WhiskeySam
15 years ago
Porky, I have no problem saying stats are not everything, but when an argument is being made that openly denies every stat we've moved to an undecidable argument. At that point it's all conjecture and opinion.
Nemo me impune lacessit
HoustonMatt
15 years ago
Beast and Whiskey Sam,

I've read your debate about looking at stats vs looking at film. You're both right in a way and you're both wrong in a way. Whiskey is correct in saying that stats have absolute value. Stats are not formed in a vacuum; they are a record of what actually happened. Beast is correct in saying that certain stats don't tell the whole story (eg. rushing yards are a combination of rbs ability, o-line blocking, and defensive prowess). So with the current use of statistics, one must view those stats and them take them in context. This would be a combination of subjective and objective measures.

The problem lies in saying that stats don't tell the whole story, when, in truth, a more accurate statement would be that the current stats we keep don't tell the whole story. It is true that an interception that bounces off a WR's hands is unfairly counted as a negative stat against the qb. But that, in and of itself, is NOT an argument against statistics; its an argument for MORE statistics, in this example a stat that counts interceptions directly attributed to the qb. Will there be some subjectivity in that particular stat? Sure, but not so much to make it particularly relevant.

The point is that stats are not the issue as much as counting the proper stats is. Take baseball for example. For years we've counted pitchers' win-loss record, which by any objective measure is stupid beyond belief. To attribute a win or loss to a pitcher in a game where his own team's offense has a great deal to do with the final outcome is absurd. But rather than ignoring stats, because this particular one happens to be faulty, we instead choose to look at ERA or strikeouts or walks to determine a pitcher's "true" performance. Hopefully that illustrates what I mean by saying stats are not the problem, but gathering the "right" stats is.

Baseball has done a great job of redefining statistics over the past 10 years. Anyone familiar with Sabermetrics knows exactly what I'm talking about. The argument between the two of you shows that football has a lot of catching up to do.

I'd type out more, but my roommate just brought some people over and one of those people happens to be a real cute chick.....so I think I'll hit on her instead.
blank
WhiskeySam
15 years ago

Beast and Whiskey Sam,

I've read your debate about looking at stats vs looking at film. You're both right in a way and you're both wrong in a way. Whiskey is correct in saying that stats have absolute value. Stats are not formed in a vacuum; they are a record of what actually happened. Beast is correct in saying that certain stats don't tell the whole story (eg. rushing yards are a combination of rbs ability, o-line blocking, and defensive prowess). So with the current use of statistics, one must view those stats and them take them in context. This would be a combination of subjective and objective measures.

The problem lies in saying that stats don't tell the whole story, when, in truth, a more accurate statement would be that the current stats we keep don't tell the whole story. It is true that an interception that bounces off a WR's hands is unfairly counted as a negative stat against the qb. But that, in and of itself, is NOT an argument against statistics; its an argument for MORE statistics, in this example a stat that counts interceptions directly attributed to the qb. Will there be some subjectivity in that particular stat? Sure, but not so much to make it particularly relevant.

The point is that stats are not the issue as much as counting the proper stats is. Take baseball for example. For years we've counted pitchers' win-loss record, which by any objective measure is stupid beyond belief. To attribute a win or loss to a pitcher in a game where his own team's offense has a great deal to do with the final outcome is absurd. But rather than ignoring stats, because this particular one happens to be faulty, we instead choose to look at ERA or strikeouts or walks to determine a pitcher's "true" performance. Hopefully that illustrates what I mean by saying stats are not the problem, but gathering the "right" stats is.

Baseball has done a great job of redefining statistics over the past 10 years. Anyone familiar with Sabermetrics knows exactly what I'm talking about. The argument between the two of you shows that football has a lot of catching up to do.

I'd type out more, but my roommate just brought some people over and one of those people happens to be a real cute chick.....so I think I'll hit on her instead.

"mattresell" wrote:



Excellent post. You're right about baseball doing a nice job of adapting stats to better quantify the results. We need a Bill James for football. The guys at www.advancednflstats.com seem to be trying to provide that.
Nemo me impune lacessit
obi1
15 years ago
delete
blank
beast
15 years ago

So with the current use of statistics, one must view those stats and them take them in context. This would be a combination of subjective and objective measures.

"mattresell" wrote:



that's what I was saying.

The problem lies in saying that stats don't tell the whole story, when, in truth, a more accurate statement would be that the current stats we keep don't tell the whole story.

"mattresell" wrote:



That's just word play, I don't really word play to say the prefect thing. But I did assume that do one was talking about future stats...

Assuming what I did my statement is right. Now should I of assumed that is a different story. But in the context it really didn't sound like he was talking about future stats.

But that, in and of itself, is NOT an argument against statistics; its an argument for MORE statistics, in this example a stat that counts interceptions directly attributed to the qb. Will there be some subjectivity in that particular stat? Sure, but not so much to make it particularly relevant.

"mattresell" wrote:



But there is subjectivity and thats what i said you had to have.

And he said this

Anything based on feeling or opinion is by definition subjective and not objective.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:




we instead choose to look at ERA or strikeouts or walks to determine a pitcher's "true" performance. Hopefully that illustrates what I mean by saying stats are not the problem, but gathering the "right" stats is.

"mattresell" wrote:



But there is a difference, football is a team sport not an individual performance. And I'm not saying ignoring stats but use ones that have some subjectivity and opinion in them and watch the tape. So basically just said I'm right other than me assuming which I'm not sure I'm wrong about doing that ether.


And good luck with the chick.
UserPostedImage
beast
15 years ago

Porky, I have no problem saying stats are not everything, but when an argument is being made that openly denies every stat we've moved to an undecidable argument. At that point it's all conjecture and opinion.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



I'm not denying ever stat, just the non-subjectivity one which is what you denied.

A players can have great size. Doesn't mean that can play worth two cents.

It's all about how they play on the field and since it's a team game will 11 guys all moving at the same time, stats don't tell what happen with every players on the field.

It's like the Cowboys RB in the late 90s. He put up a lot of yards but he's offense line made huge holes.


Current stats make these two plays equal.

A RB gets the ball and has a huge hole, gets untouched with a great OL, TE and WRs blocking for him and runs it for a 80 yard TD.

Barry Sanders gets the ball breaks about about 20 tackles from guys missing and then getting up and trying again before Sanders get down field and Sanders has a horrible team around them.

The current stats have those plays equal to each other for the RB and that's complete unfair where if you watch the type you can clearly see which one is the better play by the RB.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
15 years ago

For every Joe Gibbs' Redskins, Bill Walsh 49ers, and John Elway Broncos there is the Ravens, Bears or the Buccaneers.

"porky88" wrote:



Oh, fo shizzle.

But like I've said half a dozen times on this thread, super D teams win ONE SB while super O teams win DYNASTIES.

I'd rather have a DYNASTY than a single SB win.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
WhiskeySam
15 years ago

Porky, I have no problem saying stats are not everything, but when an argument is being made that openly denies every stat we've moved to an undecidable argument. At that point it's all conjecture and opinion.

"beast" wrote:



I'm not denying ever stat, just the non-subjectivity one which is what you denied.

A players can have great size. Doesn't mean that can play worth two cents.

It's all about how they play on the field and since it's a team game will 11 guys all moving at the same time, stats don't tell what happen with every players on the field.

It's like the Cowboys RB in the late 90s. He put up a lot of yards but he's offense line made huge holes.


Current stats make these two plays equal.

A RB gets the ball and has a huge hole, gets untouched with a great OL, TE and WRs blocking for him and runs it for a 80 yard TD.

Barry Sanders gets the ball breaks about about 20 tackles from guys missing and then getting up and trying again before Sanders get down field and Sanders has a horrible team around them.

The current stats have those plays equal to each other for the RB and that's complete unfair where if you watch the type you can clearly see which one is the better play by the RB.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Emmitt Smith had a great line, but he was also a great running back. When he held out early in his career, it became obvious real quick the Cowboys' running game was not the same without him. You don't get that far up the league yardage and scoring lists without being a talented player. Comparing players cross eras becomes a problem because of different rules, styles of play, and length of schedule. But that's not what this thread was about.
Nemo me impune lacessit
porky88
15 years ago

For every Joe Gibbs' Redskins, Bill Walsh 49ers, and John Elway Broncos there is the Ravens, Bears or the Buccaneers.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Oh, fo shizzle.

But like I've said half a dozen times on this thread, super D teams win ONE SB while super O teams win DYNASTIES.

I'd rather have a DYNASTY than a single SB win.

"porky88" wrote:



70's Steelers
90's Cowboys
00's Patriots

All defenses.

Like I said Troy Aikman only threw for 20 touchdowns one time in his career. The rest of the way it was a dominate defense with a running game that got the job done.

70's Steelers notorious for their defense.

00's Patriots pretty good defense. Yeah Tom Brady was fantastic, but that defense shut down a Rams offense in the Super Bowl that was unbelievable. They also stopped an Eagles offense that was unbelievable.

You take the offense in the regular season and you can go 13-3 and reach the Super Bowl.

I'll take the defense and go 11-5 and beat you in the Super Bowl.

You know both ways work and the fact that you can make legit cases for 99 Rams or a 85 Bears just proves it's a team sport. You build a good team and you can win in a number of ways.
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
WhiskeySam
15 years ago

For every Joe Gibbs' Redskins, Bill Walsh 49ers, and John Elway Broncos there is the Ravens, Bears or the Buccaneers.

"porky88" wrote:



Oh, fo shizzle.

But like I've said half a dozen times on this thread, super D teams win ONE SB while super O teams win DYNASTIES.

