Brunell vs. Bledsoe

I would just like to restate my nomination of this thread (originally made 54 posts ago) as the most pointless thread of 2006 (this time with even more confidence that it deserves such an award).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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

: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.

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.