How embarrassing is it NO ONE on this FORUM had ever heard of Graham-Kapowsin?

[GoBigBlack]

4 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Yes, which my example showed.

Again, this is just you nitpicking because you're utterly exposed and lost.

This is not toing to turn out well for you if you're doing this in the first sentence.

Your example was a one-loss team whose only loss was to an undefeated team. You said "a one-loss team that loses to." Nitpicking? Yes. Wrong? No.

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

The starting rating is washed out after week 5.

This doesn't have anything to do with the scenario that has you confused.

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

The starting rating isn't a factor when league starts.

That's what Ned says.

But the state scaling seems to refute that claim.

[golfaddict1]

31 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Let's address these three "easily identifiable biases" one at a time. Starting with #1 -- 

First off, a one-loss team that loses to an undefeated team is not a one-loss team. They are a two-loss team. What you meant to say was "A team whose only loss is to an undefeated team." 

Oh, it "will," will it? Interesting.

Did Duncanville sit .2 points behind Mater Dei for four months until they lost to North Shore last week? Was Westfield only .2 behind Cathedral for nine weeks until Center Grove finally handed them a loss? Was Bowie rated just ever so slightly behind Westlake after week six when when the Chaps beat them and they were 6-1 and 7-0, respectively? No, they sure weren't. 

If you're suggesting there is some sort of impenetrable forcefield built into the Calpreps ratings that prevents a team from overtaking an undefeated team they lost to until that team loses, well, you're just plain wrong. Nothing like that exists, and you're fabricating things to make yourself feel better.

 

 

It's a fact regarding Freeman's .2 rule.   

STA could never pass Jesuit without Jesuit losing a game.  Other algorithms don't have that rule.  Human choice.  @Cal 14can confirm this with inside knowledge.  Trust us.  It's a fact.  

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, golfaddict1 said:

 GIGO... there is always human scaling involved, so if your last name ends in Freeman or Massey... different outcomes will result.   

Give it time.

GoBigBlack will end up admitting this at some point today.

[dntn31]

9 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

No, because Mater Dei was rated higher than Duncanville to begin with.

A few things I'm not 100% sure on is if that 0.2 ceiling is determined:

1) Does CalPreps use the "published" ratings or the "prediction" ratings (I'm guessing projection ratings)?

2) Does CalPreps solely use the ratings before the game was played or does it ever change if CalPreps later changes who it deems to be the stronger team.

@Cal 14 do you happen to know?

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Your example was a one-loss team whose only loss was to an undefeated team. You said "a one-loss team that loses to." Nitpicking? Yes. Wrong? No.

A 1-loss team lost to an undefeated team and was 0.2 behind them from September 3rd on.

Which is exactly what I said.

Boy, you're going to get buried here.

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, dntn31 said:

A few things I'm not 100% sure on is if that 0.2 ceiling is determined:

1) Does CalPreps use the "published" ratings or the "prediction" ratings (I'm guessing projection ratings)?

2) Does CalPreps solely use the ratings before the game was played or does it ever change if CalPreps late changes who it deems to be the stronger team.

@Cal 14 do you happen to know?

I think you're right that it's as simple as:

If the team with a loss is rated higher in the published rating then they are just slotted 0.2 behind the undefeated team.

[dntn31]

6 minutes ago, golfaddict1 said:

https://masseyratings.com/hsf/ratings?c=1

An inside joke with my family is the word doozy... it sure fits with Ken Massey's attempt at something here.   

GIGO... there is always human scaling involved, so if your last name ends in Freeman or Massey... different outcomes will result.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK...

Here's the top 14  

John Rambo was successful locating California... click the link and see what condition he found them in lol (keep scrolling, you didn't miss them yet).     

 

 

 

 

 

I believe CalPreps uses the top 50 teams when ranking states. I'm guessing Massey is factoring in all teams? IDK

It wouldn't surprise me if CA was rated that low if you are factoring in every team in the state. CA is a huge state with a lot of garbage teams near the bottom. Top 50 teams is a different story though.

