4 ms·

"Patriots backs simply don't fumble": Yes, because if they have a fumbling problem, they stop playing until they fix it (Ridley) or they cease being Patriots if

"Patriots backs simply don't fumble": Yes, because if they have a fumbling problem, they stop playing until they fix it (Ridley) or they cease being Patriots if they can't fix it (Maroney). Belichick is well-known for having a "doghouse" for running backs who fumble. "Your explanation isn't supported by the data": I wasn't trying to give an explanation supported by the data. I was trying to give an explanation for the data that makes sense and is supported by observing the Patriots play. It's like saying Magnus Carlsen must cheat at chess, because the chance of him making so few errors is effectively zero assuming he makes errors at the rate that other grandmasters do.

fecak 12y ago
I'm not sure how useful it is to compare a chess grandmaster to the relatively ordinary (other than fumbling) Patriot running back contingent, past or present. If Carlsen were found with an extra pawn on the board, that might raise eyebrows. I understand that Belichick has a doghouse for backs that fumble. The point seems to be that his doghouse is likely to be rarely occupied since 2007, and whether that is due to coaching, drafting backs with good hands, or something less wholesome. I appreciate the points on Maroney and Ridley.
tbrake 12y ago
I think it would be pretty easy to show, similar to this article - Pre-computer era elite GMs and computer-era elite GMs have similar error rates[1], with the caveat that we presume disagreeing with the computer's top choice to be an error. They mostly agreed with the computer's assessment something like 50-57% of the time. As far as I know Magnus' games haven't been subjected to this kind of analysis, and I recall 2 pretty bad moves in the recent match with Anand, so I'd be interested to see it. I suspect he may be even slightly above 60%. Should it be something like high 70%'s though I think it would be time to start a conversation about it. It's how Ivanov was busted: overwhelmingly playing one of the top 2 engine moves, which is basically impossible. [2] 1 - http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player- http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-st... 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPENjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPENjM

fecak 12y ago

I'm not sure how useful it is to compare a chess grandmaster to the relatively ordinary (other than fumbling) Patriot running back contingent, past or present. If Carlsen were found with an extra pawn on the board, that might raise eyebrows. I understand that Belichick has a doghouse for backs that fumble. The point seems to be that his doghouse is likely to be rarely occupied since 2007, and whether that is due to coaching, drafting backs with good hands, or something less wholesome. I appreciate the points on Maroney and Ridley.

tbrake 12y ago

I think it would be pretty easy to show, similar to this article - Pre-computer era elite GMs and computer-era elite GMs have similar error rates[1], with the caveat that we presume disagreeing with the computer's top choice to be an error. They mostly agreed with the computer's assessment something like 50-57% of the time. As far as I know Magnus' games haven't been subjected to this kind of analysis, and I recall 2 pretty bad moves in the recent match with Anand, so I'd be interested to see it. I suspect he may be even slightly above 60%. Should it be something like high 70%'s though I think it would be time to start a conversation about it. It's how Ivanov was busted: overwhelmingly playing one of the top 2 engine moves, which is basically impossible. [2] 1 - http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player- http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-st... 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPENjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPENjM