Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Huddle

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.

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 objective 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 subjective 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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Excellent post JoeRedskin. Thank you.

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

[MTK]

I think this thread is on roids

[JoeRedskin]

Ahh, but you're still reading it!!

[That Guy]

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?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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.

[That Guy]

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.

[Huddle]

JoeRedskin

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.

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.

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.

Why disingenuous? He thinks he can prove something with stats not me.

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.

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.

Can you disprove any of his supporting assertions and, thus, call into question his final conclusion?

I don't have to. It's his claim not mine.

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.

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.

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.

Strawman. Quote please. Where did I make that assertion?

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.

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.

[That Guy]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Post 120:

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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).

[STPainmaker]

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

[MTK]

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 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.

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".