Thread: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

1. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

Originally Posted by Herkey#1
To stare in the face of facts and lie discredits your ranking system.
This sentence infers the idea that you believe that SHP is lying about something. If you didn't want to infer that he was lying you wouldn't have written it this way.

Perhaps you just aren't intelligent enough to understand the criteria that he uses to put these rankings together.

These rankings aren't subjective, they're based on mathematics.

2. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

Originally Posted by JensenS
This sentence infers the idea that you believe that SHP is lying about something. If you didn't want to infer that he was lying you wouldn't have written it this way.

Perhaps you just aren't intelligent enough to understand the criteria that he uses to put these rankings together.

These rankings aren't subjective, they're based on mathematics.
Well I certainly didnt mean to infer that HE was lying. Don't try to tell me what my intent was when I write something. His rankings are lying though by telling us that Iowa is third best at this point in his dual rankings. When it is clearly obvious that they are #1.

I undersand that his rankings arent subjective. Therefore they are wrong. Iowa has proven that they are the number one team in the nation. His equation has them as the number three team. This makes his equation wrong. If this were a math problem in school he would get a big red check mark right through the middle of this problem because he has the wrong answer. If they had not beat those two teams and every other team on the schedule, or if they hadnt wrestled those teams yet, he could say that they are the third best team in the nation because we wouldnt know.

Don't try to insult me by questioning my intelligence. I'm sure if I looked at his equation I would understand it, but I don't need to look at it to know that it is wrong. The outcome of the equation is wrong, therefore his equation is wrong.

3. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

I will say I understand some of the math (not all). I am wondering what is the criteria for who SHP uses in his formula (Rasing vs Erekson). Also the the Krom -Letts thing is puzzling as well.

4. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

Originally Posted by Herkey#1

Don't try to insult me by questioning my intelligence. I'm sure if I looked at his equation I would understand it, but I don't need to look at it to know that it is wrong. The outcome of the equation is wrong, therefore his equation is wrong.

You aren't intelligent enough to try and understand the process behind how he puts these together, so you're admittedly just going to ignore it and just cry about how the outcome isn't the one that you agree with.

5. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

Originally Posted by JensenS

You aren't intelligent enough to try and understand the process behind how he puts these together, so you're admittedly just going to ignore it and just cry about how the outcome isn't the one that you agree with.

The outcome isnt one that anyone agrees with. It is impossible for the outcome to be right and have any other team than the Hawkeyes at the top of this list. I would say the same thing if it were any other team. Why are you defending an obviosly flawed list and berating me personally while doing it? You can argue with me without being a flippin jerk, right? Maybe not.

6. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

Originally Posted by Wiltz
Also the the Krom -Letts thing is puzzling as well.
I feel like I've read someone bring up Krom-Letts everytime and i've never seen any sort of explanation. Will one be provided?

7. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

Originally Posted by vaisforlovers
I feel like I've read someone bring up Krom-Letts everytime and i've never seen any sort of explanation. Will one be provided?

"someone" = me

8. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

I like SHP's formula as a fantasy tool -rather than rankings it proves mathematically by using the outcome of matches to determine the ''rankings''-I quote rankings because I feel these represent the wrestlers value to his team rather than where he should be placed in an arbitrary line up-
Div 1 uses the top 8 returnees as a jumping off spot -that is a crock , no offense to Earl but with graduation s and incoming freshman and redshirts the top 8 left overs from last year are NOT the top 8 guys in that class .
SHP starts at a zero point where all wrestlers are equal and then let's the results determine the 'rankings'-as with ANY system it has it's flaws but I'd take Mathematics and actual results over ''homerism'' any day .
SHP's system also eliminates the human factor which I really dislike - some kids have way more heart than others -since measuring these intangibles is impossible I will use SHP's system to pick a fantasy team rather than any other system -but I am really old school and think rankings are useless and vain .
The only rankings which matter are the ones the day after the ncaa's .

9. Re: Dual Impact Index through February 7, 2010

The problem is they give Varner a technical fall in these rankings. Varner has like one or two techs in his entire career. Not only that, in actual practice, Varner has only gotten bonus points once in three tries against Iowa wrestlers, and obviously Sorenson is 1-3 against Iowa wrestlers, his single win coming over the redshirting Derek St. John. Not only that, but Metcalf is only credited with a decision over Mueller, when historically, Metcalf puts up bonus on Mueller.

If real life shows us one thing, but math says something else is true, logic dictates that there's a flaw in the math.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•