|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 28, 2019 23:01:14 GMT -8
You need to learn some statistical validity... an overall % "national average" (?) isn't the % of each of the 347 D1 schools taken individually. Statistical validity has nothing to do with what you said. The "statistical law" was that 40% of D1 basketball signees currently transfer at least once. Now we "performed" a smaller study at Oregon State. Did it confirm the statistical law of 40% transfer. The answer would be roughly yes. This is an example of statistical validity. Once again you are wrong, but who can keep track of all the times. Fire away with insults or whatever you call them, I know you cannot resist. The "bug" is at it again... First, if you know what a "Statistical Law" is, you'd know that stating that 40% of ALL recruits transfer is not a "law" at all. Statistical conclusion validity is the degree to which conclusions about the relationship among said variables based on the data are correct or ‘reasonable'. And overall % of every recruit is not valid in studying and drawing conclusions based on individual schools and the % of recruits leaving over a 4 year period at each school. Which if done OSU would be in the upper quartiles The 40% stated is for all recruits, not the % from 347 differing populations, and it is never stated if it is over the same time period. Hence the variable(s) being used are different, or at least inconclusive and the conclusion of a general % equates to a "national average" for each school is false. "all the times"... maybe you just can't count that high? Oops... no really the only 'insult" is your attempted justification of validity vs law. |
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Jan 28, 2019 23:32:44 GMT -8
For all the pissing and moaning a couple posters here do about Tinkle not being able to recruit anyone but blood relatives, of the 11 "stars" the author mentioned in the article, Tinkle landed 3 of them. Maybe there's some hope left. Umm those are "stars" among a subset of HS players who spent all four years at one high school. A semi-interesting fun fact, but hardly evidence of Tinkle's recruiting prowess. Maybe the poster misread the post and thought those were four "star" rated players, instead four year players for their school? In any case, basketball is weird where the stars can sometimes not matter as much because of all the transfers and leaving school. We see mid major teams win against big school teams so often, and players from small time schools make it to the NBA over big school stars. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 29, 2019 0:19:32 GMT -8
I'll take a couple of guys recruited by UNR, don't trust Tinkle? Eric Musselman has an eye for talent. He has eyes for other college talent... Current team has (2) players that have been a UNR for all four years... (10) college transfers... (3) current frosh. He's lived off transfer for a few years now. Essentially he's developed very few that haven't already had quite a bit of success at ODU, Bryant, NCSt, Wagner, UP, LaTech, etc. Doesn't seem HS recruiting is really his bag... |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 29, 2019 0:45:48 GMT -8
Umm those are "stars" among a subset of HS players who spent all four years at one high school. A semi-interesting fun fact, but hardly evidence of Tinkle's recruiting prowess. Maybe the poster misread the post and thought those were four "star" rated players, instead four year players for their school? In any case, basketball is weird where the stars can sometimes not matter as much because of all the transfers and leaving school. We see mid major teams win against big school teams so often, and players from small time schools make it to the NBA over big school stars. In this case my “stars” reference was directly from the title of the article. The eleven kids mentioned in the article were among the top kids in the particular area they were writing about, “the Southland”. The article didn’t mention star ratings, neither did I. Neither I nor the article said those kids were the top eleven in the region, I did realize they were talking about the kids who spent their time at 1 school, although the article did say the class held strong in the Southland. My guess is the #40 basketball player in California is a more major college competition ready player than the #4 or #5 rated basketball player in Oregon more years than not, there’s a lot of competition down there. I’m glad we picked up 3 of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 29, 2019 7:36:07 GMT -8
40% of Division I signees transfer before their junior year. Seven leaving of 16 (43%) puts us marginally above the national average. You need to learn some statistical validity... an overall % "national average" (?) isn't the % of each of the 347 D1 schools taken individually. That percentage is compiled by taking information from all DI schools. Obviously some individual schools had more, some less, but you get the national average by using data from all parties in the set. If we are at 43% (7-16), we are almost exactly at the national average. Not too hard a concept to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 29, 2019 9:40:20 GMT -8
