Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Huddle,

1st: Santana Moss was injured in 2004. He missed two games completely and was hindered in many others. So his ability did actually change.......this fact is reflected in his statistics. So if Moss stayed in NY, I'd expect him to post numbers more in line with his 2003 numbers and/or his 2005 numbers, assuming he has a healthy QB and stays healthy himself.

2nd: I'm not playing this game where you pick small excerpts of my post and try to argue each individually. The point of my post was to show that this thread is pointless because the entire professional sports world disagrees with you. We debate sports (specifically football) on this site. We all use statistics to support our arguments, and when we want to argue the statistics we qualify them by pointing out facts that we all know (like Santana Moss being injured in 2004 and the fact that his QB couldn't throw the ball over 20 yards downfield). You're one example doesn't make statistics an innappropriate measuring stick in every single argument. In the case of Bledsoe and Brunell, the statistics are still solid basis on which to form an argument for or against each player.

3rd: Burden of proof shifts from claimant to respondent once a prima facie case is made. Therefore, Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the NFL because he is the most accurate QB, makes the best decisions, has the strongest arm, and has made the most of having the least in terms of supporting cast around him. Now the burden shifts to you: prove me wrong.

Let me save everyone some time here......you can't prove me wrong because you've paralyzed yourself with your own argument. What can you offer me to make the case that Aaron Brooks is not the best QB in the NFL?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]I find it amusing that you would make this statement twice and then spend so much time, as you obviously did, in writing your lengthy and well-articulated post.[/quote]

he did so because you continue this pointless diatribe without a leg to stand on.


[quote]
I'm going to assume that you are a fan like myself, with no inside information on the game. If that's the case, you're guessing about the influence of statistics on the game just as I would be.

And, once again, my position has nothing to do with the statistical data gathered and used by professional teams...since most of your post has to do with the pointlessness of trying to change the reality of the sports world, it isn't relevant here.[/quote]

here's the thing, the sports world revolves around stats and uses them to plan offseason moves, contract values, and player honors and awards. That, by definition, makes them useful. And its not guessing, because many many of these "insiders" give interviews and become analysts. that's just a pointless and VERY flawed attempt to discredit a perfectly legitimate point.


[quote]
The burden of proof is on the claimant. The Aaron Brooks claim is yours to prove. When you try to do it with statistics, I'll simply argue that your stats are worthless and give you reasons.[/quote]

without stats, you're just argueing opinions, and in that case there is no proof and no one can be wrong. Wins and Losses are stats, scores are stats. without them there is no game.

you keep saying your giving evidence, but without facts, such as stats, its nothing more than opinions and speculations.

Its a fact that bledsoe got sacked 49 times. thats also a stat, and if you're the cowboys, it'd be a good idea to address either the QB or OL to reduce that number in the future. Since it lets the cowboys know of a weakness, they can plan FA visists around that and they've hired OL guys already to try and fix it. since that one stat helped them in their long term planning, it is, by definition, [b]useful[/b], and consequently, not worthless, or even almost worthless.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Does anyone know how much we can save by releasing Brunell??

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Mattyk72]Does anyone know how much we can save by releasing Brunell??[/quote]It all depends on the stats. If you like I could start a thread and we could discuss.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

I just read through the last few pages of this thread. Normally, I have a blast debating meaningless academia - as, inately, I am a meaningless academic.

This thread, however, is far too academic and meaningless even for me.

Well, maybe not. Huddle - simple question and follow-up:
Do you believe there are ANY criteria that provide a basis for objective comparison of two players playing the same position but for different teams? If so, what are they?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

PSUSkinsFan21

[quote]The point of my post was to show that this thread is pointless because the entire professional sports world disagrees with you. [/quote]
If I had said that the statistics used by pro teams are worthless, you'd be right. Since that isn't my position, you have made an irrelevant point as I said before.

[quote]In the case of Bledsoe and Brunell, the statistics are still solid basis on which to form an argument for or against each player.[/quote]
I know your opinion and disagree.

[quote] Burden of proof shifts from claimant to respondent once a prima facie case is made. Therefore, Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the NFL because he is the most accurate QB, makes the best decisions, has the strongest arm, and has made the most of having the least in terms of supporting cast around him. Now the burden shifts to you: prove me wrong.[/quote]

Nice try ...but you have only added further claims to the original. You've proven nothing.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE]Huddle - simple question and follow-up: Do you believe there are ANY criteria that provide a basis for objective comparison of two players playing the same position but for different teams? If so, what are they?[/QUOTE]

I'll assume you are talking about from a fan's perspective and not by the professionals.

