[Huddle]

PSUSkinsFan21

I would just like to restate my nomination of this thread (originally made 54 posts ago) as the most pointless thread of 2006 (this time with even more confidence that it deserves such an award).

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.

Stats are a driving force in real-world professional sports. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, players' salaries in all of the major sports are driven by statistics. Pro Bowl selections and MVPs are made based on statistics. Hall of Fame selections are supported by statistics. Player personnel decisions are made in large part based on statistics.

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.

Are the statistics completely useless? No, because what if Trent Green's numbers were just slightly better than Carr's? In that scenario, Y would have a strong argument that Carr is better than Green. If Green's numbers are worlds better than Carr's, however, X's argument is supportable because despite the Texans' difficulties, Green has simply performed at such a higher level that all of the variables still don't account for such statistical discrepencies.

.

How do you know that?

Let's suppose that Santana Moss One still plays for the Jets and in 2005 had his typical Jets stats while Santana Moss Two played for the Redskins in 2005.

The player's ability didn't change but the "support package" produced a wild swing in his stats. A discrepancy that, according to your analysis, should not happen with your reliable stats. So, using the same analysis you applied to Green v Carr, you'd have to conclude that Santana Two was a better player than Santana One.

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.

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.