Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
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)
WhiskeySam

Rank: Practice Squad

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.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Offline HoustonMatt  
#92 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:10:05 PM(UTC)
HoustonMatt

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

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.
blank
Offline WhiskeySam  
#93 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:21:32 PM(UTC)
WhiskeySam

Rank: Practice Squad

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 1

Originally Posted by: " 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.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Offline obi1  
#94 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:21:37 PM(UTC)
obi1

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 1

delete
blank
Offline beast  
#95 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:28:28 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 259
Applause Received: 320

Originally Posted by: " 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.

Originally Posted by: " 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.

Originally Posted by: " 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
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Anything based on feeling or opinion is by definition subjective and not objective.



Originally Posted by: " 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.
America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People
UserPostedImage
~ madeby ~ pack93z ~
Offline beast  
#96 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:39:16 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 259
Applause Received: 320

Originally Posted by: " 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.
America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People
UserPostedImage
~ madeby ~ pack93z ~
Offline zombieslayer  
#97 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:39:16 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: " 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.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline WhiskeySam  
#98 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:45:19 PM(UTC)
WhiskeySam

Rank: Practice Squad

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 1

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Offline porky88  
#99 Posted : Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:49:22 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 194
Applause Received: 409

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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)
WhiskeySam

Rank: Practice Squad

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 1

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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.
Nemo me impune lacessit
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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
13m / Green Bay Packers Talk / dyeah_gb

22m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / The_Green_Ninja

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88