Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 5 years 28 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|31 weeks 1 day ago||The feminine singular of||
The feminine singular of 'alumni' is 'alumna', not 'alumnus', which is masculine. If you're going to be pedantic, be correct.
|51 weeks 1 day ago||Man, when I was on the team,||
Man, when I was on the team, I don't think 95% of us were sober enough in the morning to make it onto the mountain, let alone squeeze into GS suits and compete.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||I know Seth didn't do the||
I know Seth didn't do the analysis, but he did make the graphs, and while the total is meaningful to some extent, the recruits/college is certainly more useful in determining if the schools in each conference are capable of fielding good/elite teams. He, infact realized this, at least, tangentially, showing the number of recruits per top two schools in each conference, but including them in the same graph makes the data cumbersome at best. It's not a parallel comparison, which is really the only justification for having them as part of the same graph in the first place.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||He's not doing it for free.||
He's not doing it for free.
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Incredibly poor attempt at||
Incredibly poor attempt at displaying visual information. Like, for serious. One, not labeling your axes is just bad. Like, really bad. Two, the fact that those conferences have different numbers of members, an average # of recruits per school in each conference would actually, you know, mean something (other than which conference is bigger). The separation of the two best schools in each could best be done as a separate graph so you could actually see it. This is mind-bogglingly basic stuff. How did Michigan give you a degree?
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Epic fail.Acceleration is||
Acceleration is not speed. I hope you didn't go to Michigan...
Please don't call people out when you clearly don't have a HS physics level of understanding re: the topic at hand.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Energy = Mass*Speed^2 Big||
Energy = Mass*Speed^2
|1 year 12 weeks ago||I know it's college VBall,||
I know it's college VBall, but this announcing is truly awful.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I worked out and mowed my||
I worked out and mowed my parents' law, so now I'm watching Sherlock Holmes on tv, and enjoying an Atwater Vanilla Java Porter, and playin' some EVE Online.
|1 year 28 weeks ago||3 Dollar Tavern||
3 Dollar Tavern
|1 year 29 weeks ago||There are a few instances||
There are a few instances when pie charts are usable, but they only show one dimension of data. If you want to show percentages and how they change overtime, for example, an area graph can concisely present the information, whereas you would need to produced multiple pie charts.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Only if there some||
Only if there some significance to the order. The fact that Iowa is before or after Purdue has no bearing on how many recievers each team put up against Michigan, or how many DBs Michigan used to counter it.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||...And we can tell it's yours||
...And we can tell it's yours because it's off-center.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Well, for starters: There||
Well, for starters:
There is no reason why this is a line graph. It implies a relevant relationship over time; that somehow Purdue being played right after MSU is relevant, and the # of Recievers/DBs between those two games somehow has relational relevance more significant than Ohio State vs Western Michigan. Each offense Michigan played had no relationship to any other offense. A scatter plot of Recievers vs DBs with each point representing a game would actually present some sort of coherant data. This? Not so much. Also, making conclusions off of the 'average personel' numbers is dubious, at best, since 1.) the data you're averaging is marginally significant to begin with, and (probably more importantly) 2.) taking an average throws the distribution of plays out. e.g. A team that only uses a 4-3 is going to look the same as a team that 50% of the time uses a nickel and 50% of the time runs a 4-4.
Another example is of poor use of your options graphically, is this:
While this graph has the relevant data hidden in it, it's a poor way of showing it. You're trying to make the point that halfway through the season, Gordon's production increased. You're trying to show the rate of change of this graph (number of tackles per game), so show it. While in this actual graph, it is appropriate to show as a line graph, the data you want shouldn't be. Ideally, this would be a histogram of tackles per game. More significantly, you could create a graph showing percentages of tackles per game. This would have the nice effect of controlling for opponents offensive style/tempo, and show who was really contributing the most, tackles-wise.
What you're really missing here, is how effective each defensive set was verses each offensive set. Was the defense lowering YPP when they added a nickelback against 3 WRs? How well did the offense do with 3-Wide against the 4-3 vs the nickel? This is data you have, and it would actually be interesting to see. This post, however, is not.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||This whole post is a||
This whole post is a wonderful example of how some people don't know what types of graphs (or statisitcs in general) to use to display useful information.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Yes, there may have been 30||
Yes, there may have been 30 linebackers, but there were probably, at most, 5 MLBs (or RTs, or any given position) that started the majority of games the seasons they played.
