Ryan Tannehill has Become More Consistently Good Lately

[Shouright]

Shouright: I have done a deep statistical analysis and determined that Ryan Tannehill is at fault for sacks and everything else with the offense.

Rest of universe: But, the play of the OL has been bad, especially the tackles.

Shouright: No. My stats say otherwise.

Rest of universe: But, but, but, watch the games!!!

Shouright: Tsk, tsk, standard deviations, correlation, averages, observation bias, confounding variables, probability, Sterling Sharpe, blah, blah, blah. Ryan Tannehill.

Rest of universe: The Dolphins just made a trade for a new left tackle.

Shouright: standard deviations, correlation, averages, observation bias, confounding variables, probability, Sterling Sharpe, blah, blah, blah. Ryan Tannehill.

Rest of universe: Sacks are decreasing and the offense is looking better as a results.

Shouright: standard deviations, correlation, averages, observation bias, confounding variables, probability, Sterling Sharpe, blah, blah, blah. Ryan Tannehill.

some time later.....

Shouright: I have done a deep statistical analysis and determined that Ryan Tannehill is playing better, consistently good and I didn't mention sacks or OL play a single time in the post.

Rest of universe: The OL is playing better. We told you so!

Shouright: blah, blah, blah, Sterling Sharpe

Who cares what I think? I'm just a nobody on an internet message board. :)

Galileo: The earth revolves around the sun.

Rest of universe: No! The sun revolves around the earth! Burn him at the stake!

 

[DisturbedShifty]

Love the title of this thread. Just lends credence to such an intelligent post.

 

[Rev Kev]

I had to read the title four times to make sense of it. :idk:

 

[NCFINFAN13]

Consistency is the key.

 

[NY8123]

Who cares what I think? I'm just a nobody on an internet message board. :)

Galileo: The earth revolves around the sun.

Rest of universe: No! The sun revolves around the earth! Burn him at the stake!

It just depends on your approach to life I guess. I don't agree with everything you post but certainly there are somethings that are 100% valid.

Two ways to prove good science, prove your theory correct or prove your theory wrong and since technically it is impossible to prove any theory 100% correct (we do not "know" everything the universe and beyond offerers) it is easier at times to prove your theory false.


People who take the latter approach tend to be labled the pessimists and in the minority and people who take the first approach are the optimists and usually in the majority. It is what it is, been like that from the dawn of time but without the so called pessimists the Sun would still revolve around the Earth and the Earth would be flat.

I don't know what Tannehill is going to become but I know he offeres as much and more hope than an QB we have had since Dan Marino, it doesn't mean he is or will be become Dan Marino 2.0, it only means we have a good thing right now that might be a great thing long term. On the flip side it might never be more than a good thing, if I knew the outcome to that tail, I'd be in Vegas betting it all on green (a real man doesn't bet black or red, that **** is for ******* lol).

 

[Shouright]

Love the title of this thread. Just lends credence to such an intelligent post.

Why thank you.

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 AM ----------

I had to read the title four times to make sense of it. :idk:

Glad you finally got it. There's a bit of nuance there, which escapes some people. :)

 

[Shouright]

It just depends on your approach to life I guess. I don't agree with everything you post but certainly there are somethings that are 100% valid.

Two ways to prove good science, prove your theory correct or prove your theory wrong and since technically it is impossible to prove any theory 100% correct (we do not "know" everything the universe and beyond offerers) it is easier at times to prove your theory false.

You're getting at hypothesis testing here:

In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or that a potential medical treatment has no effect. Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference, though the same term is used, a problem shared with statistical significance. In the significance testing approach of Ronald Fisher, a null hypothesis is potentially rejected or disproved on the basis of data that is significantly under its assumption, but never accepted or proved. In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis, and these are decided between on the basis of data, with certain error rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

My personal translation of this, as it pertains to what we do here, is that we shouldn't reject any null hypothesis we have about the team on the basis of subjective perceptions alone, because we're likely to be heavily laden with confirmation bias in this area. We should believe there is no relationship between variables until and unless we have objective support of the relationship, and even then the conclusion should be at least somewhat tentative.

Of course that tends to fly in the face of the folks who'd like to believe their "eyes" alone are sufficient tools for making these sorts of conclusions. :)

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Who cares what I think? I'm just a nobody on an internet message board. :)

Galileo: The earth revolves around the sun.

Rest of universe: No! The sun revolves around the earth! Burn him at the stake!

Big difference is Galileo was right. You, OTOH, will stick to your failed analysis despite the fact that the improvement coincides with the pairing of McKinnie and Clabo on the OL.

 

[Shouright]

Big difference is Galileo was right.

Is that what was thought by the "rest of the universe" at the time?

You, OTOH, will stick to your failed analysis despite the fact that the improvement coincides with the pairing of McKinnie and Clabo on the OL.

Since knowing what is true is more important to me than being right, I'm open, as always, to any objective (i.e., statistical) support for what anyone believes to be true. Do you have any?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Is that what was thought by the "rest of the universe" at the time?

Since knowing what is true is more important to me than being right, I'm open, as always, to any objective (i.e., statistical) support for what anyone believes to be true. Do you have any?

First of all objective does not = statistical (or vice versa). That is a large part of the failings in your "analysis".

Secondly, I'm not sure what could be more objective than the calendar and the roster.

 

[Shouright]

Secondly, I'm not sure what could be more objective than the calendar and the roster.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. There are lots of things that could've happened during that same time period that could account for the improvement in Ryan Tannehill's performance.

If you do no objective analysis of those other variables to rule them in or out, then we're left with merely your subjective opinion that correlation does equal causation in this case, with no objective evidence with which to support it.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

Who cares what I think? I'm just a nobody on an internet message board. :)

Galileo: The earth revolves around the sun.

Rest of universe: No! The sun revolves around the earth! Burn him at the stake!

You're no Copernicus.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

You should have that tattooed on your forehead backwards so you could read it when you look in the mirror. You clearly wanted to pin the cause of the sacks on Tannehill's lack of movement despite having no evidence to support that claim.

 

[Shouright]

You're no Copernicus.

Like I said in the post you quoted, I'm just a nobody on an internet message board. :)

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

You should have that tattooed on your forehead backwards so you could read it when you look in the mirror. You clearly wanted to pin the cause of the sacks on Tannehill's lack of movement despite having no evidence to support that claim.

It was the last remaining variable that hadn't been ruled out by the objective analysis.

I'm still awaiting the one you've done, however.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

It was the last remaining variable that hadn't been ruled out by the objective analysis.

Ummm.... no.

The correlation phenomena could be caused by a third, previously unconsidered phenomenon, called a lurking variable or confounding variable. For this reason, there is no way to immediately infer the existence of a causal relationship between the two variables.