Bears Fans Are Concussed, Like Their Quarterback - 10/03/10.

[R-V]

Statistically speaking, if someone gets a TD on a punt return (or KO), the likelihood of them returning the next for a TD drops dramatically.

Are you saying it's less likely because the other team will make adjustments?  Or that it's statistically less likely, purely because of the previous return TD?

I think he's saying that if you flip a coin and it lands heads 10 times in a row, it must land on tails the 11th time.

Not "must" but "more likely to". And it does have something to do with adjustments, but also the likelihood of that kind of play happening. The NFL isn't like HS football where a great player can literally run circles around an opposing team. Even the great returners in the NFL are stopped for a "normal return" more often than not. The odds of this happening does derive from the quality of the opposing players as well as your own players. Adjustments can factor in. If you swap out your gunners because they're not containing like they should, then that can factor in. All of this factors in to basically show that, immediately after a successful punt/KO return for a TD, then the odds of it happening the next time drop drastically.

So, if Evan Longoria gets a hit in his first at bat tomorrow, his chances of getting a hit in his second at bat are less than they were in his first at bat?

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm? Also, comparing hits to Punt Return TDs isn't apt. I don't think 25% of Punts are returned for TDs (it's probably closer to 5%). 25% of ABs result in hits, though.

11 are a large numbers.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm?

I don't think you get how "regression to the mean" works.

We'll take Longoria as out example...

He's a career .283 hitter.

Say he hits at .450 for the first month of a season. Regression to the mean doesn't suggest he's therefore more likely to hit .166 the second month to even out his overall BA at .283.

Rather, regression to the mean suggests (more or less) that he's likely to hit .283 going forward and that the overall average will therefore gradually fall back to Earth as a consequence.

Independent events.

[Waco Kid]

http://twitter.com/BradBiggs

#Bears signing DE Charles Grant per @vxmcclure23. He will take place of Mark Anderson, who was cut per his agent.

[Yeti]

Statistically speaking, if someone gets a TD on a punt return (or KO), the likelihood of them returning the next for a TD drops dramatically.

Are you saying it's less likely because the other team will make adjustments?  Or that it's statistically less likely, purely because of the previous return TD?

I think he's saying that if you flip a coin and it lands heads 10 times in a row, it must land on tails the 11th time.

Not "must" but "more likely to". And it does have something to do with adjustments, but also the likelihood of that kind of play happening. The NFL isn't like HS football where a great player can literally run circles around an opposing team. Even the great returners in the NFL are stopped for a "normal return" more often than not. The odds of this happening does derive from the quality of the opposing players as well as your own players. Adjustments can factor in. If you swap out your gunners because they're not containing like they should, then that can factor in. All of this factors in to basically show that, immediately after a successful punt/KO return for a TD, then the odds of it happening the next time drop drastically.

So, if Evan Longoria gets a hit in his first at bat tomorrow, his chances of getting a hit in his second at bat are less than they were in his first at bat?

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm? Also, comparing hits to Punt Return TDs isn't apt. I don't think 25% of Punts are returned for TDs (it's probably closer to 5%). 25% of ABs result in hits, though.

11 are a large numbers.

Large is a relative term. Such as myself, I'm large relative to you. Relative to BC, I'm quite petite.

[morpheus]

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm?

I don't think you get how "regression to the mean" works.

We'll take Longoria as out example...

He's a career .283 hitter.

Say he hits at .450 for a the first month of a season. Regression to the mean doesn't suggest he's therefore more likely to hit .166 the second month to even his overall BA out at .283.

Rather, regression to the mean suggests (more or less) that he's likely to hit .283 going forward and that the overall average will therefore gradually fall back to Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_%28probability_theory%29

(I'm agreeing with everyone except Yeti here.)

[Tony]

http://twitter.com/BradBiggs

#Bears signing DE Charles Grant per @vxmcclure23. He will take place of Mark Anderson, who was cut per his agent.

Didn't the Anderson over Brown experiment fail once before? Nice choice, Lovie.

[Yeti]

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm?

I don't think you get how "regression to the mean" works.

We'll take Longoria as out example...

He's a career .283 hitter.

Say he hits at .450 for the first month of a season. Regression to the mean doesn't suggest he's therefore more likely to hit .166 the second month to even out his overall BA at .283.

Rather, regression to the mean suggests (more or less) that he's likely to hit .283 going forward and that the overall average will therefore gradually fall back to Earth.

Part of the reason that I wanted to stay away from baseball as a comparison is because baseball is more "vacuum-y" (if you will) than football. There are more factors involved in foosball. Like I said originally, part of it has to do with opposing adjustments that have more of an effect on the next instance (or return).

[Oleg]

I'm actually getting the feeling that Yeti is over-thinking this.

[Yeti]

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm?

I don't think you get how "regression to the mean" works.

We'll take Longoria as out example...

He's a career .283 hitter.