My point is how banal this is.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||These lists are pretty dumb.||
These lists are pretty dumb. In a ten year span, you have, probably 4 starters, tops, at any given position (and, in general, the standouts will start for 3-4 years, so that brings it down to about 3 players vieing for an 'All-1980s Michigan' position). So you're listing 4 players, out of ~4 starters.
Hurray! Pointless lists! Names!
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||I'm pretty sure it was being||
I'm pretty sure it was being said before 2006. I thought I remember it back in my freshman year, which was 2004.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||I've always though 'You Suck'||
I've always though 'You Suck' was a little Sparty-esque. At the games, we always just sang the lyrics to Temptation.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||I totally forgot about that||
I totally forgot about that hit at 2:50 against WMU. Nothing like crushing a MAC safety in the open field.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||I've owned or played||
I've owned or played extensively every NCAA since 2006, except 2007. I gotta say, I really liked the improvements to zone blocking in NCAA... 10? Whichever one that was 'the new thing'. Run blocking in 12 was completely idiotic, though. Zone blocking with a medocre line routinely produced 30+ gains, where even with a 90+ line across the board would get you TFL on the reg with, say Off Tackle Power.
As much as Cook loves to whine about coverage being the issue, in particular, being 'too weak', he's bitching without knowledge of what to bitch about. Unless you're playing on Varisty, which... n00b... the issue with coverage is that even if a WR has 2 steps and you throw a perfect pass, most of the time, the ball will be dropped, assuming any contact within 3 seconds of the catch.
My real issue is with the differences between zone and man blocking. In (again, I'm pretty sure this is the one, they all seem to blur together at this point) 2010, they were at least balanced, and there were OL players who did zone blocking well, and those that did man blocking well, mostly varying on size vs. speed. In the most recent iteration, which I have only played the demo, and 2012 there seems to be a distinct advantage to zone running, regardless of OL talents.
In general, I think there is an ever so slight trend upward with the games. However, our expectations for "what obviously needs to be fixed" are rarely satisfied. The house rule we had in college was buying every other year... which was frequently disregarded because the flesh is weak, but I think it's a good policy. The additions this year, on paper, seem like a nice step forward, but when, the day the games comes out, a friend(who's pretty darn good) tells me he threw 6 picks in his first game... something is probably wrong.
p.s. Anyone remember those terrible articles in the Daily previewing the games via a playthrough between two of the Daily sports writers (whose names elude me). Yeah. Those were painful.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Having worked at SQuad||
Having worked at SQuad Dining, I know for a fact these guys aren't eating the 'normal' dorm food. Training Table food is pretty lux, even if it's 'diet' food.
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Getting ready to hit up a few||
Getting ready to hit up a few of the Midtown bars. Currently preparing myself with my usual drink, a Sidecar (though this will be the last one as I have apparently just polished off the last of my brandy).
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Switzer not being #1||
Switzer not being #1 illigitimizes this list.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||How could you forget the||
How could you forget the Maurice Clarret Director of Alcohol, Israeli Organized Crime, and Firearms.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Greg "Gerg" Robinson Perveyor||
Greg "Gerg" Robinson Purveyor of Self-Immolation
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Aluminum doesn't 'rust'. You||
Aluminum doesn't 'rust'. You can oxidize aluminum, but it's very difficult, and requires a VERY high tempurature and a bunch of additional oxygen. Thermite is this reaction. Very very dangerous, but also very cool.
If you're sure the hood aluminum, it's possible
1.)the paint is breaking down, UV light breaks down polymers (which is why you put clear coat on it)
2.) the paint was applied poorly, say, after repair work, and never bonded properly with the hood
3.) It's not actually an aluminum hood, and it's rusting.
Regardless, it's fixable by taking the paint off, sanding, and putting on a new coat.
However, if you're concerned with rust, you should check the body of the car, particularly the exhaust, suspension, and subframe for other signs of rust. Remember, rust begets rust. If there's a little, it will spread.
EDIT: Ford 500s have steel OEM hoods. Sounds like rust.
|1 year 47 weeks ago||I don't think I actually can||
I don't think I actually can because of the UMG copyright on the music. Sorry.
|1 year 47 weeks ago||Lightbox. Though the frame||
Lightbox. Though the frame size is wrong because I didn't really care that much.
|1 year 47 weeks ago||Should be fixed now.||
Should be fixed now.