Reply to 2035, 2034, 2033 Girls

Forum Index » Lacrosse

Reply to "2035, 2034, 2033 Girls"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Godine was counted. Levy was not (an out of town fly in). Bit let’s include Levy, which puts M&D with six players over the past five years. Still dreadful. [/quote]Ok, thanks. Could you adjust all the other totals for all those teams and years where you made a personal decision not to include them, so we can see what the participation has been?[/quote]

Well I think people would prefer the facts to win the day. So with that one correction (thank you) the stats are these — and still paint a very clear picture:

NW 2026
Skywalkers 3
M&D 0
Capital 1
Hero's 0

UNC 2025
Skywalkers 1
M&D 2
Capital 1
Hero's 0

BC 2024
Skywalkers 0
M&D 2
Capital 1
Hero's 0

NW 2023
Skywalkers 1
M&D 0
Capital 0
Hero's 0

UNC 2022
Skywalkers 7
M&D 1
Capital 1
Hero’s 1

Total number of players on national championship teams over past 5 years:
Skywalkers = 12
M&D = 5
Capital = 4
Hero's = 1
[/quote]Ok, so you had a correction pointed out to you,  and wouldn't bother to check through any of the other years.  Putting the onus on others to factcheck. I think I know what this is and where to file it.[/quote]

Also worth noting: you originally misled readers to believe it was just four years of analysis (it was five) and that the one correction noted was a fly-in player who was not from the Baltimore area. [/quote]4 years -- that wasn't me, and never in the posts preceding the post you originally replied to or since in your "research" was there any mention by you or others about where someone lived early in high school (she played 2 years at McDonough, fwiw).  Or fly ins.  Should I quote the posts?

And no, I suspect most people tend to mistrust data gatherers if they have been shown to be... inaccurate... and on purpose.  And I haven't thrown out any conjecture until the previous sentence.[/quote]

Except none of this adds any more M&D or Hero’s players to the list of natty champs identified from the past five years. Given your passion on the matter, if they existed, you’d no doubt point them out to us lol. [/quote]Actually, I just piggybacked the last one from another poster.  Because you refused to answer them.  And then berated another poster for "doing all the work" and "not being wrong" among other things.  
Now you're at it again mocking data "from the 1950's" that starts --- the year prior, for several years. So no, I'm not fact checking your garbage data as my conjecture is it's biased and likely wrong based on your refusal to factcheck yourself and rely on others.  And btw, posters are pointing this out to you, there is no "us".
[/quote]

Is there an interpreter here who can help decipher this? The only clear point is that you haven’t challenge the rest of the data. So it stands![/quote]Not surprising you need an interpreter, given how you fumbled and admitted to misrepresenting the data previously.  And insisted it was correct.  Don't go into the science business.  Career killer.  [/quote]

The data is correct
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics