Not necessary for the argument I was making, no. All I was talking about is whether my measure of "more clutch" or "less clutch" is a good measure given the information we have, and it is (at least no one has shown how to define it better). Now if you're talking about what a better measure would look like if you could independently measure "clutch" for different units, I'd agree with you one could create a better measure by incorporating more factors. But first show me how to measure "clutch" independently for each unit.
How could I do that when I think clutch is bull**** to begin with? Again, I think your attempt to prove clutch is wrongheaded in its execution and in its mere existence. I say that because clutch doesn't exist, and if it did, then you'd HAVE TO find a way to factor in WRs, oline/blocking and play calling (if not from the QB) "clutchiness" to properly discern how clutch a QB is. No part of their job of completing a pass, relies on them solely. Hell, if you want to get technical, a completed pass is every bit on the receiver as it is the thrower. That's just common sense...and its common sense that your stats study basically deems unimportant, which is why you're wrong.
One can only work with the information available. You can't call something a "measure" if it doesn't measure anything because you can't obtain the information. And whether you believe clutch exists or not, one can propose a measure to see if it exists. Ideally, we can directly measure the pressure on an athlete (but in practice we can't). Ideally, we can determine what portion of each outcome was due to each player (but in practice we can't). So.. using the available information, I'd say my proposed definition is pretty good. And really all it's saying is some athletes are "more clutch" or "choke more" than others. Nothing more. It really shouldn't be controversial given that the idea of people playing significantly (in a statistical way) better than their average under pressure situations is mostly debunked except for rare cases.
Actually, cold is a physical property, because it's a temperature, and temperature is a physical property. Putting ice in a drink makes the drink colder, thereby lowering the temperature of the drink, this is one of the easiest and simple scientific experiments a person can make, even a layman, and you don't even need any tools to come to a conclusion, tactile response is more than adequate, but lets go ahead and use a thermometer. Fill a glass to 3/4 full with room temperature water, take the temperature, then fill the rest of it with ice, wait 30 seconds and take the temperature again, you will find that the water is now at a lower temperature, and that test will work every time, making it scientifically true, and the only answer is that the ice is making the water colder. That is indisputable scientific proof, the absence of heat does negate the existence of cold, it creates the existence of cold. However Brad, I am not going to talk about this side subject anymore, as it is, as you point out, a side subject and not relative to the topic at hand.
I don't think it is the better approach for the reasons I explained. I understand that there is overlap, but that is kinda the point. Late and close and regular games are largely the same thing. When you do it Pauly's way, the gap tends to get bigger for the better, more dominant teams for the reasons I explained. But there is still the correlation between good teams tending to win more of their close games and bad teams tending to lose more of their close games. As I explained earlier in the thread, both tend to move toward the mean (.500) in close games, for obvious reasons. I didn't say anything about the degree to which a team may be blown out or the score differential in such games. I'm talking about frequency of getting blown out. Great teams get blown out very infrequently. Bad teams get blown out more frequently. The factors that cause that (good v. bad) are the same factors that affect record in 8+ pt games. So if you look at the Steelers between 72 and 79, they won 40+ games by 14 or more points and only lost 9 games by more than 7. So they had a lot of blowouts and only lost a handful of non-close games (7+ pts). They have a lot more than those 40+ games that were between 7-13 pt margins. So those teams had a huge win% in "non-close" games. Close games are, well, close, so you would expect them to have a much smaller win% in those games. But the win% in those close games is still well above "average.," which is to be expected. And while roughly 46% of NFL games today end with a margin of 7 pts or less, the number for those Steeler teams was far lower. C'mon, don't take my very rough, off the cuff estimate of a margin of error so literally. I'm not truly trying to pin down a margin of error. I gave a pretty wide ballpark estimate to try to make a point. When the numbers show that Montana's teams won 55.8% of their +/-7 pt games, that doesn't mean that is some hard number that would be predictive of the future or truly reflective of clutch. So I was just saying those numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. But if you want to crunch the numbers and determine the standard deviation, I'd be interested in seeing it.
There you go again. Info on the oline and WRs is available just like it is for the QB. Go get it. If a QB can throw the perfect pass in the perfect situation and the WR still drop it, then you CANNOT make a determination about that QB in choke or "clutch" situations unless you count the WR. Its simply logic. And yes, I get you think what you did is right, but that doesn't make it so.
No it's not Finster. It certainly correlates with a lower temperature than the person who has the sensation of cold, but it is not the temperature (or relative temperature) itself. Furthermore, a temperature difference alone doesn't predict how cold or hot you'll feel. It also depends on thermal conductivity. That's why two objects at the same temperature will feel hot or cold to different degrees (the cheese vs. crust of a pizza may be at the same temperature but have different conductivities, which is why one may be "hotter" than the other). The closest physical thing I can think of that would correspond to "hot" or "cold" would be how thermoreceptors physically code temperature and changes in it. Problem is you can elicit the same stimulation those receptors would have to changes in temperature through other means, like changes in pressure, so they don't exclusively code temperature anyway.
