Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Yeah what kind of idiot scores 13 points with all this talent?????? And what kind idiot scores 13 points with a genius coach?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199101200sfo.htm
Walsh
Rice
taylor
Jones
Craig
Rathman

Not sure the point you are making here. I guarantee you had WZ been around during that time, you wouldn't find a single poster who would claim that the 13 points was enough.

I'm guessing the point is games like this happen a lot of talent in the league can't score 30+ every time out no matter who you are. Am I at all close here Jose?

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
I quoted your own post...which you cut out of my response. Here it is again:

"If the TOP 4 guys after the data has been fully compiled averaged 7-14 ypg running the ball, then can I come to the conclusion that pocket passers are surely benefitting from the formula?"

yea it's a question. I didn't say or suggest anything about all pocket passers (1), I didn't suggest any favortism (2), and I didn't take a sample (3). These are 3 major gaffes you have replied to me with that I had to correct. Shouldnt you be satisfied by now?

Simply answer the question with your opinion. Can we conclude that pocket passers are benefitting as well if the top 4 from the previous year were pocket passers?

(1) Here's another quote from your post:

"Huh? The top 4 guys in QBR last year were all pocket passers. I think pocket passers are benefiting as well."

And another quote for good measure:

"I used "research" that was "complete" in years past that clearly outline it's benefiting pocket passers. It is clearly heavily weighted towards passing the ball. Otherwise, guys like Brady, Rodgers, and Stafford would have no shot @ leading the way with the stat."

You very clearly leap from the top four guys to all pocket passers. To deny this is to fundamentally change your argument.

(2) I never asserted that you suggested favoritism...are you still misunderstanding the example I provided?

(3) You fail to recognize that taking the top four is a sample.

To answer your question, if the top four were the only evidence, yes. But, in light of other evidence, no, I don't reach that conclusion. It is indeterminate.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
(3) You fail to recognize that taking the top four is a sample.

I gave you the very definition of a sample. The top rankings or bottom rankings of anything is never a sample. A sample is to represent the entire population. This is not up for debate.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'm guessing the point is games like this happen a lot of talent in the league can't score 30+ every time out no matter who you are. Am I at all close here Jose?

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
(3) You fail to recognize that taking the top four is a sample.

I gave you the very definition of a sample. The top rankings or bottom rankings of anything is never a sample. A sample is to represent the entire population. This is not up for debate.

A sample is a selection of a subset that is then used to describe a larger population. You selected a subset (top four) and then used that selection to describe the larger population (pocket passers). No debate; you just misunderstand.

From your previous post:

"Huh? The top 4 guys in QBR last year were all pocket passers. I think pocket passers are benefiting as well."

And another quote for good measure:

"I used "research" that was "complete" in years past that clearly outline it's benefiting pocket passers. It is clearly heavily weighted towards passing the ball. Otherwise, guys like Brady, Rodgers, and Stafford would have no shot @ leading the way with the stat."

You very clearly leap from the top four guys to all pocket passers. To deny this is to fundamentally change your argument.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
(3) You fail to recognize that taking the top four is a sample.

I gave you the very definition of a sample. The top rankings or bottom rankings of anything is never a sample. A sample is to represent the entire population. This is not up for debate.

A sample is a selection of a subset that is then used to describe a larger population. You selected a subset (top four) and then used that selection to describe the larger population (pocket passers). No debate; you just misunderstand.

A selection of a subset? What are the parameters of this subset? Shouldn't it simply be a selection of the larger population if it's going to represent it?

And do you now understand that the "top rankings" of something is never a sample? They're basically antonyms.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
(3) You fail to recognize that taking the top four is a sample.

I gave you the very definition of a sample. The top rankings or bottom rankings of anything is never a sample. A sample is to represent the entire population. This is not up for debate.

A sample is a selection of a subset that is then used to describe a larger population. You selected a subset (top four) and then used that selection to describe the larger population (pocket passers). No debate; you just misunderstand.

A selection of a subset? What are the parameters of this subset? Shouldn't it simply be a selection of the larger population if it's going to represent it?

And do you now understand that the Top rankings of something is not a sample?

The parameters are determined by the sampling methodology. In your case, your sampling methodology was "pick the top four." Contrast that against a truly random sample, which would provide a fair representation of the whole by giving every case an equal opportunity to be included in the sample. You took the randomness out of the sample by selecting from the top, which introduces bias.

Just so you know, this is a material part of my job. I'm not making this up.

He needs to work on his eye of the tiger in the red zone.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Just so you know, this is a material part of my job. I'm not making this up.

Ok so if I choose to talk about the Top 4 NCAA CFB playoff ranked teams, you are still contending that by choosing those 4 and ignoring the other 100+, I have taken a sample? Even if I never intended to "sample" anything?

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Just so you know, this is a material part of my job. I'm not making this up.

Ok so if I choose to talk about the Top 4 NCAA CFB playoff ranked teams, you are still contending that by choosing those 4, I have taken a sample?

I'm saying those top four teams are a sample of all NCAA CFB teams, yes.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Just so you know, this is a material part of my job. I'm not making this up.

Ok so if I choose to talk about the Top 4 NCAA CFB playoff ranked teams, you are still contending that by choosing those 4, I have taken a sample?

I'm saying those top four teams are a sample of all NCAA CFB teams, yes.

Okay.

Well this is your expertise, not mines.

Originally posted by random49er:
Okay.

Well this is your expertise, not mines.

I appreciate the discussion, nonetheless.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:
Okay.

Well this is your expertise, not mines.

I appreciate the discussion, nonetheless.

i did as well actually, it was a good read and you guys kept it civil.

thanks Vin and random

Originally posted by NotAFinga42:
He needs to work on his eye of the tiger in the red zone.

i thought red zone was fine saints played some good D

That throw to Jennings which got stopped at the 1 was a great tackle. I do think a weakness of ours is run blocking though specifically short yardage run blocking. We dont get much of a push

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Just so you know, this is a material part of my job. I'm not making this up.

Ok so if I choose to talk about the Top 4 NCAA CFB playoff ranked teams, you are still contending that by choosing those 4, I have taken a sample?

I'm saying those top four teams are a sample of all NCAA CFB teams, yes.

Okay.

Well this is your expertise, not mines.

In science you dont take the top or bottom of anything and call it a sample unless you want to have a bias result FWIW.