[golfaddict1]

2 minutes ago, dntn31 said:

A few things I'm not 100% sure on is if that 0.2 ceiling is determined:

1) Does CalPreps use the "published" ratings or the "prediction" ratings (I'm guessing projection ratings)?

2) Does CalPreps solely use the ratings before the game was played or does it ever change if CalPreps late changes who it deems to be the stronger team.

@Cal 14 do you happen to know?

I get confused easily, so help me out... 

1) if you're referring to predict a game, it's based on a power rating format (recent games emphasis and using actual scores from prior games, not capped) is my understanding.  

2) Not sure if you mean the week of the game or in future games how the ratings adjust... but there are many cases where CP will predict a winner with a lower rating, due to the power rating format.    

 

 

 

[Atticus Finch]

1 minute ago, dntn31 said:

It wouldn't surprise me if CA was rated that low if you are factoring in every team in the state. CA is a huge state with a lot of garbage teams near the bottom. Top 50 teams is a different story though.

I couldn't make sense of it either.

I will say this about Ned Freeman. I appreciate the fact that he tries to explain himself in plain English. 

Massey just spits out his ratings with no attempt to contextualize them.

[dntn31]

1 minute ago, Atticus Finch said:

I think you're right that it's as simple as:

If the team with a loss is rated higher in the published rating then they are just slotted 0.2 behind the undefeated team.

It could be as simple as that, but there are some things going on under the hood that aren't always immediately obvious. There's probably not too many high-profile examples where the differences in the projected/published ratings or the subsequent results caused the "0.2 ceiling" criteria to flip. I'm sure there are examples out there, but I'm too lazy at the moment to try and go track them down.

[golfaddict1]

3 minutes ago, dntn31 said:

I believe CalPreps uses the top 50 teams when ranking states. I'm guessing Massey is factoring in all teams? IDK

It wouldn't surprise me if CA was rated that low if you are factoring in every team in the state. CA is a huge state with a lot of garbage teams near the bottom. Top 50 teams is a different story though.

Yea but Texas is rated highly as are GA and FL...  same garbage at the bottom scenarios likely.  

[golfaddict1]

4 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I couldn't make sense of it either.

I will say this about Ned Freeman. I appreciate the fact that he tries to explain himself in plain English. 

Massey just spits out his ratings with no attempt to contextualize them.

Agreed... and Fisher seems to be a hybrid of the two with some secret sauce (which may be him manually influencing a top 25 list, who knows).   

[dntn31]

1 minute ago, golfaddict1 said:

1) if you're referring to predict a game, it's based on a power rating format (recent games emphasis and using actual scores from prior games, not capped) is my understanding.  

Both CalPreps and Massey have two ratings 1) for the overall "ranking" and 2) for projecting future games (Massey refers to this as his "power rating" whereas these ratings aren't published by Calpreps - only in what you can see through the published projections). For the "projection" ratings, it's my understanding that CalPreps doesn't utilize the 0.2 cap rule that it uses in its "published" ratings.

[golfaddict1]

So uh, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well, I have

 

😏

[dntn31]

9 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I couldn't make sense of it either.

I will say this about Ned Freeman. I appreciate the fact that he tries to explain himself in plain English. 

Massey just spits out his ratings with no attempt to contextualize them.

You could always read his thesis "Statistical Models Applied to the Rating of Sports Teams". 😂

[OldTerrapin]

1 minute ago, golfaddict1 said:

So uh, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well, I have

 

😏

Jimi used to ask that same question

[golfaddict1]

2 minutes ago, dntn31 said:

Both CalPreps and Massey have two ratings 1) for the overall "ranking" and 2) for projecting future games (Massey refers to this as his "power rating" whereas these ratings aren't published by Calpreps - only in what you can see through the published projections). For the "projection" ratings, it's my understanding that CalPreps doesn't utilize the 0.2 cap rule that it uses in its "published" ratings.

I would agree as well... @Cal 14 will let us know when he's available.  

[golfaddict1]

12 minutes ago, dntn31 said:

You could always read his thesis "Statistical Models Applied to the Rating of Sports Teams". 😂

That may be the article where I informed the naysayers on the forum about the human entry of scaling (scale).  

