BHGP: Attacking mgoblog.com with The Mathlete
As Brian predicted, yesterday's UV sent BHGP into a bit of a tizzy. His points do not support his level of indignation though. To summarize his points:
1. 5 is different than 3.
2. Iowa isn't lucky because other teams were lucky too.
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2010/8/17/1626877/youll_see_what_you…
In addition to missing a main point of the Iowa argument (Stanzi in the 4th), I can't say that really undermines the (somewhat widely-held) belief that Iowa will return to its traditional role in the middle of the Big Ten.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
Well they lack any kind of Tate/Denard to keep the board bumping for the next few weeks, so I guess they've opted to go on the offensive to start shit. Either that or they managed to jab a corncob up their ass again.
Basically all they have is that Brian was off on the attrition to their defense. Then they off the deep end. Personally I view it as a level of their maturity. Instead of politely responding the facts, they decide to do a personal attack on Brian's peace and toss in some graphs from a MGoBlog diary as their "stats". I'll send my 8 year old cousin over to argue with them, since that seems to be the level we're aiming for here.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
I thought their main point was that Iowa was so unlucky in 2008 that the luck they had in 2009 wasn't enough to bring their luck back to average. Therefore they should be above average in luck this year. They point to Mathlete's work to support that argument.
They also made a weaker argument that their luck wasn't all that excessive in 2009.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
I think he took it a bit too personal...
August 17th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
Insecurity can be a real bitch can't it?
August 17th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
Blog fight!!!!
August 17th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
"That escalated quickly!"
"Brick killed a guy!"
August 17th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
There were horses, and a man on fire, and I stabbed a man in the heart with a trident.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
Yea about that, you might want to lay low for a while...
August 17th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
Find a safehouse or relative nearby, because you're probably wanted for murder.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
Obviously somebody was a little sensitive yesterday...
August 17th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
That was painful to read. Don't they realize that ad hominem attacks undermine whatever point(however incorrect in this case) that they're trying to make?
August 17th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
Brian hurted BHGP's feelings. :(
August 17th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
Nah... if you know the overall tone of BHGP this article isn't an attack at all. It's actually a pretty reasonable response. The point ignored is that Iowa's "luck" was a result of their 4th quarter supremacy and when you let teams hang around and have leads in the 4th quarter your variance skyrockets.
Winning 4 of 5 of those games is on the lucky side. Winning 2 or 3 is probably in the mean. And winning 1 of 5 is certainly unlucky. Unless Iowa can get some convincing leads going into the 4th the mean states they will revert to losing 1 or 2 more games this year. That's the main point they failed to address.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^
Nah... if you know the overall tone of BHGP this article isn't an attack at all. It's actually a pretty reasonable response.
bingo
and again; that picture really never is going to go away, is it?
August 17th, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^
Well, someone will be eating crow by the end of the season. I sincerely hope it's going to be served with a healthy helping of corn.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
his argument is that (a) Iowa was BARELY the luckiest team in the Big Ten, (b) that they were unlucky in 2008, so 2009's luck doesn't count, (c) they aren't losing as many players from their roster as Brian indicated, and (d) LOLZ Michigan Sux?
Well argued, Cornman. Well argued.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
you must not have read Brian's original post correct. Brian, as a representative of UM, was revealing how intimidated and butthurt he was at the fact Michigan was only 30-9-3 against Iowa since 1949 and needed to LASH OUT in order to get that monkey off our collective backs.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
he read the graph wrong... and that being the second "luckiest" team in the Big Ten with one of its most commanding defenses isn't, you know, concerning... it's LOLIKNOWHOWTOWRITEINCAPS
August 17th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
Only Big Ten fans would get into fights using regression analysis.
/we're nerds
August 17th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^
a little more than half of the Big Ten fanbase would get into fights using regression analysis
MSU fans wouldn't get as far as "regression anal-" without giggling and collapsing
OSU would fight you for using big words like a mawfuggin prick
Minnesota fans would forget they were in the Big Ten
August 17th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
LOL look at the mod making fun of undergrads and sports fans......HAHA......funny dog avatar man, funny I say.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
Could the season start already so you WLA douchebags stop obssessing over other douchebags? Can everyone just stop being a douchebag?
August 17th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^
I don't know how to be anything else. That's like telling a leopard to change its spots. It reminds me of the story of the happy hippo......
August 17th, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^
It's odd that so many Mgobloggers whine about the WLA elitist douchebags as if everyone on that site is the same way. You are becoming the very thing you whine about when you categorize people like that.
In short: Suck it.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
we kick ass.
Also, if I were an Iowa fan and I thought the team was at the dawning of the age of aquarius, I'd be upset if somebody pointed out reasonable reasons why that might not be so, too.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^
Iowa will be lucky if they don't lose on October 16.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
I know homecoming teams never lose, especially in a revenge scenario.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
Yeah, 2005's Little Brown Jug game was awesome homecoming, right?
August 17th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
Keep doubting Iowa people. I can tell this thread is full of people who do not follow Big 10 Picks or else you'd be sitting on stacks of Iowa money. The column is 13-2-1 when picking Iowa.
Good luck betting against them. Do you want a match or are you just going to throw your money on a fire?