You need to learn some statistical validity... an overall % "national average" (?) isn't the % of each of the 347 D1 schools taken individually. That percentage is compiled by taking information from all DI schools. Obviously some individual schools had more, some less, but you get the national average by using data from all parties in the set. If we are at 43% (7-16), we are almost exactly at the national average. Not too hard a concept to understand. Again stopped teaching the class a few years so and not giving you a lesson in statistical analysis and misuse in the article. But, read the study, as goes into detail. Or, even the article you cherry pick from... directly below your quote... and directly applies to players transferring D1 to D1 or other 4 year schools... "Percentage of players transferring from one four-year school to another increased from 9.4 in 2003-04 to 13.8 in 2013-14, according to Sports Illustrated and the NCAA. That represents a 47 percent increase. The figure dipped slightly last year." So, without double checking I believe all our transfers out fit that category... 4 year to 4 year... I believe I saw 2017 number was 13.5%. And those are yearly #s. So unless 2018 skyrockets or our two transfers go JC (Wilson already said Idaho I think) we'd be at 50%. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 29, 2019 10:15:07 GMT -8
I'm thinking that 40% in two years number the NCAA says includes kids that drop out of school or drop to a JC, not just direct transfers. We'd have to look at where all of our kids went to compare. Still, it sounds like the 43% number is in the overall ballpark if you look at total kids leaving and not just direct transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 29, 2019 13:18:42 GMT -8
However one wants to skew or look at the numbers, the point is that this program can't afford to make recruiting mistakes that lead players to leave. Or have players who are unhappy leaving.
Over half of the non relatives have left. That's an issue trying to build a winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Jan 29, 2019 13:26:48 GMT -8
We got it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Jan 29, 2019 14:17:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Jan 30, 2019 0:09:15 GMT -8
Statistical validity has nothing to do with what you said. The "statistical law" was that 40% of D1 basketball signees currently transfer at least once. Now we "performed" a smaller study at Oregon State. Did it confirm the statistical law of 40% transfer. The answer would be roughly yes. This is an example of statistical validity. Once again you are wrong, but who can keep track of all the times. Fire away with insults or whatever you call them, I know you cannot resist. The "bug" is at it again... First, if you know what a "Statistical Law" is, you'd know that stating that 40% of ALL recruits transfer is not a "law" at all. Statistical conclusion validity is the degree to which conclusions about the relationship among said variables based on the data are correct or ‘reasonable'. And overall % of every recruit is not valid in studying and drawing conclusions based on individual schools and the % of recruits leaving over a 4 year period at each school. Which if done OSU would be in the upper quartiles The 40% stated is for all recruits, not the % from 347 differing populations, and it is never stated if it is over the same time period. Hence the variable(s) being used are different, or at least inconclusive and the conclusion of a general % equates to a "national average" for each school is false. "all the times"... maybe you just can't count that high? Oops... no really the only 'insult" is your attempted justification of validity vs law. You must really like to hear yourself talk. You are always all over the place it is pretty much impossible to follow. If I had a dime for every time you contradict yourself I would be wealthy. I believe you are trying to say that the sample size of our University results doesn't give power to the results to draw conclusions. Also, that the variables skew the results. Statistical validity is not the apt way to describe it. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 30, 2019 19:25:14 GMT -8
The "bug" is at it again... First, if you know what a "Statistical Law" is, you'd know that stating that 40% of ALL recruits transfer is not a "law" at all. Statistical conclusion validity is the degree to which conclusions about the relationship among said variables based on the data are correct or ‘reasonable'. And overall % of every recruit is not valid in studying and drawing conclusions based on individual schools and the % of recruits leaving over a 4 year period at each school. Which if done OSU would be in the upper quartiles The 40% stated is for all recruits, not the % from 347 differing populations, and it is never stated if it is over the same time period. Hence the variable(s) being used are different, or at least inconclusive and the conclusion of a general % equates to a "national average" for each school is false. "all the times"... maybe you just can't count that high? Oops... no really the only 'insult" is your attempted justification of validity vs law. You must really like to hear yourself talk. You are always all over the place it is pretty much impossible to follow. If I had a dime for every time you contradict yourself I would be wealthy. I believe you are trying to say that the sample size of our University results doesn't give power to the results to draw conclusions. Also, that the variables skew the results. Statistical validity is not the apt way to describe it. You wouldn't know what to do with a dime... your "2 cents" are worthless. Talk of contradicting your initial attempt at correcting me! 🤣🍻 |
|
