JK ready to be a big bright shining star

#51
#51
Kamara was my favorite Vol last year. After seeing the way JK runs the ball and the type of teammate/leader he is, he is a true VFL. I love his confidence in believing he is the best back in the SEC! JK and Jauan might just be my favorite players for next season
 
#53
#53
Burger said:
We don't have as much talent last year, and we still have Butch Jones.
Click to expand...

Maybe not the top end talent we had last year. But we have more depth. And you have to think we'll have less injuries. Last year's team performs a lot better if we dont lose 20+ starters to injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#54
#54
armchair said:
I don't think he's as good as Kamara, and he's not as big. I think Kelly is somewhat overrated, but hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

He's not as good as Kamara but I Don't expect Butch to plant him on the bench like he did Alvin. We should also have an improved o-line.

The offense is gonna rely on JK. And with an improved o-line that means huge numbers.

Kelly might break the single season school record for rushing yards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Maybe not the top end talent we had last year. But we have more depth. And you have to think we'll have less injuries. Last year's team performs a lot better if we dont lose 20+ starters to injuries.
Click to expand...

In the SC and Vandy games, most of our injured guys were back. We have a severe shortage of playmakers on defense. Our development with the LBs is not good at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
BeardedVol said:
If you can get past being triggered from reading a list of items that CBJ has yet to accomplish, then there's nearly an entire thread where you can learn about compound probability of independent events.
Click to expand...

The things you listed are not independent events. They are actually quite dependent.

For example, the probability of winning the SEC east AND winning the SEC is not P(SECe) x P(SEC). That would be tiny. Let's say you think we have a 33% chance of winning the east this year and a 5% chance of winning the SEC. Using your characterization of these events as independent, we would have a .33 x .05 = 1.65% chance of winning the SEC.

However, it's absurd to say that winning the SEC east and winning the SEC are independent events. They are extremely dependent! If we win the east, our chances of winning the SEC are non-zero, and if we don't, our chances of winning the SEC are zero.

So the probability of winning the SEC east and the SEC is actually P(SECe) x P(SEC l SECe), i.e. the probability of winning the east times the probability of winning the SEC given we win the east. So if you think we have a 40% chance vs. the west champion should we get to Atlanta, our probability of winning both the SEC east and the SEC would be .33 x .40 = 13.2%.

That's a big difference. Similarly, by treating all the events you mentioned as independent, you severely underestimate our chances this year by discounting the fact that IF some of these events occur, the others are also more likely to occur (e.g. if we beat Bama, it is more than likely that this is simply a better team than anyone imagined, and we will also likely beat Muschamp, UF, etc.).


Disclaimer: I don't expect to be national title contenders this year. Go Vols!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#60
#60
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
No they weren't. Stop with the lies.
Click to expand...

Yes they were.

We were missing Kamara, Tuttle, JRM, McKensie, and Sutton against South Carolina. Florida was mssing a lot more and still won the east. Regardless, if we had such great depth, why did we lose to SC and Vandy?
 
Last edited:
#61
#61
Vol@PennState said:
The things you listed are not independent events. They are actually quite dependent.

For example, the probability of winning the SEC east AND winning the SEC is not P(SECe) x P(SEC). That would be tiny. Let's say you think we have a 33% chance of winning the east this year and a 5% chance of winning the SEC. Using your characterization of these events as independent, we would have a .33 x .05 = 1.65% chance of winning the SEC.

However, it's absurd to say that winning the SEC east and winning the SEC are independent events. They are extremely dependent! If we win the east, our chances of winning the SEC are non-zero, and if we don't, our chances of winning the SEC are zero.

So the probability of winning the SEC east and the SEC is actually P(SECe) x P(SEC l SECe), i.e. the probability of winning the east times the probability of winning the SEC given we win the east. So if you think we have a 40% chance vs. the west champion should we get to Atlanta, our probability of winning both the SEC east and the SEC would be .33 x .40 = 13.2%.

That's a big difference. Similarly, by treating all the events you mentioned as independent, you severely underestimate our chances this year by discounting the fact that IF some of these events occur, the others are also more likely to occur (e.g. if we beat Bama, it is more than likely that this is simply a better team than anyone imagined, and we will also likely beat Muschamp, UF, etc.).