The pretty comedian, who was a social media hit with her vids with Trump's voice dubbed in, cracked me up about her description of scale.   To summarize, she basically said in a boardroom meeting... to sound smart ask a question about production scale and then nod approvingly upon hearing the answer as if you know the ins and outs of scale and the group will see you in a very positive way.    

You can even use scale in an investment mention... although "taper" seems to be the more go to word these days.  

If you had a drink watching CNBC starting at noon whenever you heard the word taper, you'd be drunk by mid afternoon.  

Reminds me of Marcia Marcia Marcia...  Taper Taper Taper 

[dntn31]

21 hours ago, GoBigBlack said:

The computers with no human bias, the computers with human bias, and the human polls all say the same thing. At what point can you just accept that there are four extremely good football teams in southern California?

 

5 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

The human biases that it uses to produce its ratings.

 

Without putting words in GoBigBlack's mouth, I think the point he's driving at here is that human pollsters have "reactionary bias" in that they 1) have bias (impossible not to) and 2) those biases infiltrate whatever logic they end up utilizing to come up with a ranking after the games are played. Whereas computer algorithm's don't necessarily do that. I don't think "bias" the correct word to use when talking about computer algorithms. Yes, Freeman and Massey both have biases (as all humans do) and they ultimately have to make some decisions about the heuristics they end up using within their algorithms, but at the end of the day these decisions are made well in advance of the games that are played. The question that needs asking is: "are the sum total of these decisions in any way biased towards a specific subset of teams?".

It's easy enough to be dismissive of CalPreps (as has been done to the Nth degree on this forum over the past decade), but very few ever seem to address Massey. I do agree that both Massey and Calpreps seem to undervalue Florida (compared to CA and TX), but I haven't really seen anyone provide a convincing argument as to why. If anyone could provide a well-reasoned argument without invoking the words "CalPreps", "bias" or simply trolling I think it would go a long way in figuring out a path forward instead of sitting here constantly chasing our tails.

[golfaddict1]

13 minutes ago, OldTerrapin said:

Jimi used to ask that same question

Yes sir... he backed up The Monkees on tour (I always dug the Benny Hill style antics with the music and speed of film play on The Monkees tv show).  I dug the Partridge Show more.  

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, dntn31 said:

Without putting words in GoBigBlack's mouth, I think the point he's driving at here is that human pollsters have "reactionary bias" in that they 1) have bias (impossible not to) and 2) those biases infiltrate whatever logic they end up utilizing to come up with a ranking. Whereas computer algorithm's don't necessarily do that. I don't think "bias" the correct word to use when talking about computer algorithms. Yes, Freeman and Massey both have biases (as all humans do) and they ultimately have to make some decisions about the heuristics they end up using within their algorithms, but at the end of the day these decisions are made well in advance of the games that are played. The question that needs asking is: "are the sum total of these decisions in any way biased towards a specific subset of teams?".

I'm open to using another word but I think bias is apt.

If you view something in a particular way and tinker with the product to reach that outcome then what other word is there other than bias?

[OldTerrapin]

1 minute ago, golfaddict1 said:

Yes sir... he backed up The Monkees on tour (I always dug the Benny Hill style antics with the music and speed of film play on The Monkees tv show).  I dug the Partridge Show more.  

I like both those shows.. Been watching Partridge Family reruns on Tubi from time to time.. Liked Benny Hill too but mostly for the boobies, not sure I got a lot of the humor back then. It's been a long time since I have seen a Benny Hill episode.. Did find some Man Show ones though..Man Show was probably a more modern Benny Hill show..lol

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, dntn31 said:

It's easy enough to be dismissive of CalPreps (as has been done to the Nth degree on this forum over the past decade), but very few ever seem to address Massey. I do agree that both Massey and Calpreps seem to undervalue Florida (compared to CA and TX), but I haven't really seen anyone provide a convincing argument as to why. If anyone could provide a well-reasoned argument without invoking the words "CalPreps", "bias" or simply trolling I think it would go a long way in figuring out a path forward instead of sitting here constantly chasing our tails.

We just know less about Massey's inputs.

I'd be interested in understanding why Massey rates Texas the way it does but it just seems more opaque than calpreps.