birdog1960
-
Posts
7,653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by birdog1960
-
-
So...a vote for anyone other than your candidate is a wasted vote? In a more macro view of the needs of the country, one could say that a vote for the winner was a wasted vote, e.g., see 2008 and 2012.
no, dummy. a vote for someone with zero chance of ever winning the presidency is a wasted vote.
-
Ever heard of Mark Levin or Dana Lash? Go ahead and tell me how they're Trump supporters. Please - I'd be fascinated to hear it.
And with regard to Cruz - he's smarmy. He's self-righteous. He's annoying. He's also very solidly TEA party conservative. I was pleased to see that he at least managed to come in 2nd to Trump. BUT - he came in 2nd. Don't like it? Blame republicans, not Trump. The majority of the people who have always sided with you, think that the people you support are bullsh!t. They are correct. They suck, and they have a record that proves it. "We can't pass anything unless we have the house" - well, we gave them the house. "Oh, we can't do anything unless we gain the senate" - we give them the senate, and only ONE republican tries to stop Obamacare via a filibuster - Cruz. How does the party react? They do everything they can to marginalize him. That was enough for me - screw the republicans, and screw everyone who sympathizes with them.
I'll say it again - you're a republican and you don't like Trump? Well, you're not alone. The fact of the matter is that if you're one of those that's been supporting the republican establishment for the last 8 to 16 years, and want more of the same.....thank you very much for what you've done to the party, because there's a hell of a lot of folks out there that think you're as much a part of the problem as Hillary Clinton is.
I agree with them. I don't like Trump, but people like me aren't the ones that handed him the nomination. You are.
wow. big tent, happy family. not. the republican establishment has been dysfunctional for the last 8-16 years because it bears no resemblance to the functional, usually pragmatic and reasonable republican party of the past. members of that "establishment" are now branded rino's and run off.
-
Write in for Scott Walker.
and in that way, you won't waste your vote. hmmm....
-
I live in California. My vote doesn't count.
good. but who would you vote for if you lived in ohio?
-
And you're voting Hillary. As you always would.
and whom are you voting for?
Exactly.
Because let's be honest, nothing says 'sticking to your principles' like voting for a woman who voted in favor of the one war you've bitched about for the past 11 years. Yeah, nothing says 'I'm a free thinker' like voting for a money-launderer under FBI investigation for bypassing federal laws by setting up a personal server she actually think gets wiped clean with a cloth.
Yeah...those Democrats. Principled. Free thinkers. Each and every one of them.
and you?
-
Yeah, everyone should be unhappy with the choices the 2 major parties are putting forth. Everyone.
i am. i supported bernie.
-
I agree with your first sentence completely. The rest, you're just being a partisan d#$k. The GOP leadership has been making promises to their base for years that they have no intention of following up on. Yes, you disagree with most of them - that's fine. What you (and in my opinion, lots of other people) are apparently missing is that the Trump movement is one of populism/nationalism, not of straight political ideology like we've been used to for the last umpteen decades.
He's not a Trojan horse or a Manchurian candidate, he's not a democrat in republican clothing. He's a populist that's pushing an agenda of contradictions (improving jobs and the economy by imposing tariffs on imports? How the #$@& does that work?), while waving the flag and pointing out everything that everyone already knows is wrong in the country, and tossing in a few things that aren't wrong, but saying that they are because it's populist.
The GOP is 100% to blame for Trump's ascendancy, such as it is, but it isn't difficult to grasp why - it's just the flip side of the coin that has Bernie's face on it: total dissatisfaction with the status quo. If the American public at large had any clue how government works, then things might be different. But the absolutely retarded adherence to party leaders that promise one thing and do another is finally having tangible results - and now we have Bernie and the Donald.
Thank you partisan boneheads.
except that bernie is actually a decent human that cares about americans and says what he believes to be the truth. of course that would never play among the 50% of the repub party that find trump appealing. these are not desirable attributes to those that want to be told what they wishfully believe to be the truth. "if only all those foreigners were gone, america would be great again. i'd have a $25/hour middle class job and a pension". bernie,s contention that concentration of wealth is the problem is backed by plenty of data. it's indisputable. could he change it? probably not but many dems are looking for truth speakers. repubs, not so much.
yes, many, many americans are sick and tired of the status quo. but the outlier they choose as an alternative says much about them and the party they affiliate with.
