Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[Mr Miyagi]

That's not a theory. That is not even a sentence.

Pick A or B, it's changed throughout the thread:



If you pick A or B I can tell you if I agree or not. Not that complicated.[/QUOTER]uns and competition for wickets operate INDEPENDENTLY of batting and bowling strength. It isn't a choice. They both happen to every bowler. Strang takes a 10 for, Streak gets less, Bracewell takes a 10 for, Hadlee gets less, Crowe et al get ducks, Hadlee gets less, Flower et al get ducks, Streak gets less, so on and so forth.

 

[Starfighter]

Why do you think I can keep proving my theory with more data? (Your words)

Theories have to be proven significant with data. Billions of dollars are spent a year because of this.

Can you answer my question with a 'yes' or a 'no':

Do you think it is possible for a theory to be correct but for the effect to be insignificant in real life?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

And it should be stated that this thread was started specifically about B

Who cares.

Really.

Is it significant?

 

[TheJediBrah]

uns and competition for wickets INDEPENDENT of batting and bowling strength. It isn't a choice. They both happen to every bowler. Strang takes a 10 for, Streak gets less, Bracewell takes a 10 for, Hadlee gets less, Crowe et al get ducks, Hadlee gets less, Flower et al get ducks, Streak gets less, so on and so forth.

That's still not a theory. It's a jumble of words.

Just state your theory in one simple sentence. By god why is that so hard for you

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That's still not a theory. It's a jumble of words.

Just state your theory in one simple sentence. By god why is that so hard for you

Its a theory you either agree with or you don't.

Why are you being obtuse?

I really don't care if you disagree with it.

I will just hit you with more data and logic that everyone else thinks you're a fool. But I'll still think you're smart, just not grasping it immediately.

Or you can agree with it, and we can move on to bowling packs and 4th innings.

Either way - I'm satisfied. I'm talking theory and I'm talking cricket. Life is bliss.

 

[Starfighter]

That's not a theory. That is not even a sentence.

Pick A or B, it's changed throughout the thread:



If you pick A or B I can tell you if I agree or not. Not that complicated.[/QUOTER]uns and competition for wickets operate INDEPENDENTLY of batting and bowling strength. It isn't a choice. They both happen to every bowler. Strang takes a 10 for, Streak gets less, Bracewell takes a 10 for, Hadlee gets less, Crowe et al get ducks, Hadlee gets less, Flower et al get ducks, Streak gets less, so on and so forth.

Do think that it is possible for two variables to have an effect on a measure without having an influence on each other? Yes or no?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Who cares.

Really.

Is it significant?

lol it's the entire basis for there being an argument in the first place

A or B m8:

Which theory are you talking about.

A) that "second innings denial" effect exists and can affect wpm

or

B) "second innings denial" effect is decisive and means that playing in a stronger team = higher wpm (even though evidence says the opposite)

A or B?

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Nothing. But like him not being bothered to read back, I wasn't bothered to type my paragraph out again. Fair's fair.

Except, his post implies that he has read the through the thread, and didn't have any idea of what your position was at the end of it; hence, the request to you to state your theory in a succinct manner.

Therefore, rather than expecting him to do the work finding out your theory, wouldn't it at least be courteous to him to do that?

 

[Starfighter]

Its a theory you wither agree with or you don't.

Why are you being obtuse?

The only person being obtuse here has a Colin de Grandhomme avatar at the current time.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Do think that it is possible for two variables to have an effect on a measure without having an influence on each other? Yes or no?

Independent variables like runs on the board and competition for wickets? ABSOLUTELY AND YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're so close to getting this now. I feel proud.

 

[Starfighter]

Who cares.

Really.

Is it significant?

There's an insignificant chance you get hit by a meteorite tomorrow. It's so insignificant you take no conscious steps to mitigate it, but the chance still exists.

This entire thread is based on questioning whether something is significant or insignificant. Not whether it theoretically correct.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Independent variables like runs on the board and competition for wickets? ABSOLUTELY AND YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What. Is. Your. Theory.

One intelligible sentence

the request to you to state your theory in a succinct manner

Why is it so hard

 

[Starfighter]

Independent variables like runs on the board and competition for wickets? ABSOLUTELY AND YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good. Now, do you think it is possible for one of those independent variables to have so much larger an effect than the other, the other becomes insignificant in the overall measure?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

lol it's the entire basis for there being an argument in the first place

A or B m8:

Its never A or B.

It and B and in what levels. Warne takes 14 wickets. McGraht takes less. Strang takes a 10 for or Bracewell takes a 10 for Streak takes less. Batsmen fail for ZImbabwe, Streak takes less. Batsmen fail for Australia, McGRath and Warne take less.

INDEPENDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENT

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Good. Now, do you think it is possible for one of those independent variables to have so much larger an effect than the other, the other becomes insignificant in the overall measure?

No. Both remain significant.

Unless you meant comparative significance. In which case Hadlee suffered both lack of runs and benefited from lack of competition for wickets. Murali benefited from runs and no competition for wickets, and Streak like Hadlee (but worse) and Marshall was like McGrath, they had runs but they had they had competition for wcikets. There's 3, THREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE scenarios. Runs, competitions for wickets or both.

Clear as mud? You don't get it.

Independent.

INDEPENDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENT

 

[TheJediBrah]

Its never A or B.

It and B and in what levels. Warne takes 14 wickets. McGraht takes less. Strang takes a 10 for or Bracewell takes a 10 for Streak takes less. Batsmen fail for ZImbabwe, Streak takes less. Batsmen fail for Australia, McGRath and Warne take less.

INDEPENDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENT

That's still not a theory, or a complete sentence.

We're all here arguing about your theory. You asked me before to tell you whether or not I agree with your theory.

Now you can't even tell me what your theory is. Are you broken?

 

[Starfighter]

No. Both remain significant.

Unless you meant comparative significance. In which case Hadlee suffered both lack of runs and benefited from lack of competition for wickets. Murali benefited from runs and no competition for wickets, and Streak like Hadlee (but worse) and Marshall was like McGrath, they had runs but they had they had competition for wcikets. There's 3 scenarios. Runs, competitions for wickets or both.

You're still dancing around the word significant.

I can put bricks on on a table no? I can also put feathers on a table? The number of bricks I can put on the table is not influenced by the number of feathers, or vice versa? They are independent right?

Yes or no?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That's still not a theory, or a complete sentence.

We're all here arguing about your theory. You asked me before to tell you whether or not I agree with your theory.

Now you can't even tell me what your theory is. Are you broken?

Runs on the board and competition for wickets are both significant.

/thread

/theory

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're still dancing around the word significant.

I can put bricks on on a table no? I can also put feathers on a table? The number of bricks I can put on the table is not influenced by the number of feathers, or vice versa? They are independent right?

They're independent on weight subject to the physical limits of space that the table provides - I assume that it is inside? Are you filling it up independently, or together? I'd go bricks first if both to get more weight if inside :P



I don't dance around the word significant. As a lawyer, and a scholar, I love the word significant. It is my raison d'etre. Second only to reasonable.

 

[Starfighter]

They're independent on weight subject to the physical limits of space that the table provides - I assume that it is inside? Are you filling it up independently, or together? I'd go bricks first if both to get more weight :P

Don't overthink it. We're not using extreme numbers or anything here. This is a practical example.

Would you agree that as long as their individual numbers stay within the about same magnitude the amount of weight that I put on the table in feathers is insignificant compared to that of the bricks? Yes or no?