Say he hits at .450 for a the first month of a season. Regression to the mean doesn't suggest he's therefore more likely to hit .166 the second month to even his overall BA out at .283.

Rather, regression to the mean suggests (more or less) that he's likely to hit .283 going forward and that the overall average will therefore gradually fall back to Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_%28probability_theory%29

(I'm agreeing with everyone except Yeti here.)

That would work if every punt return was the same.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm?

I don't think you get how "regression to the mean" works.

We'll take Longoria as out example...

He's a career .283 hitter.

Say he hits at .450 for the first month of a season. Regression to the mean doesn't suggest he's therefore more likely to hit .166 the second month to even out his overall BA at .283.

Rather, regression to the mean suggests (more or less) that he's likely to hit .283 going forward and that the overall average will therefore gradually fall back to Earth.

Part of the reason that I wanted to stay away from baseball as a comparison is because baseball is more "vacuum-y" (if you will) than football. There are more factors involved. Like I said originally, part of it has to do with opposing adjustments that have more of an effect on the next instance (or return).

I get that adjustments matter.

I'm just not sure that you do.

Because you're argument seems to boil down to: don't worry about making adjustments to your kicking game (by not kicking it to Hester the second time)... the adjustments to your kicking game will surely stop him!

[morpheus]

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm?

I don't think you get how "regression to the mean" works.

We'll take Longoria as out example...

He's a career .283 hitter.

Say he hits at .450 for the first month of a season. Regression to the mean doesn't suggest he's therefore more likely to hit .166 the second month to even out his overall BA at .283.

Rather, regression to the mean suggests (more or less) that he's likely to hit .283 going forward and that the overall average will therefore gradually fall back to Earth.

Part of the reason that I wanted to stay away from baseball as a comparison is because baseball is more "vacuum-y" (if you will) than football. There are more factors involved. Like I said originally, part of it has to do with opposing adjustments that have more of an effect on the next instance (or return).

I get that adjustments matter.

I'm just not sure that you do.

Because you're argument seems to boil down to: don't worry about making adjustments to our kicking game (by not kicking it to Hester the second time)... the adjustments to our kicking game will surely stop him!

Now your talking, Tank.

[Yeti]

So, the law of large numbers doesn't indicate that over time the numbers will average out to the norm?

I don't think you get how "regression to the mean" works.

We'll take Longoria as out example...

He's a career .283 hitter.

Say he hits at .450 for the first month of a season. Regression to the mean doesn't suggest he's therefore more likely to hit .166 the second month to even out his overall BA at .283.

Rather, regression to the mean suggests (more or less) that he's likely to hit .283 going forward and that the overall average will therefore gradually fall back to Earth.

Part of the reason that I wanted to stay away from baseball as a comparison is because baseball is more "vacuum-y" (if you will) than football. There are more factors involved. Like I said originally, part of it has to do with opposing adjustments that have more of an effect on the next instance (or return).

I get that adjustments matter.

I'm just not sure that you do.

Because you're argument seems to boil down to: don't worry about making adjustments to your kicking game (by not kicking it to Hester the second time)... the adjustments to your kicking game will surely stop him!

So, I said teams shouldn't make adjustments or don't make adjustments? The return is the mainly result of an "error" if you will, a mistake, usually by the kicking team (not in the lane, bad punt, pisspoor tackling, etc). Based on the fact that the majority of returns aren't taken back for 100 yards every time, it stands to reason that the following return won't yield the exact same circumstances and results (a TD).

The NFL isn't like HS football where a great player can literally run circles around an opposing team.

I get it now. You're messing with everyone.

You've never seen a HS football game where there was one player who was insanely better than anyone else? I know I have a propensity to attend these to scope out the local wool, but you should see some more of it. It's actually a pretty good time.

[Bort]

The NFL isn’t like HS football where a great player can literally run circles around an opposing team.

I get it now. You're messing with everyone.

You've never seen a HS football game where there was one player who was insanely better than anyone else? I know I have a propensity to attend these to scope out the local wool, but you should see some more of it. It's actually a pretty good time.

That person is so good that he has the time to literally run in an even 360-degree shape around his opponents? No, I haven't seen that.

[Internet Apex]

http://twitter.com/BradBiggs

#Bears signing DE Charles Grant per @vxmcclure23. He will take place of Mark Anderson, who was cut per his agent.

Didn't the Anderson over Brown experiment fail once before? Nice choice, Lovie.

Brown was owed a 5 or 6 Mildo roster bonus so it was an easy choice. But not the right choice, Jerry.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

The NFL isn't like HS football where a great player can literally run circles around an opposing team.

I get it now. You're messing with everyone.

You've never seen a HS football game where there was one player who was insanely better than anyone else? I know I have a propensity to attend these to scope out the local wool, but you should see some more of it. It's actually a pretty good time.

That person is so good that he has the time to literally run in an even 360-degree shape around his opponents? No, I haven't seen that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PBvOxicz-0