WhiskeySam
16 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
16 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
16 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
16 years ago
delete
blank
beast
16 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
16 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
16 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
16 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
16 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
16 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
    Zero2Cool (2h) : If healthy after, then thats all I care. Well, no drops would be nice
    wpr (3h) : I made it through the 1st Q.
    dfosterf (12h) : Just gotta figure out how.
    dfosterf (12h) : Could have been a worse start, so there is that.
    beast (12h) : Yeah, someone tell the Packers football season has started, seems like they weren't ready for it
    Mucky Tundra (13h) : Sooooooo many penalties
    Mucky Tundra (13h) : It may only be preseason, but this game is a trip to the dentist
    Zero2Cool (13h) : Packers do bad -- FREAK OUT!!!!!!
    Zero2Cool (13h) : Packers do good -- eh only preseason
    dfosterf (13h) : Well that half was fun
    Zero2Cool (15h) : Great, zayne is down
    Zero2Cool (15h) : 13 minutes away from kickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkoffff
    Zero2Cool (17h) : Had Celebration of Life for my uncle up north. wicked rain hope it dont come south
    Mucky Tundra (19h) : THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE PLAYING FOOTBALL TONIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!
    Zero2Cool (20h) : Woo-hoo
    TheKanataThrilla (21h) : NFL Network is broadcasting the game tonight, but not in Canada. Not sure why as no local television is showing the game.
    beast (8-Aug) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
    beast (8-Aug) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
    Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : *had to be IRed at 53
    Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
    beast (8-Aug) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
    beast (8-Aug) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
    beast (8-Aug) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
    Zero2Cool (8-Aug) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
    dfosterf (8-Aug) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
    dfosterf (8-Aug) : Zero- Did you see what I posted about Voice of Reason and his wife? She posted over at fleaflicker that they are both "In"
    Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Well, not crazy, it makes sense. Crazy I didn't notice/find it earlier
    Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : it's crazy how one stored procedure to get data bogged everything down for speed here
    dfosterf (7-Aug) : to herd cats or goldfish without a bowl. They reminded me of the annual assembly of our fantasy league
    dfosterf (7-Aug) : out on a field trip, outfitting them with little yellow smocks. Most of the little folk were well behaved, but several were like trying
    dfosterf (7-Aug) : Yesterday my wife and I spent the afternoon on the waterfront here in Alexandria, Va. A daycare company took about 15 three/four year olds
    wpr (7-Aug) : seems faster. yay
    dfosterf (7-Aug) : Wife of reason posted on the in/out thread on fleaflicker that both she and vor are in
    Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : This page was generated in 0.135 seconds.
    Mucky Tundra (7-Aug) : Tbh, I can never tell the difference in speed unless it's completely shitting the bed
    Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Sure does feel like site is more snappy
    Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : I thought that was the Lions OL
    Mucky Tundra (6-Aug) : Travis Glover placed on IR; seasons over for him
    Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : found bad sql in database, maybe site faster now?
    dfosterf (5-Aug) : I'm going to call that a good move.
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    8h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    8-Aug / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

    8-Aug / Fantasy Sports Talk / packerfanoutwest

    8-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    7-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.