Sometimes we get so close to the trees we cant see the forest.
Reading comprehension is just so important. The argument in NO WAY states that speed is negatively correlated; the exact OPPOSITE statement is made!
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
You said in two separate posts:
I could make a statistical argument that there is an inverse relation between speed and being a good WR, to wit:
Barfarn wrote:
This constitutes a prima facie showing that a stat argument can be made that speed is a negative trait.
Barfarn wrote:
You even posted an explanation for why speed would be negatively correlated:
I think the reason is that College speedsters don’t need to learn to run routes to get open, so they don’t devote themselves to their craft [Guys like Beckham and Julio took to pro caliber WR coaching in college]. Suddenly they come into NFL and these speedsters can’t even run by slow pokes like Sherman and Gunter because these guys turn 4.33 speed to 4.65 speed with a touch of the finger.
Barfarn wrote:
The sample size is 60 not 36. Bad poker players make this mistake; odds of winning with pocket aces is different if there are 10 people at the table than 2.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
In your poker game, you have six tables of ten players. Except, four of the players on each table are never given a blind, have no chips, never show their cards, are never allowed to bet, and never play their cards. You excluded receivers 4 through 7. For different reasons than you excluded receivers 11 through everyone else, but you excluded them all the same. The sample is 36.
The comparisons is between the fastEST and the slowEST of the sampled WRs.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
I know.
Now clear your mind of all prejudice and verbal gobbledy-gook; now open it.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
Please, do tell me what my prejudice is.
Imagine the reasonable response to the question: Of the top 10 receivers as rated by SXCH over 6 years. If we take the top 3 fastEST and top 3 slowEST of each year, what % of slowEST receivers will be better than the fastEST?
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
Let me respond with a handful of reasonable responses:
Who the fuck are SXCH?
...I should just stop there...
Why should I care about the SXCH ratings?
How does SXCH rate their players? Are the differences in ratings statistically significant?
How do you quantify "better"? Is it strictly to do with the SXCH ratings? If so, see the above questions. If not, how did you decide on your methodology for determining who is "better"?
Why 6 years?
Why the non-random sample? Why only 6 of the top 10? Why not the entire class?
Assuming the ratings of SXCH are in any way relevant, what is the difference in speed between the 3 fastest and 3 slowest? How do the speeds vary year to year? Are any of the differences in speed statistically significant?
Are you controlling for any other variables? If so, which variables and how? Are there any other confounding variables you haven't considered?
The bottom line is that your question lacks the detail and context to provide a reasonable answer. It only begs more questions.
If you are honest, you will admit, that the expected answer is very small %; but the reality is the slower receivers are significantly better.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
If I were answering on the spot going in to your question honest, I'd have told you I have no idea who the fuck SXCH is and that I need more information.
Failing to ask that question before Googling SXCH and finding some of the additional information to answer my questions, I'd have told you exactly what I did in my last post, that your methodology is awful and your conclusions unsubstantiated.
The significance in the analysis is the STARK departure from the expected answer and the actual.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
Only if you assume your initial answer is what everyone would expect (btw, go back and ask yourself your own bias question) and that your "analysis" provided what you assume to be an "actual" answer. Unfortunately, you've assumed an expected answer that ignores any other variable that could impact receiving ability (e.g. height, vertical, agility, hands, and so on) or assumes the question controls for those variables (it obviously does not).
And there is only one explanation: in projecting the rating of WRs ability to pay in the NFL, SXCH is overvaluing speed. That a significant number of the fastest WRs, with lesser skills, get vaulted near the top of SXCH ratings. If there is a strong correlation between the SXCH rating and the position drafted, then it means a bunch of NFL GMs are doing the same thing.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
No, there's plenty of possible explanations, the first being that your insignificant, non-random sample size doesn't provide any useful information so we can't make any definitive conclusions. Others include sampling error, confounding variables, non-statistically significant results, and measurement errors.
And this fits my common sense impressions. So many super fast guys, like Archer, Young; some big and fast like Hill, Patterson and Hunter are just complete busts; while some 30+ guy who ran a 4.71 11 years before, running close to 5.0, gets 1000 yards with a lousy QB [Kapernick] and the touted opposite WR [Crabtree] only gets 600 and change.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
There is a world of difference from saying you can name fast receivers that were busts and saying there is a statistical argument for negative correlation between speed and being a good receiver. Name a trait that's beneficial to receivers--whether that's speed, height, jumping, arm span, hands, route running, agility, vision, or anything else--and you can find college receivers that had that trait but busted all the same. Speed is no different in that sense; it's not the be-all, end-all to the wide receiver position. But that's not at all what you showed with your insignificant, 36 sized, non-random sample. And that's not what you initially argued.
And even your anecdotal evidence is poorly chosen: Archer is 5'8", a hybrid running back / receiver and return specialist, not a proper wide receiver; Titus Young sucker punched a teammate, had multiple off field issues, and potentially had/has mental health issues; Boldin beat out one of the receivers you had listed among the slowEST subgroups.
Born and bred a cheesehead