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 (1-May) : Packers did not activate the fifth-year options for linebacker Quay Walker, with the goal of signing him to a contract extension.
    Zero2Cool (1-May) : Matthew Golden spoke with Randall Cobb before draft. Looked like chance encounter.
    packerfanoutwest (1-May) : from a head left turn?
    packerfanoutwest (1-May) : someone drunk?
    Zero2Cool (1-May) : Unlikely.
    dfosterf (30-Apr) : How long until Jeff Sperbeck's family sues John Elway ?
    Zero2Cool (30-Apr) : Packers are exercising the fifth-year option on DT Devonte Wyatt, locking in a guaranteed $12.9M for the 2026 season.
    beast (30-Apr) : Sounds like P Luke Elzinga has a rookie try out opportunity from the Titans
    dfosterf (30-Apr) : Luke Elzinga Punter Oklahoma stil unsigned. Green Bay has been mentioned as good fit
    beast (30-Apr) : The Packers re-signed three exclusive rights free agents WR Melton, P Whelan and RB Wilson.
    Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : February 5, 2002 (age 23) ok no. packers.com is wrong
    Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Micah Robinson is only 19??
    Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : 6 first rounders on Packers defense now
    Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : LB Isaiah Simmons. Signed. Called it!!! Oh yeah!
    Martha Careful (29-Apr) : ty bboystyle...fat fingers
    bboystyle (29-Apr) : Tom*
    Martha Careful (28-Apr) : RIP Packer Safety Tim Brown
    beast (27-Apr) : Yeah, but also some of the wording suggestions Jax only pranked called the QB, not the others... and if he had an open spreadsheet & 3 calls
    beast (27-Apr) : Thank goodness he's not leaving the Turtle in the Red Tide
    Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : Cowboys 1st round pick Tyler Booker will indeed be bringing his pet turtle to Dallas with him
    Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : that contained all prospects info and contact
    Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : beast, according the Falcons statement Jax came across it on an ipad. If I had to guess, probably an open spread sheet or something
    Zero2Cool (27-Apr) : Simmons put up an emoji with cheese.
    beast (27-Apr) : Not sure anyone is interested in Isaiah Simmons... Collin Oliver might of taken his potential slot
    beast (27-Apr) : I'm going with Jax Ulbrich is not telling the whole truth... he accidentally came across it? Why would a defensive coordinator have a QB #?
    Zero2Cool (27-Apr) : He's not that great, but final piece of the script.\
    Zero2Cool (27-Apr) : If we add Isaiah Simmons, book your Super Bowl tickets
    Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : Colts 1st round TE Tyler Warren also got prank called, was that Jax Ulbrich as well?
    Zero2Cool (27-Apr) : Jax Ulbrich, Jeff Ulbrich’s son, released an apology for his role in the Shedeur Sanders prank call.
    Martha Careful (27-Apr) : apparently he did not participate in practice or play on the east west shrine game nor the NFL combine. The kid was a mediocre spoiled brat
    Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : Yeah that one that was a super wounded duck that Sanders supporters are highlighting to prove a point
    Zero2Cool (27-Apr) : Shough is the guy who missed guys at combine isn't he?
    beast (27-Apr) : It's not official until I'm dead! I have a chance still! (Not really)
    Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : I could feel my body decomposing in real time when I read that
    Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : @MIKEYSAINRISTIL Tyler Shough will officially be the last person drafted to the NFL born in the 1900’s
    Mucky Tundra (26-Apr) : saw the tweet, he meant the city
    Mucky Tundra (26-Apr) : Was that for the team or the city?
    Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter · 3m Draft grade is in: Green Bay gets an A. The people, the city, the venue were all superb. NFL Draft’s next
    Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : Matt LaFleur says Jaire Alexander is participating in #Packers offseason program, which has been conducted virtually during this first week
    Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : âś… ...
    buckeyepackfan (26-Apr) : Check
    Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : Matthew Golden cahanged 81 to 22??
    TheKanataThrilla (26-Apr) : Sam Howell to Vikings...guess no Aaron
    Martha Careful (26-Apr) : 1 round 7 min, with one extra minute if there is a trade. 2nd round 4 minutes, 3rd -3, 2 thereafter IMO
    Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Agree
    dfosterf (26-Apr) : Great idea imo
    dfosterf (26-Apr) : 1st round to 7 minutes with one extension
    dfosterf (26-Apr) : NFL comissioner wants to shorten the 2st
    Mucky Tundra (26-Apr) : @jalenreagors They’re discussing if Sheduer can go back to college on NFL Network LMFAOOOOO
    beast (26-Apr) : Great point Martha
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    34 - 0
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    25 - 27
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    22 - 24
    Recent Topics
    1m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    20h / Random Babble / wpr

    22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    1-May / Random Babble / wpr

    1-May / Around The NFL / wpr

    1-May / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

    1-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    1-May / Around The NFL / beast

    30-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    29-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    29-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

    29-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

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