Besides, that luck graph is pure garbage and manipulated numbers. I dont think it holds any value, regardless of how its being used in this argument. But, it certainly helps Michigan fans and their own insecurities: Iowa and Northwestern cant possibly be better than us, so it must be luck.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
I do think that the assumption that there will be regression to the mean in 2010 is misguided if based soley on an arbitrary formula. Good teams tend to have great turnover margins...always lucky? Good baseball teams win a vast majority of 1-run games...all lucky? Some "luck"? Sure but measuring "luck" is impossible and predicting it based on that measurement is just off-season masturbation. Even if you measured errors made by opponents in baseball, that doesn't take into account how hard the players hit the balls or where in relation to the fielder's position or even the scoring discrepencies as human error.
I think that was what Jamiemac was saying...sort of.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
that Mathlete's efforts demonstrated that a lot of circumstances helped Iowa win at a time where their defense was strong... one of the best in the Big Ten actually. that's troubling. with the addition of 3 losses on the line, it raises the question on if that swing that went in their favor won't come back in the very way that BHGP points out. if UM had a clutch offense yet was proven statistically to be scoring through "luck"/key assists from the other team, i don't think there'd be any problem raising the question "is this offense as good as it performed or is there a chance this swings back against them this year given the theory you can't luck out twice, etc."
Brian raised a question - little else. BHGP countered with "you said 5 but it's 3 DUH!" and a graph that, to a degree, goes in line with Brian's question.
could it have been raised as "a lot of things happened that helped an Iowa defense get out of some big jams other teams typically don't?" yes. doesn't make raising the question wrong though imo.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
I didn't notice anyone in this thread talking about betting or putting money on the games. I also didn't notice anyone say that either of those teams couldn't be better. Simply that the reasons that BHGP are upset with Brian's work aren't very good reasons.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
to advertise his blog and claim superiority over everyone
August 17th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
So, other than the blog thing, nothing much different than what you do 20 hours a day here.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
a lot of posters here have a much more thorough understanding than i have on football, strategy, etc. - jamie's comment is completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion and links twice to his blog, one of which is a claimed rebuttal to mathlete's research with "he didn't include this interception" and little else. if you're going to claim to have obliterated the considerable effort mathlete put in, do the same work instead of dismissing it with a wave of your hand.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
Moo.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
I didnt just dismiss the Mathlete's luck metric with a wave of a hand. I wrote a 2,000-plus word blog post on it detailing why I thought this metric--unlike the others he has posted--misses the mark. Having a scatterplot graph and a secret formula is not required to do so. And, I linked it, not to advertise my blog, but rather I didnt want anyone to think I was trashing just to trash and that I had previously posted my thoughts for public consumption and scrutiny.
Frankly, I think he did a poor job reflecting which turnovers were lucky or not, and I provided concrete examples vis a vis Northwestern's season.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
we'd all like to know if you are a mod, please advice
if so, quit keeping it such a secret.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
outside of the moderation thread i haven't brought it up in months, and even then was a misunderstanding.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
At least I provide a lot of original content for the blog.
I still havent figured out what your contribution is other than being a ubiquitous mod who constantly likes to remind people of that fact.
Sorry if linking my blog offends you, but I think I've earned the right to do so. And, I dont give a rip what your mod powers has to say about it.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
and if you have a problem with something i've done, i'd happily discuss it off the board. however i haven't brought up being a mod in months, and that was in a misunderstanding, so to keep bringing that up is stupid.
i made a comment bc you made a cocky declaration that you were right and "all the posters" claiming Iowa wouldn't win games was wrong. nobody said that. you made that comment out of the blue and i wasn't the only one who noticed and commented on it. that's it.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
you accused me of purposely spamming to promote my blog. that's not an accurate portrayal of my motivations in this thread or my contributions to this site or community over the years.
And, i forgot about the rule that every thread must only deal with the topic at hand in an absolute vacuum. There was a distinct tenor in this thread that brian is correct and others wrong on the whole concept of Iowa's season. Mine was a perfectly viable comment to add to any discussion on the 2010 Hawks.
I've been defending the Iowa program on this blog since December, 2007. I have been validated by their record and my pocket book has more than benefitted. Since I posted every one of these picks, right here, on this site, in the diaries, I have more than enough to stand on and cockily claim that I am right and everybody else is wrong on Iowa.
Will that storyline change in 2010? Maybe. But I wouldnt bet on it.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
No, seriously guys, keep going. This is entertaining.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
Touche, my friend
I'm not really trying to measure my e-peen, just defend my work and posting motivations to a mod who implied I was spamming.
In retrospect, I should have just let my contributions to the site speak for itself, but eventually I took the bait.
Glad we could entertain, but, otherwise, I hear you loud and clear.
August 17th, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
You accuse Jamie of spamming the board, on the board.
He accuses you of lording your modding powers, then it suddenly becomes a subject unfit for you to discuss? I guess you're the only one that gets to level ad hominem attacks on long-time (longer time than you, brah)?
I shall bravely sacrifice another mgopoint to further your e-shame.
August 17th, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
That's a pretty fucking low blow against someone that Brian has had write in HTTV twice in two years, and someone he's had as a semi-regular on his podcasts. Jamie writes thousands of words of orginal diaries a year on this board, off his blog.
I am more than happy to destroy one of my own precious MGoPoints in exchange for one of yours, sir.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
Is it weird that a gambler is laughing at other people for "burning [hypothetical] money in a fire" -- if we did gamble that is.
Isn't gambling akin to burning money?
How do those Detroit casinos bring in millions each month when gamblers are so smart. How does the lotto pay for schools? Why is gambling an addiction that can ruin lives? It must be because all those other people don't know what they are doing.... but you can figure it out.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
Betting against Iowa is akin to burning money.
I guess I now have a suspect in the caper of who goes through and negs everybody in threads I start with a gambling topic.
And, its Petr!!