Observation. Watching them play. But when we see the player infrequently, there's not much to go on.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]PSUSkinsFan21
Nice try ...but you have only added further claims to the original. You've proven nothing.[/quote]

I've proven that you have no way of arguing the merits of any player in the NFL. I've made assertions regarding a certain player. Those assertions must be taken as admitted by you since you have nothing to counter my argument.

See if you want to argue "proof", you've really picked the wrong guy to argue with. You've mentioned "burden of proof", which I will take as a legal term of art. In our legal system, when one party makes a factual averment to another party, and that second party does not dispute the factual averment made by the first, then that factual averment is taken as admitted by the second. So you see, I've made my assertions. You've offered nothing to counter those assertions. In our system of jurisprudence my assertions would be deemed admitted and my assertions would be taken as established, thereby constituting the requisite level of "proof" to win my case. So by refusing to dispute my claims, you have essentially admitted that Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the NFL. Congratulations.

See, you keep trying to skirt the real issue here. You have backed yourself into a corner that you can't get out of. If statistics can't be used to argue a point regarding players in the NFL, then you can offer nothing to me to dispute my assertions. If we were to accept your views on statistics and their propriety in professional sports discussions, then all of us would be left making unsupported claims about players that simply could not be refuted. Hence the reason you cannot offer any argument against my statement. Statistics make the difference between bald, unsupported assertions and reasonable arguments regarding players.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=dmek25]hey offiss,how the hell are you?did you wish your boy ramsey good luck?[/QUOTE]


Well he's moving to my neighborhood now, unfortunatly I really have no idea on how this new Jet's coaching staff is going to pan out, I was hoping he would winde up in a better situation than the Jets.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=That Guy];)

btw, how's portis's roid binge going?[/QUOTE]

No different than Bonds, Sheffield, and Giambi, as well as the rest of the NFL.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=Huddle] Nice try ...but you have only added further claims to the original. You've proven nothing.[/QUOTE]

First: You're wrong. He did not add further claims to his original statement. He made statements which support and provide a basis for the original claim. Given your stance on the use of "mostly useless" statistics to "prove" a point, your earlier invitation for him to prove his statement relying on statistics is disengenous at best.

He has made a claim: Brooks is the best QB. He then supports it by asserting that Brooks excels at those things that good QB's need to do. Simply b/c he did not support his assertion in the manner you have asked him to does not mean he hasn't offered support. Can you disprove any of his supporting assertions and, thus, call into question his final conclusion?

What must he provide as a basis for support of his claim? Accepting your theory that stats are mostly useless, any use of stats will inevitably fail.
The circular nature of your argument is truly amazing: You assert stats are mostly useless for providing a comparison of players. Then assert someone has not proven their point b/c they have not relied on stats to compare the player to others.

IF, instead, it is your position that, as he is arguing that stats are important and valuable comparisons, he must provide a statistical basis for his position re: Aaron Brooks, THEN you have failed to grasp the point of the statement or are deliberately failing to answer it.

The statement that "Brooks is the best QB" was not made as an assertion of the truth, but, rather, as a demonstration that, w/o the use of or reliance on stats, such statements are simply a matter of unsupported opinion. In the common use of the english language, opinions unsupported by facts are know as either bias, when asserting opinion in favor of something, and prejudice, when asserting opinion against something.

As the statement was made not as a truth to be proven, but rather to demonstrate the impossiblity of your position (that stats are mostly useless), the burden falls upon you to demonstrate, [B]in an objective fashion[/B], w/out any reliance on stats, that it can be disproven. Please do so.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

PSUSkinsFan21

[QUOTE]I've proven that you have no way of arguing the merits of any player in the NFL. I've made assertions regarding a certain player. Those assertions must be taken as admitted by you since you have nothing to counter my argument.[/QUOTE]

You didn't make an argument. You made a claim about a player that you cannot prove. Nor can you prove that you have any valid way of comparing one player to another using statistics.

[QUOTE] See if you want to argue "proof", you've really picked the wrong guy to argue with. You've mentioned "burden of proof", which I will take as a legal term of art.[/QUOTE]

You can take it any way you like, but it doesn't work that way in debate and this isn't a legal issue.

