Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
superold

Is Dake better than Taylor?

Recommended Posts

There's also a 100% chance that someone will win a given match. If they wrestle twice there is a 100% chance that there will be a victor in both matches. If they wrestle three times there is a 100% chance that there will be a victor in all three matches.

 

You're technically correct, but I still fail to see what your point is. If they were perfectly matched then yes, the chance of Taylor winning all three would be the same as Dake winning all three. What does that observation add to the conversation? Especially since this whole line of thoughts stems from the idea that they are equally matched, which is 87.5% likely to not be the case.

That's just it though. If are null hypothesis is that the two wrestlers are evenly matched, then what we are investigating is the odds that they are not evenly matched.

 

The way you have the scenario set up now, you're saying that

 

1. Dake winning all three = Dake better.

2. Any other result = inconclusive.

 

You're counting the result in which Taylor wins all three as being inconclusive. This is logically fallacious. You're essentially saying that if Taylor one all three, that could be used as evidence that they're equally matched.

 

For the statement to have any validity you have to phrase it as such:

 

1. The same wrestler wins all three = that wrestler is better

2. Any other result = inconclusive.

 

 

Answer this: If Taylor had won all three matches, would you say Taylor is better? If the answer is yes, then you have to set it up the way I have above. If the answer is no, then you're no different than the people running around claiming Taylor is still the better wrestler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm happy you learned the phrase "null hypothesis" in your intro to statistics class that isn't applicable here. For several reasons.

 

1) Nobody is doing hypothesis testing. They were pointing out that there is only a 12.5 percent chance that Dake would have won all three if they actually were evenly matched. Not every comment concerning probability involves hypothesis testing.

 

2). Even if this was an example where there was hypothesis testing is going on the alternative hypothesis that is being discussed is not "one of them is better than the other" it is "Dake is better than Taylor". The question is not "how many outcomes would indicate that one of them is better than the other one" it is "how many outcomes would indicate that Dake is better than Taylor".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I'm happy you learned the phrase "null hypothesis" in your intro to statistics class that isn't applicable here. For several reasons.

 

1) Nobody is doing hypothesis testing. They were pointing out that there is only a 12.5 percent chance that Dake would have won all three if they actually were evenly matched. Not every comment concerning probability involves hypothesis testing.

 

2). Even if this was an example where there was hypothesis testing is going on the alternative hypothesis that is being discussed is not "one of them is better than the other" it is "Dake is better than Taylor". The question is not "how many outcomes would indicate that one of them is better than the other one" it is "how many outcomes would indicate that Dake is better than Taylor".

True, this isn't a real hypothesis test, but the principle still applies.

 

However, this is the original statement that started the entire debate:

 

If Dake and Taylor were precisely even, the odds of one winning three straight would be 12.5%-- possible, but unlikely.

 

Also, a lot of the Taylor mystique is based on him having just one loss in his first two years. BUT he also had two losses his redshirt year (or three his first three years of college, compared to four for Dake). This was the same year that Dake also had two losses, except Dake was wrestling on varsity and in the NCAA tournament, while Taylor was wrestling in open tournaments mostly against fellow redshirts and backups. He lost to Cyler Sanderson, who was no slouch, but who did not place that year.

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-wre ... 46170.html

 

What he said is incorrect. If two wrestlers are precisely even, the odds of one winning three straight is 25%.

 

Now, the odds of one specific wrestler winning three straight is 12.5%. However, the odds of one specific wrestler winning the first match, losing the second, and winning the third is also 12.5%. As are the odds of him losing the first two, and winning the third. Each of these events are "possible, but unlikely." However, one of them HAS to happen. Therefore the fact that one of them did happen can't be used as evidence of anything. It only has meaning when you put it in context. That is to say that the odds of one (either one) winning three straight would be 25%, while the odds of one winning two and the other winning one is 75%. It is here that you can point out the improbability of the scenario since it only had a 25% chance of happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at it this way, and include the freestyle match to make it 4-0 just for statistical purposes. The probability of them being equally matched such that each match is a coin flip and Dake going 4-0 is 6%. Likewise, the probability of Taylor going 0-4 (which is what happened) while still being dead even is the exact same 6%. This means the converse is also true. If we assume a dead even match in ability, the probability of Taylor going anything other than 0-4 is 94%. Statistically, these data are showing that even with a sample size of only 4 matches, the assumption that they are exactly equally matched is probably false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets look at it this way, and include the freestyle match to make it 4-0 just for statistical purposes. The probability of them being equally matched such that each match is a coin flip and Dake going 4-0 is 6%. Likewise, the probability of Taylor going 0-4 (which is what happened) while still being dead even is the exact same 6%. This means the converse is also true. If we assume a dead even match in ability, the probability of Taylor going anything other than 0-4 is 94%. Statistically, these data are showing that even with a sample size of only 4 matches, the assumption that they are exactly equally matched is probably false.

