Purdue at Michigan Discussion Thread


Your edit (trust me because I used to work for bigwigs) offers an anecdote as evidence. No matter how many anecdotes you use, they would never be statistics.

However, the number of its own missed FTs UM rebounded in the most recent game is a statistic, just a small sample size. If we had that statistic over many games or seasons, we’d have more confidence in its significance.

It’s not always quite so easy to tell the difference, but I hope this helps. In any event, I’m done talking about it, which, to me, means no more posts (or edits) on the subject.


My two cents:

It is an unhealthy trend for posters to say to another poster “you are wrong” (or worse) and in the next breath for that same poster to say “I’m done talking about it”.

It is especially unhealthy to employ those kind of last-word-discussion-ending tactics when you are not even correct in the first place. I’m not getting the sense that you have a good handle on the terms and their application, sorry. Maybe thinking about it more or entering into discussions would help you gain more clarity? Maybe the truth is in the middle sort of thing can come out of these kind of disagreements? Maybe one person does not end up being “right” but we all gain a bit more understanding?

These pronouncements from the mountain-top are not doing anyone any good, imo.


It’s just an incorrect presentation of the concept of small sample size. A singular event or even a game’s worth of them is not a small sample size. That’s like claiming a stock performed well on a day and saying, well, all indications are that’s a great stock, but, you know, small sample size! No. Stocks move up and down every day. One day’s performance only tells you how a stock performed on that day. Small sample size is something that seems to evince a trend and may very well indicate a trend, but lacks sufficient data to be relied on statistically. Small sample size is a pitcher throwing unusually well for a month or two of a new season, but you’re not sure if that pitcher is actually a very different (and better) pitcher from past years or if it is just a statistical blip, because, small sample size. Small sample size is an event that occurs infrequently enough that it is hard to build up sufficient data to assess. Like, maybe, “percentage of times a 2 point conversion is successful when the defensive team has 12 men on the field for the play.” That’s just an example off the top of my head, and maybe not a good one, but say that in the course of multiple seasons, you only have twenty occurrences of that precise scenario - you can hope to draw some sort of meaning from the results of those twenty plays, but, it’s only twenty plays - which is insufficient data - so, small sample size. Small sample size is trying to assess some aspect of the defensive performance of a backup catcher versus the starting catcher, but the backup only plays in 20 games a year, so your sample is not sufficiently robust. Or comparing games caught by the BUC w/ Pitcher X vs. games caught by the starter with Pitcher X. There you have an even smaller sample. I am very confident with where I stand in this conversation, this is not grabbing the last comment, this is just an answer that it has become apparent would need to be provided to move on from this weird digression.


Woof, gotta love passive aggressive and condescending posts like that just after complaining about someone else’s argumentative style.

It’s a tired topic so he said he’s done talking about it, seems easy enough.