Originally posted by mandyross
Let me try to spell it out for you in the simplest terms possible:Before we even get to me proving you wrong yet again, I don't want to let you off the hook for your behavior.
In this thread you have repeatedly accused me of using insults when I haven't done so once to you, meanwhile you have
repeatedly been insulting me in this thread. That's why I pointed out the irony in your previous post, because
you are actually the one who follows
me around the forums tossing insults. Go back and re-read your posts from this thread. You lost your shit because I proved you wrong and made you look bad, which made you angry. Now back to your previously scheduled embarrassment:
Originally posted by
Nice name for your image ... also ... lies. http://oi46.tinypic.com/2z4ctms.jpg Granted it's a 1 pixel drop, but given the graph's size of around 100 pixels, that corresponds to a 1% loss. Which amazingly corresponds to my lower-bounds estimate! Who'd have thought it?The line
does not have a one pixel drop. I made it using MS Paint, and I made sure that the Y coordinate for the first and final points were both 33. It is a straight line, you're just so out of your mind in anger about being proven wrong that you're warping reality to create this illusion where I'm a dirty deceiver and you're captain corrector. It's a straight line with no pixel drops. Moreover, that graph is
not even close to being only 100 pixels wide. The line goes from 310,33 to 799,33. That's a line width of 489 pixels, not 100. The fact that you think the width is "around 100 pixels" shows just how completely clueless you are in this whole discussion.
Also, regarding your "lower-bounds" estimate, let's go back and look at when this argument between us started:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4950599&page=3#45917650Originally posted by mandyross
The speed script I'm running shows the fire catch returner clearly reduce his speed as the play progresses (taking into account the rounding produced by the spatial coordinates). Not by much, looking at the way the line wiggles I'd have a rough guess of 5-10%. Maybe I'm using an old script though.Then you switch to:
Originally posted by mandyross
The drop not large, before I estimated 5-10%, I'd say around 5% is probably closest to the true value. But it does exist, something which is entirely logical from a coding point of view.Then you switch yet again to:
Originally posted by mandyross
The graph shows the speed when crossing the 30 yrd line (purely vertical movement) is greater than the speed during the final 10 yards of the play. Not much, maybe a 2.5% difference. And then finally we get to you now saying:
Originally posted by mandyross
Granted it's a 1 pixel drop, but given the graph's size of around 100 pixels, that corresponds to a 1% loss. Which amazingly corresponds to my lower-bounds estimate! Who'd have thought it?Only we've covered the fact that the line is almost 500 pixels wide, so even if it did drop a pixel that would actually be a fifth of one percent, or 0.2%. You've gone from insisting there was a drop of "5-10%" to "5%" to "maybe 2.5%" to "a 1% loss," all of which are still wrong since there's actually no drop at all. Now for those who bother to witness mandyross' humiliation, let me be clear yet again that there are other replays which do show a steady decline as Fumanchuchu stated, which I initially disputed. I was wrong about that, just as mandyross is wrong about this.
And while you're insulting me and pretending to know more about mathematics (
which you too would laugh at if you knew my background), you have repeatedly avoided answering this point because you know it proves you wrong: "
What is needed for time series data to be represented as a purely horizontal line? The data points either need to be constant over time or vary slightly above and below it by the same degree. If speed was continuously declining on that return as energy was lost, then a time series representation would reflect that with a negative slope." You pretend that I don't understand time series representations, but I most certainly do, and anyone who does knows that you're full of crap for pretending that an underlying decline could ever be represented by such a long, straight line. The long, straight line shows quite the opposite, that no decline was taking place. Meanwhile in the OP replay, that one does show a decline of
5 pixels over a width of 485.
That's why I've said I'm confused, because we have some examples showing the decline that jives with Bort's assertion of how things should happen, then we have other examples where there is clearly no decline at all. I don't know how to explain it, I just know that you're making yourself look foolish by repeatedly insulting me while accusing me of insulting you (
which I haven't), all while changing your story from 5-10% to 5% to 2.5% to 1%, when the reality has always been 0%. Let it go before you make yourself look any worse.