I'd rather have a DYNASTY than a single SB win.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



70's Steelers
90's Cowboys
00's Patriots

All defenses.

Like I said Troy Aikman only threw for 20 touchdowns one time in his career. The rest of the way it was a dominate defense with a running game that got the job done.

70's Steelers notorious for their defense.

00's Patriots pretty good defense. Yeah Tom Brady was fantastic, but that defense shut down a Rams offense in the Super Bowl that was unbelievable. They also stopped an Eagles offense that was unbelievable.

You take the offense in the regular season and you can go 13-3 and reach the Super Bowl.

I'll take the defense and go 11-5 and beat you in the Super Bowl.

You know both ways work and the fact that you can make legit cases for 99 Rams or a 85 Bears just proves it's a team sport. You build a good team and you can win in a number of ways.

"porky88" wrote:



70s Steelers - Bradshaw, Webster, Stallworth, Swann, Harris
90s Cowboys - Aikman, Irvin, Smith, Johnston, and one of the best O-lines ever
00s Pats - Brady, Brown, Dillon, Vinatieri (best clutch kicker in his prime)

Those teams were no slouches on offense.

Take a moment and read that article I linked earlier. It has some interesting analysis of offensive and defensive standard deviations from expected performance in the playoffs historically.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    beast (1h) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word
    Nonstopdrivel (1h) : Not THAT f-word.
    Zero2Cool (2h) : fuck
    beast (2h) : 49ers are Cap Tight
    beast (2h) : Fuck
    Mucky Tundra (3h) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later
    TheKanataThrilla (3h) : Love you NSD
    Nonstopdrivel (3h) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.
    Nonstopdrivel (3h) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.
    TheKanataThrilla (3h) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight
    TheKanataThrilla (3h) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?
    Zero2Cool (4h) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk
    Zero2Cool (4h) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : @DMRussini
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source
    buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil
    buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and
    Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!
    dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)
    dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol
    beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)
    Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?
    Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*
    Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : @JoeJHoyt Murphy said he’s been told he won’t slide past pick No. 16.
    wpr (23-Apr) : Just about time to watch Sonny Weaver stick it to the seahags. I never get tired of it.
    Martha Careful (23-Apr) : *game plan
    Martha Careful (23-Apr) : IMHO, not even close. He is not a guy you game play around.
    Mucky Tundra (23-Apr) : is Aiyuk worth a 1st rounder?
    Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : 49ers are seeking a 1st round pick in exchange for WR Brandon Aiyuk
    Mucky Tundra (22-Apr) : Based on Gutes comments, now I don't feel as silly having 13 picks in my mock the other day
    Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Zach Wilson to Broncos.
    Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Gutekunst says he'd love to have 13 or 14 picks. He's trading back huh lol
    beast (22-Apr) : Someday we'll have a draft betting scandal
    beast (21-Apr) : Sometimes looking extremely amazing, sometimes looking extremely lost
    beast (21-Apr) : I haven't looked into the QBs, but some have suggested Maye has some of the most extremely inconsistent tape they've seen
    beast (21-Apr) : Well it also sounds like Patriots are listening to trade offers, not that seriously considering any, but listening means they aren't locked
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Maye needs to be AFC
    Mucky Tundra (21-Apr) : Not liking the idea of the Vikings getting Maye
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Vikings HC joked that he may or may not have sent flowers to Bob Kraft. That's where rumor came from.
    beast (21-Apr) : Can't tell if this is real or BS, but some rumors about a possible Patriots/Vikings trade for #3 overall
    dfosterf (21-Apr) : One playbook to my knowledge. I was shooting for facetious.
    beast (20-Apr) : I'm not sure they have different playbooks for different OL positions, and Dillard run blocking is supposedly worse than his pass blocking..
    dfosterf (19-Apr) : The only problem with that is he isn't a guard either.
    dfosterf (19-Apr) : Put him at right guard. That is where he will be coached. That is where he will compete. He is not even allowed to look at the LT playbook.
    dfosterf (18-Apr) : Kidding aside, I hope the best for him.
    dfosterf (18-Apr) : Went to a Titans board. One comment there. Not very long. I quote: "LOL" They don't sound overly upset about our aquisition.
    beast (18-Apr) : OT Dillard has been absolutely horrible... like OG Newman levels
    dfosterf (18-Apr) : Suit him up and have him stand in front of the big board as a draft day cautionary tale.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    38 - 20
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    24 - 25
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    18 - 17
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    20 - 34
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    13 - 17
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    17 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    10 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    20 - 3
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    19 - 23
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    23 - 20
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    29 - 22
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    27 - 19
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    22 - 24
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    20 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    33 - 30
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    33 - 10
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    17 - 9
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    48 - 32
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    21 - 24
    Recent Topics
    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    24-Apr / Random Babble / beast

    22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    21-Apr / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

    19-Apr / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Apr / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

    18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.