Disclaimer: I don't expect to be national title contenders this year. Go Vols!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you have a poor understanding of dependent and independent events in terms of computing compound probability. Feel free to Google the concepts to enlighten yourself.
 
#64
#64
Don't know about all the Heisman talk but would like to see him get 1200-1500 yards rushing this year and All-SEC. That would be nice.
 
#65
#65
Vol@PennState said:
The things you listed are not independent events. They are actually quite dependent.

For example, the probability of winning the SEC east AND winning the SEC is not P(SECe) x P(SEC). That would be tiny. Let's say you think we have a 33% chance of winning the east this year and a 5% chance of winning the SEC. Using your characterization of these events as independent, we would have a .33 x .05 = 1.65% chance of winning the SEC.

However, it's absurd to say that winning the SEC east and winning the SEC are independent events. They are extremely dependent! If we win the east, our chances of winning the SEC are non-zero, and if we don't, our chances of winning the SEC are zero.

So the probability of winning the SEC east and the SEC is actually P(SECe) x P(SEC l SECe), i.e. the probability of winning the east times the probability of winning the SEC given we win the east. So if you think we have a 40% chance vs. the west champion should we get to Atlanta, our probability of winning both the SEC east and the SEC would be .33 x .40 = 13.2%.

That's a big difference. Similarly, by treating all the events you mentioned as independent, you severely underestimate our chances this year by discounting the fact that IF some of these events occur, the others are also more likely to occur (e.g. if we beat Bama, it is more than likely that this is simply a better team than anyone imagined, and we will also likely beat Muschamp, UF, etc.).


Disclaimer: I don't expect to be national title contenders this year. Go Vols!
Click to expand...

At the tailgates which I frequent, you would never feel the need to espouse such a disclaimer. Your excellent argument would be received as intended. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#66
#66
BeardedVol said:
I'm sorry, but you have a poor understanding of dependent and independent events in terms of computing compound probability. Feel free to Google the concepts to enlighten yourself.
Click to expand...

Though I appreciate a good beard, I would refrain from sampling the punch at any soiree where you were in attendance. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#67
#67
On the supposition that the early post by D4H threw this thread into imbalance, I suggest we try our own foretelling. For example

Carnac.jpg

Kelly will throw a key block in an upset victory for the Vols this season.
 
#68
#68
BeardedVol said:
I'm sorry, but you have a poor understanding of dependent and independent events in terms of computing compound probability. Feel free to Google the concepts to enlighten yourself.
Click to expand...

That sucks... I'm an actuary. Guess I'll quit now. Lol don't want to make this a big thing, but I can tell you with 100% confidence that:

1) the events you mentioned are not independent.
2) the compound probability of several of these events occurring is greater than if they had been independent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#69
#69
Vol@PennState said:
That sucks... I'm an actuary. Guess I'll quit now. Lol don't want to make this a big thing, but I can tell you with 100% confidence that:

1) the events you mentioned are not independent.
2) the compound probability of several of these events occurring is greater than if they had been independent.
Click to expand...

No problem, in the thread I linked to, there was a proposed math major who doesn't understand the concepts either. A simple Google search of those concepts will show you that you are incorrect in categorizing football games in a season as dependant events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
BeardedVol said:
No problem, in the thread I linked to, there was a proposed math major who doesn't understand the concepts either. A simple Google search of those concepts will show you that you are incorrect in categorizing football games in a season as dependant events.
Click to expand...

K. I humored you and Googled it.

"In probability theory, two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other."

If you're right that these events are independent, that means that you believe:
1) Beating Alabama doesn't make us any more likely to beat an SECw team (and vice versa)
2) Beating Florida in the swamp doesn't make us any more likely to win 7+ SEC games
3) Winning the SECe doesn't make us any more likely to win the SEC

I'm pretty sure you don't believe these statements (because they're absurd), but I think you're not appreciating what independence actually means. Maybe a negative example will work:

Does losing to Indiana State mean we are more or less likely to lose to Florida? Any reasonable person would say, "Yes, if we lose to Indiana State, we are not a good football team, and we will probably lose to Florida." I'm sure you would feel much worse about our chances in the Florida game (and every game) if we lost to Indiana State... That's called dependence.

