Which of you twits...

[giblets]

After all that effort Alby is 4-8

[Al B. Sure!]

It's not about our records!

It's about the efficacy of the strategy Jaguar employed and the reasons for him selecting Foster/Charles. He said he picked them because he saw they had high DVOA's the previous year. I just showed, albeit with a few examples, that players with high DVOA's flame out the next year just as much as they are successful, and players with low DVOA's have immense success just as much as they fail.

What do I need to do to convince you? Later tonight I guess I'll go through and check for a correlation between year N DVOA and year N+1 DVOA. I am pretty sure just from eye-balling everything, the correlation will not be strong enough to warrant using it as a basis of decision-making between players.

[N35t0r]

AFAICU, and I don't know WTF DVOA is, he never said he was using exclusively that as his basis.

If you knew some statistics, you'd know that one variable alone can throw a horrible correlation, yet combined with something else prove extremely strong.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yet what was his other basis? Yards per touch the last few games of the year?

Check this. Using last 4 games of the 2009 season (only this much is relevant because Arian Foster only played in the last 4 games of 2009), here's rushing/receiving yards per touch of the four specific RB's in question:

Jamaal Charles: 6.88
Arian Foster: 5.64
Shonn Greene: 5.30 (5.60 in play-offs)
Jerome Harrison: 5.14

Yes, Charles and Foster were more productive (though Foster only slightly so), so it might make sense to use DVOA as a tie-breaker in this case, although you could just go with yards per touch.

However, let's look at the performances of other RB's the last four games of the 2009 season who made noise and see where they stand.

Justin Forsett: 5.96
Frank Gore: 5.70

What's compelling here is that Frank Gore's 2009 DVOA is 4.7%, significantly lower than the first four players, yet he has been a dominant back all year.

Justin Forsett's, meanwhile, was 18.2%, just under Jamaal Charles'. Given that Forsett had a higher yards per touch (exceeding Foster's) and a nearly Charles-level DVOA, HAD JAGUAR BEEN CONSISTENT, HE WOULD HAVE DRAFTED FORSETT who sucks!

The fact is, neither yards per touch nor DVOA are good stand-alone indicators of next year success, nor are they effective in conjunction, as, backs like Bradshaw, McFadden, Mendenhall, and McCoy had low yards per touch AND low DVOA's yet have had incredible seasons while, as demonstrated in the comparison of the 2008 vs. 2009 Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward, players with very high yards per touch AND high DVOA's can flame out badly the next year.

Again, I do not believe previous year DVOA AND yards per touch in conjunction are correlated with following year DVOA. I'd have to check to confirm but eye-balling it, it's apparent the correlation isn't there.

[N35t0r]

Yet what was his other basis? Yards per touch the last few games of the year?

How the **** would I know? I can't read minds, and I don't care about American Football.

Again, I do not believe previous year DVOA AND yards per touch in conjunction are correlated with following year DVOA. I'd have to check to confirm but eye-balling it, it's apparent the correlation isn't there.

A sport where only two things can be measured? And you find it entertaining?

[Egbert]

This is poor form by you.

Quite true. Your comment seems a polite is a polite way of suggesting that this spat should end. I concede that it has been conducted in a way that is utterly disgraceful on both sides. I shall regard the differences with the other poster as closed. I have no further comments and no intention of responding to KrazyHorse in future.

Thank you Dan.

[Al B. Sure!]

You're not bringing anything helpful into this, then, N35t0r. You're acting very KH-like but worse. You're saying nothing meaningful after spewing insults.

[KrazyHorse]

Quite true. Your comment seems a polite is a polite way of suggesting that this spat should end. I concede that it has been conducted in a way that is utterly disgraceful on both sides

You're a ****ing ******. Dan just thinks that you're making a fool of yourself, which you are. The reason you're making a fool of yourself is that:

1) You seem to be implying that I've misrepresented myself as some kind of authority on economic affairs. If I have, it's only been by comparison to people like yourself and albie who are utterly ****ing clueless. In fact, I've stated a number of times that my econ-fu is merely sufficient to engage with an intelligent econ undergrad, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO PAYS ATTENTION TO ANYTHING I POST KNOWS WHEN I GRADUATED AND WHAT MY FIELD WAS

2) You have absolutely no clue what sort of position I hold, and have demonstrated your utter incomprehension of what role people hired as PhD quants play

3) Furthermore, you've demonstrated that you're a creepy cyberstalker who acts as though he's discovered my secrets, which is hilarious because I've made no attempt to disguise my identity on these forums. In fact, if you want to search back to Sept/Oct/Nov 2009 you can find my posts about my interview process, and going back further than that, you can find a hell of a lot more about my background than you can get through linkedin.

4) In addition to being a creepy cyberstalker, you're also a ****ing moron who either didn't realize that linkedin displays visitors to your profile, or didn't realize that I would notice.

How's that, for "ending this spat" you ****ing twit? I don't think you realize how many ********* like yourself I've made my meatpuppets here.

[KrazyHorse]

I've never managed to drive one as ****ing batty as you simply by calling them a twit, however.

This is literally the greatest effect with the least effort I've ever had. Even albie took more prodding than you.

[Kuciwalker]

Hey, I did my share of the work with AS.

[KrazyHorse]

Hey albie, I notice that you don't even try to stand up to me on econ or finance any more.

Instead, you just generally insinuate that I don't know anything about those subjects. I'm not particularly surprised, as you've managed to make a fool of yourself every time you attempted to engage seriously.

Have fun posting about the "genius clique" and wallowing in your failure.

[KrazyHorse]

Hey, I did my share of the work with AS.

I think I broke him when I offered you a job...

I wish that had been a troll. I would be so ****ing proud of myself.

[KrazyHorse]

disengenious.

This is too ****ing much...

Your argument with danubbis was conducted as a young student might quote from a weighty textbook without really understanding his text or the context in which he was applying that text.

Danny-boy made a fool of himself, just as you've managed to.

[KrazyHorse]

I came away from all my courses with an almost deconstructionist view of economics

I think this just about sums up the value of the education you received.

[Egbert]

You may carry on as you please.