heads. That's the point. Nothing can tell you what it is going to turn up as at any given time. In fact, sometimes it needs to be flipped again because it doesn't rotate, and conceivably, it can land on it's side as well.

I point this out, because in this world we suspend our minds and follow models in many places incorrectly, and like Grantland did, they used their faulty methodology to promote an article that clearly didn't know what was going to happen, but they pretended to.

2008. It wasn't a 1 percent failure, it was a 100 percent assured occurrence. Just like the next one won't be seen coming because people follow quackery to numb their mind to reality.

Yes it's a tool, but most of the time it's completely misused, and relied on when it shouldn't be. Too many people blindly follow the model and the opportunity cost is... they didn't see the obvious. It was obvious before this year that we had a great team. They doubled down on stupid because they got it wrong for 2014 as well. That's two years in a row they didn't follow their eyes and went by the numbers, and they were made to look stupid both times. This only happened because of the blind belief in faulty methodology. When the 2014 quackery didn't work, they found another way to try... and it in 2015 didn't work.

Life isn't a coin flip, and definitely not a model. The greatest power of models is the Power of Suggestion and a place for people to rally around if they are all convinced and made confident in it.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 

splitsecond

ASFN Addict
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Posts
5,580
Reaction score
1,528
Location
Chandler, AZ
I think it's faulty to say that just because something unlikely happened, that saying it was an unlikely event was wrong.

Palmer did end up getting injured/falling off the pace that he set last year. It just took 15 games instead of right off the bat. The defense wasn't as effective as it was the prior year. The running game stepped up.

Just because you flip a coin three times and it comes up heads each time doesn't mean that suddenly the world has shifted and your model isn't correct.

Do you use that tiny straw you are grasping at to drink?
 
OP
OP
kerouac9

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
36,994
Reaction score
26,797
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Of course it isn't correct. Unlikely doesn't mean squat. They made a decision to write an article where they guessed based on a model with incomplete variables. They put their validity on the line for a model that cannot think, hear, listen or adjust to reality.

A model isn't correct unless it captures reality 100 percent of the time. Otherwise it's a guess. 0 or 1.

The world didn't shift because the world was not contained in the model.

If you flip a coin three times it can come up heads-heads, tails-tails, heads-tail, tails-heads. That's the point. Nothing can tell you what it is going to turn up as at any given time. In fact, sometimes it needs to be flipped again because it doesn't rotate, and conceivably, it can land on it's side as well.

I point this out, because in this world we suspend our minds and follow models in many places incorrectly, and like Grantland did, they used their faulty methodology to promote an article that clearly didn't know what was going to happen, but they pretended to.

2008. It wasn't a 1 percent failure, it was a 100 percent assured occurrence. Just like the next one won't be seen coming because people follow quackery to numb their mind to reality.

Yes it's a tool, but most of the time it's completely misused, and relied on when it shouldn't be. Too many people blindly follow the model and the opportunity cost is... they didn't see the obvious. It was obvious before this year that we had a great team. They doubled down on stupid because they got it wrong for 2014 as well. That's two years in a row they didn't follow their eyes and went by the numbers, and they were made to look stupid both times. This only happened because of the blind belief in faulty methodology. When the 2014 quackery didn't work, they found another way to try... and it in 2015 didn't work.

Life isn't a coin flip, and definitely not a model. The greatest power of models is the Power of Suggestion and a place for people to rally around if they are all convinced and made confident in it.

You don't get to call anyone wrong anymore. Thanks.
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
16,525
Reaction score
12,948
Location
Modesto, California
some people don't have enough vision to see past stats... If it helps them to understand and define their world then I don't see any harm in it. Stats are used to predict,...and sometimes predictions come true while other times they do not.
 

football karma

Happy in the pretense of knowledge
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
14,890
Reaction score
13,172
this offseason's argument is going to be all about "who was the real Carson Palmer?"

The one we saw in the 2015 regular season, or, the one we saw in the playoffs?
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,309
Reaction score
3,864
You don't get to call anyone wrong anymore. Thanks.

I'm sorry.. I got distracted, and when I came back I had two on there. So i followed suit.

You are using that as a scapegoat? WOW. Do you really want me type all the options? You know quite clearly I wrote out all the options for two coin flips. I could just as easy do it for all three.

Absolutely pathetic retort K9. Absolutely pathetic. Anyone can read right through that.

Get this guys, K9's retort is that my whole point is wrong because I wrote out two coin flips instead of three. Wow. I don't get to call anyone wrong anymore. LOL

Again, what's funny is, you are taking it personal when I was going after Grantland, not you. I know you TRY to find counter arguments, you don't just always blindly follow it. Also, just like when you originally posted the article, I said thank you for doing so.

All you are doing is backing Grantland's mistakes right now. Smart!
 
Top