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]That so-called data was so wrong. You should be embarrassed. [/quote]

Not the PP but I wanted to dig into this to see what the facts really showed. Here's what I found (before anyone gets rabid, know that I have the names of every player from the past five years and their club affiliation. I don't want to bombard this forum with this data, but I will if people want to see it.)

* The OP's numbers about M&D players were inaccurate. But not by much: The OP claimed 4 M&D players were on D1 championship teams over the past five years. The correct number is 7.

* The club with the most players on these teams is Yellow Jackets (17). Right behind YJ is Mass Elite (16). Skywalkers is third (12). Then it's Top Guns (9), Grizzlies (9), HHH (8), Salt City Snipers (8), and Steps Elite (8). M&D is next (7), followed by Phantastix (6), Laxachusetts (5), 3d Colorado (5), and Capital (4).

* The OP's numbers weren't accurate, but the question he / she posed is relevant: M&D consistently ranks as one of the top high school club teams in the country. But their numbers are lower than other teams -- certainly lower than most would expect given their club success.

[/quote]

These number only reflect the National Championship winner for the last 5 years, which reflects even fewer teams seeing as there have been repeat winners. Certain colleges tend to pull from certain areas and clubs - especially when Northwestern is in the mix.

HIS point was proven - but it’s a useless data point to begin with - unless you’re looking at your fourth grade daughter and thinking the only acceptable dream is to win a National Championship in 9 or so years. [/quote]What point was proven?  That if National Championship teams in the last 5 years came from places that recruit other areas than Maryland primarily, that not many Maryland players will be recruited?  Color me shocked.[/quote]

Using a sample size of one team per year as measuring stick for recruiting success is pretty absurd isn’t it?

Especially when the reality is 16-18 players per team are really the ones that decide the result of the game and the other 20-25 aren’t.

[/quote]Then that clown show refused to double check their numbers after a mistake was pointed out.  Insisting the rest must be correct unless someone else double checks for him.  Now someone else has, and it turns out there were 2 more that they conveniently omitted.  Because of course.
HoCo dad, just maybe?[/quote]

Before people spike any more footballs, identifying two additional players from a list of ~200 players is pretty immaterial - a 1.5% margin of error, well under the industry margin-of-error standard of +3% - +5%. What is notable is that M&D’s player ratio on these teams over the last 4 years (as far back as stats are available) is just 1.5 when the team’s average ranking over the same period was 3.5. [/quote]LMAO.  You had 4.  The number is 7.  That is a 75% margin of error and you don't do stats well or understand what margin of error means.  In addition to forging them and not being able or willing to check your work.  And being pompous about it.

Please stop posting your garbage takes unless you do it for a sample size of maybe final four teams, or 10 years.  And have someone check it for you. [/quote]

The margin of error is based on the data pool, idiot. [/quote]quote]You are the dumbest person I know.  What you did was quote the Margin of Error re: @ a 95% Confidence level (the most common industry standard).
Here:
The industry standard for the margin of error (MOE) is \(\pm 3\%\) at a 95% confidence level. This means that if you surveyed a population and got a result, you can be 95% certain that the true value is within 3 percentage points higher or lower than your result.

That assumes 2 things -- you took enough of a SAMPLE SIZE for it to be 3 (or 5%).  Then, it's industry standard.  
That the actual population that you're shooting for is much larger for that sample size.

However, you know nothing about statistics, so to fill you in:
HAD this been a sample size 200 of a much greater population (20,000?  1 million?) then you could get a true margin of error calculated for that sample size, and the MOE would be +/- 6.93%.  Because the sample size is so small.

But it's not even a sample size.  That's the ENTIRE population that you chose.  You do not and cannot use "margin of error" in the way you want to use it -- because it's for sample sizes of an entire population. So instead of explaining all of this to you because it's way over your head, I pointed out what YOUR ERROR was off in a simple exercise like counting people.  Something a normal 4th grader would know how to do.

Go HoCo!!![/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