Moderator: TFF Mods
And it effectively returns a yes or no answer, is the part you neglected to mention (probably because you've done exactly zero ANOVAs, to date). What ANOVA will not do is tell you which of those races are not satisfying the conditions. You may want to consult with google further before claiming you knew that all along but considered it too trivial to statedode74 wrote:It can be used to see if multiple races are comparable (i.e. have different means) with each other.
Let me walk you through this again since you obviously didn't understand when I introduced you to the concept of ANOVA on cyanide's forums. If you run an ANOVA on a set of data then ANOVA gives you a YES OR NO ANSWER FOR THE ENTIRE SET, as in, you say "are any of these significantly different than any others within this set" and it goes "yes" like some sort of cryptic oracle. It does not identify which of that group is significantly different from another. To identify specific outliers you perform different tests that require exponentially larger numbers of calculations and alpha level corrections based on the size of the original set.dode74 wrote:The "yes/no" is inherent within the part of my statement which you quoted. The "satisfying the conditions" is inherent in the rest of the statement, which you did not quote.
Seems to me that you're shifting the stated goals in order to accomodate your desired changes. Your call, of course.I had to move the goal posts a bit for the NTBB defintion of bottom of tier 1 (from 46 to 46.5)
And you'd be right. For the reasons stated above.Seems to me that you're shifting the stated goals in order to accomodate your desired changes. Your call, of course.
Personally I think you'd be better off going back to 2013 and starting from there as a basis to make changes from since 2014 was so unpopular and some of the changes have been shown to have no real need. Shifting the goalposts in this way just smells like "I want to keep the changes I made so I will". Admitting 2014 was an error will likely improve the credibility of the ruleset more than sticking with it will.For the reasons stated above.
I don't think they're as hard to play as they're purported to be but they reward a mentality that I don't think is common in coaches. Certainly with a high entry cost and no blocking or ball handling skills OOTB I think you'd struggle to call them even an average starting team though.plasmoid wrote:I Wonder if anyone thinks they're an average or above average starting team. But being such a thoroughly unpopular tournament choice (for obvious reasons) they have played very few games and hence their CI is very wide.