Brees being sacked more this year than any other a Saint

FinSaint · 10-13-2011, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

Statistics are:
A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Statistics are not:
The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data.

Now you either get that or you don't.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe in God? Whether yes or no be your answer, prove your stance statistically.

You can't. Your argument is bunk. Here endeth the lesson.

Hmmm... I wouldn't completely agree with your arguments here.

Data/statistics are an important part of any research without which you can't expect anyone to agree with your findings, since all valid research results have to be replicable. And if you are not presenting the data you based your findings on or the method by which you gathered it in the first place - then there's no way for someone else to replicate your research, and, therefore, it has no scientific value. Also perceptions or observations are also a type of data, which have to be carefully collected and coded for further use in a scientific research.

And as for the God argument... there's really nothing scientific about one's beliefs, but on the contrary statistics are very much based on scientific ways of collecting data. But as a rebuttal, I would say quantum physics.

saintfan · 10-13-2011, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

Hmmm... I wouldn't completely agree with your arguments here.

Data/statistics are an important part of any research without which you can't expect anyone to agree with your findings, since all valid research results have to be replicable. And if you are not presenting the data you based your findings on or the method by which you gathered it in the first place - then there's no way for someone else to replicate your research, and, therefore, it has no scientific value. Also perceptions or observations are also a type of data, which have to be carefully collected and coded for further use in a scientific research.

And as for the God argument... there's really nothing scientific about one's beliefs, but on the contrary statistics are very much based on scientific ways of collecting data. But as a rebuttal, I would say quantum physics.

I'm curious to know what then, about this, that you disagree with:

Statistics are:
A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Statistics are not:
The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data.

As for God, you beat me to it. Quantum Physics. It pisses me off.

The point is, as you already know (and so too does Canton by the way he just can't bring himself to admit it), is that Stats don't tell the whole story - and lets remove all doubt by simply looking at his own words in post #52. Particularly in the way people throw them around when discussing something like football. Of course there is value in the numbers, but the number's don't tell the whole story. To tell the whole story in such a way you'd need IBM's Watson and that might not even be sufficient.

Now, because Canton can't prove the existence of God, he chooses to become agnostic? I'm sure he has other reasons, but he (purposefully most likely) misses the point.

I can tell you that, statistically speaking, Canton isn't a very good Coach because he's only managed a single championship in a decade.

CantonLegend · 10-13-2011, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

I'm curious to know what then, about this, that you disagree with:

As for God, you beat me to it. Quantum Physics. It pisses me off.

The point is, as you already know (and so too does Canton by the way he just can't bring himself to admit it), is that Stats don't tell the whole story - and lets remove all doubt by simply looking at his own words in post #52. Particularly in the way people throw them around when discussing something like football. Of course there is value in the numbers, but the number's don't tell the whole story. To tell the whole story in such a way you'd need IBM's Watson and that might not even be sufficient.

Now, because Canton can't prove the existence of God, he chooses to become agnostic? I'm sure he has other reasons, but he (purposefully most likely) misses the point.

I can tell you that, statistically speaking, Canton isn't a very good Coach because he's only managed a single championship in a decade.

im agnostic because everything ppl have told me is that god exists but everything ive found in my own life suggests otherwise. because i cant disprove god i cant say hes not real and i cant say he is real because i cant prove that either

one championship in a decade considering the 50 some odd schools that have made the playoffs over that same time is a pretty good ratio if you ask me. especially considering we are a public school

i remember an article that came out of the akron beacon journal a few years ago that mentioned that while only 4% of the schools in ohio are private schools, that 4% of private schools wins about 97% of the state championships in all sports

saintfan · 10-13-2011, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

im agnostic because everything ppl have told me is that god exists but everything ive found in my own life suggests otherwise. because i cant disprove god i cant say hes not real and i cant say he is real because i cant prove that either

one championship in a decade considering the 50 some odd schools that have made the playoffs over that same time is a pretty good ratio if you ask me. especially considering we are a public school

i remember an article that came out of the akron beacon journal a few years ago that mentioned that while only 4% of the schools in ohio are private schools, that 4% of private schools wins about 97% of the state championships in all sports

1 in a decade. You suck. But then your involvement in the decade of losing might be minimal. Prove that statistically. Otherwise we'll have to assume that YOU are the biggest loser on the staff. Unless of course you can prove otherwise. Statistically mind you...

FinSaint · 10-13-2011, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

I'm curious to know what then, about this, that you disagree with:

For the first statement:

Statistics are:
A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I hope you'll forgive me for quoting wikipedia, but my methodology books pretty much state the same thing and this was the fastest way:

Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data. It deals with all aspects of this, including the planning of data collection in terms of the design of surveys and experiments.

Statistics is more than just a way of displaying data, it is a discipline in itself, which has numerous real world applications.

As for the second statement:

Statistics are not:
The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data.

I would like to refer to my earlier wikipedia quote (that just sounds wrong). If by statistics you mean just a representation of data - then you're closer to the truth, but still incorrect in a way, because it is (and has to be) in fact the data on which you have to base your findings on for reasons I already went over in an earlier post. And if you refer to the discipline of statistics, [i]"perception of the data"[i] is part of analyzing and interpreting data, which can't be separated from the gathering and presentation of the said data.

saintfan · 10-13-2011, 05:03 PM

If I break my arm, and you break your arm, statistics can be used to tell us when our arms might heal.

Yours may heal faster. Mine slower, other the other way around. The mountain of data you would need to make the claim that my arm will heal x days faster than yours boggles the mind.

Stats can give you part of the story. You can organize what data you have and you can come to some conclusions. Those conclusions are dependent on the data. How can you prove the data you have is complete? You'd also have to account somehow for assumptions.

9 out of 10 dentists say my toothpaste is better than yours. A different set of dentists are one shy of unanimous about the superiority of yours. Hmmmm....

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that stats have no value. I'm rebutting Cantons claim that I must present some statistical evidence to indicate that Drew does, in fact, improve our o-line's statistics. Of course I could poll every NFL player and to a man they would agree with me, but is that enough? A reasonable person would likely think so, but can we ever prove that, statistically? Good luck with that...

Oh, and no worries about quoting wikipedia. I do it all the time. We know that, statistically speaking of course, everything on the internet is true.

FinSaint · 10-13-2011, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

If I break my arm, and you break your arm, statistics can be used to tell us when our arms might heal.

Yours may heal faster. Mine slower, other the other way around. The mountain of data you would need to make the claim that my arm will heal x days faster than yours boggles the mind.

Stats can give you part of the story. You can organize what data you have and you can come to some conclusions. Those conclusions are dependent on the data. How can you prove the data you have is complete? You'd also have to account somehow for assumptions.

9 out of 10 dentists say my toothpaste is better than yours. A different set of dentists are one shy of unanimous about the superiority of yours. Hmmmm....

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that stats have no value. I'm rebutting Cantons claim that I must present some statistical evidence to indicate that Drew does, in fact, improve our o-line's statistics. Of course I could poll every NFL player and to a man they would agree with me, but is that enough? A reasonable person would likely think so, but can we ever prove that, statistically? Good luck with that...

Oh, and no worries about quoting wikipedia. I do it all the time. We know that, statistically speaking of course, everything on the internet is true.

I don't know what to say to the first part about the broken hand...? Statistics could be used to give a broad idea of how long a recuperation from a similar type of injury usually takes. But it would only be a guesstimate, because there would be so many variables involved, for which statistics couldn't account for... so why would we even try?

To the second part I would say that if the method of collecting the data is scientifically constructed... the data sample has to be representative and, therefore, you can make valid statements based on it. I've never heard of a complete data set in any type of large scale research involving humans... something like a census would probably come the closest, but, alas, that would also fall short of a complete data set. You can have a data set collected from a representative sample on which to try and prove or disprove a hypothesis, but in most cases you just end up either corroborating or contradicting the initial hypothesis, which leads to further research.

As for the dentists... they are bought and payed for by the company making the tooth paste.

But, I need to add a disclosure, because I haven't really studied statistics, so I'm not a hundred percent on all that is involved. But my second college major was sociology, which is as close to statistics as you can get methodology-wise.

CantonLegend · 10-13-2011, 05:30 PM

ah the level of conversation goes down and down. you guys just argue to argue.

i dont care if you dont like me but the last couple posts are a perfect reason for why i come in here and rip on you guys.

FinSaint · 10-13-2011, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

ah the level of conversation goes down and down. you guys just argue to argue.

i dont care if you dont like me but the last couple posts are a perfect reason for why i come in here and rip on you guys.

Your mom goes down and down...

Is that more to your liking and standard?

As far as I think, we were debating some very interesting things (to me at least) and doing it in a very civil way. If you don't care about it - don't read it!

But your appraisals carry very little weight if you don't present any evidence as to why you think taking about statistics and the methodology involved on a forum for a sports team is so beneath your high standard.

strato · 10-13-2011, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

ah the level of conversation goes down and down. you guys just argue to argue.

i dont care if you dont like me but the last couple posts are a perfect reason for why i come in here and rip on you guys.

That might change ....and to be honest you brought this on yourself by putting yourself above us..and you never answered my question..which i posted in good faith.

10-13-2011, 04:19 PM	#1
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,964	Originally Posted by saintfan Statistics are: A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Statistics are not: The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data. Now you either get that or you don't. Let me ask you a question: Do you believe in God? Whether yes or no be your answer, prove your stance statistically. You can't. Your argument is bunk. Here endeth the lesson. Hmmm... I wouldn't completely agree with your arguments here. Data/statistics are an important part of any research without which you can't expect anyone to agree with your findings, since all valid research results have to be replicable. And if you are not presenting the data you based your findings on or the method by which you gathered it in the first place - then there's no way for someone else to replicate your research, and, therefore, it has no scientific value. Also perceptions or observations are also a type of data, which have to be carefully collected and coded for further use in a scientific research. And as for the God argument... there's really nothing scientific about one's beliefs, but on the contrary statistics are very much based on scientific ways of collecting data. But as a rebuttal, I would say quantum physics.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

10-13-2011, 04:29 PM	#2
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by FinSaint Hmmm... I wouldn't completely agree with your arguments here. Data/statistics are an important part of any research without which you can't expect anyone to agree with your findings, since all valid research results have to be replicable. And if you are not presenting the data you based your findings on or the method by which you gathered it in the first place - then there's no way for someone else to replicate your research, and, therefore, it has no scientific value. Also perceptions or observations are also a type of data, which have to be carefully collected and coded for further use in a scientific research. And as for the God argument... there's really nothing scientific about one's beliefs, but on the contrary statistics are very much based on scientific ways of collecting data. But as a rebuttal, I would say quantum physics. I'm curious to know what then, about this, that you disagree with: Statistics are: A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Statistics are not: The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data. As for God, you beat me to it. Quantum Physics. It pisses me off. The point is, as you already know (and so too does Canton by the way he just can't bring himself to admit it), is that Stats don't tell the whole story - and lets remove all doubt by simply looking at his own words in post #52. Particularly in the way people throw them around when discussing something like football. Of course there is value in the numbers, but the number's don't tell the whole story. To tell the whole story in such a way you'd need IBM's Watson and that might not even be sufficient. Now, because Canton can't prove the existence of God, he chooses to become agnostic? I'm sure he has other reasons, but he (purposefully most likely) misses the point. I can tell you that, statistically speaking, Canton isn't a very good Coach because he's only managed a single championship in a decade.
	C'mon Man... Last edited by saintfan; 10-13-2011 at 04:32 PM..

10-13-2011, 04:42 PM	#3
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	Originally Posted by saintfan I'm curious to know what then, about this, that you disagree with: As for God, you beat me to it. Quantum Physics. It pisses me off. The point is, as you already know (and so too does Canton by the way he just can't bring himself to admit it), is that Stats don't tell the whole story - and lets remove all doubt by simply looking at his own words in post #52. Particularly in the way people throw them around when discussing something like football. Of course there is value in the numbers, but the number's don't tell the whole story. To tell the whole story in such a way you'd need IBM's Watson and that might not even be sufficient. Now, because Canton can't prove the existence of God, he chooses to become agnostic? I'm sure he has other reasons, but he (purposefully most likely) misses the point. I can tell you that, statistically speaking, Canton isn't a very good Coach because he's only managed a single championship in a decade. im agnostic because everything ppl have told me is that god exists but everything ive found in my own life suggests otherwise. because i cant disprove god i cant say hes not real and i cant say he is real because i cant prove that either one championship in a decade considering the 50 some odd schools that have made the playoffs over that same time is a pretty good ratio if you ask me. especially considering we are a public school i remember an article that came out of the akron beacon journal a few years ago that mentioned that while only 4% of the schools in ohio are private schools, that 4% of private schools wins about 97% of the state championships in all sports
	"deal with it or you can go play the saints and get trounced by 30 and you won't have to worry about it."-colin cowherd

10-13-2011, 04:44 PM	#4
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by CantonLegend im agnostic because everything ppl have told me is that god exists but everything ive found in my own life suggests otherwise. because i cant disprove god i cant say hes not real and i cant say he is real because i cant prove that either one championship in a decade considering the 50 some odd schools that have made the playoffs over that same time is a pretty good ratio if you ask me. especially considering we are a public school i remember an article that came out of the akron beacon journal a few years ago that mentioned that while only 4% of the schools in ohio are private schools, that 4% of private schools wins about 97% of the state championships in all sports 1 in a decade. You suck. But then your involvement in the decade of losing might be minimal. Prove that statistically. Otherwise we'll have to assume that YOU are the biggest loser on the staff. Unless of course you can prove otherwise. Statistically mind you...

10-13-2011, 04:51 PM	#5
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,964	Originally Posted by saintfan I'm curious to know what then, about this, that you disagree with: For the first statement: Statistics are: A way to organize data. Period. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less. I hope you'll forgive me for quoting wikipedia, but my methodology books pretty much state the same thing and this was the fastest way: Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data. It deals with all aspects of this, including the planning of data collection in terms of the design of surveys and experiments. Statistics is more than just a way of displaying data, it is a discipline in itself, which has numerous real world applications. As for the second statement: Statistics are not: The end all by which one proves or disproves a thing. This is because, as any inking of research on your part will reveal, it isn't the data, but rather it is how you perceive the data. I would like to refer to my earlier wikipedia quote (that just sounds wrong). If by statistics you mean just a representation of data - then you're closer to the truth, but still incorrect in a way, because it is (and has to be) in fact the data on which you have to base your findings on for reasons I already went over in an earlier post. And if you refer to the discipline of statistics, [i]"perception of the data"[i] is part of analyzing and interpreting data, which can't be separated from the gathering and presentation of the said data.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

10-13-2011, 05:03 PM	#6
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	If I break my arm, and you break your arm, statistics can be used to tell us when our arms might heal. Yours may heal faster. Mine slower, other the other way around. The mountain of data you would need to make the claim that my arm will heal x days faster than yours boggles the mind. Stats can give you part of the story. You can organize what data you have and you can come to some conclusions. Those conclusions are dependent on the data. How can you prove the data you have is complete? You'd also have to account somehow for assumptions. 9 out of 10 dentists say my toothpaste is better than yours. A different set of dentists are one shy of unanimous about the superiority of yours. Hmmmm.... Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that stats have no value. I'm rebutting Cantons claim that I must present some statistical evidence to indicate that Drew does, in fact, improve our o-line's statistics. Of course I could poll every NFL player and to a man they would agree with me, but is that enough? A reasonable person would likely think so, but can we ever prove that, statistically? Good luck with that... Oh, and no worries about quoting wikipedia. I do it all the time. We know that, statistically speaking of course, everything on the internet is true.
	C'mon Man...

10-13-2011, 05:19 PM	#7
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,964	Originally Posted by saintfan If I break my arm, and you break your arm, statistics can be used to tell us when our arms might heal. Yours may heal faster. Mine slower, other the other way around. The mountain of data you would need to make the claim that my arm will heal x days faster than yours boggles the mind. Stats can give you part of the story. You can organize what data you have and you can come to some conclusions. Those conclusions are dependent on the data. How can you prove the data you have is complete? You'd also have to account somehow for assumptions. 9 out of 10 dentists say my toothpaste is better than yours. A different set of dentists are one shy of unanimous about the superiority of yours. Hmmmm.... Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that stats have no value. I'm rebutting Cantons claim that I must present some statistical evidence to indicate that Drew does, in fact, improve our o-line's statistics. Of course I could poll every NFL player and to a man they would agree with me, but is that enough? A reasonable person would likely think so, but can we ever prove that, statistically? Good luck with that... Oh, and no worries about quoting wikipedia. I do it all the time. We know that, statistically speaking of course, everything on the internet is true. I don't know what to say to the first part about the broken hand...? Statistics could be used to give a broad idea of how long a recuperation from a similar type of injury usually takes. But it would only be a guesstimate, because there would be so many variables involved, for which statistics couldn't account for... so why would we even try? To the second part I would say that if the method of collecting the data is scientifically constructed... the data sample has to be representative and, therefore, you can make valid statements based on it. I've never heard of a complete data set in any type of large scale research involving humans... something like a census would probably come the closest, but, alas, that would also fall short of a complete data set. You can have a data set collected from a representative sample on which to try and prove or disprove a hypothesis, but in most cases you just end up either corroborating or contradicting the initial hypothesis, which leads to further research. As for the dentists... they are bought and payed for by the company making the tooth paste. But, I need to add a disclosure, because I haven't really studied statistics, so I'm not a hundred percent on all that is involved. But my second college major was sociology, which is as close to statistics as you can get methodology-wise.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

10-13-2011, 05:30 PM	#8
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	ah the level of conversation goes down and down. you guys just argue to argue. i dont care if you dont like me but the last couple posts are a perfect reason for why i come in here and rip on you guys.

10-13-2011, 05:38 PM	#9
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,964	Originally Posted by CantonLegend ah the level of conversation goes down and down. you guys just argue to argue. i dont care if you dont like me but the last couple posts are a perfect reason for why i come in here and rip on you guys. Your mom goes down and down... Is that more to your liking and standard? As far as I think, we were debating some very interesting things (to me at least) and doing it in a very civil way. If you don't care about it - don't read it! But your appraisals carry very little weight if you don't present any evidence as to why you think taking about statistics and the methodology involved on a forum for a sports team is so beneath your high standard. iceshack149 likes this.

10-13-2011, 05:42 PM	#10
strato Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: "Little Ole Town in Tejas" Posts: 7,586	Originally Posted by CantonLegend ah the level of conversation goes down and down. you guys just argue to argue. i dont care if you dont like me but the last couple posts are a perfect reason for why i come in here and rip on you guys. That might change ....and to be honest you brought this on yourself by putting yourself above us..and you never answered my question..which i posted in good faith.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/37212-brees-being-sacked-more-year-than-any-other-saint.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Brees being sacked more this year than any other a Saint	This thread	Refback	10-12-2011 08:03 PM	3