Yes, the probability of Taylor going anything other than 0-4 is 94%. However, that includes the chance that he could go 4-0. What you're saying is that the two could be evenly matched if Taylor goes 1-3, 2-2, 3-1, or 4-0, but since he went 0-4, this is unlikely to be the case. If you're going to make that argument, you have to say that the two could be evenly matched if Taylor went 1-3, 2-2, or 3-1, but since he didn't that is unlikely to be the case. Therefore the chance Taylor does not go 1-3, 2-2, or 3-1 (and he did not) is 87.5% It is still unlikely that they're evenly matched, but to say the odds that they aren't is 94% is misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the probability of Taylor going anything other than 0-4 is 94%. However, that includes the chance that he could go 4-0. What you're saying is that the two could be evenly matched if Taylor goes 1-3, 2-2, 3-1, or 4-0, but since he went 0-4, this is unlikely to be the case. If you're going to make that argument, you have to say that the two could be evenly matched if Taylor went 1-3, 2-2, or 3-1, but since he didn't that is unlikely to be the case. Therefore the chance Taylor does not go 1-3, 2-2, or 3-1 (and he did not) is 87.5% It is still unlikely that they're evenly matched, but to say the odds that they aren't is 94% is misleading.

 

Your whole premise is bad and I don't understand why you insist on focusing on this. The statement that there is a 94% chance that, based on a 0-4 record against Dake this year, Taylor is at best evenly matched against Dake stands on it's own. No "but" required. Your fascination with the opposite case is irrelevant and I don't understand why you insist on continuing to bring it up. The poster that is being intentionally obtuse, pedantic, and misleading is you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is true I believe, is the following statement:

 

The probability that in 4 matches, assuming they are evenly matched, that Taylor wins at least one match, is 94%.

 

This is simply 100% minus the probability that he goes 0-4, which is 6%. All of the other combinations together (1-3,2-2,3-1,4-0) sum to 94 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is true I believe, is the following statement:

 

The probability that in 4 matches, assuming they are evenly matched, that Taylor wins at least one match, is 94%.

 

This is simply 100% minus the probability that he goes 0-4, which is 6%. All of the other combinations together (1-3,2-2,3-1,4-0) sum to 94 percent.

I'll agree with that.

 

 

Zeeb's last post is out in left field though. If I have time later, I'll try to calculate the probability that Taylor is as good if not better than Dake based on the 0-4 record (which wasn't the topic of the debate originally). However, for right now, it's friday night and I'm going out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'll try to calculate the probability that Taylor is as good if not better than Dake based on the 0-4 record (which wasn't the topic of the debate originally). However, for right now, it's friday night and I'm going out.

 

6.25%. As has been stated multiple times in this thread. Including the post you quoted. But that's actual math. I'm interested what BigRedMachine math will come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little more math. To beat someone 4x in a row in half of the 4 match series that you wrestle (meaning it's only 50-50 that Dake would go 4-0 against Taylor) you have to be better by an 85-15 margin. (.85 x .85 x.85 x.85 is about 50 percent. )

 

So lets say that you think Dake would go 4-0 against Taylor only half the time. That means he would win overall about 85 percent of the matches.

 

Now let's say somehow you still think that Taylor is better, lets say by only a 60-40 percentage. The odds of going 0-4 against someone that you would beat 60 percent of the time is 2 percent. In the words of Lloyd Christmas : "so you're telling me there's a chance....."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Identify the origin of the data...how was it obtained ? Tools/devises available, so as to test your observations.

 

Is the data reliable ? Is it valid (reliability/validity)? Summaries/conclusions.....here you must be concise. Must be "on target"........relevent to your study.

 

Yours in wrestling,

 

Denny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winning four in a row against a guy is pretty convincing. Dake beat Taylor in preseason, early season, mid season and for all the marbles. I think Taylor is a great wrestler but you can only go by results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread should be who will miss who...Looking forward to Mr. Taylor going after #2 and being part of The PSU "Train" bringing home #4...Mr. Ruth will also be on that train!!!

 

P.S. You folks enjoy your evening!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, look forward to Mr. Taylor go for #2. I can't help but wonder if two titles is what was envisioned when he signed at Iowa St. I, personally, think two titles is quite the accomplishment. Their is no shame in being compared with the great two time titleist like Ben Askren, Jake Varner, and Steve Mocco, but Kyle Dake he'll never be. Hell, Ed Ruth he'll never be but two titles is still impressive in my eyes. I just wonder if some PSU folks thought he'd win more than two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!!!

 

P.S. Don't wonder to far you might get lost!!!

 

I, too, look forward to Mr. Taylor go for #2. I can't help but wonder if two titles is what was envisioned when he signed at Iowa St. I, personally, think two titles is quite the accomplishment. Their is no shame in being compared with the great two time titleist like Ben Askren, Jake Varner, and Steve Mocco, but Kyle Dake he'll never be. Hell, Ed Ruth he'll never be but two titles is still impressive in my eyes. I just wonder if some PSU folks thought he'd win more than two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's also a 100% chance that someone will win a given match. If they wrestle twice there is a 100% chance that there will be a victor in both matches. If they wrestle three times there is a 100% chance that there will be a victor in all three matches.

 

You're technically correct, but I still fail to see what your point is. If they were perfectly matched then yes, the chance of Taylor winning all three would be the same as Dake winning all three. What does that observation add to the conversation? Especially since this whole line of thoughts stems from the idea that they are equally matched, which is 87.5% likely to not be the case.

 

Uh, no. At least not to the way you worded the first sentence. There are such things as no contests and double dqs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I, too, look forward to Mr. Taylor go for #2. I can't help but wonder if two titles is what was envisioned when he signed at Iowa St. I, personally, think two titles is quite the accomplishment. Their is no shame in being compared with the great two time titleist like Ben Askren, Jake Varner, and Steve Mocco, but Kyle Dake he'll never be. Hell, Ed Ruth he'll never be but two titles is still impressive in my eyes. I just wonder if some PSU folks thought he'd win more than two?

 

This is spot on.

 

It is very unlikely David Taylor will ever get majored in the quarter finals and fail to make the national finals in his 4 years at PSU

 

I think two titles is exactly what I expected from him. Afterall, he was being tossed around by Jenkins, Molinaro and Sanderson when he first came to PSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mokoma-Unlike some of your contemporaries (above), sometimes I like talking to you. I think you are correct about Taylor never getting majored in the quarterfinals. I was simply comparing three titles to 2, which is all the majority of people will do when they look back on this time period. I believe you when you say you only had Taylor pegged for two titles (again absolutely no shame in two titles) I wonder how many of your boys "only" had Taylor down for two. Maybe two is exactly what everyone expected from him. I wonder...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I, too, look forward to Mr. Taylor go for #2. I can't help but wonder if two titles is what was envisioned when he signed at Iowa St. I, personally, think two titles is quite the accomplishment. Their is no shame in being compared with the great two time titleist like Ben Askren, Jake Varner, and Steve Mocco, but Kyle Dake he'll never be. Hell, Ed Ruth he'll never be but two titles is still impressive in my eyes. I just wonder if some PSU folks thought he'd win more than two?

 

This is spot on.

 

It is very unlikely David Taylor will ever get majored in the quarter finals and fail to make the national finals in his 4 years at PSU

 

I think two titles is exactly what I expected from him. Afterall, he was being tossed around by Jenkins, Molinaro and Sanderson when he first came to PSU.

-----

 

Ironically LiMarty may have correctly predicted some of this. My memory is a little hazy, but I think he said DT would not win an ncaa title until maybe 3rd or 4th yr, giving him 1 or 2 titles. He was incorrect in predicting DT would struggle his RS Fr year, even against B10 opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...