Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

That Guy and others....

Since you have avoided a direct confrontation with the argument I made and the evidence I offered, I'll assume at this point that you can't find a counter argument.

I realize that it's easier for you to put words in my mouth and then trash the things I never said, but for the record:

I did not state that all statistics are useless.

I did not state that the statistics used by pro teams are useless.

I did not state that baseball statistics are useless
.
I did not state that, even given additional new data, it would still be impossible to grade individual performance.

I said that the common football statistics of the kind so often used in this forum and others are almost useless.

I gave one logical argument for my position and I supplied evidence that the stats are unreliable.

As stated in one of my earlier posts:

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. If the stats were a reliable measure of individual performances, this evidence would not exist.

Unless, there are new arguments on point, I'll rest my case.

either you're not listening or you don't care, but saying no one's confronted your arguement is bullshit. If you can't filter out the other factors with common sense when watching a game or don't feel like doing the math, that's on you, not the stats.

your pussy-footing around the actual arguement and using "that's just an opinion" as your only defense. Your "evidence" is NOTHING of the sort, its "just YOUR opinion" but it is not fact and it proves nothing.

your obstinant need to be right is nice and all, but you're going to have to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that stats are almost useless to convince anyone (since very few agree with you, you have the burden of proof), and your arguements are not only not persuasive, they're also very weak.

have a nice day.

[MTK]

this thread is wack

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

this thread is wack

Yes it is. It basically consists of Huddle saying that stats don't matter at all, you can only watch players to form opinions. Then him saying that he didn't watch Bledsoe. Then him saying that he watched Bledsoe a little, enough to form an opinion.

In reality, I think everyone on this board (except maybe Huddle) would agree that stats can tell you some things, but can't tell you everything. And that the only way to form a complete opinion is to take what the stats tell you, and then watch the player to complete your opinion.

I think Huddle would rather argue mundane points (he was obviously one of those debate nerds in high school who pick apart every statement in a futile attempt to discredit an otherwise valid argument), than grasp the big picture. And I've stated the big picture repeatedly: stats tell you SOME things, and with some careful thought, you can form a valid opinion of a player.

This thread is exhausting.

[SmootSmack]

Anyone else find it ironic that Huddle loves to talk about stats being almost entirely useless. Yet he had no problem reminding us on more than one occassion that over on ES a poll they conducted said Ramsey wasn't treated fairly here by a 2:1 ratio.

I guess fan polls are what tell us the true story

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Anyone else find it ironic that Huddle loves to talk about stats being almost entirely useless. Yet he had no problem reminding us on more than one occassion that over on ES a poll they conducted said Ramsey wasn't treated fairly here by a 2:1 ratio.

I guess fan polls are what tell us the true story

Once again, I did not say that all stats are useless. Please try to stay focused on my actual position.

As for the poll, a vote by 250 Redkins fans isn't very reliable but, as support for my position, it certainly beats the completely usupported claims usually heard in these forums.

Anyway, as I've previously stated, one valid use of stats, no matter how unreliable, is to aggravate your debate opponents.

[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).

Why it seems pointless to me:
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.

When a player or team opts for arbitration, for example, how do you think that player's salary is set by the arbitrators? I can tell you for certain that statistics are the #1 factor in setting that player's value. Are other factors considered? Of course they are. But the simple reality is no QB who opts for arbitration is going to get paid more than a similar QB that threw for more TDs, less INTs, and a higher completion %.

Now this isn't to say that you have to agree with the emphasis that is placed on statistics in professional sports. But reality is reality, and the reality of this whole ridiculous argument is that regardless of anyone's views on statistics, you're not going to change the system. You're not going to avoid the importance of statistics because there are enough common factors across the game that an overwhelming majority of those involved in professional sports feel stats matter. The size of a football doesn't change depending on who the home team is. All of the fields are 100 yards long. You can't have more than 11 men on the field. Endzones are 10 yards deep. You only get 4 downs to make a first and it takes a gain of 10 yards from the original line of scrimmage to get that first down. etc. etc. etc.

Of course, reasonable arguments take into account variences and other factors. The ball flies further in Denver. When Portis played for Denver, Denver's offensive line was better than the Skins has been over the past few years. David Carr can't get longer than 3 seconds to throw the ball. RBs in the west coast offense aren't likely to get as many carries as those in other systems. But the result of these factors should not be a blanket "statistics are unreliable" conclusion. Rather, the result of the commonalities and variences in football should result in the following type of exchange among reasonable people:

X: Trent Green is twice the QB that David Carr is, just look at his numbers.

Y: Agreed, Green has had much better numbers over the last 3 years, but you have to consider that the Texans offensive line is horrible. The guy is getting killed every game.

X: That's a good point, but I've seen David Carr play a few games and he always seems to be holding on to the ball too long and taking the sack.

Y: Maybe, but in the games I've seen, he's had literally 3 seconds or less to throw the ball. His WRs just aren't able to get open that quickly.

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. Can X prove he is right? Of course not, but he can support his argument with statistics.

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 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'll second that

[D'BOYZ]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

When a player or team opts for arbitration, for example, how do you think that player's salary is set by the arbitrators? I can tell you for certain that statistics are the #1 factor in setting that player's value. Are other factors considered? Of course they are. But the simple reality is no QB who opts for arbitration is going to get paid more than a similar QB that threw for more TDs, less INTs, and a higher completion %.

This hole theory goes to the can when you look at M. Vicks contract and his stats.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

This hole theory goes to the can when you look at M. Vicks contract and his stats.

Sorry, D'Boyz but my man was talking about Arbitration here.

The Falcons can set Vicks' value at whatever they deem reasonable without even considering stats at all.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Sorry, D'Boyz but my man was talking about Arbitration here.

The Falcons can set Vicks' value at whatever they deem reasonable without even considering stats at all.

Thanks 12thMan, you're exactly right. There is a big distinction between Arbitration and Contracts, D'Boyz.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

This hole theory goes to the can when you look at M. Vicks contract and his stats.

vick sells 25,000 more tickets per game. the team literally jumped 25k in season tickets after he was drafted. it was a business deal if not a football one.

[PWNED]

Originally Posted by That Guy

vick sells 25,000 more tickets per game. the team literally jumped 25k in season tickets after he was drafted. it was a business deal if not a football one.

:vomit: vick sucks

taylor jacobs is a pussy.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by PWNED

:vomit: vick sucks

taylor jacobs is a pussy.

Such a 14-year-old thing to say. You're sooooooo immature .

Of course, you're also right.

[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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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, useful, and consequently, not worthless, or even almost worthless.