[QUOTE]If we were to accept your views on statistics and their propriety in professional sports discussions, then all of us would be left making unsupported claims about players that simply could not be refuted.[/QUOTE]

Nah. Luckily, outside of the courtroom, logic prevails. It is simply illogical to say that you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Excellent post JoeRedskin. Thank you.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

i made reference to circular arguements and brick walls about 100 pages ago and still we're circling :(

where's the rebuttal to my points? where's your proof that you're right? I still see you claiming others have no proof despite well reasoned and articulate discussion, but you're "proof" consists of unsupported opinions (and bad logic)... yet somehow anything you write is evidence and anything anyone else writes is opinions or not relevent.

meanwhile i'm still waiting.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]PSUSkinsFan21

You didn't make an argument. You made a claim about a player that you cannot prove. Nor can you prove that you have any valid way of comparing one player to another using statistics.

You can take it any way you like, but it doesn't work that way in debate and this isn't a legal issue.

Nah. Luckily, outside of the courtroom, logic prevails. It is simply illogical to say that you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right.[/quote]

You know what, I'm done with this ridiculous argument. You're being difficult because you know you're wrong. Everyone here sees that. Everyone here disagrees with you. I'll take that as a win and walk away.

You can think whatever you want about your argument and your point, but the fact is you refuse to make any affirmative statement about Aaron Brooks right now because you know that the minute you do you argument will come crashing down. We would go round and round with our opinions, and you would never be able to prove me wrong because you've taken away the one thing that could prove me wrong: statistics.

Just know this: the minute you ever make an affirmative statement about any player in the NFL, I'm going to be all over it ...... because by refusing to back down from this absurd argument, you've essentially prohibited yourself from ever being able to support any argument you want to make about a player's abilities or whether one player is superior to another.

To the rest of you: good luck.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]You didn't make an argument. You made a claim about a player that you cannot prove. Nor can you prove that you have any valid way of comparing one player to another using statistics.[/quote]

he most definately DID make an arguement and you have absolutely no way of disproving it. Nice try, but it works both ways. There's no magic Huddle immunity, and yet you don't see this is exactly what you've been saying the entire time. "Your wrong, I'm right, and its true cause i said so." That just doesn't work.

As for filtering out co-variances, that's been covered and played out. It can be done, its done all the time, and just cause you might be lazy or unwilling to pursue such endeavors most certainly does not mean it cannot be done. Logic and math specific to such study (engineering and statistics) go into these things in great detail.


[quote]
You can take it any way you like, but it doesn't work that way in debate and this isn't a legal issue.[/quote]

so now you not only get the benefit of one way arguement (your opinions are evidence, others' opinions are just opinions), you also get to frame the rules on the fly to suit your needs as well? convenient.


[quote]
Nah. Luckily, outside of the courtroom, logic prevails. It is simply illogical to say that you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right.[/quote]

you've been proven wrong on every point, yet you still continue. I'd definately say there's something illogical alright.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Huddle - simple question and follow-up: Do you believe there are ANY criteria that provide a basis for objective comparison of two players playing the same position but for different teams? If so, what are they?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Huddle]I'll assume you are talking about from a[B] fan's perspective and not by the professionals[/B].

[B]Observation. Watching them play.[/B] But when we see the player infrequently, there's not much to go on.[/QUOTE]

Wow. I'll give you five options: (1) You're being intentionally obtuse b/c its fun to see our reactions; (2) You're twelve; (3) You forgot to take your meds; (5) english is your second language; or (4) You're an idiot.

In response to your response:

First - I asked for [B]objective[/B] criteria. Go ahead and assume that I am talking about a fan's perspective. You do not provide an answer. For two people to compare the same players by watching the two players and then discussing their relative strenghts and weaknesses is BY DEFINITION a [B]subjective[/B] comparison based only on the opinion of the observing individuals. Each individual may observe the same actions but perceive them differently.

Again I ask, w/out relying on mostly useless stats, please explain to me how two fans can have a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of two players w/out it being simply an exchange of individual biases for or prejudices against the player.

Second - Okay, let's assume I am talking about comparisons "by the professionals": What means do they use to make objective comparisons? OR are you asserting that "the professionals" have NO objective criteria and rely solely on their subjective observations?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]Excellent post JoeRedskin. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

Apparently, I have not had my fill of inane academic argument.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

I think this thread is on roids

:Smoker:

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Ahh, but you're still reading it!!

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

he's been reduced to trying to pick apart pieces of posts (not even entire posts), cause he knows he can't actually make any sort of point with having it ripped to shreds...

