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 (1h) : Chiefs again huh? I guess another Super Bowl I'll be finding something else to do.
    Mucky Tundra (11h) : Chiefs Eagles...again...sigh
    dfosterf (12h) : Happy Birthday Dave!
    Mucky Tundra (13h) : happy birthday dhazer
    TheKanataThrilla (15h) : Exactly buck...Washington came up with the ball. It is just a shitty coincidence one week later
    buckeyepackfan (15h) : I forgot, they corrected the call a week later. Lol btw HAPPY BIRTHDAY dhazer!
    buckeyepackfan (15h) : That brings up the question, why wasn't Nixon down by contact? I think that was the point Kanata was making.
    buckeyepackfan (15h) : Turnovers rule, win the turnover battle, win the game.
    packerfanoutwest (15h) : well, he was
    TheKanataThrilla (15h) : Eagles down by contact on the fumble....fuck you NFL
    Mucky Tundra (16h) : I think this games over
    beast (17h) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs
    Mucky Tundra (17h) : This game looks too big for Washington
    packerfanoutwest (20h) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns
    packerfanoutwest (20h) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts
    packerfanoutwest (20h) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,
    beast (26-Jan) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
    beast (26-Jan) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
    Zero2Cool (25-Jan) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
    Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
    Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
    beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
    Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
    dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
    beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
    Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
    Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
    beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
    beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
    wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
    wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
    wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
    beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
    beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
    beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
    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
    Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
    Eagles
    10 - 22
    Recent Topics
    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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