Idk how else to explain it, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree, but I assure you respectfully that your statistical assertions are incorrect. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#71
#71
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Maybe not the top end talent we had last year. But we have more depth. And you have to think we'll have less injuries. Last year's team performs a lot better if we dont lose 20+ starters to injuries.
Click to expand...

How do you know we have more depth? Bodies does not equal depth....proven, experienced players who have shown they can play and compete at a high SEC level with little to no drop off from the starter ahead of them equals depth. It's far more than just numbers.

Also, we lost nowhere near 20+ starters to injury last year. That's ridiculous. Please give us details to back up that misstatement. Who were the 20+ starters that we "lost"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#72
#72
Vol@PennState said:
K. I humored you and Googled it.

"In probability theory, two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other."

If you're right that these events are independent, that means that you believe:
1) Beating Alabama doesn't make us any more likely to beat an SECw team (and vice versa)
2) Beating Florida in the swamp doesn't make us any more likely to win 7+ SEC games
3) Winning the SECe doesn't make us any more likely to win the SEC

I'm pretty sure you don't believe these statements (because they're absurd), but I think you're not appreciating what independence actually means. Maybe a negative example will work:

Does losing to Indiana State mean we are more or less likely to lose to Florida? Any reasonable person would say, "Yes, if we lose to Indiana State, we are not a good football team, and we will probably lose to Florida." I'm sure you would feel much worse about our chances in the Florida game (and every game) if we lost to Indiana State... That's called dependence.

Idk how else to explain it, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree, but I assure you respectfully that your statistical assertions are incorrect. :hi:
Click to expand...

Nothing you've stated changes the nature of dependent and independent events in computing compound probability. You can choose not to believe it, but I assure you, every set of statisticians working on sports predictions disagrees with you.

As for your indiana state scenario, reverse it, did beating GA and FL not make us a lock to beat USCe and Vandy?

But we lost them anyway because the games are independent events, and the outcome of game A has no direct effect on game B.
 
Last edited:
#73
#73
Let's pray Kelly stays healthy, because there is a large drop off in talent after Kelly


Go Vols
 
#74
#74
KBVol said:
How do you know we have more depth? Bodies does not equal depth....proven, experienced players who have shown they can play and compete at a high SEC level with little to no drop off from the starter ahead of them equals depth. It's far more than just numbers.

Also, we lost nowhere near 20+ starters to injury last year. That's ridiculous. Please give us details to back up that misstatement. Who were the 20+ starters that we "lost"?
Click to expand...

We have more depth because we have a roster with a 4 year recruiting rank similar to Clemson last year. Based on recruiting this is the most talented roster Tennessee has had top to bottom since the mid-2000s.

We have the depth to compete for a national title.
 
#75
#75
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
We have more depth because we have a roster with a 4 year recruiting rank similar to Clemson last year. Based on recruiting this is the most talented roster Tennessee has had top to bottom since the mid-2000s.

We have the depth to compete for a national title.
Click to expand...

Means absolutely nothing until we can see if our guys providing "depth" can actually deliver, if they can actually play.

For example, if you looked at our CB situation last year, you'd have felt good about our depth, what with 4 year starter Sutton, junior Moseley who had a ton of experience, senior Malik Foreman, 4 star Justin Martin, 4 star freshman Marquill Osborne, JUCO DJ Henderson, etc.

As it turns out, nobody played worth a damn all season. So in reality, we had virtually no quality depth because nobody could cover anybody. We went to true freshman Baylen Buchanan early because nobody else cover anybody effectively, and of course we saw him struggle/fail as well, he too wasn't ready to play.

So in any way you wanna measure it, we had no depth at cornerback, only players/warm bodies.

I could do the same thing at linebacker, at DT, at DE, at S, at WR, at RB, at QB, at TE. The only position you can feel decently good about in terms of depth is at OL, and ALL those guys, from starters on down, need to seriously raise their level play.


Also, guess I can assume that you realized how utterly ridiculous your statement about losing 20+ starters last year was since you chose not to touch it in your response....good kid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top