Moxie629 said:
GameSetAndMath said:
Moxie629 said:
GameSetAndMath said:
You can give whatever chances, you want to as you are entitled to have an
opinion. The chances for Roger and Rafa reaching different number of GS totals
given in the article are not the opinions of the author. They are calculated based
on sound methodology. You have already admitted that in your post. My purpose
here is not to criticize you or to devalue your opinion. I just want to make sure
that unsuspecting readers do not assume that the probabilites given in the articles
are opinions like that of yours or that of some one else, commenting here.
So, in the end, though, stats and probability don't tell us what's going to happen, right? Predictors of the future, but with no certainty. Good fun, as far as it goes.
Of course, nobody can predict future.
That does not mean all predictions are equally reasonable or anything goes.
It is precisely for the purpose of taming the uncertainity that probability theory was developed.
Yes, and yours seems as reasonable as El Dude's. But let's not kid ourselves that we're really "taming uncertainty" here. That was part of my point earlier in this thread about being beyond the realm of statistics. And I've made the same point about Nadal and the French Open. Just because something has been done rarely, or never, doesn't mean it can't be done. I think Federer and Sampras and Nadal have launched us off into a place where grading by those in the past makes the curve irrelevant. Will Nadal catch Federer? Who knows? Will Nadal actually get 10 French Open titles? Who knows? At this point, I don't give a fig for your statistics, because I think we've wandered into unknown territory. And I say that with all respect, but does it really matter how old John McEnroe was when he won his last Major, at this refined altitude?
First of all, "it" is not mine. I don't want to be seen as taking credit for the beautiful
analysis done by the author of that article.
Second, you don't seem to get it. See the bolded comment in your previous post included
here. When the weather forecaster says tomorrow it is likely to rain, that is a prediction
with no certainity. That does not mean the forecast does not have value. I am sure
that you do watch weather forecast and take it seriously or do you say it is "good fun"?
The fact that something cannot be predicted with certainity does not make predictions
meaningless or devoid of value. The whole taming of uncertainity is about quantifying
the chances of some event happening despite being able to say for sure.
The weather forecast is based on so much past information and pattern analysis.
One might ask what does tomorrow's weather got to do with the weather on the same
day in 1947. But, that also plays a role in the prediction of tomorrow's weather. Likewise
McEnroe's age when he got a slam is a meaningful data in this prediction.
Finally, with respect to Roger and Rafa achieving great things which have never
been achieved, that greatness has been factored into the calculation by means of
the greatness coefficient. The article is not projecting the future slams of Rafa or
Roger just based on other medicore player's results in old age. It does give allowance
for the fact that since Roger and Rafa are great, they are more likely to do great
things even at old age when compared to mortal folks.
Just a few more figs for you to not care. :snigger
snigger:laydownlaughing:lolz:
