Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[Huddle]

That Guy

this whole thread went stupid. you claim any dissenting view is strictly opinion, yet whatever your opinion happens to be is fact. Its worthless argueing cause you're being an f/ing brick wall and logic is on the other side.

You have a tough time staying civil when people don't agree with you...don't you?

when you have multiple variables, you make multiple equations and you CAN find out A, B, C or D individually from them. that's basic math.

Right, basic math with a false analogy. What we're talking about here is more like trying to solve an equation where there are no givens. We can think of five or six factors which can influence the statistic and we can't isolate and accurately measure any of them.

portis in washington still put up monsster numbers. its not like his stats got cut in half. situation does play a role, but like i said, the individual player plays a much bigger role on his own statline.

Probably but if you offered a percentage on how much to give the player's performance, you'd have to reach behind you to find it.

portis went from 1500 to 1300, and next year i bet he goes back up. Fact is, he stayed above 1300 every season. some backs can't break 800 yards, some back never get 1000. denver switched backs, but kept the system (and got better QB play), and yet the replacements weren't as good...

Tatum Bell had fewer carries but a much higher YPC. does that stat prove he was better?

that must mean that portis is better, and, OMGWTFLOLZ!!!! the STATS bear that out.

Why stop there? You can prove Clinton's better than Jim Brown if you choose your stats carefully.

[hooskins]

I think the main problem with both QB's is that they were VERY inconsistent throughout the year. Luckily, for us, Bledsoe became more incosistent towards the end of the season, and that is what cost the Cowboys a playoff spot, which Brunell kicked it up a notch towards the end of the regular season. The point being, on any givening weekend both are as likely to throw 4 TDS and 0 INTs as they are to throw 1 TD and 3 INTS...

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by That Guy

I'd also like you to point out the logical fallacy you're alluding to,

I'm too lazy to look it up for you. Google "logical fallacies." You'll find several lists of common logical fallacies. This one goes by "Appeal to Popularity" and several other names.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

I'm too lazy to look it up for you. Google "logical fallacies." You'll find several lists of common logical fallacies. This one goes by "Appeal to Popularity" and several other names.

great, point out the one i actually made instead of stupid baseless claims that you're unwilling to stand by.

you'll throw out accusations and then refuse to defend them.

I'm still waiting on this evidence of yours by the way. I notice you're quick to get sidetracked playing with technicalities to actually make a case, but maybe you should try. I have yet to see any of this "evidence" you're providing or any reason that'd give ANY credibility to whatever point it is you think you're making.

[That Guy]

Quote:
when you have multiple variables, you make multiple equations and you CAN find out A, B, C or D individually from them. that's basic math.

Right, basic math with a false analogy. What we're talking about here is more like trying to solve an equation where there are no givens. We can think of five or six factors which can influence the statistic and we can't isolate and accurately measure any of them.

you can accurately measure all of it. the speeds, the times, the tackles, the fumbles, the knee bend, EVERYTHING. So your retort here is clearly wrong

Quote:
portis in washington still put up monsster numbers. its not like his stats got cut in half. situation does play a role, but like i said, the individual player plays a much bigger role on his own statline.

Probably but if you offered a percentage on how much to give the player's performance, you'd have to reach behind you to find it.

Well then, you've just admitted that stats aren't worthless right there. so why are you still going at it so hard?

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by That Guy

great, point out the one i actually made instead of stupid baseless claims that you're unwilling to stand by.

you'll throw out accusations and then refuse to defend them.

I'm still waiting on this evidence of yours by the way. I notice you're quick to get sidetracked playing with technicalities to actually make a case, but maybe you should try. I have yet to see any of this "evidence" you're providing or any reason that'd give ANY credibility to whatever point it is you think you're making.

I'm very patient. Let's try this one more time.

There is one logical argument only: You cannot claim that your statistic is a measurement of a player's performance when that statistic is a combined measurement of the player's performance and other significant factors (You cannot measure A,B,C,D,E together and rely on it as a measurement of A).

The evidence of its unreliability is in the sharp rise and fall of of the stats of many players when they change teams or when a new coach uses them differently in their scheme.

That's it.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

I'm very patient. Let's try this one more time.

There is one logical argument only: You cannot claim that your statistic is a measurement of a player's performance when that statistic is a combined measurement of the player's performance and other significant factors (You cannot measure A,B,C,D,E together and rely on it as a measurement of A).

The evidence of its unreliability is in the sharp rise and fall of of the stats of many players when they change teams or when a new coach uses them differently in their scheme.

That's it.

again, have you taken algebra?