And the "that's just an opinion" crap doesn't fly when it magically doesn't apply to one person's posts (huddle) and does apply to everyone else's.

stats aren't mostly worthless (since clubs invest heavily on players at least in part because of stats, and because bad players rarely (if ever) put up good stats), and it's completely possible to filter out extraneous variables (by either watching guys play while using common sense, listening to "experts", or by using the entire fields of academia that are devoted to doing just that).

are we done here? can we move on now?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=JoeRedskin]Apparently, I have not had my fill of inane academic argument.[/quote]

That's good. I still enjoy watching this all unfold.......I just can't handle arguing with someone who only comments on what he wants to comment on and refuses to answer the questions that prove him wrong. It's easier when you have someone on the stand and the judge can direct them to answer the question. It's the reason an argument like this wouldn't last two minutes in a courtroom. How his style of debate is more "logical" is simply beyond me. All he wants to do is keep saying the same things over and over again, avoid the landmines that everyone has laid for him, and play by his own set of rules. That might make for a fun little game to play with each of us, but it isn't a proper method of debate and it's a pretty piss-poor way of arguing.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

huddle has read my last 5 posts now and has decided to completely avoid answering or rebutting any of them. I wonder why :P...

huddle, please objectively compare peyton manning to kyle boller for me without using stats and in a way that cannot be rebutted with "that's just an opinion". Once you do that, we can talk.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

JoeRedskin

[quote]First: You're wrong. He did not add further claims to his original statement. He made statements which support and provide a basis for the original claim. [/quote]
He made a claim. The burden of proof is his to prove that claim. Did what you are generously labelling "supporting statements" prove anything? No. They were just additional unsupported claims.

[quote]Given your stance on the use of "mostly useless" statistics to "prove" a point, your earlier invitation for him to prove his statement relying on statistics is disengenous at best.
[/quote]
Why disingenuous? He thinks he can prove something with stats not me.

[quote] He has made a claim: Brooks is the best QB. He then supports it by asserting that Brooks excels at those things that good QB's need to do. Simply b/c he did not support his assertion in the manner you have asked him to does not mean he hasn't offered support. [/quote]
Let him support it anyway he wants to. I don't care. But I'm asking for him to prove his claim not for additional unsupported claims.

[quote]Can you disprove any of his supporting assertions and, thus, call into question his final conclusion?[/quote]
I don't have to. It's his claim not mine.

[quote] What must he provide as a basis for support of his claim? Accepting your theory that stats are mostly useless, any use of stats will inevitably fail.[/quote]

His proof is his problem. Yes, it obvious to me that he'll fail but I can't help it if the facts aren't on his side.

[quote] The circular nature of your argument is truly amazing: You assert stats are mostly useless for providing a comparison of players. Then assert someone has not proven their point b/c they have not relied on stats to compare the player to others.[/quote]
Strawman. Quote please. Where did I make that assertion?

[quote] IF, instead, it is your position that, as he is arguing that stats are important and valuable comparisons, he must provide a statistical basis for his position re: Aaron Brooks, THEN you have failed to grasp the point of the statement or are deliberately failing to answer it.[/quote]
Maybe I wrote something that has given you the wrong impression. Where did you get the idea that I'm making statistical proof of his claim a requirement? I don't care how he proves his claim.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

so huddle you agree brooks is the best QB in the league? if not why not?

you know you can't disprove it so you ignore the request. way to go, but you lose.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=Huddle]Maybe I wrote something that has given you the wrong impression. Where did you get the idea that I'm making statistical proof of his claim a requirement? I don't care how he proves his claim.[/QUOTE]


Post 120:
[QUOTE]Assigning no or "almost no" value to statistics, however, makes it impossible to support any argument about any player. Let's see how this works: My Statement: Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the league. Prove me wrong, Huddle. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Huddle]The burden of proof is on the claimant. The Aaron Brooks claim is yours to prove. [B]When you try to do it with statistics, [/B]I'll simply argue that your stats are worthless and give you reasons. [/QUOTE]

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]
Maybe I wrote something that has given you the wrong impression. Where did you get the idea that I'm making statistical proof of his claim a requirement? I don't care how he proves his claim.[/quote]

HOW do you suggest he prove his claim without stats.

oh sage master, please explain how its possible, so far you've been adamant in shooting other people down, now show us how you prove things without stats and without opinions (as you've shot down BOTH already).

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Are you angry because you hate details or because the discussion went over your head? In any case, don't blame us, blame the person who forced you to sit there and read it.[/quote]

I am an MD PhD you cannot go over my head. What I deal with on a daily basis crushes the cortical delusions which u call "statistics."