Like I said.. the type of info we have available doesn't allow you to adjust for clutch the way you (or I) would like it.
Yes it does. The video is there. If you choose to not go through it then that is on you. But that does not however make your determinations based on that incomplete data correct.
You keep saying this and I keep saying its not a good measure for a whole bunch of reasons that I've given many times. First, if you want to measure clutch or see if it exists, run away from QB stats. Simply too much else going on. If you feel compelled to look in football, look at FGs, where it is 95% on the kicker and we have easily isolated events that we can all agree involve pressure and potentially the outcome of the game. You will see that NFL kickers overall make effectively the same % of pressure kicks of a given length as non-pressure kicks. With large enough sample sizes, you won't see players that are substantially higher or lower than their non-pressure norms. You can also look at FT shooting in basketball, which is similar to FG kicking in certain ways relevant to the clutch inquiry. You will see that NBA players overall make the same % fo FT in clutch situations as in non-clutch situations and given a large enough sample size, you won't see players with large differences between their pressure FT% and non-pressure FT%. Whether for FGs in football or FTs in basketball, you will see a remarkable correlation between the pressure and non-pressure results and a very small standard deviation. And for virtually every player for whom there is an apparent difference, small sample size will reveal that there is a pretty good chance that such apparent difference is due to random chance.
No way.. you want to compare 2 separate and non-overlapping conditions when possible, not condition A and condition B where A is half of B. Pauly did that right. That's just part of the data. There's nothing wrong with that. I guess if you really wanted to adjust for it you could separate score differentials including the sign (so positive or negative score differential as separate conditions). No one's provided a better alternative. I already acknowledged it isn't perfect. But it's better than any other measure anyone's proposed here (or that I've seen used). Try for once to propose a definition of your own and let me find flaws in it. Doesn't matter whether you think clutch exists or not.. you can still propose a measure to test if it exists. I'd love to do this just with golfers, but when the question is about the QB I can't run away from it.
video.. so a subjective measure? Not even sure what you'd look for in a video in an objective way to specifically tease out contribution of OL. Will be like pff which is subjective.
What?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!??! Where the **** do you think your numbers come from if not from the actual game?
I'm saying I don't know how to tease apart the contribution of the OL. You say if I watch video it can be done. Prove it. Show how to do that.
Gahhhhhhhh.....are you aware that it happens or do you think there's no info on oline anywhere? Seriously man. If you aren't qualified to do it that doesn't mean the info is impossible to get.
Same as usual. All talk no action. Not even the talk is self-consistent. OK we're done here (well.. obviously you'll have your "last word", which is by far the most predictable thing about you). Cheers dude!
Temperature is a physical property though Brad, it can be measured without changing the composition, thereby making it a physical property.
Yeah, temperature is definitely a physical property. But "cold" isn't, and the (lack of) connection between the two I thought was explained well enough in the post you quoted.
But you're wrong. The ice absorbs the heart, thus converting back to water. The liquid is cooler, because heat was taken out of it.
There's nothing for me to tell you. This is insane. I don't need to tell you how to get the info that exists, because I'm not trying to prove anything. You are the one acting like its IMPOSSIBLE for someone to glean stats from WATCHING THE ****ING GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and yet you're making me out to be the ridiculous and impossible one. If you don't understand how the data is gotten nor do understand what the data actually means and then can't even collect the data, then maybe, just maybe you aren't the person to be acting all holier than thou and telling us what is and isn't clutch with stats you obviously don't understand......or anything else for that matter.
What's indisputable is your clear lack of understanding of what happens with an ice cube in water. Even though someone already posted how it works. Hint: it doesn't work the way you think it does, with the ice cube transmitting it's "cold" to the drink.
It's not though. It can be the norm for the player, if it's super high pressure. Go look at Wilson's game against Green Bay in the playoffs 2014. His rating was terrible, he was horrid. According to volume stats, as a playoff game this was a terrible game and evidence of not clutch. Go look at his 4th quarter rating and it's not great either, with an INT. The volume stats doesn't show his running TD. If you cut the time off as 5 minutes to go, you miss his INT. That's why setting arbitration "limits" on what you would consider clutch, is folly. You have to look at it individually.
Yes 3 out of what, 13? Peyton has 8 one and dones in like 12 or 13 years. You've got two of the best ever at their craft, with wildly different playoff performances.
No you didn't, and I've already pointed it out to you. I know exactly what you are trying to say, and if you pay attention to me, you'd understand. It's a couple people trying to get cute. Cold is not a primary quality. That isn't the same as saying, cold doesn't exist. When you say "cold doesn't exist" you are saying all secondary qualities don't exist as well. Love doesn't exist. Vacuums don't exist. Dark doesn't exist. And that's stupid, scientific or not, because I'm 100% positive you'll find in scientific journals the very things you are saying, doesn't exist. Saying, "cold doesn't exist" is someone trying to get cute about the fact that cold is not an element, or something that extends into physical space. Cold absolutely exists, just like a vacuum exists, just like darkness exists. How many science experiments have required a vacuum. How many science journals have used the word vacuum. Are all those findings now invalid because they relied on something that doesn't exist? Or that they accept that something doesn't have to extend into physical space to exist. Like your sense of smell, your sense of vision, your emotions, your memories. "Cold doesn't exist" is a purposely nonsensical statement created (and used) by those wanting/needing attention.
