Olson tackles watch

[gumby013]

are you people doing stats stuff with excel?

SQL and Excel...with some custom GUIs. SQL for the heavy lifting, Excel for presentation.

[Putz]

Would stdev.p be valid in calculating the cone?

I would like to know if stdev.p can be used to create a Game Day app for Android? (Purple)

[1998braves64]

I would like to know if stdev.p can be used to create a Game Day app for Android? (Purple)

Only if you bought the premium access app 2 years ago.
Sent from my HTC6990LVW using Board Express

[Bison Gal]

The model knows nothing about injury risk other than what shows up indirectly in his historical tackles by game. All models are an approximation of reality and you are absolutely correct, injury risk is a feature of reality that may not be approximated very well in this model.

That said there are two games in the data set where Grant had 0 tackles and w/ a weighted average around 8 and a standard deviation around 6 the model does incorporate zero tackle games as a possibility (6 in the first 7 projections of the rest of the season that I'm looking at now). I run just 1,000 sims at a time. If I pound the F9 key it's coming up either 999 or 1,000 out of a 1,000 to get to 331 so depending on which model run I screen cap for you all it may still have kicked out a flat 100%.

Even if he had been hurt and missed say 3 games in a row; the model wouldn't know that. It would just see 3 independent zeros and incorporate them into the average and standard deviation and do it's stupid normal distribution calculation. It's a limitation.

It's inexpertly borrowed from some of some stuff Hollinger (basketball) and before him James (baseball) did to project career statistics (Kobe was about 50/50 to catch Kareem before his Achilles exploded). Those incorporated personal injury history just by looking at the stats the way this thing does (indirectly) which makes some sense over a number of very long seasons. They also contain assumptions on aging and productivity curves that aren't applicable to a 4 year collegiate career. Those curves indirectly incorporate the overall risk of injury in the various sports they're tuned for but I striped them out.

Mmmmmm......that answer was too long so I didn't read it. Can you show some cartoons instead?

[bri-dog]

Just got back from a 4-IPA lunch. I believe my desk is now the geographic center of the cone of uncertainty...

[KSBisonFan]

Just got back from a 4-IPA lunch. I believe my desk is now the geographic center of the cone of uncertainty...

Pretty sure it's also referred to as the vortex of drunken certainty and enebriated enlightenment to the 12 oz power.

[bri-dog]

Pretty sure it's also referred to as the vortex of drunken certainty and enebriated enlightenment to the 16 oz power.

FIFY, but close enough...

[reformedUNDfan]

It would be a stretch to call what I do with excel a formal statistical analysis.

While you wouldn't want the results of a drug trial or the existence of the Higgs Boson riding on a statistical analysis performed in excel. I think it can handle an entertaining projection of a 1-AA middle linebacker's career tackles or even assist in identifying quality plays against the spread (for entertainment purposes only).

Besides, user error (of statistics not excel) is a much bigger problem at the level of sophistication we're talking about here than any deficiencies excel may have at the margin. http://thebiglead.com/2013/10/24/esp...led-miserably/

its not that it's doing the math wrong, its that i find excel borderline un-usable.

[bisonaudit]

its not that it's doing the math wrong, its that i find excel borderline un-usable.

Not having any experience with any statistics specific application helps. I probably don't know what I'm missing. Also, knowing just enough about statistics to be dangerous is probably the sweet spot using excel to do statistical analysis.

And, it's free.

[Comfortably Numb Bison]

Dom tweeted the Olson career tackle number (310) and wanted to know if the record (398) was obtainable so I've decided to step up my game and stop treating this as a footnote to the Jensen milestone tracking.

Summary chance of catching (assumes 4 playoff games)...
1. Budde 398 6%
2. Dick 391 14%
3. Fredricks 363 74%
4. Nelson 337 99%
5. Lecy 331 100%

Pictures:

Attachment 3241Attachment 3242

The game by game line graph you'll be familiar with from the Jensen posts.

The new addition is intended to show the cone of uncertainty in the results of the 1,000 simulations of the remaining games. The 7 numbers along the right and the corresponding lines in varying shades of green indicate (from top to bottom) the maximum, +2 standard deviations, +1 standard deviation, average, -1 standard deviation, -2 standard deviations, and the minimum. About 2/3 of the results lie between +/- 1 standard deviation and about 95% between +/- 2 standard deviations.

"Uh-huh, uh-huh. Okay. Um Can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about uuhhh, things. Uhh... the things."