Kirk Cousins pick 4.7

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Very, if you know what you are doing and can use them responsibly.

So to you, they're basically useless.

So stats are basically useless unless you are responsible or skillful? So if you're not... then what they are useless?

Ok then in the case of RGIII and Kolb, they may be useful - used to support one's opinion or projection. And in my case, of Elway/Campbell - it's just useless.

OKAY.

[warriorzpath]

Numbers don't lie, but the opinions that some of the stats seem to back-up - are not always the truth.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Numbers don't lie, but the opinions that some of the stats seem to back-up - are not the truth.

That's basically correct, but the opinions you are referring to would be wrong whether or not stats were used to defend them.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's basically correct, but the opinions you are referring to would be wrong whether or not stats were used to defend them.

so what about the elway/campbell completion% stats? how telling are they of the truth?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

so what about the elway/campbell completion% stats? how telling are they of the truth?

Well, first of all (and most importantly), no one is making Elway/Campbell quarterback comparisons besides you. So there's that.

There are numbers that will tell you plenty about John Elway's career if you're interested in learning more about it. Stats tell us that Elway doesn't compare great to Joe Montana, Dan Marino, or Steve Young. He had kind of a fascinating statistical career for a guy who is regarded as an all time great. There's plenty to be learned about Elway with stats. The most important takeaway for you is that there was nothing wrong with a 56% completion percentage in 1987.

Comparing his completion numbers to Campbell's is an awful misapplication, unless the argument is something like "look, even a mid-tier QB from the modern game was more productive than John Elway 25 years ago!" It's an interesting concept, but one that obviously sells Elway short. You want to avoid grading retroactively if possible. That's not what rate stats were intended for.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, first of all (and most importantly), no one is making Elway/Campbell quarterback comparisons besides you. So there's that.

There are numbers that will tell you plenty about John Elway's career if you're interested in learning more about it. Stats tell us that Elway doesn't compare great to Joe Montana, Dan Marino, or Steve Young. He had kind of a fascinating statistical career for a guy who is regarded as an all time great. There's plenty to be learned about Elway with stats. The most important takeaway for you is that there was nothing wrong with a 56% completion percentage in 1987.

Comparing his completion numbers to Campbell's is an awful misapplication, unless the argument is something like "look, even a mid-tier QB from the modern game was more productive than John Elway 25 years ago!" It's an interesting concept, but one that obviously sells Elway short. You want to avoid grading retroactively if possible. That's not what rate stats were intended for.

What my point is - you can't take stats out of context and use it in place of playing ability. Every qb's situation is different. And in the case of Elway's (and also, Campbell's case), you have to throw the completion% stat out of window. So when someone is supporting an opinion and uses a stat like that - to me - it's the lazy way to determine a qb's potential and ability -- in place of analyzing through watching and it's just plain B.S.

But it's just my opinion and I have the stats to (dis)prove it. haha.

[GTripp0012]

I firmly believe if you stuck young (25 year old, for sake of argument) John Elway on the field in the modern passing environment, didn't let him go to school or come up through the development ranks with modern coaching, and made him play 1970-80's style football against modern pass defenses, he'd probably get benched a couple weeks into the season for a veteran like Matt Hasselbeck or something.

But you could say that about a lot of the all-time greats. The game is played entirely differently now.

I think it's important to keep greatness in context. Rex Grossman faces far more challenges as quarterback of the Redskins than Sammy Baugh did and handles them probably a lot better than Baugh would have. But Grossman also had way more access to coaching and resources coming up through the ranks as a kid. Baugh pretty much invented the pass as a weapon for attacking defenses. Big difference. Grossman wouldn't have resources to become a polished pro quarterback if it wasn't for all-time greats like Baugh who came before him. Without our predecessors, life would be one big experiment of trial and error. Emphasis on error.

[warriorzpath]

Just to give you comparison qbs from their respective playing eras.
Steve Young: 64.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 65.4%

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Just to give you comparison qbs from their respective playing eras.
Steve Young: 64.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 65.4%

If you're trying to say the average completion percentage isn't higher in 2011 than it was in 1987 or 1994 or whenever...you're wrong. It's about four to four and a half percent higher on average.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you're trying to say the average completion percentage isn't higher in 2011 than it was in 1987 or 1994 or whenever...you're wrong. It's about four to four and a half percent higher on average.

Even with that difference, the comparison is even more telling. Because when you adjust accordingly with respective eras, their completion% is about even. 56% to 60% for Elway. So like I was saying, you can try to play with the stats with however you want, but sometimes it's just plain bs. So how do you determine when they are complete bs without just plain simple watching them? And even then, it's the eye of the beholder thing in some cases.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Even with that difference, the comparison is even more telling. Because when you adjust accordingly with respective eras, their completion% is about even. 56% to 60% for Elway. So like I was saying, you can try to play with the stats with however you want, but sometimes it's just plain bs. So how do you determine when they are complete bs without just plain simple watching them? And even then, it's the eye of the beholder thing in some cases.

You don't just determine it unless you have some concept of how to responsibly use statistics to back a point. The point doesn't have to be right 100% of the time, but it has to be defensible 100% of the time.

Jason Campbell actually did complete a higher percentage of his passes over the course of his career (to date) than John Elway did. That is a real thing that happened. It is not a statistical illusion.

What it isn't is a fair thing to hold against the career of John Elway, because that would lack context and miss about 14 critical points in terms of football analysis.

Stats are just records of events. The bs'ers you refer to are typically more human.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Just to give you comparison qbs from their respective playing eras.
Steve Young: 64.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 65.4%

Yeah, the obvious thing to concluded that that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.

Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.

1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)

The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Yeah, the obvious thing to concluded that that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.

Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.

1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)

The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)

This was way too wordy and too much scientific/lawyer talk for me... you lost me at the word: concluded.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

This was way too wordy and too much scientific/lawyer talk for me... you lost me at the word: concluded.

Logic is simple subject. There are three things you must be able to comprehend:
1. Statements
2. Premises
3. Conclusions

There is no science, because no scientific principles are applied here, but lawyers do have to know this shit...and a lot more.
I don't bother proofreading, but since you insist, I will rectify that problem. So, will you now read it?

Yeah, the obvious thing to conclude is that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.

Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.

1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)

The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Logic is simple subject. There are three things you must be able to comprehend:
1. Statements
2. Premises
3. Conclusions

There is no science, because no scientific principles are applied here, but lawyers do have to know this shit...and a lot more.
I don't bother proofreading, but since you insist, I will rectify that problem. So, will you now read it?

You must've just finished a college course in writing.