mightyleemoon wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:#69isGreaterThan72onBZ
Except, that's not what anyone is saying.
Maybe smaller numbers will help.
Say a QB wins 48 percent of the time (I'm rounding down for you) and he plays 4 games. How many games would you say that QB is more likely to win? 1 or 2?
Or, to put another way...
Is 48 closer to 50 or closer to 25?
Rocker wrote:Yall done fucked up and put Bootz in 2012 mode.
#elevenhundredthsofapercentagepoint
Bootz2004 wrote:
#69=72onBz
Bootz2004 wrote:mightyleemoon wrote:
Except, that's not what anyone is saying.
Maybe smaller numbers will help.
Say a QB wins 48 percent of the time (I'm rounding down for you) and he plays 4 games. How many games would you say that QB is more likely to win? 1 or 2?
Or, to put another way...
Is 48 closer to 50 or closer to 25?
You're right. My apologies.
#69=72onBz
DreadNaught wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
#69=72onBz
YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.
You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....
Bootz2004 wrote:DreadNaught wrote:
YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.
You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....
Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.
And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?
Bootz2004 wrote:DreadNaught wrote:
YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.
You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....
Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.
And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?
MJW wrote:If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses
Naismith wrote:Depends on the number of games you're expecting your backup to play. If you're talking about four starts, 47-94 is the record at which point he is equally likely to win two as he is to win one. Worse than that, he is more likely to win one or less. Better than that, he's more likely to win two or more.
This is all assuming that you can determine a player's true value towards wins and losses based on a winning percentage, which, of course, isn't possible.
MJW wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
What's a competent backup?
If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses, and possibly do better than that. The season won't be over if he has to play for a month or two. I think that's a worthwhile investment personally. I don't want the entire season to go down the crapper if Jameis gets even a moderate injury. But again, that's me. You're just going to turn injuries off, apparently.
mightyleemoon wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.
And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?
Use the whole quote...MJW wrote:If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses
She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.
You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.
Four Verticals wrote:Naismith wrote:Depends on the number of games you're expecting your backup to play. If you're talking about four starts, 47-94 is the record at which point he is equally likely to win two as he is to win one. Worse than that, he is more likely to win one or less. Better than that, he's more likely to win two or more.
This is all assuming that you can determine a player's true value towards wins and losses based on a winning percentage, which, of course, isn't possible.
Except for the fact that any team which was going to sign him and was looking at his w/l record as a determinant would simply say he's capable of winning as many as he loses without going the Pythagoras route and worring about a game and a half in one direction. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Cutler were 72-69 that the opinion would be he wins more than he loses? In either situation the opinion amongst the thinking is going to be "he's a .500 guy".
Bootz2004 wrote:mightyleemoon wrote:
Use the whole quote...
She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.
You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.
You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com
Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.
beardmcdoug wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com
Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.
"and possibly do better than that" is a subjective statement based on MJW's positive assessment of the current Buc's roster in relation to past Bears/Broncos rosters that Cutler has previously played on... has nothing to do with the objective arithmetic facts you've been in denial of for 2 pages now
beardmcdoug wrote:lmfao this thread
Bootz2004 wrote:beardmcdoug wrote:
"and possibly do better than that" is a subjective statement based on MJW's positive assessment of the current Buc's roster in relation to past Bears/Broncos rosters that Cutler has previously played on... has nothing to do with the objective arithmetic facts you've been in denial of for 2 pages now
Leave it to you to deem a statement someone else makes as "subjective".
beardmcdoug wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
Leave it to you to deem a statement someone else makes as "subjective".
She wrote the freakin word "possibly" lmao cmon dude
Four Verticals wrote:Except for the fact that any team which was going to sign him and was looking at his w/l record as a determinant would simply say he's capable of winning as many as he loses without going the Pythagoras route and worring about a game and a half in one direction. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Cutler were 72-69 that the opinion would be he wins more than he loses? In either situation the opinion amongst the thinking is going to be "he's a .500 guy".
Zarniwoop wrote:As a statistician this conversation is hilarious
If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a
6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4
AAE
To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.
For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 games
Zarniwoop wrote:As a statistician this conversation is hilarious
If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a
6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4
AAE
To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.
For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 games
Zarniwoop wrote:As a statistician this conversation is hilarious
If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a
6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4
AAE
To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.
For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 games
Bootz2004 wrote:Below .500 is below .500.
Bootz2004 wrote:mightyleemoon wrote:
Use the whole quote...
She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.
You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.
You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com
Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.
DreadNaught wrote:Zarniwoop wrote:As a statistician this conversation is hilarious
If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a
6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4
AAE
To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.
For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 gamesBootz2004 wrote:Below .500 is below .500.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bootz2004, Cheb, Cream Sickle, Google [Bot], Jason Bourne, Ken Carson, MarineBuc, Naismith, Native Son, Zarniwoop and 14 guests