2600 bro wrote:
I don’t see how ANOVA would be useful for time series data.
Time series doesn’t matter in your hypothesis.
-
30
-
30
-
Harambe wrote:
Chokervic has not won a tournament since I diagnosed him with long COVID many months ago. He always plays fine in the prelims but cracks when the stakes get high (see: getting absolutely thumped by Alcaraz). This is likely due to cognitive issues he is still dealing with. I hope it clears up soon. I remain undefeated
Just a reminder
40 -
30
-
CONFIRMED wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Chokervic has not won a tournament since I diagnosed him with long COVID many months ago. He always plays fine in the prelims but cracks when the stakes get high (see: getting absolutely thumped by Alcaraz). This is likely due to cognitive issues he is still dealing with. I hope it clears up soon. I remain undefeated
Just a reminder
Glad to see he’s recovered. As I’ve said many times this confirms he was dealing with an illness and not age
05 -
Oooof wrote:
Thanks for finally putting it up. Time series typing is horribly garbled. Hard to make heads or tails of your analysis that use 0-1 as time intervals and have MS paint annotations. I’ll trust 2600 bros analysis, especially since both win % and margin of victory confirm a drop off in play quality. Just one piece supporting my genius diagnosis.
08 -
Oooof wrote:
Below average play coupled with failure to win key matches (psychological effects?). Even this analysis supports my theory.
07 -
Harambe wrote:
Oooof wrote:
Thanks for finally putting it up. Time series typing is horribly garbled. Hard to make heads or tails of your analysis that use 0-1 as time intervals and have MS paint annotations. I’ll trust 2600 bros analysis, especially since both win % and margin of victory confirm a drop off in play quality. Just one piece supporting my genius diagnosis.
What a surprise. No refuting the results. I knew that would happen.
A drop off, but as proven, not a statistically significant drop off.
Your hypothesis doesn’t hold up.
40 -
Oooof wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Thanks for finally putting it up. Time series typing is horribly garbled. Hard to make heads or tails of your analysis that use 0-1 as time intervals and have MS paint annotations. I’ll trust 2600 bros analysis, especially since both win % and margin of victory confirm a drop off in play quality. Just one piece supporting my genius diagnosis.
What a surprise. No refuting the results. I knew that would happen.
A drop off, but as proven, not a statistically significant drop off.
Your hypothesis doesn’t hold up.
Under 2600s more rigorous analysis it does. Clearly cleaner and better handled data. The trend holds in both your datasets which is important concordance. This is further vindication.
06 -
CONFIRMED wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Glad to see he’s recovered. As I’ve said many times this confirms he was dealing with an illness and not age
The only illness is your mental illness.
Djokovic made you look like Ned Beatty in Deliverance.
Antivaxxers as usual fail to engage with the salient points of my diagnostic cascade.
06 -
Harambe wrote:
Under 2600s more rigorous analysis it does. Clearly cleaner and better handled data. The trend holds in both your datasets which is important concordance. This is further vindication.
Talking out of your ass until another guy sticks a plug in it.
41 -
Oooof wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Below average play coupled with failure to win key matches (psychological effects?). Even this analysis supports my theory.
Your hypothesis does not hold up to statistical analysis. It failed.
It doesn’t hold up your analysis which is less documented, clear, and cleanly presented than 2600 bros. 2600 also looks at two different measures of strength and finds a clear signal in both that matches the trend in yours. This is outstanding evidence of poor play during the long COVID period.
06 -
Harambe wrote:
Oooof wrote:
What a surprise. No refuting the results. I knew that would happen.
A drop off, but as proven, not a statistically significant drop off.
Your hypothesis doesn’t hold up.
Under 2600s more rigorous analysis it does. Clearly cleaner and better handled data. The trend holds in both your datasets which is important concordance. This is further vindication.
It doesn’t matter what you “think” or what your opinion is. The data clearly rejects your hypothesis. As I stated several times, just because there “looks” like a difference does not mean that there is a statistically significant difference. The analysis bears this out.
Your hypothesis has been rejected by the analysis of the data.
30 -
Another epic meltdown by Harambro. He's bitterly clinging to this after being proved wrong.......again.
Hang on tight, Harambro! Don't let go!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I LOVE IT!
30 -
Oooof wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Under 2600s more rigorous analysis it does. Clearly cleaner and better handled data. The trend holds in both your datasets which is important concordance. This is further vindication.
It doesn’t matter what you “think” or what your opinion is. The data clearly rejects your hypothesis. As I stated several times, just because there “looks” like a difference does not mean that there is a statistically significant difference. The analysis bears this out.
Your hypothesis has been rejected by the analysis of the data.
Nice work.
30 -
Oooof wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Thanks for finally putting it up. Time series typing is horribly garbled. Hard to make heads or tails of your analysis that use 0-1 as time intervals and have MS paint annotations. I’ll trust 2600 bros analysis, especially since both win % and margin of victory confirm a drop off in play quality. Just one piece supporting my genius diagnosis.
What a surprise. No refuting the results. I knew that would happen.
A drop off, but as proven, not a statistically significant drop off.
Your hypothesis doesn’t hold up.
I knew he would have a bull$hit, lackluster refutation too, trying to piggyback on someone else’s supposedly superior and more pristine results. “Paint annotations.” What a jacka$$.
Btw, even if there was a statistically significant dropoff (there wasn’t), it was still minor and sure as hell doesn’t prove “Long Covid.” Essentially, Djokovic only played “poorly” in the January to May time frame before he got injured. Five months. Could be age, could be injury, could be illness, could be just a bad (for him) streak. Whatever the case, he still made a semifinal, final, and won a gold medal. Still world ranked #2. Not the stuff of true Long Covid.
20
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.