I blame the Conservative talk radio/media hucksters and their gullible base of followers who believe their **** MUCH more than GOP "leadership"
and they repub pols that empowered them. how many have been featured at cpac? how many senators, congressmen or prez candidates from the right have gone on their show? how many have called them out for their lunacy and rabble rousing?
-
Maher closed that segment by saying that the idea of Trump as a Democrat getting inside the GOP to blow it up from the inside is on par with believing 9/11 is an inside job and that surprised me.
I completely disagree. I would never, ever be surprised to find out Trump remains a Democrat, playing everyone for fools...at the urging of the Clintons....in hopes of wrecking the GOP from the inside out.
oh, come on. the GOP is doing a fine job of wrecking itself. trump just exposed all the idiots. with the number of morons that are being suckered by this flim flam man comprising almost 1/2 the party, it's a wonder it didn't fall apart sooner. it's also a shame, actually.
-
He is worth billions and worse comes to worst, he'll open up the checkbook.
In a first for a major party nominee, Mr. Trump has suggested he will leave the crucial task of field organizing in swing states to the Republican National Committee, which typically relies on the party’s nominee to help fund, direct and staff national Republican political efforts.
His decision threatens to leave the party with significant shortfalls of money and manpower: On Monday, the party reported raising $13 million during May, about a third of the money it raised in May 2012, when Mitt Romney led the ticket.
No wonder some Republican Party insiders are making another late push to dump Trump as the GOP nominee: They were expecting a Sugar Daddy and got a moocher.
-
Should anyone think you're dumb because of your misspellings? Would that be fair? At any rate, he'll be playing football and not trying to solve the world's problems as a member of the intelligentsia. He possesses plenty enough football intelligence to grasp the concepts well enough to excel on the field of play and that's all we should care about IMO.
yes, but what happens to him in about 7 years after he's been chewed up and spit out by the league when so many nfl players are broke and permanently broken?
-
My main argument is that I don't agree with the idea that coaches are "afraid" to attempt more two-point conversions as some have put forth. There simply has to be more compelling evidence of its positive impact for them to invest in it; more than "more points good, less points bad". There are real commitments to preparation and practice, etc. They may seem insignificant and perhaps they are, but you know coaches.
The master of playing the percentages is Belichick and when I see him adopt it as his norm, I'll be fully on board.
I agree that making the PAT kick more challenging and seeing the corresponding drop in success rate may be a catalyst for more attempts and that body of data will grow to a point of real value.
GO BILLS!!!
shouldn't this observation result in nearly all coaches playing the percentages? what explains the fact that so many don't?
an interesting analysis of the 2 point question: (the same site has an article on a 3rd generation program that calculates when to attempt 2 points versus PAT)
http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html
bear in mind, this was before the percentages for PAT's dropped from the rule change.
-
I stand corrected.
Good luck with your in depth study of the ramifications of going for 2.
GO BILLS!!!
no, good luck on roethllsberger. never pinned him for a sharp tool. everything is relative. it's encouraging.
-
Enough. We are talking 1 point vs. 2 points after a TD. This is not a commentary on the reluctance of coaches to adopt a new trend. As it stands, there is no compelling evidence, statistical or otherwise, to sway them. It just isn't that impactful on the game on an infrequent basis, let alone often.
GO BILLS!!!
actually, i think it is exactly that.
there will be an outlier coach. and if he's right, he's the next walsh. if he's wrong he's the next....? mediocre wanna be?
-
Being cautious does not equate to dumb. But since you brought it up, how smart is it to fix something that isn't broken? At present, there are reasons to go for two at judicious times but no compelling reason to do so every time.
