Some math shit about recruiting
- Thread starter GrundleStiltzkin
- Start date
jhfstyle24
New Fish
UCLA recruiting projection: 14th rk
S&P: 91st.
LOL
S&P: 91st.
LOL
jhfstyle24
New Fish
Jeff Tedford at Fresno:
87th in Pareto. 85th in 5 year percentile. 10th in the country.
Having Tedford back would be so fucking nice.
87th in Pareto. 85th in 5 year percentile. 10th in the country.
Having Tedford back would be so fucking nice.
He started to lose me at
[The correlation between the 2-year recruiting rankings I used for 2018 S&P+ projections and the current year-end 2018 S&P+ rankings was a solid 0.609[/b]. That’s a strong correlation, and it’s why I use recruiting rankings in my projections.]
That's not that solid of a correlation. It's the type of correlation that someone that's used to seeing high-variance data jumps at but it's not all that meaningful when considering countable data.
I'd call that a moderate positive relationship. It's also super highly susceptible to another confounding variable. i.e. good coaches tend to attract good recruits and tend to perform better in S&P while the inverse is also true.
If you tested this against the 20% of winning-est coaches you'd probably find a much stronger causal relationship. Surprise! Good coaches win and [/b]have good S&P and [/b]attract good recruits!
This is where he completely lost me.
[The correlation between these new Pareto recruiting rankings and 2018 S&P+: 0.640. Better.]
Difference of .031[/b] of .609 on an already moderate correlation? Probably statistically meaningless.
All of that said, Thanks for the FREE PUB!
[The correlation between the 2-year recruiting rankings I used for 2018 S&P+ projections and the current year-end 2018 S&P+ rankings was a solid 0.609[/b]. That’s a strong correlation, and it’s why I use recruiting rankings in my projections.]
That's not that solid of a correlation. It's the type of correlation that someone that's used to seeing high-variance data jumps at but it's not all that meaningful when considering countable data.
I'd call that a moderate positive relationship. It's also super highly susceptible to another confounding variable. i.e. good coaches tend to attract good recruits and tend to perform better in S&P while the inverse is also true.
If you tested this against the 20% of winning-est coaches you'd probably find a much stronger causal relationship. Surprise! Good coaches win and [/b]have good S&P and [/b]attract good recruits!
This is where he completely lost me.
[The correlation between these new Pareto recruiting rankings and 2018 S&P+: 0.640. Better.]
Difference of .031[/b] of .609 on an already moderate correlation? Probably statistically meaningless.
All of that said, Thanks for the FREE PUB!
DoogCourics
New Fish
CuntWaffle
New Fish
I don’t get it why is this funny?
jhfstyle24
New Fish
I don’t get it why is this funny?
I almost fell for this