Brunell vs. Bledsoe

What the hell are you guys fighting about. Maybe you should have a meeting and discuss the finer points of statistical analysis. I hope you do this in a sound proof room and manage to cripple each others hands so we won't be privy to any of the horrendously stupid, and ridiculous details.

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.

GoSkins

Why do you think they are not? Yes he has more, but he also has the same ones. Also, he talked a lot about the turnover statistics all year.This is where this thread started.

This thread started on another topic and went off on this tangent when I made remarks about statistics. We don't know nor is it relevant what statistics Joe Gibbs uses or how he uses them.

Not being able to understand how it is done does not mean it can't be done.

Where did I say that it did?

If you can't admit that stats (even the partial media stats) are a valiable part (not the only part) of the evaluation of players then this discussion with you is pointless.

Why should I admit that the same stats we use are valuable to a pro team when neither of us knows whether they are used or how they're used?

I can see a very limited use of these statistics. That's why I said they were almost useless.

Not being able to understand how it is done does not mean it can't be done.

-Where did I say that it did?


how about right here:

-In order to prove this, you'd have to assign some arbitrary weight as percentage to both the Redkins "support package" and the Colts support package. And, if you were able to do this, you could get a very accurate grade of the quarterback's performance isolated from other factors.

I don't believe you can do it.


stats and algebra say you can (and there's MORE than enough data to set it up, though it could take weeks or months to make it accurate, its already been done in both baseball and the nba). stats are used to show production and give you an idea of how good players are that you don't have time to watch...

Good players tend to end up with good stats, so in general, the system does work. Sometimes good players have bad stats, but bad players rarely have good numbers. If you can show me an example of a terrible player racking up crazy stats, please do. Otherwise the whole basis for stats still holds.

don't confuse them with reality.

;)

btw, how's portis's roid binge going?

Wow, I just got back on...this thread has really taken on a life of it's own.

Anyway, I was hoping someone could confirm the rumor the Spurrier has fled for the CFL?

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.

this thread is wack

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.

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.

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