Change is Coming PACKERSHOME is going to be 10 years old later this season and for us to have another 10 years, things will have to change. Read Change is Coming for current issues that will be resolved.
Green Bay Packers Forum

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
12 Pages«<89101112>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline WhiskeySam  
#91 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:07:02 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Applause Received: 1
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.
Offline HoustonMatt  
#92 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:10:05 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 9/1/2008(UTC)
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.
Offline WhiskeySam  
#93 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:21:32 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Applause Received: 1
" said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.
Offline obi1  
#94 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:21:37 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 1
delete
Offline beast  
#95 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:28:28 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 440
Applause Received: 525
" said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


that's what I was saying.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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

And he said this
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Anything based on feeling or opinion is by definition subjective and not objective.



" said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.
Offline beast  
#96 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:39:16 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 440
Applause Received: 525
" said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.
Offline zombieslayer  
#97 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:39:16 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco
Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495
" said: Go to Quoted Post
For every Joe Gibbs' Redskins, Bill Walsh 49ers, and John Elway Broncos there is the Ravens, Bears or the Buccaneers.



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.
Offline WhiskeySam  
#98 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:45:19 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Applause Received: 1
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.


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.
Offline porky88  
#99 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:49:22 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2015

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 250
Applause Received: 494
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
For every Joe Gibbs' Redskins, Bill Walsh 49ers, and John Elway Broncos there is the Ravens, Bears or the Buccaneers.



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.


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.
Offline WhiskeySam  
#100 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:13:11 PM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Applause Received: 1
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
For every Joe Gibbs' Redskins, Bill Walsh 49ers, and John Elway Broncos there is the Ravens, Bears or the Buccaneers.



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.


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.


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.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
12 Pages«<89101112>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Fan Shout
Zero2Cool: thank ya sir
uffda udfa: Best looking site out there!
Zero2Cool: You welcome!
Cheesey: THANK YOU again for all you do.
Cheesey: You do all the work, while some think they don't have to honor your few rules.
Cheesey: Kevin, you KNOW how much I appreciate this site.
uffda udfa: Nope. Too much pressure for them.
Zero2Cool: NFL MVP's don't seem to win the Super Bowl the same year, do they?
Zero2Cool: Panthers played uninspired and predictable, actually (and sadly) reminded me of the Packers. :(
Zero2Cool: Thanks 68md, good to know some notice and appreciate.
Zero2Cool: Holding a different or less than popular view is perfectly fine. You fail to understand this even though I repeatedly tell you. It's annoyin
uffda udfa: Good night, Smokey.
Smokey: good night uffda.
uffda udfa: Wonder how Colts fans feel, and Mr. Irsay?
uffda udfa: Today, anyway.
Smokey: DEFENSE DOES WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS TT !
uffda udfa: Carolina will never be back to a SB under Cam Newton.
uffda udfa: Denver D just dominated the current MVP and the former this year.
uffda udfa: Cam for LVP in the SB. No character.
uffda udfa: Newton is a wuss. MVP? LOL.
uffda udfa: #VonFire
uffda udfa: People who have passion and expectations aren't A words. Accepting less than the best doesn't make you not one either.
uffda udfa: Sorry, Kevin...maybe you called Dakota an A word and not me? Had to be one of us.
uffda udfa: Marshawn Lynch announced his retirement in a cool way via twitter. What could've been in Green Bay, Marshawn!
uffda udfa: It's okay... you called me the "A" word. All because I don't tickle the ears. I get it.
uffda udfa: So someone like Buck deserves privileges because he's a better fan than me due to his flattering opinions?
68md: wet blanket ? He works his ass off to keep the place going for you ?
Smokey: Zero, Why are you such a wet blanket host ? A real SB "Chat" should have been a priority for this site. Wet Blanket strikes again.
Zero2Cool: BTW, I'm not saying you're an asshole. I'm stating a fact, that's all.
Zero2Cool: You don't get it. You confuse right and privilege. Assholes don't deserve privileges. Get it, got it, good.
uffda udfa: Talib playing a Burfict half so far.
uffda udfa: You have an R rated section on a Packers board. I think moving the guys you really don't want rocking the boat to their own forum is a great
uffda udfa: I think the same was likely said at KFAN when it was suggested they have a Packers show. I believe they still have it. I used to produce it
Zero2Cool: Seriously think what you're asking and do so before asking. Unreal.
uffda udfa: Aaron walking gingerly in that SB MVP introduction thing.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout

Road To Super Bowl 50
Sunday, Sep 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Sep 20 @ 7:30 PM
SEAHAWKS
Monday, Sep 28 @ 7:30 PM
CHIEFS
Sunday, Oct 4 @ 3:25 PM
at 49ers
Sunday, Oct 11 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Oct 18 @ 3:25 PM
CHARGERS
Sunday, Oct 25 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Sunday, Nov 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Broncos
Sunday, Nov 8 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Sunday, Nov 15 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 22 @ 3:25 PM
at Vikings
Thursday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
BEARS
Thursday, Dec 3 @ 7:25 PM
at Lions
Sunday, Dec 13 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Sunday, Dec 20 @ 3:05 PM
at Raiders
Sunday, Dec 27 @ 3:25 PM
at Cardinals
Sunday, Jan 3 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS

Think About It
Think About It

Recent Topics
5h / Announcements / DakotaT

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / blueleopard

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

9-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / FLORIDA PACKER88

9-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

8-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

7-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

7-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

7-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

6-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

6-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa


Tweeter