GO BILLS!!!
being "cautious" does not often equate to statistical probabilities. if it did, every cautious person would be driving a subaru with the robotic safety features. as it is most don't. there are plenty of $hitty, dangerous cars sold every day.
people, businesses and gov't often don't follow what is , in retrospect, the most efficient course. those that dare to predict those courses are generally the most successful.
how do you know it isn't broken until somebody moves the goal posts and shows that it is? it's better to move the goal posts than try to adjust to the move.
watch them move.
-
You'd do that because it would add the proper required context to the argument which is a lot more nuanced than simply saying, "more points are better, right." Especially when going for 2 has the potential to result in less points.
When it can be shown to coaches that going for 2 has a direct impact in the win column, they will climb aboard. Not before. Until then, the "When to go for 2" chart suffices just fine.
GO BILLS!!!
is it any wonder the dumb jock mantra rolls on?
-
Generally, more points for than points against at the end of the year, is indicative of more wins than losses. That is not the argument here, though. Please conduct an analysis of every successful/unsuccessful Steeler 2 point conversion and tell me how each impacted their strategy or the strategy of the opposing teams. In another thread, I pointed out how a couple of their 2 point conversions came in games where they blew out their opponents and they had no tangible impact vs. a standard 1 point PAT.
GO BILLS!!!
why would I do that? there are dudes employed and highly educated to do just those analyses. the steelers have probably already done them. yet the specific instances and their outcomes are not predicted by the statistics. the long term results are. but you knew that...
in my field, there is the same reticence among many to utilize algorithms. sometimes they don't make sense as the problem is too complex for a one size fits all approach. but often they do make sense and outcomes are substantially improved, reproducibly by their use.
still there are those that claim they or their specific populations are different and don't apply. they believe are special. I believe this all comes from the same part of human nature. we pretend to refuse to believe that we can be replaced by equations, computers etc. the fact is that many times we can be. the bias will almost always be on looking at anecdotes that supposedly disprove this.
-
And if the team fails and goes up by only 2 instead of 3, would that likely change the decision making as well?
GO BILLS!!!
yes, but if the overall point differential is positive for attempting more 2 point conversions the converse will more frequently result. my argument was that 1 point is not limited in importance by the final score alone. but you knew that.
over the course of a season, more points for are better. agreed?
-
id also assume that most would concede that if scoring to go up 3 or 8 with 2 minutes left, theyd kick even if going all in with 2 pts for the season
theres some common sense to it - but coaches are notoriously tight with stuff like this, or 4th down attempts and im sure many other wrinkles through the game.
agreed. but most, if not all scenarios could be anticipated and the move most likely to result in a win chosen by an algorithm. that algorithm is going to result in a large overall increase in 2 point attempts.. the problem will again be going off script. the coaches will need to be consistent with it for the numbers to play out. I don't believe most will be. they'll go by their gut at crunch time when they need the analytics most.
-
They missed 6 PATs over 16 games. 4 of them were wins. The losses were both by 8 points. You tell me.
not nearly a large enough sample size to be meaningful based on wins. my point re the bills experience was that missed PAT's have frequently change strategy over the many games over many years. it has turned many ho hum games into nail biters often with negative consequences..ie: 1 point is often meaningful to a game.
-
But if the analytics, right now (as many have argues, including mannc) support going for 2 all the time, it would make no sense not to commit to that right now. If your analytics tell you it's 50%, why would every team give it a go?
If 85% of games are won by a margin of greater than 3 points, the benefit of a few extra points over a season doubtfully will alter a team's record.
I don't believe it's that straight forward. if the team scoring a 2 point conversion in a game goes up by 4 instead of 3, it would very likely change the decision making of the opponent making them go for a td rather than an fg with more chance for failure (and ultimately more chance of losing). there are many scenarios where an extra point means more than just the differential of the final score. this is just one example.
as evidence, how many times as bills fans have we seen a missed extra point change strategy and outcome?
the one thing that I hope everyone can agree upon is that more points for a team are better and overall will lead to more wins. if 2 pt conversions can be definitively shown to produce more points over the long term, they will produce more wins over the long term.
-
I have a dual degree in engineering and math, so yeah, statistics are like a second language to me.
And yes, I watched every play of Jack's final two seasons at UCLA--more than once.