X + Y + Z = 6
2X + Y + Z = 9
X = 3

the more data you have and the more equations you have the better able you are to judge the individual factors and figure out their roles in said equations.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by That Guy

again, have you taken algebra?

X + Y + Z = 6
2X + Y + Z = 9
X = 3

the more data you have and the more equations you have the better able you are to judge the individual factors and figure out their roles in said equations.

Alright, how about a demonstration?

Apply your concept to quarterback statistics. You don't have to do it in depth, just give me enough to see what you're doing.

[Huddle]

That Guy

I have to signoff. I'll check this thread in the AM.

Have a good evening.

[That Guy]

what parameters do you want on it? If you want you can treat each team as an equation and each year givess you 32 equations... you compile that data and you can data mine it any way you want.

using all the data to find the one you want, like yearly passing yards for a 10-6 season with 1500 yards rushing and a 10th ranked defene or whatever. Or use it to factor out the differences between a run heavy and pass heavy teams stats.

In the end the stats as they are work well enough that there's no really need to go into that though. you can look at sacks and the QBs escape ability (measured from bledsoe to mcnabb) and have some idea how much of that is on the OL and how much is on the QB.

you can look at fumbles/sack and fumbles/play (or per play hit, to avoid OL factoring in) for QBs to see their ball security averages (with alex smith being one of the worst).

what exactly are you looking to prove and how in depth does it have to be? stats are a measure of production, and when people talk about who's better, they generally mean in terms of production. jim brown is good cause he was productive and he was able to generate wins. Manning is productive because he OD's on film study and produces crazy passing stats.

if manning had moss and cooley and the junk WRs we had last year, he'd put up better numbers than brunell. his stats prove that by the crazy difference in TD/INT, TDs, yards, completion % etc.

If two players are close you can argue the stats may be misleading, but in many cases they point out the obvious quite well. manning isn't the lottery winner of a good scheme, he's the driver. if he had junk WRs his stats wouldn't be as good, but they'd clearly be better than putting brunell or vick or alex smith in the same situation.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Huddle

... But, how good is Jake Plummer compared to other QBs? We have no way to know from those QB stats.

The best we can do is to form judgments by watching them play.

If this is really true, why would Gibbs (or anyone else) care about stats so much? What you are asking us to believe is that, in spite of Gibbs driving home the importance of all the different stats week after week, is that you can't conclude anything from them. This is in direct contradiction to what Gibbs, a three time winning Super Bowl champion (with three different QBs and RBs), believes. I think he has proved that he knows what he is talking about, but you have only proved that you are obstinate.

The truth is the best you can do is form judgments by watching them play AND comparing thier stats. Alone, either can be misleading.

[Bozzy]

Brunell's completion % and sacks allowed are lower than Bledsoe's numbers because Brunell is obviously better at throwing the ball away and avoiding the sack, thus lowering the completion %.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by That Guy

X + Y + Z = 6
2X + Y + Z = 9
X = 3
the more data you have and the more equations you have the better able you are to judge the individual factors and figure out their roles in said equations.

That is exactly it! Here is the thing, if you don't understand math and statistics (I mean really understand it), the power that these stats provide will never make sense to you. In the NFL, there are guys who are paid by each team to do just what you did. They take the stats of a team and reduce them down to a point where they can determine how much of an impact each player has. I actually took a linear algebra class from a professor who did this for the NBA as a side job.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

As I said earlier, I didn't see Bledsoe enough to get a good read on his game. What I saw wasn't impressive.

I saw Brunell's game. He looked great for a time in the first half of the season but faded badly after the San Francisco blowout.

So you didn't see Bledsoe much this year, and yet you felt comfortable enough with rating him as an equal with Brunell, giving them both C's for the year? Now we're getting into seriously flawed logic. A few posts ago, I was reading how stats can't tell you squat, and you can only form opinions by watching guys play. You just admitted you haven't watched Bledsoe, and yet you gave him a grade! Talk about not making sense.

[724Skinsfan]

I thought I had decent reading comprehension skills but after reading this back and forth craziness, I'm lost. What is the argument about exactly? "Stats matter" versus "No, they don't"? If I were a statistical wiz I could probably make a decent living in the sports betting world. But I'm not, so I play fantasy football. Stats tells us what to expect, not what is absolute. Is Brunell better than Bledsoe? Maybe, but did Brunell get any from his old lady last night? Asssuming he did, then he'll be a happy guy with that extra zing in his throws (just like in the Cialis commercials). Or maybe something happened that made him feel real icky and he feels strange reaching up Rabachs butt - thereby affecting his performance. Stats help with making predictions (most of the time) but there are random anomalies that can't be mathmatically accounted for in determining who the better player is going to be every Sunday. Night, night!