| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who is the most likely candidate? |
| Tom Brady |
|
8% |
[ 15 ] |
| Aaron Rodgers |
|
9% |
[ 16 ] |
| Calvin Johnson |
|
7% |
[ 12 ] |
| Rob Gronkowski |
|
7% |
[ 13 ] |
| Ray Lewis |
|
25% |
[ 44 ] |
| Ed Reed |
|
1% |
[ 3 ] |
| Patrick Willis |
|
5% |
[ 10 ] |
| Nick Mangold |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Darrelle Revis |
|
3% |
[ 6 ] |
| Adrian Peterson |
|
1% |
[ 3 ] |
| AJ Green |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| Tony Gonzalez |
|
12% |
[ 21 ] |
| Jimmy Graham |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| Carl Nicks |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Peyton Manning |
|
9% |
[ 16 ] |
| Eli Manning |
|
4% |
[ 7 ] |
| Demarcus Ware |
|
1% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 170 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Sciz
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 12859
Location: Iowa
|
 Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | I guess I look at it less that theyre competing with eachother for the title and more that theyre competing with the GOAT for the title. Do Manning, Brady and Rodgers have a better chance, at this point, to replace, say, Montana than Gronk does to replace, say, Gonzo? |
I would give each of them individually a smaller chance, but give Montana a better chance of being displaced as GOAT than Gonzalez.
P(Brady) < P(Gronk)
P(Rodgers) < P(Gronk)
P(Manning) < P(Gronk)
P(Brady) + P(Rodgers) + P(Manning) < P(Gronk)
_________________
Shut up, NBT |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sciz wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | So if a list of five players is presented, each player representing a separate position, and the sums must equal 1, each player listed is considered to have a 100% chance of being the GOAT at his position? |
The sum of that player's probability and the probability of every single other player at that position must equal 1. So for the TE example, we could say:
P(Gronk) + P(Others) = 1
or
P(Gronk) + P(Gonzalez) + P(Others) = 1
The problem for the QBs is that while the TE really is Gronk against Gonzalez (the others are pretty insignificant, so we ignore them), there are at least 4 QBs with a legitimate chance at being the best QB of all time, so they have to split that probability up.
If you gave me this list:
1. Tom Brady
2. Rob Gronkowski
3. Ladainian Tomlinson
4. Jerry Rice
5. Brandon Meriweather
Then I'd say that Brady would have about a 25% chance because there is so much competition, Gronkowski would have about a 40% chance because it's him against Gonzalez, Tomlinson has a 1% chance because we think he's retiring and he's not the GOAT, Rice has a 90% chance because you only have to worry about Moss putting up a few more ridiculous seasons, and Meriweather a 0% chance because he sucks and is part of the insignificant "others" group that we ignore.
So think of it as picking from every NFL player ever at that position, and then ignoring all the insignificant ones. That's the list that we really care about.
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | It just seems odd because the way I see it, each player listed is competing with the current GOAT for the title, not eachother. Am I off base? |
There can only be one GOAT. Brady being the GOAT and Manning being the GOAT are mutually exclusive events. If Brady is the GOAT, then Manning cannot be the GOAT. Maybe Brady has a 50% chance of being better than Montana, but 10% of that involves Rodgers being better than both Brady and Montana, thus making himself the GOAT and not Brady. Then we'd say that Brady only has a 40% chance of being the GOAT. |
I gotcha. I appreciate the simplified answers.
Let me ask you this, when Vegas breaks down the odds of the SB winner at the beginning of the year do they use percentages? Like, does the sum have to equal 1?
Math was never my thing, if you havent noticed.
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sciz
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 12859
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | Let me ask you this, when Vegas breaks down the odds of the SB winner at the beginning of the year do they use percentages? Like, does the sum have to equal 1?
Math was never my thing, if you havent noticed. |
No, but if we were talking about the actual probability of each team winning, then it would all have to add up to 1.
_________________
Shut up, NBT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
incognito_man
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 26524
Location: Madison
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | incognito_man wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: |
So if a list of five players is presented, each player representing a separate position, and the sums must equal 1, each player listed is considered to have a 100% chance of being the GOAT at his position? |
what?
There's one GOAT at each position. The probability of all players at that position becoming GOAT sums to 1.
There's no relationship among different positions. |
Like I said, I am asking because I dont understand. I'm not trying to load up for anything. Dont make a brotha look dumb just because he is. I guess I will have to take y'alls word for it. The sum must equal 1. |
my bad, i smelt a trap from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sciz wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: | Let me ask you this, when Vegas breaks down the odds of the SB winner at the beginning of the year do they use percentages? Like, does the sum have to equal 1?
Math was never my thing, if you havent noticed. |
No, but if we were talking about the actual probability of each team winning, then it would all have to add up to 1. |
Trackin.
I'm embarassed to say I always looked at it like "NE has a 70% chance. The Colts have a 65% chance." Etc etc. I feel kinda silly not grasping such a rudimentary concept. I mean, I passed a nuclear physics class for crying out loud. Dont know how, but I did.
You know what it feels like when one day you are singing a song you have been singing for years and a person corrects a lyric you have been getting way wrong? Thats me right now. 
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| incognito_man wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | incognito_man wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: |
So if a list of five players is presented, each player representing a separate position, and the sums must equal 1, each player listed is considered to have a 100% chance of being the GOAT at his position? |
what?
There's one GOAT at each position. The probability of all players at that position becoming GOAT sums to 1.
There's no relationship among different positions. |
Like I said, I am asking because I dont understand. I'm not trying to load up for anything. Dont make a brotha look dumb just because he is. I guess I will have to take y'alls word for it. The sum must equal 1. |
my bad, i smelt a trap from you. |
Heh, you smelled something. But it wasnt a trap. It was my gears burning. 
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RazorStar
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 1109
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ray Lewis because he's already there. These twilight years are just for stat padding and adding to his legacy.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteelKing728
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 11011
Location: Pittsburgh
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Honestly, 3 names really stuck out to me:
Ray Lewis, Tony Gonzalez and Tom Brady.
Why isn't Randy Moss on this list?
_________________
Thanks Jamison on that avi.
2013 Adopt a Minnesota Viking - Jared Allen - DE - #69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adamq
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 7709
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SteelKing728 wrote: | Honestly, 3 names really stuck out to me:
Ray Lewis, Tony Gonzalez and Tom Brady.
Why isn't Randy Moss on this list? |
Moss- 954 rec, 14858 yards, 153 tds
Rice- 1549 rec, 22895 yards, 197 tds
_________________
-kiltman
| Uncle Buck wrote: | | I'd rather have Tebow than any other QB in the NFL besides Rodgers, and I may even take him over Rodgers due to the difference in age. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