As to my batting average when it comes to draft prospects, I'd say I'm coin-flip accurate.
You can decide for yourself if that's good or not.
In the meantime, I'll end my discourse with you until the time that you formulate an argument that is grounded in more than mere speculation about theories that you haven't vetted.
i'd say with that kind of accuracy one would want the most possible draft picks. every year. and the actual placing would be less important than than quantity. so trading away draft picks for a "sure thing"or using a high draft pick that supposedly no one else will trade up for on an injured player would be a generally silly approach.
-
You're pretty confident that I wouldn't? Based on what? The fact that I have a working knowledge of many of the draft prospects?
What it sounds like you're saying is that you'd let a computer run your draft, and not bother with the scouting process.
What it further sounds like you're saying is that you basically believe that Shaq shouldn't have been selected based upon a set of criteria that you don't know, understand, or care to know or understand.
#analytics
You don't know what the #analytics would tell you to do, you don't know what they predict for Shaq (or anyone else), and wouldn't bother finding out unless you were the person making the pick. And in light of that, you can confidently say that Shaq shouldn't have been the pick?
That is the most fundamentally flawed logic toward arguing...well...anything that I've ever heard.
This pick sucks, because someone else should've been picked. I strongly suspect algorithms designed to measure just such likelihoods would have offered several better bets in statistical terms to draft in the same situation, but I can neither prove nor intelligently discuss them because I'm not the guy making the pick. All I know is that this pick sucks because #analytics.
Yeah, we're done here.
based on your unabashed and very strongly stated opinion that your pick would have been jack.
are you a statistician? did you personally scout jack? do you employ an analyst to help you in these matters? do you have a long proven track record of success in draft picking? it's a fair bet the answers are no.
there are certainly humans that possess extraordinary skills at evaluating football talent. bill polian was such a person. he could have been even better with the help of data crunchers and i'll bet he'd have happily used any leg up he could get as long as it was legal. I don't think the bills currently possess anyone with near his skills in this regard. and that's based on...wait for it...outcomes.
-
So what you're saying amounts to that you don't know who they should've picked; you only know that it shouldn't have been Shaq.
This is apparently all based upon the idea that he's going to miss 4-6 games of his rookie season, and has absolutely zero to do with what level of player he will become when healthy.
That is, IMO, a terrible way to run an organization.
Now, if it were your opinion that Shaq simply isn't going to become a good player when healthy, well, that'd be a different discussion altogether, and at least it would make sense.
my giving you a name would be equivalent to the seat of the pants approach that I despise and seems so prevalent, at least among the lesser teams in the league. why would I guess? if I were in the same situation I would use every evidence based objective measure and tool available. i'm pretty confident you wouldn't. you seem pretty confident in your own innate ability to make the best pick. there lies the difference in our arguments.
-
That's right, when your assertion falls flat on its face, resort to criticizing the person as opposed to trying to back up your statement.
As I always say: there's no reason to make up arguments for which to criticize the organization; they've given plenty of reasons throughout the last 15 years. It just so happens that there haven't been nearly as many in the past 2 years as in prior years, so some folks that have become so accustomed to being able to criticize every single thing they do now have to reach a bit in some instances.
Your desire to criticize this particular pick is apparently so strong that you're willing to completely ignore the extreme likelihood that Shaq returns to full health this season, and instead lambaste the pick because he's going to miss 4-6 games. In the meantime, you've failed to provide a response to even the simplest question on the subject: what would you have done?
unlike others here, I don't pretend to be an expert analyst of either player talent or methodologies available to value such talent (which unlike generalities about statistics and cursory, superficial observations of data like your recent post) are quite involved.
it seems self evident that an injury to a player that will remove him for approx. 1/6 of the average career of an nfl player seems a big gamble. I strongly suspect algorithms designed to measure just such likelihoods would have offered several better bets in statistical terms to draft in the same situation..
Trump Alone at the Top
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
no, I understand. I've seen the play:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=don+quixote+youtube+to+dream&view=detail&mid=3F2ADDC628EE74D67AE93F2ADDC628EE74D67AE9&FORM=VIRE