Jump to content

Hank Chinaski

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hank Chinaski

  1. I remember being something like 7 years old, reading the backs of baseball cards, and realizing that maybe pitcher wins was kind of a dumb stat. It seemed quite obvious that it is heavily impacted by events well outside the realm of a pitcher’s control. Again, I was 7. Imagine being paid to cover pro football for decades and still believing that team wins is the stat that best indicates how well the QB played.
  2. This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about almost everything I see on the internet.
  3. Cool but at what high school has he worked, and what does he know about lifting?
  4. Reminder that Texas had zero players drafted following Sark’s first season.
  5. That was the beauty of MIL’s posts - they were the most mundane things and she inadvertently and invariably would type them out in verse form, so they read like poetry, but the subject matter was always stuff like the nice flowers you could get at Costco or whether anyone had any recommendations for garage door repairs. And she’d “like” her own stuff and respond to herself.
  6. My wife and I took all my MIL’s Facebook posts and made it into a book, which we gave out as Xmas gifts one year.
  7. We had a similar argument a year ago about whether we had sufficient evidence to dismiss the idea that Sark could win championships.
  8. No, I have no idea if he had any sort of talent advantages at Sioux Falls, and I’m not denying that he’s a really good coach. I’m saying that h2h wins in a few games doesn’t necessarily tell us much about how good of a coach he is relative to Sark or Lanning.
  9. I mean, context here matters. Beating the 2022 longhorns without Bijan and others isn’t really anything. Would we say Sark is clearly better if Mitchell had caught that last pass? Are we sure about how good he is without a QB in his mid-20s with freakish accuracy and first round WRs?
  10. The first time you tried to register on Tex, you’d go in thinking you had your semester lined up perfectly. Then within 3 minutes that motherfucker would be hanging up on you after telling you that you didn’t get any of the classes you wanted and you’d be left holding the phone, frozen, wondering what in the fuck just happened. You eventually learned to go into your calls with Tex with a fucking binder full of decision trees and emergency plans like you were in Mission Control.
  11. 1) what the fuck is a “birthday couple?” 2) if my friend invited me to a goddamn birthday party (adult birthday parties, Christ) that required me to travel and be stuck on a boat for 3 days with a bunch of other people, and I actually had to go, I would get a crew together and give him the Full Metal Jacket treatment one night…
  12. Why is this always presented a a binary choice? Isn’t the most likely answer that they’re both great, and they both necessarily had to be great to accomplish what they did? Brady in 2001 wasn’t anything like what Brady became in later years. That team won it all on scheme and defense. In those early years, NE was thought of as a defensive team that was good enough on offense. And to Huck’s point - the SB losses to the Giants (and many other playoff games) were low-scoring games and, at least one of them required an improbable miracle play by the NYG to win it. (Conversely, they won a SB because the Seahawks threw a pass at the goal line despite having the best short-yardage RB in the league. Game of inches I guess.) You don’t do what NE did for 20 years without a great coach AND a great QB. It’s silly to try to dissect who gets credit for what.
  13. And this, to me, speaks to the beauty of science and research - it is all there, the methods, the data, the analysis, the rationale. It is all laid out in black and white. It isn’t an editorial. As such, if you want to argue the science, have at it - but argue the actual science. Point out what you think is flawed in the actual science. That’s not what conspiracy kooks even try to do. Now, if you want to argue about how the science should be applied to society from a policy perspective- as is usually the motivation for people who make issues out of these things - that’s perfectly fine, and reasonable people can certainly disagree about this, because societies and cultures are incredibly complex. But don’t try to make your point by discrediting the actual science unless you can, you know, intelligently cite how the actual science is flawed, which means demonstrating that a whole bunch of really dedicated people all got something wrong in every paper that it relevant to a field.
  14. Yeah. When defending your research in front of other researchers, you better know any and all important papers in the field inside and out, because they 100% will try to burn you with anything you found that may contradict something else (and you’d better have a good explanation about what may account for any discrepancy). You’ve got to know your stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...