Gonna disagree here. Temperature is not a physical property in the classic sense. The boiling point and freezing point of water, for example, is. But temperature is just a measurement at that specific time. It's a physical change, not really a physical property.
You understand that producing a vacuum involves removing everything, right? A vacuum is nothingness. You also understand that "cold" is the absence of heat, right? Like I demonstrated with the winter example. The earth isn't producing "cold," there is just lower hat transfer. So, please, get off your high horse, and stop acting like we're saying ridiculous, controverzealous things.
Sorry to disagree again, but if temperature is a physical property, cold is part of the temperature spectrum, if cold is not a physical property, then heat cannot be a physical property, as they are the opposite ends of the temperature spectrum. Temperature is how cold or hot something is, and it can be measured, so cold is a part of a physical property.
He didn't say the ice transmitted it's cold, you are misreading what he wrote, and/or putting words in his mouth. He said putting ice in a drink makes it colder, which is different, and true. It's indisputable if you put ice in a drink (a normal drink, not like liquid nitrogen or something) the drink will become colder. He didn't say anywhere in the post that the ice "transmitted its cold." If he did, I missed it. Could you point out the specific sentence? If not, you should retract your post. I think there was a word missing there, and I added the bold/capitalized. Cold is a state of physical matter.
No it's a physical property. That is, temperature describes some physical state. And anything that's measurable that describes a physical state is a physical property.
Yes I understand the vacuum is nothingness. And I understand a vacuum is something that exists (even if not a pure vacuum in some esoteric science kind of way). THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. You can't measure a vacuum. You can only measure if everything is gone. But we accept a vacuum as something defined and real.
OK.. put it this way. In science, temperature is a physical property but "cold" is not, it's a sensation. I understand that colloquially some people may use it the way you do, but in science that's not true. Why? Because you can have two objects at the same temperature but the same person will say one is colder than the other. Put ice cream with a waffle cone in the freezer. After it's there long enough both the ice cream and the cone have the same temperature, but one is clearly colder than the other. So people had to disambiguate temperature and the sensation of hot or cold. You get real close to the sensation if you take into account the thermal conductivity of the medium, but it's still not perfect because the brain often looks at contextual information (so the same temperature/same medium is colder at one time than another, even if you are at the same temperature, because of other factors like what temperature you have become more accustomed to).
Not really. Temperature can be changed at will. Put a rock in a freezer, it's cold. Put it in the oven, it's hot. It's not a physical property. Physical properties are, "water has a boiling point of 100C, and freezing of 0C, at seal level" Temperature is not a property, it is a measurement of its current state. How brittle something is, how elastic, drag coefficient, etc.
Put a rock in a freezer or in an oven and you are changing the internal energy of that system.. i.e. the distribution of kinetic energy of the molecules. That is a physical property of the rock and measured by temperature. Here.. even wikipedia agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property
Again, disagree "cold" is a sensation. Ask a meteorologist what cold air does, vs hot air, in the atmosphere. Nobody is up there sensating (LULZ) anything. Colder air condenses and falls, hot air expands and rises. The breakpoint between the two is obvious (where the air neither falls nor rises). The two are relative, depending on what matter you are discussing (humans where cold and hot are very subjective to a point) air, water, etc. etc. You don't need a single human in a lake, to know, that hot water is every so slightly heavier than cold water, couple this with the fact that the air is usually colder than the earth (when lakes freeze over) and ice is much lighter than water, that lakes freeze from top, saving a bunch of fish from dying each year. You don't need to stick your hand in that frigid water to know that.
I don't hate Wiki, but I don't rely on Wiki. I always go through their citations. Physical properties are properties of matter that we can use to identify them. http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-and-energy/properties.html You can't identify anything by it's temperature. But if I tell you, this thing boils at 100c and freezes at 0c you know what I'm talking about. If I tell you it's density as a solid, and density as a liquid at a certain degree, you can find it. If i tell you this thing I'm holding is 50c you have no idea what it is. Temp and temp change is just a physical change, It is not a physical property.
Meteorologists don't need to worry about such details. But scientists that study the human perceptual system were forced to. So when it became necessary to be more precise, the two were disambiguated. Hot and cold are sensations, not physical properties, though I'll readily admit most scientists don't need to worry about such details and may use the words as being loosely equivalent.
Funny enough, the thermometer you use to measure temperature, relies on a physical property (of the underlying element). The property may be, the volume of a liquid at certain temperatures, or the electrical resistance. But the temp of the object being measured is not a physical property.
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/overviewclimate/overviewclimateair/ Tell me how air that is 1000's of feet in above sea level, is a sensation when a scientist says a cold front is moving in? It is not a sensation. It's a description for a physical state.
