Wait, What? Weird list.

[Ursa Major]

Serious question: I have never had a serious statistics class, so am curious as to what these stats mean to a person who has? Teams that beat us were 30-23 overall, teams we beat were 21-29 over all. I know what I think they mean, or at least what they mean to me, just wondering if it is even close to the same as someone in the know on statistics.

All depends upon your agenda. It's really a simple two-step process:

Statistics 101
1) Define agenda.
2) Gin up stats that defend said agenda.

:roll: :roll: So there is no definitive answer to that? Just like politics apparently, depends on what the spin is and who's applying it??????

It was a joke with more than a grain of truth in it. Rigorous scientific method should control for the bias of agenda. We just don't have a lot of scientists running around here. The good doctor is an exception.

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

Serious question: I have never had a serious statistics class, so am curious as to what these stats mean to a person who has? Teams that beat us were 30-23 overall, teams we beat were 21-29 over all. I know what I think they mean, or at least what they mean to me, just wondering if it is even close to the same as someone in the know on statistics.

All depends upon your agenda. It's really a simple two-step process:

Statistics 101
1) Define agenda.
2) Gin up stats that defend said agenda.

:roll: :roll: So there is no definitive answer to that? Just like politics apparently, depends on what the spin is and who's applying it??????

It was a joke with more than a grain of truth in it. Rigorous scientific method should control for the bias of agenda. We just don't have a lot of scientists running around here. The good doctor is an exception.

Good to know, thank you.

 

[UMGriz75]

Serious question: I have never had a serious statistics class, so am curious as to what these stats mean to a person who has? Teams that beat us were 30-23 overall, teams we beat were 21-29 over all. I know what I think they mean, or at least what they mean to me, just wondering if it is even close to the same as someone in the know on statistics.

All depends upon your agenda. It's really a simple two-step process:

Statistics 101
1) Define agenda.
2) Gin up stats that defend said agenda.

:roll: :roll: So there is no definitive answer to that? Just like politics apparently, depends on what the spin is and who's applying it??????

Ursa is describing how he does it and imputes his motives to everyone else. At least he's honest about it.

 

[Silvertip]

Laughable how national college sports figures think they know more about coaching qualities and abilities than the pontificators on eGriz. Laughable.

Same all knowing folks who touted Brady Gustafson as the next Carson Wentz.

 

[Eriul]

That is all relative. All teams in FCS who are tops in the nation for scoring is because they have all had games where they put up 50-60. You can't just magically remove those points for a comparison unless you're going to remove them for all the top offenses.

You've never had a genuine statistics class, have you?

In stats, you examine data carefully for 1) outliers, and 2) correlated data. "Conference" data tends to be correlated. Non-conference games can be all over the place. Then, within "conference data," a given game may also be an outlier for a variety of reasons -- reasons which a statistician attempts to account for, including key injuries or game flukes (UM v ISU, 2015).

Finally, generic data without a trend analysis is good for ... what? If you aren't looking for predictive and analytical value from statistical analysis, WTF are you looking for? Personal validation? Snowflakes? Puppies?

The fact is, a closer examination of UM's "Scoring Offense" for the season, instead of the rosy charade that Eruil tries to present, shows instead a football team in deep collapse as the season wore on -- far worse than any other team in the conference -- predicting a possibility or probability of a loss even to ... the 'Cats.

Nothing about that loss was "relative."

I HAVE taken a statistics class, many in fact... and crunch numbers for a living. As someone once stated here statistics is arguing towards an agenda. Yours is obvious as is others as is mine.

The big hypocrisy in the argument about eliminating the "outlieng" games of 60+ is that over 25% of our games we scored 60+ thus making them not outliers. Also if you are going to eliminate the 60+ games then by the same logic you have to eliminate the low outliers which you guys refuse to do.

Also as far as conference vs. out of conference. The season numbers are about the same whether you include conference or not. Our Best and worst offensive games were agaisnt OOC teams

Basic logic doesn't make sense on this board to most of you so argue all you want. Stitt produces a great offense. Deal with it or fucking bitch all off-season

 

[UMGriz75]

I HAVE taken a statistics class, many in fact... and crunch numbers for a living. As someone once stated here statistics is arguing towards an agenda. Yours is obvious as is others as is mine.

The big hypocrisy in the argument about eliminating the "outlieng" games of 60+ is that over 25% of our games we scored 60+ thus making them not outliers. Also if you are going to eliminate the 60+ games then by the same logic you have to eliminate the low outliers which you guys refuse to do.

When you "do" stats, it helps to read and understand the methodology. I left the 60+ games in, and, while it may not have assisted in my so-called "agenda," I also explained why. Indeed, just to prove the point, for the last half of the season I did the analysis both ways, with and without the high scoring game, and noted that it didn't make any difference to the analysis.

For starters, that is called a "bias" test, and in that case, that approach eliminated any question of bias.

 

[sdk.catfish]

Basic logic doesn't make sense on this board to most of you so argue all you want. Stitt produces a great offense. Deal with it or f***[*] bitch all off-season

Well, it appears you have finally abandoned your pathetically feeble attempt to use statistics to prove the 2016 Griz were a "great" offensive team and have moved to basic logic. Of course basic logic is relative to whom is applying it and this is my basic logic:

1. Scoring 16 against EWU doesn't seem to qualify as great offense.
2. Scoring 25 against N. Colorado seems like an adequate offense that just couldn't get over the top when our less than great defense gave up the go ahead touchdown.
3. Scoring 17 against the Cats, with a depleted and almost non-existent defensive line, doesn't logically seem to indicate a great offense either.
4. N. Iowa, even in the win, wasn't scintillating offense although I'll never complain about a win.

It appears that your "basic logic" differs. You call these simply "bad games" and you are absolutely correct about that. All but the N. Iowa game were downright "offensive"!

I've said it before. Great offenses win big games and we haven't seen that yet. Maybe we will next year but I think you have to resign yourself to some off-season bitching when you make the unsubstantiated claims that you do.

 

[UMGriz75]

Basic logic doesn't make sense on this board to most of you so argue all you want. Stitt produces a great offense. Deal with it or f***[*] bitch all off-season

Well, it appears you have finally abandoned your pathetically feeble attempt to use statistics to prove the 2016 Griz were a "great" offensive team and have moved to basic logic. Of course basic logic is relative to whom is applying it and this is my basic logic:

1. Scoring 16 against EWU doesn't seem to qualify as great offense.
2. Scoring 25 against N. Colorado seems like an adequate offense that just couldn't get over the top when our less than great defense gave up the go ahead touchdown.
3. Scoring 17 against the Cats, with a depleted and almost non-existent defensive line, doesn't logically seem to indicate a great offense either.
4. N. Iowa, even in the win, wasn't scintillating offense although I'll never complain about a win.

I think what she is trying to say is that last year, when we put up 57 points against EWU with Mick's recruits, that was a "great offense," and when we put up 16 this year against EWU, that's proof that the offense is getting greaterer with the passage of time.

The crowning achievement of the season, of course, the Griz-Cat game, where, our coach boldly announced last year "we never lose in our own House before we did just that to Cal Poly," we put our stunning offense on full display, our NFL caliber quarterback was in prime condition, and -- we are now being told, Soviet-style -- the players were full form in support of their coach, anxious to bust chops to show how much they loved playing for him, and how enthused they were to have had the good fortune to play for him this season, and just in case anyone had any doubts, they were GOING TO SHOW THE WORLD how much they looked forward to playing for him next season.

Everything Eruil claims was, after all, predicted months ago, by all the Griz Illuminati that are, always, oh so right. Right?

Postby BadlandsGrizFan » Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:54 pm

havgrizfan wrote:
Signing day is a happy day for EVERY football program, and I will be the first to congratulate the MSU football program. MSU has an outstanding recruiting class again this season, and while a lot of people can say whatever they want about Coach Ash, I think he's done an amazing job of upgrading MSU's talent in his time in Bozeman.

You've come down with the syphillis brain I see! MSU has struck a dry vein while the Griz on the other hand are busy mining the Comstock Lode thanks to Stitts knowledge gained at the school of mines!

George Ferguson » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:30 pm
Nope. Just simple mopping the floor with Ash. Stitt won't ever lose there.

BadlandsGrizFan » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:53 pm
Natty Champs 2015!!!!!

Postby BadlandsGrizFan » Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:42 am
What is their to be sober about last season that Stitt didnt do? The only thing I could think of is not advancing further in the playoffs. Or win the BSC.

The Comstock Lode! :lol:

 

[1Griz_Fan]

The Griz offense was what it was, doesn't matter if you include the JV scores or not because at times this offense was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The Griz offense failed to live up to its potential. In sum, the Griz offense looked good on paper, on the field, not so much.

 

[Eriul]

You guys are going to be mad every year when our offense doesn't put up 50+ every game.

Stay mad and ignorant

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

You guys are going to be mad every year when our offense doesn't put up 50+ every game.

Stay mad and ignorant

I must admit, I am disappointed, but never have been "mad"..... I find your post very interesting, coming from a person who is spouting the virtues and greatness of an offense, and offensive genius, that gave us a 6-5 season. After all, that is the "BOTTOM LINE" here, is it not?