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

This thread is dangerously close to being locked, let's either get it back on track (not even sure if that's possible) or let it die.

thanks

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=Huddle]His proof is his problem. Yes, it obvious to me that he'll fail but I can't help it if the facts aren't on his side.[/QUOTE]

And what, pray tell, are the "facts" you are referring to? Please tell me the "facts" upon which you rely to support your affirmative statement that "he'll fail".

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Joe Redskin

[QUOTE]Wow. I'll give you five options: (1) You're being intentionally obtuse b/c its fun to see our reactions; (2) You're twelve; (3) You forgot to take your meds; (5) english is your second language; or (4) You're an idiot.[/QUOTE]

If you can't make logical arguments, attack your opponent personally. Not a very original approach in this forum, but oh well.

[QUOTE] First - I asked for [B]objective[/B] criteria. Go ahead and assume that I am talking about a fan's perspective. [/QUOTE]

I missed the word "objective" on my first reading. No. I don't think there is any objective way for fans to compare two players.

[QUOTE] Second - Okay, let's assume I am talking about comparisons "by the professionals": What means do they use to make objective comparisons? OR are you asserting that "the professionals" have NO objective criteria and rely solely on their subjective observations?[/QUOTE]

Oh, you devil. You want me to say that they probably use statistics! Yeah. They might. But I'd bet that they aren't the same useless batch of stats that we talk about in this forum.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

As for the rest of your statements, I'll sum up as you have, yet again displayed your obtuseness or idiocy.

You have made the affirmative claim that stats are mostly useless for comparing players. In refuting that claim, PSU has asked you to refute the statement that Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the league w/out relying on stats.

No one on this forum believes that statement to be true, and, thus, it is on you to disprove an obviouslly false statement w/out relying on facts.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[QUOTE=Huddle]Oh, you devil. You want me to say that they probably use statistics! Yeah. They might. But I'd bet that they aren't the same useless batch of stats that we talk about in this forum.[/QUOTE]

So they are magical stats, never revealed to the public? AND the existence of these secret stats is wiped out of the minds of those "professionals" who stop working in the league and become commentators? 'Cause I believe I have heard one or two former "professionals' use the same stats we discuss here. .

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]Oh, you devil. You want me to say that they probably use statistics! Yeah. They might. But I'd bet that they aren't the same useless batch of stats that we talk about in this forum.[/quote]

I'll take that bet, considering the same statistics we use on this forum are the same type and kind of statistics we used in our mock arbitration in my Sports and Entertainment Law class in law school, at the direction of my professor who is the former President of the NHL, and who brought in three prominant sports agents to discuss with us the process and procedures used in determining player salaries. But hey, what do I know? Those kinds of statistics must not be as important as all those guys said they were since Huddle doesn't think ..... no no no ....... since Huddle is willing to "bet" that they aren't.

I know I said I was done, but I consider this another topic..........oh heck, I'm just bad at keeping quiet if truth be told.

Don't worry Huddle, I don't expect you to actually respond to this post because I know it doesn't support your point.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

[quote=Huddle]
Oh, you devil. You want me to say that they probably use statistics! Yeah. They might. But I'd bet that they aren't the same useless batch of stats that we talk about in this forum.[/quote]

they're the same ones. DVOA and theisman's are specialized created stats, but there's just as available as any other stat.

you have yet to show me an objective comparision of boller to peyton without using stats or opinions. I don't know what the problem is, but your claims are dead and instead of rebutting the actual obvious holes in those claims, you focus on asking people not to call you names instead. you've been avoiding my posts for hours now. good job. I can only assume this is only because you have no response and agree with them.

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

That Guy

[QUOTE]they're the same ones. DVOA and theisman's are specialized created stats, but there's just as available as any other stat.[/QUOTE]

I exclude the DVOAs from my criticism. Those people actually understand statistics and, if you'd compare the structure in what they're doing to the garden variety football statistics, then maybe you'd understand my position.

[QUOTE] you have yet to show me an objective comparision of boller to peyton without using stats or opinions. [/QUOTE]

There are no objective comparisons available for the average fan. I can give only subjective opinions, based on observations. We could debate those but I'd turn a deaf ear to your statistical arguments.


[QUOTE] you've been avoiding my posts for hours now. good job. I can only assume this is only because you have no response and agree with them.[/QUOTE]

I haven't read your posts. I've been kept busy by a couple of other posters. Did you have anything new to say?

Re: Brunell vs. Bledsoe
 

Nominee for one of the Top 5 Worst Theads in Warpath History

:goodjob: